A Systematic Literature Review on Ownership and Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) research has developed rapidly in recent years, and scholars have called for a more comprehensive picture of CSR research in family firms. In response to the call, this study conducts a systematic literature review of CSR activities in family firms from an important but understudied perspective: ownership. In addition to showing the divergent effects of ownership on family firm CSR, this research also reveals multiple mediating mechanisms and moderators for the above relationship and family ownership as a boundary condition for the relationships between family firm CSR and outcomes. Theories and methodological issues in past research are analyzed, and limitations and future research directions are also proposed.

1. Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to specific firm activities that align their economic, environmental, and social objectives within their own strategies and operational decisions [1,2,3]. Firms performing CSR often show socially responsible or environmentally conscious behaviors [4]. CSR is well studied in organizational settings and has been found to be critical for building firm reputation [5,6], obtaining a firm’s legitimacy [7,8], and enhancing a firm’s competitive advantage [1,3] and the sustainable development of society [4,5,6].

A special type of firm that has been found to practice CSR and that has attracted increasing scholarly attention is the family firm. According to the “Global Family Business Survey in 2020”, the family firm is the most important form of enterprise in the global economy, accounting for more than 85% of firms in the world. In most countries, family firms are the backbone of the national economy [9], making significant contributions to job creation, gross national production, and wealth generation [10]. Different from non-family firms that perform CSR mainly to enhance corporate reputation and, hence, firm financial performance [5,6], family firms are long-term oriented [11] and perform CSR more for non-financial and socioemotional reasons, such as enhancing family image and family reputation to maintain family control and influence, achieving transgenerational succession and sustainable development [1,3], and serving the community better to gain social ties for the family firm [12,13]. Therefore, studying CSR in the family firm context can complement the existing CSR literature well in the context of non-family firms and can generate novel insights.

Despite its importance, however, CSR research in the family firm context is still in the early stages [14], with inconclusive research findings [15,16]. A specific stream of research that has attracted increasing scholarly attention is the influence of ownership on family firm CSR. Ownership can be classified into different types, such as family ownership, employee ownership, and institutional ownership [4]. Ownership determines the firm’s governance framework [17], which in turn regulates the firm’s resource mobilization decisions and behavior, including CSR activities [18,19]. Furthermore, ownership is an important indicator of firm heterogeneity [19], which plays a critical role in shaping the family firm’s CSR activities and strategies [11,18,19,20,21]. Unfortunately, existing research on the impact of ownership on family firm CSR is still limited, yielding inconclusive and fragmented findings that hinder the development of this field.

To address the above issue and to advance CSR research in the family firm context, we conducted a systematic literature review on ownership and family firm CSR. We searched the Web of Science (WOS) database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) for relevant peer-reviewed articles, followed specific procedures, and identified 102 relevant articles. By analyzing and synthesizing the different theoretical perspectives, core arguments, research design, and empirical findings in the existing literature, we propose a comprehensive framework on ownership and CSR (See Figure 1).

In the following sections, we first introduce the materials and methodology that are used for this review and then define the key concepts, including family firm, CSR, and ownership. After that, we review the literature on the relationship between ownership and CSR, the mediators, and the contingent factors for this relationship. Finally, we analyze the theories and methods that were used in previous studies, identify our research limitations, and offer suggestions for future research.

2. Materials and Methods

Following the best practice [22] and procedures in other published review articles [4,9,23,24], we searched the Web of Science (WOS) database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) for relevant peer-reviewed articles that were published in journals with a social-science citation index, a science citation index, an engineering index, and a Chinese social-science citation index. Web of Science (WOS) was widely used in previous academic research [9,25,26,27] and it is regarded as the most comprehensive source of articles in social science [9,28,29]. CNKI, the Chinese knowledge information gateway website with complete resource types and comprehensive content [30], was used because many studies that are published in top journals in China are also highly relevant to our review topic and can add significant insights. Only work that was published up to October 2021 was included in the analysis. The specific literature search procedures are listed below (also see Figure 2).

First, keywords were identified and searched in the title, keywords, and abstracts of published articles in the selected databases. The CSR-related keywords that were used for our literature search included “corporate social responsibility”, “social responsibility”, and “CSR” [9,24]. The family-firm-related keywords were “family business”, “family firm”, “family company”, “family enterprise”, and “family owned” [9,24]. The ownership-related keywords were “ownership” and “share” [4,24]. The search in WOS yielded 1475 studies, while the search in CNKI yielded 150 outputs, resulting in 1625 articles in total. Second, results that were duplicated by using different keywords were excluded. We also excluded non-English articles that were published in the WOS database and non-Chinese articles in the CNKI database. Furthermore, we did not include book chapters and dissertations, as they were unlikely to be peer-reviewed [4,9,23,24]. After this step, 497 articles were retained. Third, we manually deleted the articles that were published in journals lower than level 2 in the British Association of Business Schools (ABS) journal ranking list [31]. The ABS journal list is well adopted and recognized by business and management scholars [32,33,34]. For journals that were not included in the ABS journal ranking list, we only kept the journals (e.g., Sustainability) that publish many articles on family firm or CSR.

Finally, one author read all the selected articles to determine whether they focused on family firm, ownership, and CSR. Another author was consulted on whether the article should be included or excluded in the review [4,9,23,24]. This step led to a total of 102 articles being included in the review, with 84 English articles and 18 Chinese articles. These articles included 6 literature review papers, 94 quantitative articles, and 2 qualitative articles. The journals that were published in English mainly included: Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Management, Sustainability, Research Policy, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Management and Organization Review, Family Business Review, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, and Journal of Business Ethics. The journals that were published in Chinese mainly included: Journal of Management World, Scientific Decision Making, Business Management Journal, Communication of Finance and Accounting, etc.

Figure 3 shows that the publishing year of all the articles selected for this review ranges between 2007 and 2021. A general upward trend was noted and shows increasing scholarly attention over the years on the topic being reviewed.

We further used VOSviewer to conduct a visual analysis of ownership and CSR research in the family firm context (see Figure 4). VOSviewer was widely adopted in prior research to generate bibliometric maps, which allow for the construction and visualization of bibliometric networks [9,24,35]. Different clusters use different colors, which make it easy to view each individual cluster and to find the structural distribution of various research hotspots, and the similarities and differences among research topics. Figure 4 shows that the keywords in this research field include ownership, family, family firm, type, non-family firm, family involvement, family control, and CSR.

3. Literature Review

3.1. Family Firm

Family firms are organizations in which individuals from the same family substantially affect the firm by holding a certain amount of ownership, by possessing voting rights, and/or by staying in important management positions [36]. Duran et al. [37] categorized family firms into four types based on their meta-analysis of 108 studies from 42 countries, including firms with a large number of family members in ownership [38], firms with a large number of family members in top management positions [39], firms with a family presence in both ownership and management [40], and firms with a family presence in either ownership or management [41]. On the other hand, Llach and Nordquist [42] proposed that the only criterion to define family firms is the family members’ perception of whether the firm is a family firm [43]. Therefore, although different studies have different definitions of family firms and the existing literature has not yet converged on a single definition [39,41], the definition of family firms often concerns characteristics such as ownership, governance, management, and transgenerational succession [44].

3.2. CSR

CSR refers to specific firm activities that align their economic, environmental, and social objectives with their strategies and operational decisions [1,2,3]. CSR is often regarded as a special type of firm strategic investment [4,45,46] that generally helps to enhance firm image and reputation [5,6] and mitigates future risk [4]. CSR is most commonly measured by dimensions that are related to employees, customers, suppliers, shareholders, creditors, the community, corporate governance, environment, and human rights [47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57]. Different stakeholders have different expectations towards CSR activities. Therefore, CSR is often manifested as a multi-dimensional construct [54,55]. In some research, CSR has also been classified into internal CSR and external CSR, targeting stakeholders that are internal and external to the firm, respectively. Internal CSR refers to responsible behaviors that are related to internal stakeholders, such as employee rights protection and employee development [58,59], while external CSR activities involve responsible behaviors that are related to external stakeholders, such as corporate philanthropy and environmental protection [60,61]. Some studies also classify CSR into voluntary CSR and mandatory CSR based on Carroll’s pyramid theory of CSR [62]. Voluntary CSR refers to the CSR activities that firms choose by themselves, such as charitable donation and environmental pollution governance, whereas mandatory CSR is required by law or policies, such as the economic and legal responsibilities that firms must adopt [63].

3.3. Ownership

Research about ownership can be traced back to the 1980s, when a firm’s CSR and its ownership structure emerged together as a new research field. As a result of the increasing importance of governance research, the field of ownership research has also become increasingly important, and more scholars have begun to investigate ownership types and their effects on firms [64,65]. Previous research has identified a variety of ownership types, including family ownership, state ownership, foreign ownership, institutional ownership, and ownership by stakeholders such as managers and employees [4]. Specifically, family ownership refers to shares that are owned by family members. The interests of family members often focus more on SEW, which is particularly important to family firms. Family ownership may enhance a firm’s CSR engagement, mainly because of the long-term investment horizons of family firms and their close relationships with different shareholders [1,3,11,12]. State ownership refers to shares that are held by the government and impacts CSR by driving firms to pursue certain political goals [4,11]. Institutional ownership refers to shares that are owned by institutional investors, such as pension funds, mutual funds, banks, and insurance companies, the number of which has increased rapidly in recent years. Institutional shareholders prefer CSR because it can lower the risk of investment [66,67,68,69,70,71]. Managerial ownership often refers to shares that are owned by managers of firms [46] and has become highly prominent in governance research, as managerial ownership helps to reduce conflicts between shareholders and managers and align their interests.

Different types of ownership may influence firm CSR differently due to potential different owner preferences for CSR [4,72,73], such as shareholders’ time horizon for investment, financial risk and return assumptions, and the underlying motives or objectives. Furthermore, although the impact of ownership on CSR has been widely studied, existing research findings are inconclusive, showing positive, negative, and U-shaped relationships between ownership and CSR (see Table 1). Below, we review the existing literature in detail.

4. Main Effect of Ownership on CSR

4.1. Ownership Promoting CSR

Many scholars have found a positive relationship between ownership, especially family firm ownership, and CSR activities [74,75,76], including responsibility for investors, employees [77,78], and consumers [77]; community-related CSR [19]; environmental responsibility [17,20,77,79,80,81]; legal and ethical responsibility [77]; corporate charitable donations [12,82,83,84]; and the disclosure of CSR [66,85].

The positive relationship between family ownership and CSR [1,2,3,13,41,43,44,45,86,87] can be attributed to family firm owners’ strong concerns about non-economic goals [77,88], such as the continuation of family values; organizational image and reputation enhancement [89,90]; family inheritance; family social-capital accumulation; stakeholder interests [16,91]; and family owners’ pursuit of more balanced goals [92] involving ethics [93], social performance [94,95], and environmental performance [11,80].

In addition to overall family ownership, the influence of other types of ownership that are related to the business family has also been examined. For example, related to the business family, both founder ownership [20,96] and family foundations’ ownership [96] can enhance CSR. Zeng [21] has concluded that not only firms with higher family ownership, but also family firms with the second largest shareholders engaged in more CSR activities. Jian and Dai [97] also found that a higher ownership balance ratio in family firms leads to higher levels and quality of the disclosure of social responsibility information. Another type of internal shareholder, i.e., employee owners, also increases both the supply and demand of CSR reporting [98].

Regarding external shareholders, government shares [66], business group ownership [19], and institutional investors (e.g., domestic banks, financial institutions, and foreign institutional investors) [67,71] are also positively related to CSR, such as CSR disclosure [66] and community-related CSR [19]. One reason is that institutional investors can improve the regulatory efficiency of family firms [67] and the external control of the information transparency of CSR engagement [70], thereby encouraging firms to participate in and disclose CSR.

4.2. Ownership Reducing CSR

Some scholars have found a negative relationship between family firm ownership and CSR performance [67,87,99,100], such as ESG (environmental, social, and governance) performance [20,101,102,103]. One explanation is that family owners have invested their private wealth into the firm and have both economic and personal motives to run the firm [101,104,105]. Consequently, family owners may channel firm activities to enhance their personal benefits and are concerned less about CSR. Additionally, CSR investments may reduce firm resources that could be otherwise directed toward activities that can enhance the value of the firm. As such, some family owners may oppose CSR investments [67,106,107,108,109,110]. Similarly, as observed by Jian and Dai [97] in a sample of publicly listed family-controlled Chinese companies, a higher family ownership concentration reduces CSR information disclosure. Moreover, these scholars found that a higher separation of the ownership and control of the firm also led to lower CSR information disclosure, because the family owners could use their control rights and voting rights to object to CSR investment, in order to pursue personal benefits and to manipulate CSR information disclosure.

Other research [111] also found that the greater the percentage of shares owned by the CEO or a single individual other than the CEO, the smaller the amounts that the firm will give to charity. As ownership becomes more concentrated, the options of managers are more limited and the contributions of the firm to charities will be smaller.

4.3. U-Shaped Relationship between Ownership and CSR

Different from the linear relationship between ownership and family firm CSR that was identified in the above-reviewed studies, some scholars found a U-shaped relationship. For example, Terlaak et al. [112] found a U-shaped relationship between the degree of family ownership and environmental-performance information disclosure. Disclosure propensities significantly drop as family ownership increases from low to moderate, because in such a range of family ownership, the perceived costs of disclosure exceed the perceived benefits. However, when family ownership is at the moderate to high levels, disclosure propensities moderately upswing, indicating that disclosure benefits (e.g., reputational benefits) outstrip disclosure costs. In contrast, Labelle et al. [113] found a curvilinear relationship between family ownership and CSR. At lower levels of family ownership, family firms invest more in social initiatives to gain legitimacy and to preserve their SEW. When beyond approximately 36%, family ownership begins to be negatively associated with CSR, mainly because the strategy and financial consideration prevail over SEW preservation.

Table 1. Main effect of family firm ownership and CSR.

No	Author/year	Ownership	CSR	Theories
The positive relationship between ownership and CSR
1	Li, 2012 [114] Chen and Wen, 2017 [115] Li, 2019 [116] Madden et al., 2020 [18] Ryuand Chae, 2021 [117]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	CSR	Socioemotional selectivity theoryLong-term development perspective
2	Zhou, 2011 [77] Isabel-Maria et al., 2021 [118]	Family ownership	Insider responsibilities (investors, employees) External liability (creditors, partners, consumers)	Stakeholder theory SEW theory
3	Zeng, 2020 [21]	Family ownership Second largest shareholder	CSR engagement	Agency theory SEW theory
4	Aguilar and Luis, 2019 [119]	Family ownership	CSR practice (environment, social)	/
5	Syed and Butt, 2017 [85] Habbash, 2017 [66]	Government ownership Family ownership	CSR disclosure practices	Legitimacy theory Agency theory
6	Liu et al., 2017 [95]	Family ownership	CSR performance	SEW theory
7	Li et al., 2020 [81]	Family control	Green governance	Agency theory SEW theory
8	Bammens and Hünermund, 2020 [17]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	Introduction of innovation ecology	Institutional theory Mixed game logic theory
9	Rubino and Napoli, 2020 [80]	Family ownership	Environmental performance	SEW theory
10	Maria Federica and Mirella, 2018 [120]	Family ownership	CSR instrumental, moral, and relational motivation	SEW theory
11	Chen & Chen, 2014 [12] Dou et al., 2014 [82] Ye et al., 2019 [83]	Family ownership proportion	Charitable donation	Stakeholder theory SEW theory Legitimacy theory
12	Christensen-Salem et al., 2021 [78] Wu and Zhang, 2019 [84]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	Employees perceived organizational care/ employee responsibility	SEW theory Stakeholder theory
13	Cruz et al., 2014 [13] Zhu, 2021 [86]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	External stakeholder-related CSR	Stakeholder theory SEW theory
14	Bingham et al., 2011 [16]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	CSR performance activities Special stakeholder-related CSR	Stakeholder theory
15	Block and Wagner, 2014 [20]	Family ownership Founder ownership	CSR concern	SEW theory
16	Giovanna and De Massis, 2015 [121]	Family ownership	Different CSR reports Different CSR themes	Institutional theory
17	Xu et al., 2018 [63]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	Philanthropy and environment governance-related CSR behavior	SEW theory Social responsibility pyramid theory
18	Kim and Lee, 2018 [99]	Family ownership	CSR performance	Agency theory
19	Sahasranamam et al., 2019 [19]	Business group ownership Family ownership	Community-related CSR	Agency theory Sociological perspectives of institutions
20	Andrea et al., 2021 [122]	Family ownership	CSR practice	SEW theory
21	Fehre and Weber, 2019 [96]	Founder ownership; family foundation ownership	Management CSR concern	SEW theory
22	Shu and Chiang, 2020 [67]	External large shareholders Institutional investor	CSR participation	Agency theory
23	Jian and Dai, 2019 [97]	Ownership Balance ratio	Social responsibility information-disclosure quality	/
The negative relationship between ownership and CSR
1	LaBelle et al., 2015 [113] EI Ghoul et al., 2016 [110]	Family ownership	CSR performance	Agency theory SEW theory
2	Nekhili et al., 2017 [123]	Family ownership	CSR information report	Stakeholder theory
3	Chen and Cheng, 2020 [124]	Family ownership	CSR assurance	Agency theory
4	Rees and Rodionova, 2014 [101]	Family ownership	ESG: environment, social, governance	Agency theory
5	Block and Wagner., 2014 [20]	Family ownership/ founder ownership	CSR concern	SEW theory
6	McGuire et al., 2012 [125]	Family ownership	Poor CSR performance	Resource dependence theory Stakeholder theory
7	Zhou and Zhao, 2017 [103] Zhou et al., 2020 [102]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	Environment responsibility practice/ environmental disclosure	Agency theory SEW theory
8	Stavrou et al., 2007 [76] Block, 2010 [75] Kim et al., 2019 [74]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	Layoff tendency; deep layoffs	Place-based view
9	Cruz et al., 2014 [13] Zhu, 2021 [86]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	Internal stakeholder-related CSR	Stakeholder theory SEW theory
10	Bingham et al., 2010 [16]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	CSR social initiative CSR social concern	Stakeholder theory
11	Block and Wagner, 2014 [20]	Family ownership founder ownership	Community-related CSR CSR concern	Organizational and family identity view SEW theory
12	Giovanna and De Massis, 2015 [121]	Family ownership	CSR standards	Institutional theory
13	Xu et al., 2018 [63]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	Philanthropy and environment governance-related CSR willingness	SEW theory Social responsibility pyramid theory
14	Kim and Lee, 2018 [99]	Family ownership	Corporate governance	Agency theory
15	Jian and Dai, 2019 [97]	Ownership concentration	Equity balance level Management shareholding ratio	/
16	Wu and Zhang, 2019 [84]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	Charitable donation	Stakeholder SEW theory
17	Ye et al., 2019 [83]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	Internal employee welfare	Stakeholder theory SEW theory Legitimacy theory
18	Andrea et al., 2021 [122]	Family ownership	CSR communication	SEW theory
19	Shu and Chiang, 2020 [67]	Internal large shareholders including directors	CSR motivation	Agency theory
20	Dick et al., 2021 [126]	Founder-controlled family firms	CSR participation	Social emotional endowment perspective
21	Atkinson and Galaskiewicz, 1988 [111]	Shares owned by CEO or single individuals	Charity	Agency theory
Other relationships between ownership and CSR
1	Terlaak et al., 2018 [112]	The degree of family ownership	U-shaped relationship—the tendency of environmental performance disclosure	SEW theory
2	Labelle, et al., 2015 [113]	Family ownership	Curvilinear relationship Corporate social performance	Agency theory SEW theory

Table 1. Main effect of family firm ownership and CSR.

No	Author/year	Ownership	CSR	Theories
The positive relationship between ownership and CSR
1	Li, 2012 [114] Chen and Wen, 2017 [115] Li, 2019 [116] Madden et al., 2020 [18] Ryuand Chae, 2021 [117]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	CSR	Socioemotional selectivity theoryLong-term development perspective
2	Zhou, 2011 [77] Isabel-Maria et al., 2021 [118]	Family ownership	Insider responsibilities (investors, employees) External liability (creditors, partners, consumers)	Stakeholder theory SEW theory
3	Zeng, 2020 [21]	Family ownership Second largest shareholder	CSR engagement	Agency theory SEW theory
4	Aguilar and Luis, 2019 [119]	Family ownership	CSR practice (environment, social)	/
5	Syed and Butt, 2017 [85] Habbash, 2017 [66]	Government ownership Family ownership	CSR disclosure practices	Legitimacy theory Agency theory
6	Liu et al., 2017 [95]	Family ownership	CSR performance	SEW theory
7	Li et al., 2020 [81]	Family control	Green governance	Agency theory SEW theory
8	Bammens and Hünermund, 2020 [17]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	Introduction of innovation ecology	Institutional theory Mixed game logic theory
9	Rubino and Napoli, 2020 [80]	Family ownership	Environmental performance	SEW theory
10	Maria Federica and Mirella, 2018 [120]	Family ownership	CSR instrumental, moral, and relational motivation	SEW theory
11	Chen & Chen, 2014 [12] Dou et al., 2014 [82] Ye et al., 2019 [83]	Family ownership proportion	Charitable donation	Stakeholder theory SEW theory Legitimacy theory
12	Christensen-Salem et al., 2021 [78] Wu and Zhang, 2019 [84]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	Employees perceived organizational care/ employee responsibility	SEW theory Stakeholder theory
13	Cruz et al., 2014 [13] Zhu, 2021 [86]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	External stakeholder-related CSR	Stakeholder theory SEW theory
14	Bingham et al., 2011 [16]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	CSR performance activities Special stakeholder-related CSR	Stakeholder theory
15	Block and Wagner, 2014 [20]	Family ownership Founder ownership	CSR concern	SEW theory
16	Giovanna and De Massis, 2015 [121]	Family ownership	Different CSR reports Different CSR themes	Institutional theory
17	Xu et al., 2018 [63]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	Philanthropy and environment governance-related CSR behavior	SEW theory Social responsibility pyramid theory
18	Kim and Lee, 2018 [99]	Family ownership	CSR performance	Agency theory
19	Sahasranamam et al., 2019 [19]	Business group ownership Family ownership	Community-related CSR	Agency theory Sociological perspectives of institutions
20	Andrea et al., 2021 [122]	Family ownership	CSR practice	SEW theory
21	Fehre and Weber, 2019 [96]	Founder ownership; family foundation ownership	Management CSR concern	SEW theory
22	Shu and Chiang, 2020 [67]	External large shareholders Institutional investor	CSR participation	Agency theory
23	Jian and Dai, 2019 [97]	Ownership Balance ratio	Social responsibility information-disclosure quality	/
The negative relationship between ownership and CSR
1	LaBelle et al., 2015 [113] EI Ghoul et al., 2016 [110]	Family ownership	CSR performance	Agency theory SEW theory
2	Nekhili et al., 2017 [123]	Family ownership	CSR information report	Stakeholder theory
3	Chen and Cheng, 2020 [124]	Family ownership	CSR assurance	Agency theory
4	Rees and Rodionova, 2014 [101]	Family ownership	ESG: environment, social, governance	Agency theory
5	Block and Wagner., 2014 [20]	Family ownership/ founder ownership	CSR concern	SEW theory
6	McGuire et al., 2012 [125]	Family ownership	Poor CSR performance	Resource dependence theory Stakeholder theory
7	Zhou and Zhao, 2017 [103] Zhou et al., 2020 [102]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	Environment responsibility practice/ environmental disclosure	Agency theory SEW theory
8	Stavrou et al., 2007 [76] Block, 2010 [75] Kim et al., 2019 [74]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	Layoff tendency; deep layoffs	Place-based view
9	Cruz et al., 2014 [13] Zhu, 2021 [86]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	Internal stakeholder-related CSR	Stakeholder theory SEW theory
10	Bingham et al., 2010 [16]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	CSR social initiative CSR social concern	Stakeholder theory
11	Block and Wagner, 2014 [20]	Family ownership founder ownership	Community-related CSR CSR concern	Organizational and family identity view SEW theory
12	Giovanna and De Massis, 2015 [121]	Family ownership	CSR standards	Institutional theory
13	Xu et al., 2018 [63]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	Philanthropy and environment governance-related CSR willingness	SEW theory Social responsibility pyramid theory
14	Kim and Lee, 2018 [99]	Family ownership	Corporate governance	Agency theory
15	Jian and Dai, 2019 [97]	Ownership concentration	Equity balance level Management shareholding ratio	/
16	Wu and Zhang, 2019 [84]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	Charitable donation	Stakeholder SEW theory
17	Ye et al., 2019 [83]	Family ownership/ ownership proportion	Internal employee welfare	Stakeholder theory SEW theory Legitimacy theory
18	Andrea et al., 2021 [122]	Family ownership	CSR communication	SEW theory
19	Shu and Chiang, 2020 [67]	Internal large shareholders including directors	CSR motivation	Agency theory
20	Dick et al., 2021 [126]	Founder-controlled family firms	CSR participation	Social emotional endowment perspective
21	Atkinson and Galaskiewicz, 1988 [111]	Shares owned by CEO or single individuals	Charity	Agency theory
Other relationships between ownership and CSR
1	Terlaak et al., 2018 [112]	The degree of family ownership	U-shaped relationship—the tendency of environmental performance disclosure	SEW theory
2	Labelle, et al., 2015 [113]	Family ownership	Curvilinear relationship Corporate social performance	Agency theory SEW theory

5. Mediators for the Relationship between Ownership and CSR

In addition to the main effect of ownership on CSR, some studies also revealed the mediating mechanisms linking ownership and CSR, such as a family firm descendant’s succession willingness, the long-term orientation, human resource practices, and firm performance (see Table 2). Drawing on SEW theory, scholars found that high family ownership could increase the long-term orientation of a family firm [11] and a family firm descendant’s succession willingness [12], which in turn, promote family firm CSR. The reason is that high family ownership may drive family firms to preserve and enhance SEW [12,13,127,128,129,130,131], and the SEW endowment can drive family owners to consider more about the needs of stakeholders.

High family ownership, however, may also have a negative influence on mediators and CSR. For instance, because firms with high family ownership may be characterized by high levels of nepotism, they may attend to the needs of non-family member employees less as a workforce and have inferior human resource practices, thereby performing lower levels of CSR [132]. Similarly, Cuadrado et al. [133] also found that, compared with non-family firms, family firms are less likely to use formal ethical codes because they often operate in a more informal environment with a lower degree of formalization, and the use of informal ethical codes may reduce the effective promotion of corporate social responsibility and then, corporate social performance.

Finally, firm performance can be another mediator, such that the higher the family ownership, the more efficient the decision making, which leads to higher firm financial performance and higher levels of CSR [134].

Table 2. Mediators for the relationship between family firm ownership and CSR.

Family level	Dimension of SEW—succession willingness [12,135] Use of formal ethical codes [133]
Firm level	Firm performance [134] Employee training and development [132]
Family firm level	Long-term orientation [11,12,13,127,128,129,130,131]

Table 2. Mediators for the relationship between family firm ownership and CSR.

Family level	Dimension of SEW—succession willingness [12,135] Use of formal ethical codes [133]
Firm level	Firm performance [134] Employee training and development [132]
Family firm level	Long-term orientation [11,12,13,127,128,129,130,131]

6. Contingent Factors for the Relationship between Family Firm Ownership and CSR

An increasing number of scholars have begun to explore the contingencies on the relationship between ownership and CSR. Contingent factors found in existing research are divided into four categories: environment level, firm level, family level, and individual level (see Table 3).

First, environment-level contingent factors include institutional environment [13,63], regional population [74], and market competition [124]. Prior research suggests that high-quality and CSR-concerned institutional environments, such as a high degree of marketization [63], high levels of regional institutional development [87], stakeholder-oriented countries [113], and regions with stringent environmental regulations, push firms with high family ownership to perform more CSR, such as performing more voluntary CSR [63], performing more internal and external CSR [87], and tackling more social and environmental issues [113]. The research findings of Yu et al. [136] showed that family firms with ownership and strategic control gain more environmental performance premium in low-competition product markets, which satisfies the family’s affective needs (e.g., reduction in risk and preservation of family wealth), and in provinces with more stringent environmental regulations, which motivate family firms to avoid regulation violations that threaten the legitimacy, reputation, and succession of their family firms.

Kim et al. [74] concluded that family firms exhibit a lower tendency to lay off employees compared with non-family firms, and this relationship is particularly strong when the population is low, where the negative social externalities that are related to layoffs tend to be higher.

Finally, Desender and Epure [100] examined the effect of investment company ownership and government ownership on CSR and found that investment company ownership reduces, whereas government ownership increases corporate social performance more in liberal market economies than in coordinated market economies, which counterbalance the interests of multiple stakeholders.

Second, at the firm level, the moderators include firm internationalization [103], firm age [18,125], firm size [83,119], and corporate governance [87,137]. Some of the moderators facilitate the positive or weaken the negative relationship between family ownership and CSR, resulting in higher levels of CSR. Specifically, Zhou and Zhao [103] indicated that internationalization is an important driving factor for family firms to fulfill their environmental responsibilities based on SEW theory [138]. That study found that internationalization weakened the negative effect of family ownership on the firm environmental performance. Some scholars confirmed the firm size effect, showing that family ownership promotes CSR more in younger firms than older firms [18,83], and one possible reason based on socioemotional selectivity theory is that older family firms become more selective and invest less in CSR activities than younger firms.

Another facilitating moderating factor is good governance arrangement. For instance, McGuire et al. [125] used the KLD social performance index and found that family firms show better social performance than non-family firms. With better corporate governance mechanisms, family firms demonstrate better proactive social performance than non-family firms. Graafland [139] concluded that the effect of family ownership on environmental performance is negative for family firms that are only managed by family members, but positive for firms that are jointly managed by both family and non-family members. Ye and Li [87] highlighted the role of ownership balance and found that high levels of an ownership balance ratio reduce the negative effect of family involvement on internal CSR.

The effect of firm age, however, is inconclusive, with some scholars finding that family firm ownership promotes CSR in small companies [139], whereas others observed a negative effect between family ownership and CSR in small firms [119]. This topic thus needs further exploration.

In contrast to the above-reviewed studies, prior research has also revealed that some moderators weaken the positive relationship between family ownership and CSR. For instance, Li [116], and Chen and Wen [115] found that the positive relationship between family ownership and CSR is weakened when family firms implement higher salary incentives for their top management teams; the tendency of family firms to perform CSR weakens because the salary incentives still mainly use financial performance-related KPIs and lead to managers’ short-term behaviors of investing less in CSR.

Third, at the family level, family-related factors, such as succession intention [11,17,114] and family commitment [11,12], may also affect the relationship between ownership and family firm CSR. Succession-related factors, such as succession intention [82,114] and the transgenerational intention of family firms [17], have been generally shown to be a factor facilitating family firms’ engagements in CSR. One explanation is that the strong succession intentions show a family firm’s long-term orientation, which aligns well with caring for stakeholders being reflected in CSR activities.

Abeysekera and Femando [140] found that family firms show more responsibility to shareholders than non-family firms in environmental investment. When the interests of shareholders converge with societal interests, family firms are at least as good as non-family firms in protecting the interests of shareholders in the face of mitigating environmental problems that may harm society and increasing the company’s risk exposure. However, when shareholders’ interest and societal interests diverge, family firms make less environmental investment to protect shareholders’ interests.

Fourth, at the individual level, personal characteristics (e.g., experience, education, compensation, and personal network) of the founders, the CEOs, and the managers have also been shown to affect the relationship between family firm ownership and family firm CSR. Specifically, in some studies, the presence of a family or founder CEO has been found to motivate family firms to show higher CSR concerns [20] and CSR disclosure [137] and to demonstrate better CSR performance [141]. These research results are consistent with the predictions of SEW theory.

In contrast, Kim and Lee [99] used a sample of Korean family firms and found that family firms that are managed by family CEOs show lower corporate social performance, but that chaebol family firms show higher corporate social performance compared with non-family firms. Dick et al. [126] also found that founder-controlled family firms engage less in CSR, mainly because engagement in CSR activities could challenge their control and thus their socioemotional endowment. Zeng [21] also concluded that family firms in which family members are CEOs, presidents, or board chairpersons engage in less CSR. Interestingly, however, when family firms are run by overconfident executives who tend to underestimate the family’s control risk, focus on reputation building, and exhibit superior CSR performance, the negative relationship between family ownership and CSR engagement can be mitigated.

In terms of the human capital effect, enhancing effects have been shown. That is, the higher the human capital of the founder, actual controller, or managers, the more motivated family-owned firms are to engage in more CSR [81,119]. Cordeiro et al. [142] have also shown that most family owners and dual-class owners interact with board gender diversity to positively influence corporate environmental performance.

Different from amplifying the effects of human capital, the actual controllers’ political connections have been found to weaken the positive relationship between family ownership and the green governance of family firms [81].

Table 3. Moderators list for the relationship between family firm ownership and CSR research.

Environment level	Degree of Marketization of Institutional Environment [13,63] Regional Population [74] External Institutional Environment/ Regional Institutional Development [87] Free Market LME Liberal Market Economies/ Coordinated Market CME Coordinated Market Economies [100,101] Degree of Market Competition [124] Provinces Classified by the Severity of Environmental Regulations [124] Simulated Pressure at Industry Level [13,138] National Orientation: Stakeholder Orientation/ Shareholder Orientation [13,113]
Firm level	Internationalization [103] Age/aging [18,87,125] Firm size [83,119] Chaebol enterprises [99] Corporate governance [87,137]
Family Level	Family succession intention/intergenerational intention [11,17,114] Succession intention of the next generation [82] Family members participate in management [83,99,140] Family commitment [11,12] Family control level [113,140]
Individual level	Executive compensation [115,116] Entrepreneur human capital [87] Political connection of actual controller [81] Mutual supervision and restraint between family executives and external executives [124] Overconfident executives [126] Managers/owners have many years of business experience [119] Higher level of university education for managers/owners [119] Family CEO [20,99,132,140] Founder and CEO [20,140]
Others	Consistency/ Divergence of shareholders’ interests and social interests [143]

Table 3. Moderators list for the relationship between family firm ownership and CSR research.

Environment level	Degree of Marketization of Institutional Environment [13,63] Regional Population [74] External Institutional Environment/ Regional Institutional Development [87] Free Market LME Liberal Market Economies/ Coordinated Market CME Coordinated Market Economies [100,101] Degree of Market Competition [124] Provinces Classified by the Severity of Environmental Regulations [124] Simulated Pressure at Industry Level [13,138] National Orientation: Stakeholder Orientation/ Shareholder Orientation [13,113]
Firm level	Internationalization [103] Age/aging [18,87,125] Firm size [83,119] Chaebol enterprises [99] Corporate governance [87,137]
Family Level	Family succession intention/intergenerational intention [11,17,114] Succession intention of the next generation [82] Family members participate in management [83,99,140] Family commitment [11,12] Family control level [113,140]
Individual level	Executive compensation [115,116] Entrepreneur human capital [87] Political connection of actual controller [81] Mutual supervision and restraint between family executives and external executives [124] Overconfident executives [126] Managers/owners have many years of business experience [119] Higher level of university education for managers/owners [119] Family CEO [20,99,132,140] Founder and CEO [20,140]
Others	Consistency/ Divergence of shareholders’ interests and social interests [143]

7. Family Ownership as a Moderator

A certain number of prior studies also examined whether family firm CSR as a result of its antecedents or its impact on outcomes depends on the level of ownership (see Figure 5 and Figure 6, respectively). Among the different types of ownership, family ownership has been studied the most. Consequently, in the following sections, we review articles using family ownership as the moderator in their research.

7.1. Family Ownership as Moderator for the Relationship between Antecedents and CSR

Among the studies investigating the effects of antecedents on CSR with family ownership as the moderator, the research findings are divergent given the different theoretical lenses that are used. Some studies have found that higher family ownership promotes CSR as a result of antecedents, whereas other studies demonstrate a weakening effect. In the former stream of literature, for example, Ge and Evelyn [144] investigated Chinese private firms and found that family ownership exacerbates the impact of institutional pressure on corporate philanthropy. Family firms donate more to improve their social standing in the eyes of external stakeholders [145].

Yang et al. [146] have drawn on SEW theory and showed that family ownership has a significant positive moderating effect on the relationship between entrepreneurs’ status (including both economic and social status) and CSR. In firms with high family ownership, entrepreneurs’ higher status helps align the entrepreneurs’ values and the family firm management values, thereby enabling family firms to better perform CSR.

Moreover, Li et al. [147] found that managers’ overconfidence is positively related to CSR behavior and that family involvement strengthens this relationship. Rodríguez-Ariza et al. [148] researched the moderating effect of family ownership on the relationship between the role of female directors and CSR practice. Chen et al. [149] found that family ownership weakens the negative relationship between CEO narcissism and embedded CSR, which refers to CSR activities that are integrated into the firms’ strategy, routine, and operation, which helps build on the firms’ core competencies, such as green product design, green research and development, and green manufacturing. Embedded CSR is conducive to the preservation of SEW, so family ownership always prioritizes the pursuit of SEW, suggesting that narcissistic CEOs need to divert attention to embedded CSR.

In contrast to the above reviewed research, Zhou [150] conducted empirical research based on Chinese manufacturing family firms from an organizational relationship network perspective and found that family ownership negatively moderates the relationship between network centrality and internal, external, and public responsibility. When the level of family ownership decreases, the communication between family firms and their partners is more frequent and open. In this way, the effect of resource mobilization through networks will be strengthened and the impact of network centrality on family firm CSR will be increased.

Hajawiyah et al. [151] used a sample of Indonesian manufacturing firms and investigated the sequential effect of equity capital cost on CSR disclosure with family ownership as the moderator. They found that firms with high-equity capital cost in previous years had extensive CSR disclosure and would obtain lower costs of equity capital in the following year. Accordingly, family ownership weakens the effect of cost of equity capital in the previous year on CSR disclosure.

Finally, the positive effect of female directors on promoting CSR practices has been found to be weaker in family firms than non-family firms, possibly because family firms could be more socially responsible toward their external stakeholders but less so toward internal stakeholders.

7.2. Family Ownership as Moderator for the Relationship between CSR and Outcomes

Family ownership can also moderate the relationship between CSR and other outcomes (see Figure 6), such as firm performance and tax-avoidance behavior. Generally, previous research has shown that family ownership strengthens the positive relationship between CSR and firm performance-related outcomes, such as financial performance [152,153] and firm market value [123]. One explanation is that high family ownership preserves SEW and forms a strong identification between the owning family and the firm. As such, family firms behave consistently with stakeholders’ expectations, and firm reputation and image will be enhanced [72,90,125,130]. Such a good reputation can increase stakeholders’ trust in family firms’ CSR reporting and reduce stakeholder skepticism [154], thereby strengthening the positive effect of CSR reporting and activities on firm performance.

8. Discussion and Conclusions

In this study, we systematically reviewed articles that were related to ownership and family firm CSR, aiming to emphasize the heterogeneity of the family firm. We not only focused on the main effect of ownership on family firm CSR, but also emphasized the mediators and the contingent factors for how ownership affects CSR in family firms. Below, we analyze the theories and methods that were adopted in prior research, offer practical implications, identify limitations of the existing literature, and suggest avenues for future research.

8.1. Analysis of Theories Adopted in Past Research

Three theories have been adopted in many previous studies on ownership and family firm CSR. They are stakeholder theory, SEW theory, and agency theory. Stakeholder theory is one of the most commonly adopted theories in the articles that were reviewed and argues that family firms perform CSR because they can obtain benefits from stakeholders by being socially responsible for them [54,62,135]. SEW theory is widely employed in family firm research and emphasizes five dimensions (family control and influence, family members’ identification with the firm, binding social ties, emotional attachment, and renewal of family bonds to the firm through dynastic succession) that play critical roles in the decision making of family firms and that distinguish between family firms and non-family firms [12,13,135]. SEW theory is highly relevant to family firm CSR research because the more emphasis that family firms attach to the five socio-emotional wealth dimensions, the stronger their willingness may be to perform CSR. Agency theory in the context of family firms is often used to highlight the principal–principal problem because the owners of family firms are likely to be the managers of the firms and conflicts of interest are more likely to exist among family owners, large shareholders, and minority shareholders. Family shareholders may pursue their own interests, i.e., the family interests, at the expense of other shareholders’ interests [40,141], and this pursuit may also reduce a family firm’s engagement in CSR if family owners have a weak preference for CSR [80]. The use of different theoretical lenses helps to explain the divergent (positive vs. negative) effects of family ownership on CSR. Our review has shown that stakeholder theory and SEW theory are often adopted to explain the positive effect of family ownership on CSR, whereas agency theory is used in studies showing the detrimental effect of family ownership on CSR.

Recently, some scholars drew on new theoretical lenses to study family firm CSR. For example, institutional theory provides a useful theoretical framework and refers to a generalized perception that both the objectives and behaviors of firms should comply with social norms, values, and beliefs to gain legitimacy [85]. The inconsistency between a firm’s values and social values challenges the legitimacy, control, and influence of family firms, and family firms’ CSR decisions can help them to achieve, maintain, and improve legitimacy and preserve their SEW [95].

Identity theory is another emerging theoretical lens that is adopted in family business CSR research [20]. Indeed, identity theory is not only used in CSR research, but also in the general family firm literature. For example, Shepherd and Haynie [155] proposed the “family-business meta-identity”, which is at the intersection of family and business identities and can be used to resolve the conflicts between family identity and business identity in family firms. At the same time, institutional pressures may also modify how family-business meta-identity can work to facilitate the long-term success of family firms [156]. As a result, future research may give more consideration to using identity theory and other new and insightful theoretical lenses for investigating family firm CSR behaviors.

8.2. Analysis of Methods Adopted in Past Research

In terms of research methods, a quantitative approach is mostly adopted to examine the relationship between family firm ownership and family firm CSR. Most of the existing studies use secondary data to test hypotheses but may not be able to examine topics that are related to individuals’ emotions and cognition, because these psychological variables are not commonly available in secondary data sets. Moreover, among studies using survey design, cross-sectional surveys are used more than longitudinal surveys [9]. Therefore, the direction of the effect among variables cannot be accurately determined. We thus encourage future research to develop longitudinal data sets related to family firm CSR that can trace how family firms make decisions about CSR strategies and activities, and what factors (e.g., family-, firm-, and environment-related factors) may influence family firms’ decisions and behaviors over time. Future researchers can also consider using different research methods, such as case studies, qualitative research methods, qualitative comparative analyses (QCA), multilevel quantitative research designs, experiments, meta-analyses, and mixed methods, to better understand the ownership heterogeneity and CSR heterogeneity of family firms.

8.3. Practical Implications

This paper offers practical implications for the founders, (potential) successors, and top management team members of family firms and to policy makers.

First, given that ownership types other than family firm ownership also exert significant influences on the CSR activities of family firms, and that family firm ownership has not only positive, but also negative impacts on CSR, the founders and (potential) successors of family firms should direct more attention to the ownership structure of their family firms. Instead of adopting a high percentage of family ownership, they may also consider introducing other types of ownership (e.g., employee ownership and institutional ownership) that can enhance the quality of governance and firm decisions, and the performance and impact of the family firms.

Second, the founders and the top management team members of family firms should also be aware of the wide range of CSR activities that are performed by family firms and their important effect on firm performance and make wise CSR decisions. For instance, can the family firm choose to perform multiple CSR activities to benefit more stakeholders while optimizing financial and non-financial benefits for the family firm? If resource constraints exist, should the family firm attach more importance to internal or external stakeholders when making CSR-related decisions? Will the family firm perform voluntary CSR activities? When should they perform these activities? Family firms may also need to choose different CSR activities to comply with the different life-cycle stages of the firm, their long-term orientations, and their specific strategic goals.

Third, given that the next-generation family members’ succession willingness is a critical mediating mechanism through which higher family firm ownership can enhance family firm CSR, founders of a socially responsible family firm should make effective succession plans and foster the next-generation family members’ succession willingness. Furthermore, the next-generation family members should also be aware of the long-term benefits of being socially responsible for their family firms. They can then be more involved in their family firms, not only to develop their willingness to succeed into it, but also to assist their family firms in engaging in more CSR activities.

Finally, policy makers should be aware that family firms are an important type of corporate socially responsible organization that brings social and environmental benefits to the various stakeholders in society. Therefore, policy makers can consider designing supportive policies to motivate more family firms to be socially and environmentally responsible. Furthermore, they should also take a balanced view and make sure that they do not perform CSR activities at the expense of the family firm’s financial performance so that local and national economic development is not hindered or harmed.

8.4. Limitations and Future Research

First, some important but unaddressed questions for future research on CSR in the context of family firms emerged: for example, what is the specific impact of different SEW dimensions and interactions thereof on CSR practices and dynamics in family firms? Moreover, future research can adopt an interdisciplinary approach and explore new theoretical perspectives to examine the impact of ownership on family firm CSR. For instance, family firm researchers have recently called for examining the psychological foundation of family firm phenomena [157,158,159]. Future research may consider adopting psychological theories to investigate ownership and family firm CSR-related questions.

Second, most of the literature only focuses on family ownership in family firm CSR research, with less attention being given to the effect of other types of ownership. According to Faller and Dodo [4], founder ownership, state ownership, foreign ownership, institutional ownership, employee ownership, and management ownership are also ownership types that may exert an important influence on family firm CSR. Future research can continue exploring the heterogeneity of family firms in their CSR-related behaviors from the ownership perspective by examining the impact of the understudied types of ownership on family firm CSR and their underlying mechanisms. This is consistent with calls from other scholars, such as Sahasranamam et al. [19] and Zeng [21], who emphasized the significance of the ownership structure impacting CSR.

Third, although an increasing number of scholars support the multi-dimensional nature of CSR and the heterogeneity of CSR investment [18], less research has investigated multiple CSR dimensions simultaneously. Most empirical studies either use CSR score to measure the overall level of CSR or study a single dimension of CSR, such as charitable donation or environmental responsibility. We found that CSR is treated as an umbrella concept, including CSR disclosure, sustainability, sustainability reporting, environmental performance, social performance, gender diversity, philanthropy, business ethics, and responsibility for various internal and external stakeholders. Future research exploring how family ownership and other types of ownership affect different CSR dimensions is worthwhile.

Fourth, although we identified the underlying mechanism, as well as different internal and external contingent factors that affect the relationship between family ownership and CSR, empirical research in this area needs to be further expanded. Among the 102 reviewed articles, only seven articles investigated mediators for the relationship between family firm ownership and family firm CSR. More factors need to be analyzed, and how family firm ownership affects family firm CSR needs to be determined. Some scholars also proposed additional moderators to be further explored in future research [14], including (1) family and educational background, including values and parenting; (2) corporate governance, including composition of the board; (3) firm environment, including community demographics, institutional logics, technological innovation, as well as technological and economic conditions; (4) the nature of the organization, including organizational strategy, structure, bureaucracy, and external contacts.

In conclusion, this systematic literature review deepens our understanding of why, when, and how family firms perform CSR, and particularly enriches our knowledge about the role of ownership in family firm CSR and the heterogeneity of family firms from the ownership perspective. Although family firm, CSR, and ownership research has developed rapidly in recent years, the intersection of these three topics has not been systematically reviewed. In this paper, in addition to reviewing past research on the various influence of ownership on family firm CSR and developing a comprehensive conceptual framework, we also analyzed the theoretical and methodological developments in this field; offered practical implications for family firm founders, (potential) successors, and managers; identified research limitations; and proposed future research directions. Family firm CSR from an ownership perspective has great research potential and is worth further exploration.