Socioemotional Wealth and Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Analysis
This theoretical paper is offered in the spirit of advancing the debate on the socioemotional wealth (SEW) construct and its impact on how family firms conceptualize and practise corporate social responsibility (CSR). The study builds on Kellermanns et al.’s (Entrep Theory Pract 36(6):1175–1182, 201...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Springer Science + Business Media B. V
2017
|
| Dans: |
Journal of business ethics
Année: 2017, Volume: 144, Numéro: 1, Pages: 185-199 |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Corporate social responsibility
B Family firms B Human Resource Management B Socioemotional wealth B Environmental Management |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Résumé: | This theoretical paper is offered in the spirit of advancing the debate on the socioemotional wealth (SEW) construct and its impact on how family firms conceptualize and practise corporate social responsibility (CSR). The study builds on Kellermanns et al.’s (Entrep Theory Pract 36(6):1175–1182, 2012) claim that the SEW dimensions can be positively and negatively valenced as well as makes a distinction between the selective and instrumental approach to CSR and the holistic and normative one. Drawing on these considerations, it provides a theoretical underpinning in favour of the view that SEW has ambivalent nature and therefore can produce detrimental outcomes for stakeholders of family companies. In this way, the study challenges the implicit assumption prevalent in the literature that SEW is “a prosocial and positive stimulus”. Crucially, it expands on the SEW construct by arguing that, given its ambivalent nature, SEW, as such, is at odds with the “strategic, whole-business view of responsibility”. Consequently, it posits that family firms—because of their concern with SEW—may be more likely to adopt the instrumental and selective rather than strategic (holistic) and normative approach. Hence, it also makes the case for regarding the latter as a reference point to investigate the family company’s attitude towards social responsibility. It concludes by summarising the argument and offering future research avenues. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1573-0697 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Journal of business ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2848-1 |