Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development

Family business and corporate social responsibility in a sample of Dutch firms

Lorraine M. Uhlaner H.J.M. (Annemieke) van Goor-Balk Enno Masurel
Article information:
To cite this document:
Lorraine M. Uhlaner H.J.M. (Annemieke) van Goor-Balk Enno Masurel, (2004),"Family business and corporate social
responsibility in a sample of Dutch firms", Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11 Iss 2 pp. 186 - 194
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14626000410537128
Downloaded on: 31 January 2017, At: 19:59 (PT)
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, UPT PERPUSTAKAAN UNS At 19:59 31 January 2017 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 26 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2976 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2005),"Corporate social responsibility and corporate performance: the case of Italian SMEs", Corporate Governance: The
international journal of business in society, Vol. 5 Iss 4 pp. 28-42 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14720700510616578
(2001),"What do we mean by corporate social responsibility?", Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in
society, Vol. 1 Iss 2 pp. 16-22 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005486

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:604154 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


Family business and
corporate social
responsibility in a
sample of Dutch firms
Lorraine M. Uhlaner
H.J.M.(Annemieke)vanGoor-Balk
and
Enno Masurel
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, UPT PERPUSTAKAAN UNS At 19:59 31 January 2017 (PT)
The authors
Lorraine M. Uhlaner is Director of the European Family
Business Institute, Rotterdam School of Economics, Erasmus
University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
H.J.M. (Annemieke) van Goor-Balk and Enno Masurel are
based at the Economic and Social Institute, Free University
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Keywords
Social responsibility, Small enterprises, The Netherlands
Abstract
This paper explores corporate social responsibility in family
businesses. In particular, the research investigates family
businesses in relation to a wide variety of constituent or
stakeholder groups. It reports the preliminary results of focused
interviews with 42 small and medium-sized Dutch family
businesses. The data obtained from content analysis suggest
that a mix of corporate social responsibility perspectives, help to
explain the nature of relationships with, and behaviors toward,
various constituency groups. The family character of the business
most frequently impacts employee, client, and supplier
relationships. Statistically significant interaction effects are
reported for the following moderator variables: generation of the
owner; company tenure in the community; community size;
company size; and inclusion of the family surname in the
business name. Interaction effects were also tested for industry
type and gender. The paper also outlines some practical
implications of the findings and suggests directions for future
research.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1462-6004.htm
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Volume 11 Number 2 2004 pp. 186194
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN 1462-6004
DOI 10.1108/14626000410537128
Introduction
This paper aims to expand the understanding of
how small and medium-sized family businesses
interpret their corporate social responsibility in
relationship to a wide range of constituencies.
Because specific work on the topic of family
business and corporate social responsibility is
limited (Vyakarnam et al., 1997), the research is
exploratory in nature, drawing upon the broader
literature on corporate social responsibility as well
as the stakeholder approach to organization
effectiveness. For the purpose of this research,
corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers
broadly to the level of contribution a company
makes towards the betterment of society.
Etzioni (1996) contrasts between companies that
exhibit a competitive, individualistic orientation
with those that prefer a communitarian
perspective. The latter aim to balance the need for
individual liberty with active maintenance of the
community and society (Cornwall, 1998; Etzioni,
1993, 1996). Other researchers take a behavioral
approach, identifying one or more behaviors
thought to represent CSR, including economic
benefits (Hemphill, 1997), conformance to ethical
and legal expectations (Carroll, 1998),
philanthropic and community involvement
(Dutton, 1997) and social entrepreneurship
(Prabhu, 1999).
Economic benefits describe an aspect of CSR
behavior as supporting the community-at-large by
creating wealth and value for employees, clients,
and the larger society, primarily via business
success. As part of this orientation, some authors
also point to the economic support of employees,
including various benefits, training, and
compensation (Hemphill, 1997). Conformance to
ethical and legal expectations refers to the behavior
of the good corporate citizen who obeys laws
and acts ethically, such as compliance with
environmental protection, equal employment
opportunity or other relevant laws (Carroll, 1998).
The authors would like to acknowledge primary
support for this study by the Stichting
Maatschappelijk Ondernemen van MKB Nederland,
(the foundation for social action of Dutch SMEs),
and the Nederlands Orde van Accountants-
Administratieconsulenten (NOvAA) (the Dutch
association of SME accountants). This paper was also
supported in part by Eastern Michigan University, as
part of a sabbatical leave of the first author as well as
private sponsors of the European Family Business
Institute including Arenthals Grant Thornton,
accountants and advisors, Fortis Bank, and
MeesPierson, the private bankers of Fortis.
The authors would also like to thank Dr Hary Matlay
for his editorial assistance in preparing the final draft.
186
 Family business and corporate social responsibility
Lorraine M. Uhlaner et al.
Philanthropic/community involvement involves
donation of cash or company resources to various
groups or causes (Dutton, 1997). A review of
several case studies of family business
philanthropy suggest a variety of motives for
supporting particular groups or causes, including
family and/or religious values ( Wood, 1996),
childhood experiences of an owner (Nichols,
1996) or commitment to a particular industry that
has been favorable to a business (Nozar, 1998).
Social entrepreneurship, the fourth type of CSR
behavior identified in the specialist literature,
refers to situations where the owner dedicates the
business itself to social causes and change (Prabhu,
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, UPT PERPUSTAKAAN UNS At 19:59 31 January 2017 (PT)
1999). For instance, the company might develop
environmentally protective products (Hendrickson
and Tuttle, 1997; Menon, 1997), employ
disadvantaged youth or provide community health
services (Campbell, 1997) as part of its primary
mission.
Relevant research in family business and
corporate social responsibility
Family businesses often blend economic
considerations with the traditional roles of the
family social unit and thus can act differently than
similar, non-family businesses. Two studies of
European small businesses, one of Dutch
companies (Floren and Wijers, 1996), and the
other of Belgian companies (Donckels, 1998),
found that the family business tends to have a
different, more personal relationship with
employees and clients when compared with the
non-family business. In particular, these studies
show that family business owners have a tendency
toward the following.
.
Greater personal commitment to the firm and
its success and to employees well being
(Donckels, 1998; Floren and Wijers, 1996).
.
Increased likelihood of long-term strategy in
terms of the future impact of decisions
regarding treatment of employees and clients.
This does not necessarily translate, however,
into greater use of long-term planning (Floren
and Wijers, 1996).
.
More direct contact with clients (Donckels,
1998) consistent with findings from a United
States sample of companies (Lyman, 1991).
In spite of these patterns, not every family business
is equally committed to socially responsible
behaviors. A review of the relevant literature points
to a few moderator variables that determine why
some family businesses are more socially
responsible than others, including gender and
bonding and community cohesiveness.
For instance, Godfrey (1995) concludes that
female managers are more apt to share a set of
values that balance concern for profit and for
187
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Volume 11 Number 2 2004 186194
community than their male counterparts. Castro
(1997/1998) reports greater philanthropic activity
by cities with a higher percentage of local
ownership. He infers that local owners might feel a
closer bond to the community than those who live
outside of it. In this paper, bonding is viewed as
similar group cohesiveness. Castros measure
requires research at the community level of
analysis. By considering the family business as a
member of the local community group and by
examining other research on group cohesiveness
(Robbins, 1998), one can consider other
cohesiveness determinants such as group size
(i.e. size of the community) and company tenure
(i.e. the length of time that a company has been in
its present location).
Framework for the pilot study
A pilot study was carried out to learn more about
how family businesses view themselves in
relationship to a wide variety of constituents, and
further, whether or not these relationships could
be viewed within the context of corporate social
responsibility. The pilot study was based on the
stakeholder approach, which defines organization
effectiveness as the ability to satisfy a wide range of
constituents within and outside the organization
(Daft, 1998; Friedlander and Pickle, 1968; Tusi,
1990). For the purpose of this study, CSR is
defined in its broadest sense with respect to
stakeholders within and outside the organization
(with the exclusion of the owners themselves).
This contrasts with the more frequent approach of
defining CSR only with respect to community
stakeholders (Daft, 1998).
For the purposes of the pilot study, two
categories of stakeholders, economic and social,
were identified, building upon Porters work
(Porter, 1985). Economic stakeholders include
employees, customers, banks, accountants,
suppliers, competitors, and external business
advisors. Social stakeholders include family
members, the (physical) environment, the
government, service organizations, trade
associations, other business associations (referred
to as commercial organizations in The
Netherlands), business clubs (i.e. the Rotary
Club), churches, sport clubs, and political parties.
Primary research question and hypotheses
The following research question forms the focus
for the pilot study: Do family businesses perceive
that they relate in a special way to various
stakeholders within and outside their companies
due to the family aspect of the business? If so, with
which stakeholders is this special relationship most
 Family business and corporate social responsibility
Lorraine M. Uhlaner et al.
likely to occur and furthermore, reflect some
aspect of corporate social responsibility?
Although a wide range of constituencies are
examined, research findings from Donckels (1998)
and Floren and Wijers (1996) suggest that
relationships with employees and clients, in
particular, may be different due to the family
nature of the business. H1 is thus set forth as
follows.
H1. Family businesses are likely to have a special
relationship with employees and clients due
to the family nature of the business.
No specific hypotheses are set for the remaining
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, UPT PERPUSTAKAAN UNS At 19:59 31 January 2017 (PT)
stakeholder groups. However, in further
exploration of the primary research question, the
pilot study also examines whether special
relationships based on the family aspect of the
business are more likely under certain conditions
than others. In particular, based on the research by
Godfrey (1995), gender is tested as a moderator
variable. H2 is thus set forth as follows.
H2. Female family business owners are more
likely to have a special relationship reflecting
CSR behaviors than are male family
business owners.
Based on Castros (1997/1998) research on CSR
behaviors, it is also posited that variables reflecting
determinants of greater cohesiveness or bonding of
the company with its community are more likely to
be associated with special relationships reflecting
CSR behaviors. Thus,
H3. The stronger the determinants for
cohesiveness of a family business, the more
likely that a business will report having a
special relationship with various
constituencies outside the business.
For the purposes of the pilot study, two
determinants of cohesiveness were examined: the
size of the community within which the company
resides, and the length of time the company has
resided within that community (referred to as
company tenure). Thus, more specifically, it is
proposed:
H3a. Family businesses located in smaller
communities are more likely to report
special relationships with constituents
outside the organization than those from
larger communities.
H3b. Family businesses with longer company
tenure are more likely to report special
relationships with constituents outside the
organization than those with shorter
company tenure.
In addition to the above hypotheses, the pilot study
explored the possibility of interaction effects of
several other variables that might moderate the
188
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Volume 11 Number 2 2004 186194
relationships tested. These included the presence
of the family name in the business name; company
size, the generation of the business owner in
relation to the family; and industry sector of the
business. However, due to a lack of previous
research on the proposed relationships, no specific
hypotheses are set forth.
Research method
Data were collected in late 1999 and early 2000 as
part of a study of Dutch family businesses
commissioned by the Stichting Maatschappelijk
Ondernemen van MKB Nederland (the
foundation for social action of Dutch SMEs), and
the Nederlands Orde van Accountants-
Administratieconsulenten (NOvAA) (the Dutch
association of SME accountants).
Sample and data collection
In-depth interviews were conducted with
principals of 42 small- to medium-sized family
businesses. The sample was identified on a
non-random basis through networks of the
research team and from secondary sources. To be
included in the study, companies had to meet two
criteria:
(1) to fit within one of four sectors: retail, service,
manufacturing, or construction; and
(2) to be defined as a family business.
To be defined as a family business, at least one of
the following four criteria had to be met:
(1) leadership has passed at least once to the next
generation within the same family;
(2) the family influences the business through
their participation on the Board of Directors;
(3) the company employs two or more family
members other than a spouse; and/or
(4) one or more of the founders children has the
intention of taking over the business
It was not necessary for participants to perceive
themselves as a family business to be included in
the study and in fact, eight of the interviewees did
not. Of these eight, four were from the first
generation.
Variables and measures
The primary question used to measure the impact
of family business on the stakeholder relationship
was worded as follows (translated from the
Dutch): Does the fact that your business is a
family business play a role in your relationship with
(named stakeholder)? Response categories
included the choices, yes or no. This question was
asked with each of the 18 stakeholders. For all
 Family business and corporate social responsibility Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Lorraine M. Uhlaner et al. Volume 11 Number 2 2004 186194

those responding in the affirmative, the interviewer
then prompted for an explanation of the response.
A content analysis of this question was used to
identify whether the family influence on the
relationship involved a behavior that reflected
some aspect of CSR either conformance to
ethical and legal standards, economic benefits,
philanthropic/community involvement and/or
social entrepreneurship.
To test for interaction effects, the following
seven characteristics were included as moderator
variables:
(1) gender of the owners (because only two
companies included both male and female
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, UPT PERPUSTAKAAN UNS At 19:59 31 January 2017 (PT)
employee stakeholder group was tested with these
two moderator variables as part of the exploratory
analyses. Given the small sample size, a liberal
p , 0:1 level, two-tailed level of significance was
used as the criterion for significance for all tested
relationships. A total of 49 interaction effects were
thus tested (seven moderator variables for each of
the seven stakeholder groups). On a random basis,
one might expect at least five of the relationships to
meet the test of significance by chance (10 per cent
of 49 5).
Results

owners, they were dropped from the

analysis.); Table I reports the percentages of family
(2) industry sector (retail, service, manufacturing, businesses which answered in the affirmative when
construction); asked whether or not the family aspect of the
(3) company tenure, i.e. the length of time the business played a role in the relationship with a
company has been located in a particular particular stakeholder.
community (before 1945, between 1945 and The most frequently mentioned two
1970, and since 1970); stakeholders employees and clients are
(4) family name in the business name (yes or no); economic stakeholders. Sports clubs, family
(5) community size (less than 20,000 inhabitants, members, and church are the three most
20,000-90,000 inhabitants, and greater than commonly mentioned social stakeholders.
90,000 inhabitants); Interviews with respondents reveal the nature of
(6) the generation of the business owner (one- these special relationships. Those stakeholder
fourth generation owner was dropped from relationships that reflect some type of CSR
the analysis); and behavior are described below.
(7) company size (1-9 employees; 10-49
employees; greater than 49 employees).
Special relationship with employees
Most comments made regarding special
Data analysis relationships with employees might be described as
Frequencies were tabulated for the percentages of
companies answering the primary question in the Table I Percentage of companies agreeing that the fact that they
affirmative, indicating that indeed, the fact that are a family business plays a role in how they relate to this
they were a family business played a role in their particular stakeholder
relationship with that particular stakeholder. Stakeholder Percent who agree
Seven stakeholder groups including employees, Economic
clients, suppliers, sports clubs, church, the Employees 79
physical environment, and service organizations, Clients 57
were identified through qualitative content Suppliers 41
analysis to have special relationships with family Banks 38
business owners that suggested at least one type of Accountants 35
CSR behavior. For each of these stakeholders, Competitors 29
moderator effects were tested with each of the External advisors 26
seven moderator variables resulting in 49 possible Social
tests of interaction. Initially, a Chi-Square test was Sports clubs 39
used. The Fishers Exact Test was used in place of Family members 31
the Chi-Square test when required, due to skewed Church 29
distribution of the data or a low or empty cell. Trade associations 20
Multivariate analyses were ruled out due to the The physical environment 18
small and skewed sample size including very small Government 17
or no cases within cells. For H3a and H3b, the six Special events 10
outside stakeholder groups were included Service organizations 10
(excluding the employee stakeholder group) Other business associations 8
resulting in six relationships tested for each Business clubs 5
Politicians/Political parties 0
sub-hypothesis or 12 altogether. In addition, the
189
 Family business and corporate social responsibility
Lorraine M. Uhlaner et al.
small acts of kindness rather than the major
investments of resources. They reveal,
nevertheless, a strong sense of responsibility that
many owners report feeling toward their
employees. For instance, one business owner
notes, . . . if they have a problem at home or have a
difficulty that requires a letter to be sent to the
authorities, I try to help out as much as Im able.
Another describes his sense of obligation to help
employees correct their performance, if at all
possible, before letting them go.
Special relationships with clients
When asked to explain about their special
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, UPT PERPUSTAKAAN UNS At 19:59 31 January 2017 (PT)
relationship with clients, consistent with other
family business research, respondents indicate a
direct contact with customers. One respondent
explains, We often talk to them (the customers)
ourselves. This personal relationship is frequently
mentioned as leading to more loyal clients.
Special relationships with suppliers
In describing the relationships with their suppliers,
respondents often stress their commitment to a
longstanding relationship. For instance, one
respondent mentions that he continues to use the
same supplier that his grandfather had used. Other
respondents indicate that they are slow to change
suppliers when there are problems, giving them
more opportunities to remedy difficulties, and
some of the respondents mention that they have a
personal friendship with their supplier that goes
beyond a normal business relationship. For
instance, one family business has helped suppliers
who found themselves in financial difficulties.
Special relationships with sports clubs
Sports clubs are a central part of the social life for
many Dutch families. There are over 35,000 sports
clubs in Holland with a total membership of 4.3
million people out of about 16 million residents
( Janin, 1998). Sports clubs are the most frequently
mentioned social stakeholder group as having a
special relationship with the family business owner.
The most common CSR behavior is philanthropic
in nature, i.e. some form of in-kind or cash
donation. Several reported sponsorship of a team
with the companys logo placed on the uniform,
which also suggests perhaps some less selfless
motives. Nevertheless, interviews with several
respondents suggest less self-serving motives as
well: a desire to help the community and boost the
community spirit. Some of these respondents make
specific reference to a sense of social responsibility.
Special relationships with the church
Companies also mention special relationships with
a church, including company donations, which
190
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Volume 11 Number 2 2004 186194
could be linked to the family aspect of the business.
Explanations related to such relationships usually
involve some direct family connection with the
church being supported, such as that a grandfather
built the church or that mother is an active
member.
Special relationships with the physical
environment
Seven (18 per cent) respondents indicate that the
family aspect of the business influences their
relationship with the (physical) environment.
However, within that group, all seven have family
businesses with the family surname as the business
name. Comments from respondents suggest that
this is not a coincidence: For instance, one noted:
If I do bad things [to the environment], then my
fathers reputation is also tainted. Another
indicates that the familys conscience influences
the companys business decisions.
Special relationships with service
organizations
Only four (about 10 per cent) of the respondents
claim that the family aspect of their businesses
influence their relationship with various service
organizations, which range from worldwide
nonprofit groups, such as Green Peace and
Amnesty International, to local organizations,
including the fire brigade or police. Support varies,
including financial, in-kind and counseling. In this
area, however, some of the remaining respondents
note that they are indeed involved with service
organizations, but do not see their involvement as a
function of the family aspect of their business.
Table II shows statistically significant results for
tests of interaction between various companies,
their owners, community characteristics and CSR
behavior. Of the 49 interactions tested ten are
significant at p , 0:1 level or below.
Discussion
In reviewing these results in relationship to the
hypotheses proposed in the pilot study, H1 is
supported by the results shown in Table I.
That is, the family character of the business
most frequently impacts employee and client
relationships. These results are consistent with
previous family business research results
(Donckels, 1998; Floren and Wijers, 1996).
Suppliers emerge as the third most frequently
cited group. In interpreting the results, it
could be argued that the family business owner
might consider good relationships with
employees, clients, and suppliers as advantageous
 Family business and corporate social responsibility
Lorraine M. Uhlaner et al.
Table II Significant interaction effects for various stakeholders
Stakeholder-moderator variable
Clients-company tenure in community
Suppliers-company tenure in community
Sports club-community size
Suppliers-family in business name
Clients-company size
Employees-number of generations
Sports club-number of generations
Suppliers-number of generations
Service organizations-number of generations
Notes: ap , 0.05; bp , 0.1; F: Fishers exact test does not provide a test statistic apart from the level of significance; cChi-Square; and
d
Fishers Exact Test
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, UPT PERPUSTAKAAN UNS At 19:59 31 January 2017 (PT)
for their business. Perhaps a second interpretation,
not necessarily in contradiction with the first one,
is that family business owners feel most directly
responsible for those stakeholders that are closely
tied to the business itself (e.g. employees, clients
and suppliers) and view them as a sort of
extended family. The most frequently
mentioned social stakeholders also appear to be
those closest to home, i.e. those most closely tied
to the activities of the family: sports clubs, church,
and of course, family members, themselves. In
sum, special relationships impacted by the family
aspect of the business are most likely mentioned
for those stakeholders most closely tied to the daily
activity of the business and/or the family.
. . .the results of a content analysis
suggest that a mix of corporate social
responsibility perspectives, including
economic benefits, conformance to
ethical and legal expectations and
philanthropic/community involvement,
all help to explain the nature of
relationships with and behaviors toward
various constituency groups. . .
Content analyses of responses suggest that for a
wide variety of constituents inside and outside the
organization, family business owners report some
level of corporate social responsibility, suggesting
the utility of the broader stakeholder approach in
examining corporate social responsibility.
In addition, the results of a content analysis
suggest that a mix of corporate social responsibility
perspectives, including economic benefits,
conformance to ethical and legal expectations and
philanthropic/community involvement, all help to
explain the nature of relationships with and
behaviors toward various constituency groups.
Examples of social entrepreneurship, the fourth
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Volume 11 Number 2 2004 186194
Family aspect more likely to affect
DF n Test statistic relationship when:
2 42 5.42b,c . 30 years in same community
2 41 6.66a,c . 30 years in same community
2 41 5.55b,c , 20,000 population
1 41 Fa,d Family name as company name
2 42 4.82b,c 10-49 employees
2 41 Fa,d Second generation
2 40 5.33b,c Second generation
2 40 6.07a,c Second generation
2 40 Fa,d Second generation
type of CSR behavior identified in the literature,
were not in evidence in this research study.
In reviewing the outcomes of interaction effects,
the actual number of significant interactions is
twice the expected number that could occur by
chance (ten versus five). In reviewing the findings
further, H2, which postulates the moderator
effects of gender, are not supported by the present
data analysis. It should be noted however, that the
lack of significant findings for some of the
interaction tests may be due in part to skewedness
of the sample rather than an underlying lack of
relationship. For example, for clients, six of the
seven female business owners report having a
special relationship due to the family aspect of the
business compared with only 16 of the 33 male
business owners. If a Chi-Square test had been
valid, gender would have proved to be a significant
moderator for relationships with both clients and
service organizations. However, the low cell count
of one (for women owners not having a special
relationship with clients due to family) requires use
of the more stringent Fishers Exact Test which
fails the p , 0:1 test of significance.
Three of the 12 possible tests for H3a and H3b
are statistically significant. These results suggest
modest though perhaps not strong support for the
notion that determinants of community
cohesiveness serve as moderator variables in the
relationships that family business owners have with
outside stakeholders. Nevertheless, given the small
sample on which the hypotheses are tested, these
results are encouraging and suggest the need for
further exploration of the cohesiveness concept in
future research.
Among the other moderator variables included
in the exploratory analyses, the most pronounced
interaction effects are for generation of owner,
significant for four of the seven possible
stakeholder relationships tested, three at the
p , 0:05 level. In each case, the special
relationship is more frequently reported by second
191
 Family business and corporate social responsibility
Lorraine M. Uhlaner et al.
generation than by the first or third generation
family business owners. The explanation of
this result is not entirely clear. It could be that
second-generation owners report special
relationships with these groups more frequently
because they exhibit the strongest CSR behaviors.
But it is also possible that while all three subgroups
are equally responsible, it is the second generation
that sees itself primarily as relating in a special way
due to the family nature of the business.
Unfortunately, the data available from the pilot
study are not sufficiently sophisticated to delineate
between these two viewpoints.
In reviewing some of the other results, a number
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, UPT PERPUSTAKAAN UNS At 19:59 31 January 2017 (PT)
of patterns appear to be quite pronounced, but due
to the small sample size and skewedness of the
data, do not pass the required statistical tests of
significance. In particular, seven out of
30 companies (23 per cent) with the family name
in the business name mention a special
relationship with the physical environment due to
the family aspect and speak specifically of their
perceived responsibility to comply with
environmental laws in order to protect the family
name. By contrast, of the ten companies not
having the family name in the business name, none
mention a special relationship with the physical
environment due to the family nature of the
business.
Directions for future research
Results from the pilot study suggest that a more
broadly construed application of the stakeholder
approach to corporate social responsibility may be
appropriate. Traditional definitions of corporate
social responsibility that consider only community
constituencies would have overlooked the majority
of the special relationships reported, especially
those with employees, clients and suppliers.
This study is exploratory in nature and as such,
does not clearly delineate the extent to which such
special relationships involve corporate social
responsibility. Follow-up research should
measure the nature of such relationships more
explicitly.
Regarding the nature of the CSR behaviors
uncovered, however, they can in most cases be
described as small acts of kindness, rather
than great philanthropic actions. Furthermore,
applying the categories outlined in the
introduction, the nature of the behaviors appears
to vary depending upon the stakeholder. Thus,
for employees, clients, and suppliers, most
examples of reported behaviors appear to relate
to economic benefits. By contrast, for sports
clubs, churches and service organizations, there
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Volume 11 Number 2 2004 186194
is some evidence of philanthropic/community
involvement, albeit of limited scope. Finally, the
examples of CSR behavior in relationship to the
physical environment can best be categorized as
conformance with ethical and legal standards.
In the sample studied, there is no evidence of
social entrepreneurship behavior though this may
be due to the small size of the research sample.
The pilot study also provides some useful
directions for future research in the interaction
effects related to CSR behaviors. In particular,
certain moderator variables may prove useful in
distinguishing why some family businesses exhibit
higher levels of CSR behaviors, especially the
generation of the owner and measures of
community cohesiveness such as community size,
and company tenure within the community.
Having the family name in the business name, and
company size are also moderators for at least one
stakeholder. The pattern of the overall findings,
including the lack of significant findings for gender
and for some of the other tested relationships
could have been due to a small sample size and
skewedness of the data, especially low cell counts.
Thus, it might be worthwhile to test these
relationships with a larger, randomly selected
sample.
The intent of the pilot study was to determine
which stakeholders were closest to the owners and
family members, due to the family nature of the
business. In future research, it could be useful to
compare patterns of relationships for a matched
sample of nonfamily firms, controlling for
industry, size and community characteristics.
This, combined with a redesigned set of measures,
could more carefully distinguish whether or not
family businesses have a greater propensity for
CSR behaviors toward certain stakeholders or
whether this is a characteristic of small- to
medium-sized firms in general. Adams et al.
(1996) provide an excellent model for the
proposed methodology for a study comparing
family and non-family businesses, even though
they focus on an overlapping issue business
ethics and the manner in which ethical standards
are communicated in family and nonfamily owned
firms.
Finally, future research on corporate social
responsibility and the family business would
benefit from more explicit measures of the
dependent variable of CSR. Rather than using
open-ended comments, more explicit measures
might be developed to delineate whether or not
special relationships with stakeholders represent
different CSR behaviors. For example, measures
might test explicitly for the extent and/or type of
economic benefits provided to employees such as
educational development or personal financial
192
 Family business and corporate social responsibility
Lorraine M. Uhlaner et al.
assistance, and the extent of compliance with
various environmental directives. It would also be
helpful to measure the type and amount of
contributions, in cash and in-kind, to various
external groups in the community, even as a
percentage of net profit on sales.
Conclusions
The research study upon which this paper is based
identifies 18 stakeholders, and determines for each
whether the family plays a role in defining the
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, UPT PERPUSTAKAAN UNS At 19:59 31 January 2017 (PT)
relationship between the family business and that
stakeholder. Employees and clients are mentioned
most frequently in this context. Suppliers are the
third most frequently mentioned stakeholder
category. Four types of behaviors linked to
corporate social responsibility are identified from a
review of the literature: conformance to ethical and
legal expectations, economic benefits,
philanthropic/community involvement, and social
entrepreneurship. Behaviors implied by the first
three perspectives were evidenced in the responses
obtained from the family business owners who
were interviewed.
. . .The results of this study suggest that,
at least for the sample of companies
examined, truly philanthropic activity is
quite limited in scope. . .
However, it is not clear exactly how much
philanthropic activity actually takes place, and how
much simply enlightened self-interest as opposed
to selfless acts. It is also not clear how much
additional CSR behavior was left unreported due
to the methodology used in the study. Future
research is needed to understand more clearly the
nature of corporate social responsibility behaviors
in small- and medium-sized family businesses and
further, how these behaviors compare and contrast
with those in a matched sample of nonfamily
businesses. Nevertheless, the pilot study suggests
that the commitment and nature of special
relationships vary substantially by stakeholder, and
that various owner, company, and community
characteristics may well moderate these
relationships. Future research on larger samples
needs to be carried out to develop more definitive
conclusions, but it appears that the more tight knit
or cohesive the community, the more likely the
family business may be to support various
stakeholders, beyond the basic levels required to
operate the business. Generation of the owners is
also a factor that affects corporate social
responsibility but it is not clear why?
193
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Volume 11 Number 2 2004 186194
More definitive results could also provide
practical assistance for policy makers and private
foundations interested in encouraging greater
philanthropic support by family businesses in the
larger community. Since family businesses
represent the majority of companies in most
developed countries, this forms a significant
portion of the corporate population that could be
drawn upon to help society-at-large. The results of
this study suggest that, at least for the sample of
companies examined, truly philanthropic activity
is quite limited in scope. Most CSR behavior is
limited to small acts of kindness toward the closest
stakeholder groups (employees, clients, and
suppliers) as well as the general economic support
of the community through the contribution of jobs
and commerce to the local economy. Results also
suggest that where causes or groups are supported,
they are those closest to home and family: the
sports club, church group or other local
organization. The causes or organizations most
likely to be overlooked for support are those with
far reaching geographic implications or those
service organizations in larger and/or or less stable
communities. For the latter, the government or
perhaps larger corporate foundations will need to
step in to fill the gaps.
References
Adams, J.S., Taschian, A. and Shore, T.H. (1996), Ethics in family
and nonfamily-owned firms: an exploratory study, Family
Business Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 157-70.
Campbell, K. (1997), Dance to a new tune (social
entrepreneurs), Financial Times, Vol. 25, p. 15.
Carroll, A.B. (1998), The four faces of corporate citizenship,
Business and Society Review, Vol. 100/101, pp. 1-7.
Castro, B. (1997/1998), Manufacturing jobs, local ownership,
and the social health of cities a research note,
The Responsive Community, pp. 63-6.
Cornwall, J.R. (1998), The entrepreneur as a building block for
community, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship,
Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 141-8.
Daft, R.L. (1998), Essentials of Organization Theory and Design,
South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
Donckels, R. (1998), Ondernemen in het familiebedrijf,
in Scherjon, D.P. and Thurik, A.R. (Eds), Handboek
Ondernemers en Adviseurs in het Midden- en Kleinbedrijf,
Kluwer BedrijfsInformatie, Devanter.
Dutton, G. (1997), Warming the cold heart of business,
Management Review, Vol. 86 No. 6, pp. 17-20.
Etzioni, A. (1993), The Spirit of Community: The Reinvention of
American Society, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
Etzioni, A. (1996), The responsive community: a communitarian
perspective, American Sociological Review, Vol. 61,
pp. 1-11.
Floren, R.H. and Wijers RA, W.J. (1996), Handboek van het
Familiebedrijf, Walgemoed Accountants and Adviseurs.
Friedlander, F. and Pickle, H. (1968), Components of
effectiveness in small organizations, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 289-304.
 Family business and corporate social responsibility
Lorraine M. Uhlaner et al.
Godfrey, J. (1995), Whats god for women is good for the
country, Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. 61 No. 173,
pp. 538-41.
Hemphill, T.A. (1997), Legislating corporate social
responsibility, Business Horizons, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 53-8.
Hendrickson, L.U. and Tuttle, D. (1997), Dynamic management
of the environmental enterprise: a qualitative analysis,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 363-82.
Janin, H. (1998), Culture Shock! A Guide to Customs and
Etiquette Netherlands, Graphic Arts Center Publishing
Co., Portland.
Lyman, A.R. (1991), Customer service: does family ownership
make a difference?, Family Business Review, Vol. 4 No. 3.
Menon, A. (1997), Enviropreneurial marketing strategy: the
emergence of corporate environmentalism as market
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, UPT PERPUSTAKAAN UNS At 19:59 31 January 2017 (PT)
strategy, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 51-67.
Nichols, D. (1996), Turning urban blight bright again,
Restaurant Business, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 135-6.
Nozar, R.A. (1998), JHM thanks industry with donation, Hotel
and Motel Management, Vol. 213 No. 16, p. 3, 92.
194
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Volume 11 Number 2 2004 186194
Porter, M. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and
Sustaining Superior Performance, The Free Press,
New York, NY, pp. 33-61.
Prabhu, G.N. (1999), Social entrepreneurial leadership,
Career Development International, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 140-5.
Robbins, S.P. (1998), Organizational Behavior, 8th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ,
pp. 263-5.
Tusi, A.S. (1990), A multiple constituency model of
effectiveness: an empirical examination at the human
resource subunit level, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 35, pp. 458-83.
Vyakarnam, S., Bailey, A., Myers, A. and Burnett, D. (1997),
Towards an understanding of ethical behaviour in small
firms, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16 No. 15,
pp. 1625-37.
Wood, A. (1996), Blending business and benevolence,
Chemical Week, Vol. 158 No. 5, pp. 42-4.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Lihua Wang, Xiaoya Liang. 2017. Profit or legitimacy? What drives firms to prioritize social stakeholders?. Asian Journal of
Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
2. Michael J. Maloni, Mark S. Hiatt, Joseph H. Astrachan. 2017. Supply management and family business: A review and call for
research. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management . [CrossRef]
3. Yasushi Ueki, Chawalit Jeenanunta, Tomohiro Machikita, Masatsugu Tsuji. 2016. Does safety-oriented corporate social
responsibility promote innovation in the Thai trucking industry?. Journal of Business Research 69:11, 5371-5376. [CrossRef]
4. Refika Bakolu, Olcay Bige Akun Yldrm. 2016. The Role of Sustainability in Long Term Survival of Family Business:
Henokiens Revisited. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 235, 788-796. [CrossRef]
5. Martina Sageder, Christine Mitter, Birgit FeldbauerDurstmller. 2016. Image and reputation of family firms: a systematic
literature review of the state of research. Review of Managerial Science . [CrossRef]
6. AlonsoAbel Duarte Abel Duarte Alonso Abel Duarte Alonso, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer at the Liverpool Business School,
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, UPT PERPUSTAKAAN UNS At 19:59 31 January 2017 (PT)

Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool and an Honorary Senior Fellow at the School of Business and Law, Markets
and Services Research Centre (MASRC), Edith Cowan University, Australia. Abel Duarte Alonsos research interests include
micro, small and medium enterprises, family enterprises, innovation, wine entrepreneurship, tourism, hospitality, and community
development. AustinIan Ian Austin Ian Austin, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan
University, Australia. Ian Austins research areas include Asian-US banking and finance, international trade and logistics, trade and
business history, Australian trade and commercial relations with Asia and North America. Liverpool Business School, Liverpool
John Moores University, UK School of Business and Law, Markets and Services Research Centre (MASRC), Edith Cowan
University, Australia School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia . 2016. Entrepreneurial CSR in the
context of a regional family firm: a stakeholder analysis. Annals in Social Responsibility 2:1, 48-62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Manon Deslandes Accounting Department, ESG-UQAM, Montreal, Canada Anne Fortin Accounting Department, ESG-
UQAM, Montreal, Canada Suzanne Landry Department of Accounting Studies, HEC Montreal, Montreal, Canada . 2016.
Payout differences between family and nonfamily listed firms. Journal of Family Business Management 6:1, 46-63. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
8. Christian M. Faller, Dodo zu Knyphausen-Aufse. 2016. Does Equity Ownership Matter for Corporate Social Responsibility?
A Literature Review of Theories and Recent Empirical Findings. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
9. Isabelle Le Breton-Miller, Danny Miller. 2016. Family firms and practices of sustainability: A contingency view. Journal of Family
Business Strategy 7:1, 26-33. [CrossRef]
10. Vinod Kumar Department of Marketing, Institute of Management Technology, Nagpur, India Zillur Rahman Department of
Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India A. A. Kazmi Department of Civil Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India . 2016. Stakeholder identification and classification: a sustainability marketing perspective.
Management Research Review 39:1, 35-61. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Jess Herrera Madueo, Manuel Larrn Jorge, Mara Paula Lechuga Sancho, Domingo Martnez-Martnez. 2016.
Responsabilidad social en las pymes: anlisis exploratorio de factores explicativos. Revista de Contabilidad 19:1, 31-44. [CrossRef]
12. Mara Bergamaschi, Kathleen Randerson. 2016. The futures of family businesses and the development of corporate social
responsibility. Futures 75, 54-65. [CrossRef]
13. Jrn Hendrich Block, Markus Stiglbauer, Anna-Lena Khn, Dominik Wagner. 2015. Corporate social responsibility
communication of German family firms: a content analysis. uwf UmweltWirtschaftsForum 23:4, 251-257. [CrossRef]
14. Henrik Harms, Esra Memili, Jonas Steeger. 2015. Expert insights on the determinants of cooperation in family firms in tourism
and hospitality sector. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management 3:2, 72-83. [CrossRef]
15. Ramendra Singh, Madhupa Bakshi, Prashant Mishra. 2015. Corporate Social Responsibility: Linking Bottom of the Pyramid to
Market Development?. Journal of Business Ethics 131:2, 361-373. [CrossRef]
16. Esra Memili. 2015. Performance and Behavior of Family Firms. International Journal of Financial Studies 3:3, 423-430. [CrossRef]
17. Giovanna Campopiano, Alfredo De Massis. 2015. Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting: A Content Analysis in Family and
Non-family Firms. Journal of Business Ethics 129:3, 511-534. [CrossRef]
18. Enrique Bonsn, Michaela Bednrov. 2015. CSR reporting practices of Eurozone companies. Revista de Contabilidad 18:2,
182-193. [CrossRef]
19. Whitney O. Peake, Danielle Cooper, Margaret A. Fitzgerald, Glenn Muske. 2015. Family Business Participation in Community
Social Responsibility: The Moderating Effect of Gender. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
 20. Vtor Hugo Vilar Department of Social Sciences and Management (DCSG), Universidade Aberta, Lisbon, Portugal and CAPP
- Centre for Administration and Public Policies, Lisbon, Portugal Joo Simo Department of Social Sciences and Management
(DCSG), Universidade Aberta, Lisbon, Portugal and CAPP - Centre for Administration and Public Policies, Lisbon, Portugal .
2015. CSR disclosure on the web: major themes in the banking sector. International Journal of Social Economics 42:3, 296-318.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Joern H. Block, Jos Mara Milln, Concepcin Romn, Haibo Zhou. 2015. Job Satisfaction and Wages of Family Employees.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39:2, 183-207. [CrossRef]
22. Jos M. Agudo-Valiente, Concepcin Garcs-Ayerbe, Manuel Salvador-Figueras. 2015. Corporate Social Performance and
Stakeholder Dialogue Management. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 22:1, 13-31. [CrossRef]
23. Joern Block, Marcus Wagner. 2014. Ownership versus management effects on corporate social responsibility concerns in large
family and founder firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy 5:4, 339-346. [CrossRef]
24. Joern H. Block, Marcus Wagner. 2014. The Effect of Family Ownership on Different Dimensions of Corporate Social
Responsibility: Evidence from Large US Firms. Business Strategy and the Environment 23:7, 475-492. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, UPT PERPUSTAKAAN UNS At 19:59 31 January 2017 (PT)

25. Grard Hirigoyen, Thierry Poulain-Rehm. 2014. The Corporate Social Responsibility of Family Businesses: An International
Approach. International Journal of Financial Studies 2:3, 240-265. [CrossRef]
26. Anita Van Gils, Clay Dibrell, Donald O. Neubaum, Justin B. Craig. 2014. Social Issues in the Family Enterprise. Family Business
Review 27:3, 193-205. [CrossRef]
27. Benjamin A.T. Graham. 2014. Diaspora-owned firms and social responsibility. Review of International Political Economy 21:2,
432-466. [CrossRef]
28. Ana B. Martnez, Javier De Andrs, Julita Garca. 2014. Determinants of the Web accessibility of European banks. Information
Processing & Management 50:1, 69-86. [CrossRef]
29. Ethel Brundin, Emilia Florin Samuelsson, Leif Melin. 2014. Family ownership logic: Framing the core characteristics of family
businesses. Journal of Management & Organization 20:01, 6-37. [CrossRef]
30. Simone Domenico Scagnelli Laura Corazza Maurizio Cisi How SMEs disclose their sustainability performance. Which variables
influence the choice of reporting guidelines? 77-114. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
31. Venkataraman IyerDepartment of Accounting and Finance, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North
Carolina, USA Ayalew LulsegedDepartment of Accounting and Finance, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro,
Greensboro, North Carolina, USA. 2013. Does family status impact US firms' sustainability reporting?. Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal 4:2, 163-189. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. Riccardo Tiscini, Elisa Raoli. 2013. Stock option plan practices in family firms: The idiosyncratic private benefits approach.
Journal of Family Business Strategy 4:2, 93-105. [CrossRef]
33. Qi Li, Wei Luo, Yaping Wang, Liansheng Wu. 2013. Firm performance, corporate ownership, and corporate social responsibility
disclosure in China. Business Ethics: A European Review 22:2, 159-173. [CrossRef]
34. Mara Del Baldo. 2013. Corporate Social Responsibility, Human Resource Management and Corporate Family Responsibility.
When A Company Is The Best Place to Work: Elica Group, The Hi-Life Company. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraivanja
26:sup1, 201-224. [CrossRef]
35. Henry Tsai, Nelson K.F. Tsang, Stephanie K.Y. Cheng. 2012. Hotel employees perceptions on corporate social responsibility:
The case of Hong Kong. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31:4, 1143-1154. [CrossRef]
36. Jean McGuire, Sandra Dow, Bakr Ibrahim. 2012. All in the family? Social performance and corporate governance in the family
firm. Journal of Business Research 65:11, 1643-1650. [CrossRef]
37. Carmelo Cennamo, Pascual Berrone, Cristina Cruz, Luis R. Gomez-Mejia. 2012. Socioemotional Wealth and Proactive
Stakeholder Engagement: Why Family-Controlled Firms Care More About Their Stakeholders. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 36:6, 1153-1173. [CrossRef]
38. Campopiano Giovanna, De Massis Alfredo, Cassia Lucio. 2012. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Survey among SMEs in
Bergamo. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 62, 325-341. [CrossRef]
39. Lorraine M. Uhlaner, Marta M. Berent-Braun, Ronald J. M. Jeurissen, Gerrit de Wit. 2012. Beyond Size: Predicting Engagement
in Environmental Management Practices of Dutch SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics 109:4, 411-429. [CrossRef]
40. Mui Hean Lee, Angela Ka Mak, Augustine Pang. 2012. Bridging the Gap: An Exploratory Study of Corporate Social
Responsibility among SMEs in Singapore. Journal of Public Relations Research 24:4, 299-317. [CrossRef]
 41. Bruno Amann, Jacques Jaussaud, Isabelle Martinez. 2012. Corporate social responsibility in Japan: Family and non-family business
differences and determinants. Asian Business & Management 11:3, 329-345. [CrossRef]
42. Joern H. Block. 2012. R&D investments in family and founder firms: An agency perspective. Journal of Business Venturing 27:2,
248-265. [CrossRef]
43. Pedro Lorca, Javier De Andres, Ana B. Martnez. 2012. Size and culture as determinants of the web policy of listed firms: The
case of web accessibility in Western European countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
63:2, 392-405. [CrossRef]
44. Augustine Pang, Angela Mak, Joanne Mui-Hean LeeSignificance of Sector-Specific Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives
295-314. [CrossRef]
45. Ma Katiuska Cabrera Surez, Ma de la Cruz Dniz Dniz, Josefa D. Martn Santana. 2011. CONSEJOS DE ADMINISTRACIN
Y POTENCIAL PARA LA RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL DE LAS EMPRESAS FAMILIARES NO COTIZADAS
ESPAOLAS1 1Esta investigacin ha sido financiada por el Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacin (Proyecto ECO2008-00265/
ECON). Investigaciones Europeas de Direccin y Economa de la Empresa 17:3, 47-67. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, UPT PERPUSTAKAAN UNS At 19:59 31 January 2017 (PT)

46. Robert E. HinsonDepartment of Marketing and Customer Management, University of Ghana Business School, Accra, Ghana
Tidings P. NdhlovuDepartment of Economics, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK. 2011. Conceptualising
corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social investment (CSI): the South African context. Social Responsibility
Journal 7:3, 332-346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
47. Luis R. Gomez-Mejia, Cristina Cruz, Pascual Berrone, Julio De Castro. 2011. The Bind that Ties: Socioemotional Wealth
Preservation in Family Firms. The Academy of Management Annals 5:1, 653-707. [CrossRef]
48. Anita M.M. Liu, Richard Fellows, Martin M. Tuuli. 2011. The role of corporate citizenship values in promoting corporate
social performance: towards a conceptual model and a research agenda. Construction Management and Economics 29:2, 173-183.
[CrossRef]
49. Margaret A. Fitzgerald, George W. Haynes, Holly L. Schrank, Sharon M. Danes. 2010. Socially Responsible Processes of Small
Family Business Owners: Exploratory Evidence from the National Family Business Survey. Journal of Small Business Management
48:4, 524-551. [CrossRef]
50. Nina EvansAssociate Head of School (Teaching and Learning), School of Computer and Information Science (CIS), UniSA,
Adelaide, Australia Janet SawyerHead, Business and Regional Enterprise Unit at the Centre of Regional Engagement, University
of South Australia, Whyalla, Australia. 2010. CSR and stakeholders of small businesses in regional South Australia. Social
Responsibility Journal 6:3, 433-451. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
51. Marcus Wagner. 2010. Corporate Social Performance and Innovation with High Social Benefits: A Quantitative Analysis. Journal
of Business Ethics 94:4, 581-594. [CrossRef]
52. Supriti MishraBased at the HDF School of Management, Orissa, India and the Leonard N. Stern School of Business, USA
Damodar SuarBased at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India. 2010. Do stakeholder management strategy and
salience influence corporate social responsibility in Indian companies?. Social Responsibility Journal 6:2, 306-327. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
53. Heidi Dahles, Karen Verduyn and Ingrid WakkeeChantal HervieuxSchool of Management, Universit du Qubec Montral,
Montral, Canada Eric GedajlovicSimon Fraser University, Surrey, Canada MarieFrance B. TurcotteDepartment of Strategy and
Social and Environmental Responsibility, School of Management, Universit du Qubec Montral, Montral, Canada. 2010.
The legitimization of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 4:1,
37-67. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. Donna J. Wood. 2010. Measuring Corporate Social Performance: A Review. International Journal of Management Reviews 12:1,
50-84. [CrossRef]
55. Pascual Berrone, Cristina Cruz, Luis R. Gomez-Mejia, Martin Larraza-Kintana. 2010. Socioemotional Wealth and Corporate
Responses to Institutional Pressures: Do Family-Controlled Firms Pollute Less?. Administrative Science Quarterly 55:1, 82-113.
[CrossRef]
56. Javier De Andrs, Pedro Lorca, Ana B. Martnez. 2009. Economic and financial factors for the adoption and visibility effects
of Web accessibility: The case of European banks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60:9,
1769-1780. [CrossRef]
57. Ganesan Kannabiran. 2009. Sustainable stakeholder engagement through innovative supply chain strategy: An exploratory study
of an Indian organization. Asian Business & Management 8:2, 205-223. [CrossRef]
 58. Dima Jamali. 2008. A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: A Fresh Perspective into Theory and Practice.
Journal of Business Ethics 82:1, 213-231. [CrossRef]
59. Donna Louise GillSchool of Marketing, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia Sonia Jane DickinsonSchool of
Marketing, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia Arno ScharlDepartment of New Media Technology, MODUL
University Vienna, Austria. 2008. Communicating sustainability. Journal of Communication Management 12:3, 243-262.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. Dan F. OforiLecturer in the University of Ghana Business School, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana. Robert E. HinsonLecturer
in the University of Ghana Business School, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana.. 2007. Corporate social responsibility (CSR)
perspectives of leading firms in Ghana. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 7:2, 178-193.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
61. Dima Jamali, Ramez Mirshak. 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Theory and Practice in a Developing Country
Context. Journal of Business Ethics 72:3, 243-262. [CrossRef]
62. Geoff Moore, Laura Spence. 2006. Editorial: Responsibility and Small Business. Journal of Business Ethics 67:3, 219-226.
[CrossRef]
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret, UPT PERPUSTAKAAN UNS At 19:59 31 January 2017 (PT)