Family Ownership and R&D Intensity in Small‐ and Medium‐Sized Firms

Research was largely consistent in predicting a negative relationship between family ownership and research and development (R&D) intensity until Chrisman and Patel, using a behavioral agency model (BAM), called this general assumption into question. They argued that publicly owned family firms typically invest less in R&D than nonfamily‐owned firms. This behavior may however be reversed if economic performance levels are below family aspirations or if family long‐term goals, such as pursuing strong transgenerational family control, are highly valued. While most researchers, like Chrisman and Patel, primarily focused on large listed firms, more research on the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity in privately held small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) is required. This is because firm size can play an important role in understanding the innovation management behavior of firms. Building on the BAM perspective, in the present paper it is argued that Chrisman and Patel's results can be extended to the context of SMEs, albeit with one important specification: the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity is likely to be contingent on the way the family has invested its wealth. Specifically, it is contended that in the context of SMEs, where goals are more fluid and mixed, when there is a high overlap between family wealth and firm equity (i.e., most of the family's wealth is invested in the firm) the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity is negative because of the family owners' greater desire to protect their socioemotional wealth (SEW). However, if the overlap between the family's total wealth and single firm equity is low (i.e., firm equity is just a small part of the total family wealth), the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity is positive as the low overlap between family wealth and firm equity reduces the family's loss aversion propensity. In such a situation, family ownership is likely to foster R&D intensity because of the long‐term orientation of family owners that increases the family firm's propensity to bear the risk of investing in R&D activities. The hypothesis is tested and confirmed in a study of 240 small‐ and medium‐sized firms based in Italy. The paper contributes to the literature in several ways. First, adding to the literature on innovation management and R&D intensity, it increases the understanding of what drives or inhibits R&D investments in SMEs when a family is involved in the ownership of the firm. This is particularly important because research on innovation management, as well as research on R&D intensity in family firms, is primarily focused on large firms and much less on SMEs. Second, the study complements arguments from prior research on the correlates of R&D intensity in large listed firms, showing that the BAM and SEW perspective offer a theoretical framework that is also able to illustrate the complex nature of innovation management in the context of SMEs. Third, the study contributes to research on the effects of family ownership on the general functioning of a firm. In particular, it provides new insights into how family ownership may affect R&D intensity.     

When the Former CEO Stays on Board: The Role of the Predecessor’s Board Retention for Product Innovation in Family Firms

Understanding product innovation in family firms is an important research endeavor given the economic predominance of those firms, their idiosyncrasies, and the importance of constant renewal for those firms to achieve transgenerational survival. Recently, family firm research has highlighted the role of next-generation chief executive officers (CEOs; i.e., successors) who are often seen as drivers for innovating a family firm’s products. However, prior research has typically neglected that predecessors, who are often portrayed as less willing to introduce product innovation, frequently remain involved postsuccession through occupying board positions and thus still substantially influence the decision-making processes and outcomes of family firms, such as product innovation. As a result, our understanding of the role of predecessors and their postsuccession involvement in family firms’ product innovation remains unclear. Building on stakeholder salience theory and on insights from the literature on innovation and succession in family firms, we develop hypotheses about how and under which conditions the predecessor’s board retention affects product innovation in family firms after succession. Building on more than 200 family firm CEO succession cases in small- and medium-sized, privately owned family firms, our results reveal that the predecessor’s board retention negatively affects product innovation. This negative effect is strengthened with increasing involvement of the predecessor in the successor selection process, and it is offset in the case of family succession. Our findings contribute to the emerging stream of research on family firm succession and product innovation and provide important implications for practice.     

Married to the firm? A large‐scale investigation of the social context of ownership

Research summary : Using a large sample of private firms across Europe, we examine how the social context of owners affects firm strategy and performance. Drawing on embeddedness theory and the institutional logics perspective, we argue that embeddedness in a family, in particular the nuclear family, can strengthen identification and commitment to the firm, but can also induce owners to behave more conservatively. Consistent with this argument, we find that family‐owned firms have higher profit margins, returns on assets, and survival rates compared to single‐owner or unrelated‐owners' firms, but also invest and grow more slowly, hold greater reserves of cash, and rely less on external debt. These differences are most pronounced when the two largest shareholders are married. Our results highlight the key role of marital ties in explaining differences in behavior and performance among firms. Managerial summary : Despite the prevalence of the married‐couple ownership structure in firms, little research has been dedicated to understanding how these firms are managed and perform. We examine the behavior and performance of firms owned by married couples in a large panel of closely held Western European firms. We find that married‐owner family firms are managed more conservatively relative to firms with unrelated owners and even to other family‐owned firms. In particular, married‐owner family firms invest and grow more slowly and rely less on external finance. However, they also exhibit greater performance stability and higher profitability. Our findings suggest that social relationships among owners have a large impact on firm strategy and performance, and highlight some potential trade‐offs to performance when married couples control firms. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Workers’ tenure and firm productivity: New evidence from matched employer-employee panel data

Using rich longitudinal matched employer-employee data on Belgian firms, we explore the impact of workers’ tenure on firm productivity. To do so, we estimate production functions augmented with firm-level measures of tenure. We deal with the endogeneity of standard inputs and tenure, which arises from unobserved firm heterogeneity and reverse causality, by applying a modified version of Ackerberg et al.’s (2015) control function method, which explicitly removes firm fixed effects. Consistently with recent theoretical predictions, our analyses point to positive, but decreasing, returns to tenure. We also find that the impact differs widely across several firm dimensions. Tenure is particularly beneficial for productivity in contexts characterized by a certain degree of routineness and low job complexity. Along the same lines, our findings indicate that tenure exerts stronger positive impacts in industrial and capital-intensive firms, as well as in firms less reliant on ICT-intensive and knowledge-intensive processes.     

How Much Does Ownership Form Matter?

Research summary : Previous studies have emphasized firm and industry effects on variation in firm performance, but the relationship between forms of ownership and firm performance has been the focus of limited research. This article examines the extent to which ownership form (i.e., public or private ownership) and ownership structure (including diffused ownership and blockholding) affect firm performance. The results of an analysis of 30,525 European Union (EU) firms indicate that form of ownership is an important explanatory factor in the difference in performance among firms. These results underscore the need to study firms characterized by different ownership arrangements and to provide empirical evidence for the study of firm ownership in strategic management. Managerial summary : Motivated by growing evidence on the involvement of different types of owners in the strategies of firms, we studied the extent to which a firm's ownership form (type of legal incorporation, such as public and private ownership forms) and ownership structure (diffused ownership and blockholding) affect its performance. Our study of more than 30,000 firms from the European Union shows that ownership form differences explain some of the performance differences between firms. Our results also indicate that firms with different ownership forms are differently affected by their competitive environment. Overall, the study suggests that choosing the right ownership form can have important strategic consequences. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Effects of corporate governance on risk taking in Taiwanese family firms during institutional reform

Can internal corporate governance mechanisms (such as boards of directors) and external corporate governance mechanisms (such as institutional reform) promote risk-taking behavior in family firms? This paper argues that conflicts between majority and minority owners, known as principal–principal conflicts, and cronyism in the board of directors affect firm risk taking. Moreover, institutional corporate governance reform to appoint outside directors may not have an immediate effect on reducing these problems. Based on a sample of family firms in Taiwan, we find that outside directors reduce the negative relationship between family ownership/involvement and risk taking. However, when their influence is examined further, it is found that in those sample firms that went public after institutional reform, outside directors did not improve the relationship between family ownership/involvement and risk taking.     

Family ownership and acquisition behavior in publicly‐traded companies

Much of the literature on corporate acquisitions has focused on managerial incentives for making acquisitions but has underemphasized the role played by the social context of major shareholders. This study of Fortune 1000 firms argues that the priorities and risk preferences of family owners can have important implications not only for the volume but also for the diversifying nature of their acquisitions. Agency and family business perspectives are used to derive expectations concerning the acquisitions behavior of family owners. Consistent with both perspectives, and owners' desire to reduce business risk, we find that family ownership is inversely related to the number and dollar volume of acquisitions. However, whereas agency theorists differ about how ownership concentration influences whether acquisitions are diversified, the family firm literature is more definitive. The latter suggests that given family owners' desire to retain control of their firms for offspring, their wealth must remain concentrated. Hence they can most easily reduce the risk of their wealth portfolio by diversifying the business—that is, through diversifying acquisitions. Consistent with this logic, we found the propensity to make diversifying acquisitions to increase with the level of family ownership. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Do VCs matter? the importance of owners on performance variance in start‐up firms

Adding to the corporate effect literature, we study the effect of owners on firm performance in a new context, that of venture capital firms (VCs) and the start‐up firms in which they invest. After discussing the effect that VC ownership can have on start‐ups, we estimate that start‐up‐specific, owner (VC), and year effects account for significant variance in performance (26.3 percent, 11.2 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively). The effects of industry and investment stage are not statistically different from zero. We also provide an analysis that separates the owner effect into two components: a selection component—which impacts investment—and a management component—which explains significant variance in performance. By examining the owner effect in a different institutionalized form of governance—that of the start‐up and its relationship to VC owners—our study also contributes to an understanding of the ‘ownership’ effect in the strategy literature more generally. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Foreign ownership and productivity in Chinese newly listed firms: the moderating roles of founder’s human capital and social ties

This paper studies the effects of foreign ownership on firm-level productivity and examines the different moderating roles of the firm-founder’s human capital and social ties on the foreign ownership - productivity link. Leveraging a unique sample of 428 small and medium-sized firms listed on the Growth Enterprise Market in the Shenzhen Stock Exchange between 2009 and 2016, we find that the foreign ownership’s contribution to productivity is not linear and varies across different quantiles of the productivity distribution. Our findings also show that the founder’s education and foreign experience strengthen the foreign ownership - productivity link, while the founder’s political and managerial ties weaken it. Our results reveal the strategic importance of the founder and contribute to an improved understanding of why firms vary in their ability to enhance productivity in emerging economies.

     

Institutional ownership,capital structure,and firm performance

In most studies of ownership and firm performance, researchers have assumed different forms of ownership do not interact in their effect on firm strategy or performance. Focusing on the role of institutional owners, this study poses two related questions: (1) What are the relationships between outside institutional shareholdings, on the one hand, and a firm's capital structure and performance, on the other? and; (2) Does the size of stockholdings by corporate executives, family owners, and insider-institutions modify those relationships? The data, collected from 40 pairs of manufacturing firms selected from as many industries over a 3-year period, shows that the size of outside institutional stockholdings has a significant effect on the firm's capital structure. We have also found that family and inside institutional owners' shareholdings moderate the relationship between outside institutional shareholdings and capital structure. Likewise, corporate executives' shareholdings supplement the relationship between outside institutional shareholdings and firms' performance. These findings suggest that internal and external coalitions interact with each other to influence the firm's conduct.     

Determinants of early movers in cross-border merger and acquisition wave in an emerging market: A study of Indian firms

A series of changes in India’s financial institutional regime led to waves of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A) deals spanning various industries. In this article, we explore firm-level determinants that distinguish between early movers and followers in these waves. We tested our hypotheses using data for the 2001–2011 period. Analysis found support for our hypotheses that prior experience (with alliances), firm size, and international embeddedness of business group influence timing of firms’ cross-border M&A. Findings support the springboarding perspective that emerging market (EM) firms engage in preemptive acquisitions to gain first-mover advantage.     

Foreign Entry and Firm Advertising Intensity: Evidence from China

This paper investigates the determinants of advertising intensity at the firm level by focusing on the role of foreign entry. In a monopolistically competitive market with heterogeneous firms, we show that foreign entry affects the expected advertising intensity of domestic firms through its impact on the cost of resources, brand image, and productivity spillovers and its impact on firms’ exit behaviour. Then, using comprehensive firm-level data from China’s manufacturing sector between 2005 and 2007, we test this hypothesis and find that foreign entry significantly affects advertising intensity.     

Managing corporate-government relationships in a multi-cultural setting: How political corporate social responsibility (PCSR) as a response to legitimacy pressures affects firm reputation

As many multinationals set up subsidiaries in emerging markets, they face legitimacy pressures from the host countries. This pressure leads firms to engage in political corporate social responsibility (PCSR) activities. We distinguish two types of attributions of PCSR activities – public-serving and self-serving – and study how these two types of PCSR attributions affect firm reputation. Analyzing 463 PCSR activities by 104 firms in China between 2015 and 2017, we find that public-serving PCSR enhances firm reputation, while self-serving PCSR diminishes it. In addition, we document a negative interaction effect between the two attributions of PCSR. We also find that CEO participation attenuates the negative effect of self-serving PCSR whereas administrative distance accentuates the positive effect of public-serving PCSR. Our research contributes to the nascent literature on government relation networks and sheds light on how firms should manage their relationships with the host countries in a multi-cultural setting.     

Productivity and Wage Effects of Firm-Level Collective Agreements: Evidence from Belgian Linked Panel Data

How do firm-level collective agreements affect firm performance in a multi-level bargaining system? Using detailed Belgian-linked employer–employee panel data, our findings show that firm-level agreements increase both wage costs and labour productivity (with respect to sector-level agreements). Relying on approaches developed by Bartolucci and Hellerstein et al., they also indicate that firm-level agreements exert a stronger impact on wages than on productivity, so that profitability is hampered. However, this rent-sharing effect mostly holds in sectors where firms are more concentrated or less exposed to international competition. Firm agreements are thus mainly found to raise wages beyond labour productivity when the rents to be shared between workers and firms are relatively big. Overall, this suggests that firm-level agreements benefit both employers and employees — through higher productivity and wages — without being very detrimental to firms’ performance.     

Ultra-fast broadband access and productivity: Evidence from Italian firms

We study the impact of ultra-fast broadband (UFB) infrastructures on the total factor productivity (TFP) and labor productivity of firms. We use unique balanced panel data for the 2013–2019 period on incorporated firms in Italy. Using the geographical location of the firms, we merge firm-level data with municipality-level information on the diffusion of UFB, which started in 2015. We derive consistent firm-level TFP estimates by adopting a version of the Ackerberg et al.’s (2015) method, which also accounts for firm fixed effects. We then assess the impact of UFB on productivity and deal with the endogeneity of UFB by exploiting the physical distance between each municipality and the closest optical packet backbone node. Our results show an overall positive impact of UFB on productivity. Services companies benefit the most from advanced broadband technologies, as do firms located in the North-West and South of Italy. We further decompose the impact of full-fiber networks from mixed copper-fiber connections and find that the former significantly contribute to enhancing firm productivity. Finally, by exploiting Labor Force Survey data, we provide suggestive evidence that productivity increases from UFB might be related to structural changes at the workforce level.     

Business group affiliation and firm performance in a transition economy: A focus on ownership voids

In a transition economy, how does business group affiliation make a difference in firm performance? Under the broad label of institutional voids, what specific voids can business groups fill? This paper addresses these questions by drawing on insights from property rights theory and an institutional perspective. We argue that ownership voids, as a subset of institutional voids, occur due to the lack of unambiguously specified ownership of state assets in transition economies, and that business groups emerge to serve as the direct owners of state-owned enterprises to replace such voids. Based on a sample of 1,119 publicly-listed Chinese companies, we find that the interaction of business group affiliation and state ownership has a significant and positive effect on firm performance. Our findings point to business group’s substitution role in filling ownership voids in China’s transition economy.     

How family influence,socioemotional wealth,and competitive conditions shape new technology adoption

Research summary : In family businesses, investment decisions often involve both socioemotional wealth and economic considerations. Focusing on new technology adoption, we argue that multiple dimensions of socioemotional wealth contribute to complex effects within different types of family firms—depending on the level of family control—as well as in contrast to non‐family firms. Results based on cable TV operators from 1983 to 1987 confirm that family ownership correlates negatively with technology adoption, especially when family owners hold a minority rather than majority position. We also show contingencies based on performance improvements and competitive threats. Our arguments contribute new insights about the tensions between economic and socioemotional factors within minority family ownership that are absent from non‐family firms and more pronounced than in majority family firms. Managerial summary : We find evidence of greater reluctance toward new technology adoption among firms with minority family influence than majority family influence. This suggests that goals related to socioemotional wealth only partly explain the cautious decision‐making observed in family firms, with further caution arising from conflicting priorities between family and non‐family owners. Recent performance improvements help offset the reluctance to adopt new technology, albeit to a lesser degree among firms with minority family ownership. High levels of competitive threats also offset the reduction in new technology adoption, and contrary to expectations, to a greater extent among minority family firms. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How to measure company productivity using value-added: A focus on Pohang Steel (POSCO)

How should the performance of a manufacturing company be assessed, relative to firms making similar products, at home and abroad? This paper shows how company-level productivity measures can be developed from public financial data to provide a more comprehensive gauge of firm performance than profit rates alone. As a specific example, we focus on the Korean steelmaker, POSCO. Founded four decades ago, POSCO is commonly regarded as the world’s most efficient and profitable integrated steel producer, and our analysis documents POSCO’s superior record of profitability and labor productivity. We find, however, that a broader assessment of POSCO’s performance is tempered by the firm’s high capital intensity relative to producers in Japan and the United States.     

Investment opportunities and R&D investments in family and nonfamily firms

The firm’s investment opportunity set (IOS) reflects the prospective growth opportunities related to physical and human capital investments. IOSs are largely firm specific, embedded in assets-in-place, or generated by experience curves, learning-by-doing, and other similar phenomena. However, the value of an IOS can be destroyed if a firm does not exercise the option to invest. In this study, we theorize that a firm’s ability to invest in R&D is conditional on the availability of a favorable IOS. We test our theoretical propositions in the European business environment using a sample of large publicly traded firms with concentrated ownership. Our findings support the notion that the IOS is a significant determinant of corporate R&D investments, but the magnitude of this effect depends on the identity of the ultimate owner. Specifically, the sensitivity of R&D investments of family- and state-owned corporations is higher to favorable IOS than that of widely held corporations, suggesting these firms are more responsive to favorable IOS than others. By introducing the IOS dimension, our results have interesting implications for both theory and practice.     

Socioemotional wealth and IPO underpricing of family firms

Socioemotional wealth (SEW), i.e., the noneconomic utility a family derives from its ownership position in a firm, is the primary reference point for family firms. Family firms are willing to sacrifice economic gains in order to preserve their noneconomic utility. Thus, we argue that family firms sacrifice IPO proceeds by choosing higher IPO underpricing than nonfamily firms if underpricing helps them protect their SEW. Our empirical results, based on a sample of 153 German IPOs, support our hypothesis. On average, family firms have 10 percentage points more IPO underpricing than nonfamily firms. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.