Search results

This study examines how women and men in family firms respond differently when asked about perceptions of financial performance. The study poses three research questions around this topic: Are there differences among female and male responses, do those perceptions change if men and women are leaders of the family business and does the family's socioemotional wealth (SEW) influence such responses.

This study uses a quantitative research design to determine if financial performance perceptions of family firms differ based on the gender of the respondents and their leadership position, and second, if SEW's dimensions influence those perceptions, using data from the Successful Transgenerational Entrepreneurship Practices (STEP) survey in 2015.

The findings indicate that due to the lack of theory regarding gender as a social construct, empirical data collected for family business studies should take under consideration if respondents are women, men, leaders and the family influence in the family business when collecting data from surveys and asking for perceptions of financial performance. Results show that women in family businesses tend to have more positive perceptions of financial performance than men, but if women are leaders, those perceptions not only decrease but become negative. In addition, the family's socioemotional wealth (SEW) exacerbates those tendencies.

This study contributes to the literature by helping to understand the potential limitations of subjective measures of financial performance, as women increasingly become family business leaders. It also contributes to gender studies by demonstrating that there is a lack of gender theoretical perspectives specifically, gender roles, suggesting that differences in self-promotion and self-evaluation between men and women leaders of their family firms. Finally, this study adds to the study of SEW as a multidimensional construct by showing the different effects, or lack of them by each dimension and showing the strong effect of family continuity on the perception of financial performance.

This paper aims to provide empirical evidence on formal stakeholder participation (or “lobbying”) in the early phase of the International Sustainability Standards Board’s (ISSB’s) standard-setting.

Drawing on a rational-choice framework, this paper conducts a content analysis of comment letters (CLs) submitted to the ISSB in response to its first two exposure drafts (published in 2022) to investigate stakeholder participation across different groups and jurisdictional origins. The analyses examine participation in terms of frequency (measured using the number of participating stakeholders) and intensity (measured using the length of CLs).

Preparers and users of sustainability reports emerge as the largest participating stakeholder groups, while the accounting/sustainability profession participates with high average intensity. Surprisingly, preparers do not outweigh users in terms of participation frequency and intensity; and large preparers outweigh smaller ones in terms of participation intensity but not participation frequency. Internationally, stakeholders from countries with a private financial accounting standard-setting system participate more frequently and intensively than others. In addition, country-level economic wealth and sustainability performance are positively associated with more participating stakeholders.

This study is of interest for organizations and stakeholders involved in or affected by standard-setting in the field of sustainability reporting. The finding of limited participation by investors and from developing countries suggests the ISSB take actions to enhance the voice of those stakeholders.

The imbalances in stakeholder participation that were found pose potential threats to an important aspect of the input legitimacy of the ISSB’s standard-setting process.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to explore stakeholder participation by means of CLs with the ISSB in terms of frequency and intensity.