Search results

This paper examines the capital structure decisions of family firms in Southeast Asian (ASEAN) countries, considering the moderating effects of various firm-level and country-level factors.

The authors apply various panel data models to analyze the data of listed firms in six ASEAN countries over the period of 2007–2017.

The authors find that family firms tend to use more debt, particularly short-term debt, than non-family firms, which is explained by family owners' concern about the risk of losing control. The authors further document that family firms would use more debt when they have lower ownership concentration, have more family members on the board of directors and are young firms. The authors also find that the impact of family ownership on capital structure is moderated by the level of investors' legal protection of a country.

This study, for the first time, provides comprehensive analyses of the financing decisions of family firms in ASEAN using a unique hand-collected dataset, which highlights that regional culture and market conditions can shape family firms' financing decisions. The authors also manage to mitigate the endogeneity issues that pervade most research on family firms. In addition, this research further explores the heterogeneous impacts of family control on capital structure given different levels of board involvement, firm age, ownership concentration, and most importantly, institutional differences. Such insights provide useful information for prospective investors as well as regulators to make more efficient investment and legislative decisions.

The aim of this study is to understand a family firm's choice of related-party transaction (RPT) types and analyze their value impacts to separate the abusive from benign RPTs.

It uses a 10-year panel of BSE-listed 378 family (and 200 non-family) firms. The fixed effects, logit and difference-in-difference (DID) models help examine value effects, propensity and persistence of harmful RPTs.

Loans/guarantees (irrespective of counterparties) destroy firm value. Capital asset RPTs decrease the firm value but enhance value when undertaken with holding parties. Operating RPTs increase firm value and profitability. They improve asset utilization and reduce discretionary expenses (especially when made with controlled entities). Family firms have larger loans/guarantees and capital asset volumes but have smaller operating RPTs than non-family firms. They are less likely to undertake loans/guarantees (and even operating RPTs) and more capital RPTs vis-à-vis non-family firms. Family firms persist with dubious loans/guarantees but hold back beneficial operating RPTs, despite RPTs being in investor cross-hairs amid the Satyam scam.

Rent extractability and counterparty incentives supplement each other. (1) The higher extractability of related-party loans and guarantees (RPLGs) dominates the lower extraction incentives of controlled parties. (2) Holding parties' bringing assets, providing a growth engine and adding value dominate their higher extraction incentives (3) The big gains to the operational efficiency come from operating RPTs with controlled parties, generally operating companies in the family house. (4) Dubious RPTs seem more integral to family firms' choices than non-family firms. (5) Counterparty incentives behind the divergent use of RPTs deserve more research attention. Future studies can give more attention to how family characteristics affect divergent motives behind RPTs.

First, the study does not single out family firms for dubious use of all RPTs. Second, investors, auditors or creditors must pay close attention to RPLGs as a special expropriation mechanism. Third, operating RPTs (and capital RPTs with holding parties) benefit family firms. However, solid procedural safeguards are necessary. Overall, results may help clarify the dilemma Indian regulators face in balancing the abusive and business sides of RPTs.

The study fills the gap by arguing why some RPTs may be dubious or benign and then shows how RPTs' misuse depends on counterparty types. It shows operating RPTs enhance operating efficiencies on several dimensions and that benefits may vary with counterparty types. It also presents the first evidence that family firms favor dubious RPTs more and efficient RPTs less than non-family firms.

This paper aims to investigate the effect of the nature of ownership and board characteristics on the investment choices in joint ventures (JVs) from the dimensional point of view, controlling for the effect of JV type and other components of intellectual capital.

The authors study a sample of Italian, Spanish, German and French nonfinancial listed firms over the 2010–2018 period, controlling for the fixed effects of the company's sector of operation and the year. The authors also analyze the effect of family control and influence on JV investment size, taking into consideration certain board characteristics, the type of JV, human capital efficiency, structural capital efficiency and capital employed efficiency while also controlling for a firm's profitability and size. To test the hypotheses, GLS panel data was used.

The results indicate that the size of the investment in JVs is smaller for family firms than for nonfamily businesses. The presence of CEO duality has an opposing effect on the size of the investment in joint ventures as it has a lowering effect in family businesses while it exerts an amplifier influence in nonfamily businesses. Moreover, the type of joint venture has a significant effect for family firms: the choice of a link joint venture reduces the size of the investment. The authors find that human capital efficiency increases JV investment size for all firms.

This study is the first to analyze the effect of the main dimension of socioemotional wealth – family control and influence – on a firm's JV investment size. It controls for the effect of JV type – link or scale – and the interplay of the other IC components.

Industrial robots are of great significance to the long-term development of family firms. Drawing on the lens of the principal–principal conflict, this paper aims to investigate the influence of family non-executive directors on robot adoption in Chinese family firms.

This paper selects the family firms in China from 2011 to 2019 as the sample. Furthermore, the authors manually collected the family non-executive directors and constructed the robot adoption variable utilizing data sourced from the International Federation of Robotics. In brief, this paper constructs a comprehensive framework of the mechanisms and additional tests pertaining to the influence of family non-executive directors on robot adoption.

This paper finds that family non-executive directors can promote robot adoption in family firms. The underlying mechanism analysis shows that family non-executive directors promote robot adoption by exerting financial and human effects. This paper further finds that the characteristics of family non-executive directors, such as kinship, differential shareholding and excessive directors, affect the role of family non-executive directors. Finally, robot adoption can improve future performance, and the promotional effect is more evident when family members are non-executive directors.

This paper contributes to the related literature from the following two aspects. Firstly, this paper decomposes the types of family directors to understand the role of family non-executive directors, which challenges the assumption that family board members are homogeneous in family firms. Second, this paper expands the research on the factors that influence robot adoption in emerging economies from the micro-enterprise level. In addition, the findings in this paper have managerial implications for family firms to optimize their strategic decisions with the help of the mode of board right allocation.

The study, by focusing on a context dominated by firms with a concentrated ownership, in which type-II agency problems (principal-principal conflicts) may occur, aims to depict which board configurations may be effective in protecting minority shareholders by mitigating the risk of controlling shareholders' expropriation via cash holdings.

The research adopts a configurational approach and empirically conducts a fuzzy set/qualitative comparative analysis on a sample of 268 Italian listed companies.

The analysis depicts three combinations of board configurations and ownership structures that can be considered effective, namely Active Independent Control, Female Active Control and Double Internal Control.

The study revisits the topic of the risk of expropriation via cash holdings in a type-II agency problem framework and delineates the meaning of board effectiveness in a mature context ruled by family firms, like Italy. Furthermore, by drawing on a configurational approach, it overcomes the causality relationship between each board characteristic and cash holdings policies and reasons from a “bundle” perspective.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the effect of internal control on tax avoidance analyzing internal (family ownership) and external (environmental uncertainty) factors on the effectiveness of internal control in preventing tax avoidance.

First, the authors examine the direct effect of the effectiveness of internal control on tax avoidance. Second, the authors examine the effect of moderation of family ownership and environmental uncertainty on the relationship of the effectiveness of internal control on tax avoidance. Third, the authors divide the full sample into two groups, high and less effectiveness of internal control to examine the direct effect of internal control effectiveness on tax avoidance and when considering moderating variables. Fourth, the authors use two different measures of the effectiveness of internal control.

This research found that effective internal control can reduce tax avoidance. Family ownership affects the relationship between internal control and tax avoidance, but environmental uncertainty does not influence the relationship between internal control and tax avoidance.

Internal control increases compliance with rules and policies, so companies must design and implement effective internal control to prevent tax avoidance activities in violation of tax regulations.

In contrast to previous studies, this study measures the effectiveness of internal control using the index of internal control practice disclosure and considers internal and external factors that can affect the effectiveness of internal control to prevent tax avoidance.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of family control on the association between related party transactions (RPTs) and different forms of accrual-based earnings management (AEM) and real earnings management (REM), analyzing the effect of board characteristics on the possible association.

This paper studies a sample of Italian non-financial listed firms over the 2014–2019 period, by GLS regression models, controlling for the fixed effects of the company's sector of operation and the year.

Results indicate a different association between RPTs and earnings management (EM) in family and non-family firms. They point out that family firms use RPTs in association with downward AEM and REM perpetrated by abnormal discretionary expenses as well as a substitute of REM via abnormal production costs. For non-family firms, findings indicate only a substitution effect between RPTs and AEM. Furthermore, CEO duality, board gender diversity and the presence of the family on the board positively moderate the association between RPTs and, respectively, REM implemented through sales manipulations, downward AEM and upward AEM.

This study suggests that the socioemotional wealth (SEW) differently affects the relationship between RPTs and EM, according to the form of the latter. It also points out family firms' heterogeneity in earnings manipulations, by providing evidence of the moderating role of board characteristics on the association between RPTs and the various forms of EM.

This study aims to explore the relationship between promoter share pledging and the company’s dividend payout policy in India. Furthermore, this study also analyses the moderating impact of family involvement in business on the association between share pledging and dividend payout.

A sample of 236 companies from the S&P Bombay Stock Exchange Sensitive (BSE) 500 Index (2014–2023) has been analysed through fixed-effects panel data regression. For additional testing, robustness checks include alternative measures of dividend payout and promoter share pledging, as well as alternative methodologies such as Bayesian regression. Lastly, to address potential endogeneity, instrumental variables with a two-stage least squares (IV-2SLS) methodology have been implemented.

Upholding the agency perspective, a significantly negative impact of promoter share pledging on corporate dividend payouts in India has been uncovered. Moreover, family involvement in business moderates this relationship, highlighting that the negative association between promoter share pledging and dividend payouts is more pronounced in family companies. The findings are consistent throughout the robustness testing.

The present study represents a pioneering endeavour to empirically analyse the link between promoter share pledging and dividend payouts in India. It enhances the theoretical underpinnings of the agency relationship, particularly by substantiating the existence of Type II agency conflicts between majority and minority shareholders. The findings of this research bear significant implications for investors, researchers and policymakers, particularly in light of the widespread prevalence of promoter-controlled entities in India.

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of ownership structure on merger and acquisition (M&A) decisions of Brazilian listed companies.

This paper is an applied and explanatory research based on secondary data. The sample is comprises non-financial companies listed on the BM&FBovespa between 1998 and 2007. Considering that the dependent variable is binary, the authors estimate panel data logistic regression models. Considering the existence of conflicts of interest among those who have the decision-making power and the supplier of capital for M&A transactions, they draw upon the Agency Theory to develop the theoretical hypotheses.

The results show that, for a sample of Brazilian non-financial companies listed on the BM&FBovespa (B3), from 1998 to 2007, Brazilian firms present, on average, a highly concentrated ownership structure and the major controlling shareholders are families or the State. These characteristics are negatively related to the likelihood of M&A transactions, as most of these controlling shareholders are reluctant to adopt mechanisms that reduce their control.

With regard to the limitations, this study considered only the M&A definitions as stated by the Bureau van Dijk database. In this sense, future studies may analyze the effects of ownership structure based on other M&A definitions and typologies. In addition, the study is limited to the period from 1998 to 2007, which is prior to the international financial crisis. Future studies may extend the analysis period to include the post-crisis period (2008) to check if there are differences in M&A strategies before and after the crisis.

From a managerial perspective, the results show that minority shareholders have little or no influence over an M&A decision, so they cannot decide on the use of resources for fast growth and access to new markets through M&A. Thus, the investment decision must take into account the nature and the quality of the controlling shareholder.

This study shows a significant and negative effect of ownership concentration on the likelihood of M&A transactions. In part, this result demonstrates the importance of understanding the behavior of controlling shareholders before inferring on other key aspects that the M&A literature tends to make fundamental in explaining M&A decisions in publicly traded companies, particularly, in an environment of low minority shareholder protection.

Previous studies have partly found that the M&A decision is motivated by individual advantages obtained from increasing the size of the firm, or from managerial hubris. The results show that these hypotheses do not hold in the Brazilian context. Moreover, the results indicate that M&A decisions are associated with the characteristics of the controlling shareholder, their level of ownership concentration and their typology, contributing to the agency debate on whether the incentive or the entrenchment effect prevails in the context of the agency problem between controlling and minority shareholders, particularly, in an institutional environment of low shareholder protection.

Past research has advanced a plethora of theoretical arguments on the effect of family ownership on firms’ international expansion and produced mixed empirical results. It is argued that the oversimplified way in which researchers have examined theoretically and tested empirically business families’ socioemotional priorities may explain the state of fragmentation in the literature. This study aims to investigate the differential effects of restricted (short-term and family-centric) versus extended (long-term and business-centric) socioemotional priorities on the extent of family firms’ internationalization to capture more nuanced aspects of the socioemotional wealth concept.

The authors test the hypotheses through OLS regressions on a sample of 287 family firms.

The authors find that restricted family-centric socioemotional priorities and extended socioemotional priorities related to the establishment of long-term relationships with business partners are negatively associated with the extent of family firms’ internalization. They also find that extended socioemotional priorities related to long-term orientation and transgenerational control intentions are positively associated with international expansion and that this effect is stronger for younger family firms.

This study disentangles the differential effects of two kinds of socioemotional priorities on family firms’ internationalization, thus developing more fine-grained theoretical arguments about the socioemotional drivers of family firms’ behavior. In addition, the authors directly measure socioemotional priorities instead of relying on indirect governance measures.