Search results

The aim of this paper is to provide evidence on the extent and the consequences of the provision of non-audit services (NAS) by statutory auditors to German family firms.

The study analyzes hand collected fee data of 368 listed and private family firms in Germany. It employs univariate tests, ordinary least squares and two-stage least squares regressions to investigate potential threats to perceived auditor independence and knowledge spillovers between jointly provided NAS and audit services.

Incumbent auditors are shown to be a significant source of various types of NAS to family firms. There is weak evidence on threats to perceived auditor independence and support for reciprocal knowledge spillovers between the services. While listed and private family firms do not differ in regard to the proportion of NAS fees, comparative findings suggest that key threats and benefits of jointly provided services are more prevalent among private than among listed family firms.

The study suffers from limited data availability and is restricted to the initial year of mandatory audit fee disclosure of private firms in Germany. Particularities of family firms and the German setting, as well as differential results for listed and private family firms, suggest fruitful avenues for future research.

The study addresses the current issues in audit regulation. Regulatory bodies should consider that key threats and benefits of auditor-provided NAS decrease with stronger exogenous restrictions. Attempts to restrict jointly provided services in the EU suggest family firms to reconsider their reliance on auditors as a trusted source of NAS.

This study is the first to provide evidence on the extent and consequences of auditor-provided NAS in family firms based on fee disclosure. It is also among the few studies that investigate private firms in a code law country and complements prior evidence from Germany that is restricted to listed firms. More generally, it contributes to limited evidence at the intersection of audit and family business research.

This study examines the reporting of impairment losses in family and non-family private firms. The socioemotional wealth (SEW) theory suggests that the reporting practices in family firms may differ from non-family firms and may vary among family firms.

The research question is examined using a large-scale archival study. The authors use unique register data on family relationships for Norwegian private firms provided by the CCGR database at BI Norwegian Business School.

Drawing on the socioemotional wealth theory, the authors predict and find that private family firms are more reluctant to report impairment losses compared to private non-family firms. The results also suggest that both the likelihood to report impairment losses and the impairment amounts increase with board independence in private family firms. The authors also find some evidence suggesting that private family firms with a family CEO report lower impairment losses than private family firms without a family CEO, but this result is less robust and should be interpreted with caution.

The true economic impairment is unobservable. The authors use proxies based on prior research to control for whether impairment losses are faithfully reported or not.

The results suggest a higher risk of impairment losses being managed in private family firms than in private non-family firms and that independent board members mitigate this tendency somewhat in private family firms. Awareness of this risk should have practical value for stakeholders such as non-family owners and creditors, external auditors, supervisory and monitoring bodies, and regulators.

This study contributes to the accounting literature by examining the reporting of a specific accrual (impairment losses) in the setting of private family firms. Prior research in this area is scarce.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role family identity and reputational concerns plays when private family firms engage in earnings management.

The paper is conducted as an archival study using data from private limited liability firms in Norway over the period from 2002 to 2015. The dataset includes financial accounting data and data on family relationships between shareholders, board members and CEOs, where family relationships are determined through bloodlines, adoption and marriage, tracing back four generations and extending out to third cousins. To investigate the incidence of earnings management, the authors employ a measure of accrual-based earnings management (AEM) (Dechow and Dichev, 2002; McNichols, 2002) and a measure of real earnings management (REM) (Roychowdhury, 2006). They use whether or not the family name is included in the firm name (i.e. family name congruence) as a proxy for family members' identification with the family firm and their sensitivity to reputational concerns.

The authors’ results show that AEM is lower for family-named family firms. Moreover, their findings also indicate that family-named family firms are more likely to select REM over AEM, compared to nonfamily named family firms. This is even more pronounced when detection risk is high (high quality audit proxied by Big 4).

The quality of the authors’ findings is limited to the validity of their proxy for family firm identification and reputational concerns (the family name included in the firm name). Even though findings from prior research suggest that family name congruence is a valid proxy for identity and reputational concerns (e.g. Kashmiri and Mahajan, 2010, 2014; Rousseau et al., 2018; Zellweger et al., 2013), future research should investigate the validity of these results using alternative proxies for family firm identification. Future research should also investigate whether the authors’ findings are generalizable to public family firms.

The authors’ results suggest that the risk of AEM is lower for family-named family firms, whereas the risk of REM is somewhat higher, compared to nonfamily named family firms. These results might be relevant for financial accounting users, auditors and supervisory and monitoring bodies when assessing the risk of earnings management.

The paper is, as far as the authors are aware of, the first to investigate the role of family name congruence and detection risk when private family firms select between AEM and REM.

This paper investigates the impact of family influence measured by the F-PEC scale on private enterprise (both family firms and lone founders) leadership succession strategy.

The research dataset is comprised of 390 private enterprises whose head offices were situated in the voivodeships of Lower Silesia and Wielkopolska in Poland. The authors collected data through CAPI (computer-assisted personal interviewing) method, as well as through comprehensive, structured interviews with company owners. Data were analysed using hierarchical logistic regression for each type of succession strategy.

The results suggest that increased family influence does not necessarily lead to intra-family leadership succession in private enterprises. Importantly, a range of findings contradicted authors' predictions. The relationship between the overall F-PEC scale values signifying the multi-faceted family influence over the business and the choice of internal successor was weakly negative for the total sample; also, the higher the overlap between family and business values and the higher the commitment to family business, as evidenced by the Culture subscale, the lower was the occurrence of intra-family successor choice in the population of lone founders. The Culture subscale also increased the prevalence of lack of succession planning in the sample of lone founders.

While several studies suggests that family firms may be more prone to choose an intra-family succession scenario, it remains unclear how lower levels of business and succession experience, may influence the successor choice. Indeed, some studies suggest that a strong family influence over a business, may stimulate family firms to choose a family outsider as a business leader. Therefore, the key contribution of this study is contextualizing the response to an ongoing succession debate. This study investigates the strategic choices of companies in the first generation of ownership operating in Poland, which serves as an example of a post-transition economy. While the characteristics of this economic environment may be unique, the authors discuss how the surprising findings may add to the understanding of the general succession processes present in private enterprises.

Business performance measurement is vital to expanding knowledge of how various strategies and behaviors affect organization outcomes. Given the recent growth of the family business research field, it is appropriate to assess how researchers measure family business performance, seeking to provide thoughts related to how to improve family business performance measurement in research. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This study applies a systematic approach to review 338 family business performance studies published in peer-reviewed journals from 1980 through 2015.

Observations are presented from this exhaustive review, including the expansion of the family business research field, types of journals publishing family business studies, research topics, types of measures utilized, and others. In addition, potential gaps are identified and possible solutions are presented.

It appears no review of family business performance measurement in research is available. Observations from this review may assist researchers in measuring a vital metric, family business performance.

This exploratory study aims to provide fresh insights into the ownership transfer of private family firms through internal management buy‐out (MBO) and external management buy‐in (MBI) succession routes. The paper aims to explore if flows of information impact the succession planning process and if the nature of succession planning impacts the business sale negotiation process relating to family firms that select MBO/MBI succession routes.

Guided by insights from agency theory and theories relating to information asymmetries and negotiation behaviour six hypotheses were derived. Private family firms that had received venture capital and the MBO/I deals had been completed between 1994 and 2003 were identified. A structured survey was administered to 117 senior members of acquiring MBO/I management teams after the deal had been completed in several European countries. Non‐parametric chi‐square tests and Mann‐Whitney “U” tests were used to test the presented hypotheses.

Evidence highlights the importance of information sharing and that the family owner(s) may not always be in the strongest position. MBOs reported lower information asymmetry. Also, lower information asymmetry was reported when vendors and management were involved in succession planning. Internal managers with greater access to information were found to influence the negotiation process and determine who is more likely to benefit from the price to be paid for the firm. A mutually agreed price was less likely when management controlled information and when personal equity providers (PEP) were involved in the process supporting the interests of the MBO/I team.

Family firm owners need to plan for succession planning. Vendors of family firms need to leverage external professional advice when negotiating the sale of their ventures to ensure “family agendas” are protected.

This study has extended the conceptual work of Howorth et al. surrounding the succession of family firms through MBOs and MBIs. Rather than relying on case study evidence alone, cross‐sectional survey evidence was explored within a univariate statistical framework to explore gaps in the knowledge base relating to succession planning and business sale negotiation behaviour.

Empirical studies provide conflicting conclusions regarding the corporate social performance (CSP) of family firms. The purpose of this paper is to synthesize the existing empirical evidence and examine the potential role of research design and contextual factors.

A meta-analysis of existing empirical studies was performed to examine the role of sampling, measurement and contextual factors in explaining the different and often conflicting results of empirical studies in the family business literature.

The overall relationship between family firms and CSP is positive. The relationship between family firms and CSP is positive for private family firms but is negative for public family firms. The relationship between family firms and CSP is positive when family involvement includes both family ownership and management as opposed to only family ownership or family management. Private family firms care more and public family firms care less about the community, environment, and employees than private and public nonfamily firms. The relationship between family firms and CSP is stronger in institutional environments with weak labor and corporate governance regulatory frameworks.

The operationalization of both the family firm and CSP constructs significantly predicts the magnitude and direction of the relationship between family firms and CSP.

Family firms should become more skilled at measuring and disseminating information about the firm’s CSP. Family firms should work to improve public perceptions about the CSP of family firms.

Policy should encourage family firms to remain privately owned by the family. Policy should also incentivize the involvement of family owners in the management of family firms.

Although several literature reviews address the relationship between family firms and CSP, this is the first review to use the meta-analysis method. The authors contribute to the family business literature by analyzing how differences in study-, firm- and country-level factors can explain some of the variance in the results of the studies in the literature.

Survivability capital is a unique resource resulting from the “familiness” constituting an inherent feature of family firms. Familiness represents the ability of family members to reinforce the financial and non-financial resources of businesses facing threats to their economic existence. This work proposes and examines various dimensions of the survivability capital construct, verifying whether family firms expecting deterioration of their economic situation or problems with survival due to the COVID-19 crisis can mobilise sufficient capital to survive.

This article provides empirical evidence based on a cross-sectional online survey of 167 Polish family firms, conducted at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The method (scale) of survivability capital measurement was elaborated and validated using principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). Next, the mobilisation of the different dimensions of survivability capital was examined using PLS-SEM modelling.

The survivability capital of family firms is composed of two dimensions: internal (based on directly involved family members) and external (based on not directly involved family members). Family firms facing crisis-induced deterioration of the economic situation engage its internal component. Subsequently, family firms forecasting decreasing probability of survival during a crisis try to engage both the internal and the external components of survivability capital. Such behaviour is in line with the resource-based view as well as with the sustainable family business theory.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is one of the first studies to examine analytically the survivability capital construct. While previous studies mentioned the existence of survivability capital, this study attempts to introduce its various dimensions and test the mobilisation of survivability capital during the COVID-19 crisis.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to innovation and family business literature by establishing whether institutional involvement of private equity (PE) and banks in family firms moderates the relationship between family ownership and research and development (R&D) investment.

This paper used the socio-emotional wealth lens to carry out an econometric analysis on a large sample of Italian non-listed family firms. Using the sample selection model meant it was possible to account for potential selection bias arising from firms’ discretionary disclosure of R&D expenditure.

Family involvement in ownership reduced firms’ R&D intensity. When PE investors also held shares, the negative relationship was diverted. Bank involvement, however, did not have a significant effect on the relationship.

This paper enriches the innovation management literature by increasing the understanding of the determinants of R&D investments in family firms. The results support the view that non-financial priorities in family firms are contingent upon non-family shareholders. This enriches the debate about the heterogeneity of family businesses and is consistent with the socio-emotional wealth framework, which has shown that risk preferences may vary if desired and actual performances are different. This may be a fruitful area for future research.

Contradicting the assumption that institutional owners all share the same perspective, this study is the first to assess the impact of different institutional shareholders on R&D intensity of private family firms.

Family governance mechanisms serve to govern and strengthen relations between the family and the business, as well as the relationships between the members of the business family itself. However, despite agreement on the importance of adopting family governance structures, explicit research on the determinants of family governance mechanisms is currently missing. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to uncover the determinants of family meetings. In order to do so, the social systems theory is used to unravel several determining factors of this crucial form of family governance mechanisms in private family firms.

The authors perform a qualitative study by conducting semi-structured interviews in eight Belgian private family firms in order to discover the antecedents of the implementation of family meetings. The authors use a pattern-matching technique as an analytical strategy.

The findings of the study highlight the importance of “soft,” relational, qualitative issues as antecedents of family meetings as opposed to previous research on family governance, which predominantly focused on “hard,” quantitative measures (e.g. family ownership). The findings of the study also provide novel insights into the origins of the family component (i.e. family meetings) of family business governance.

While the current literature has only focused on describing the different types of family governance and their positive consequences for the family firm, the authors take a step back to explain why family meetings, as a form of family governance, are adopted in the first place. Second, the authors demonstrate the instrumentality of the social systems theory in understanding the family's needs that necessitate the implementation of family governance mechanisms.