Search results

This study aims to assess the current state of research on the use of sustainability balanced scorecards (SBSCs), as they relate to environmental performance-related outcomes. It also seeks to present a conceptual framework proposing relationships between SBSC and environmental performance.

This paper conducts a systematic literature review of articles published in double-blind peer-reviewed journals that are listed on Scopus and/or Web of Science databases.

The first part of the paper reveals that two architectures of SBSC appear to be dominant in the literature (SBSC-4 where sustainability parameters are integrated with the four perspectives of the balanced scorecard and SBSC-5 where sustainability is shown as an additional standalone fifth perspective). The next part of the paper presents a conceptual model relating SBSC as decision-making tools to environmental performance outcomes. The paper also indicates that SBSC knowledge mediates the above relationships. Furthermore, based on the theory of expert competence, the presence of experts possibly moderates the relationship between SBSC architecture and environmental performance outcomes.

The literature indicates a lack of consensus on establishing a clear linkage on the relationship between SBSC architecture and environmental performance outcomes. As a result, a holistic conceptual framework where SBSC knowledge acts as a mediator and presence of experts as a moderator may be able to provide a more consistent relationship between SBSC architecture and environmental performance outcomes.

The conceptual framework proposed provides factors to be considered by decision makers, for effective outcomes when aiming to achieve environmental stewardship objectives.

Environmental performance by business organisations have come under close scrutiny of stakeholders. As a result, the holistic model proposed in the current study may pave the path for decision-makers to achieve superior environmental outcomes, leading to greater satisfaction of stakeholders such as the communities that are impacted by the business operations of an organisation.

This is the first paper to propose a model for future research regarding the link between SBSC and environmental performance outcomes – with expert managers acting as moderators and SBSC knowledge acting as a mediator.

The purpose of this research is to examine the interplay between family commitment as a family-centric resource and professionalization of the organization as a firm-centric resource to determine how the two phenomenon come together to enhance business performance in the context of privately held family firms.

Deploying the theoretical lens offered by the resource-based view, a conceptual link is developed between family commitment to the firm and firm performance with the potential moderating influence of firm professionalization. The hypotheses are tested using data collected from 357 privately held medium-to-large family-owned manufacturing companies in Bangladesh. The data are analyzed through structural equation modeling using SmartPLS (v.3.2).

The data analysis suggests that in absence of the moderator; professionalization, family commitment has a positive and significant association with firm performance. While in the presence of the moderator the above relationship is substantially stronger. The findings indicate that when family-specific resources and firm-specific resources are synchronized, it enhances performance of the family firm and puts it on a strong economic footing toward a more sustainable future.

Cross-sectional nature of the study exposes it to the specter of common method bias despite the fact that procedural remedies were initiated to minimize the impact of such occurrence. Furthermore, data were collected from a single individual in each organization. Therefore, a longitudinal study with data obtained from multiple individuals at different levels of the organization would possibly yield more robust findings.

Leaders of family firms may find pertinent clues from the outcome of this study. Particularly, the confluence of family commitment to the firm as a family-specific resource and professionalization as a firm-specific resource can be valuable, rare, difficult to imitate and substitute source of competitive advantage for the family business organization.

Survival of family businesses is vital to the global economy as one of the primary drivers of global gross domestic product growth and source of new employment. Policymakers can benefit from the findings of this study to customize policies to nurture growth of family enterprises and incentivize family firms to adopt professionalization through better governance and transparent managerial procedures.

A nuanced understanding of how family commitment and firm professionalization combine to significantly improve performance of family firms has not been dominant in the literature. Therefore, findings of this study carry special theoretical implications, because it suggests that both family-specific features and firm-specific features are necessary for enhanced levels of firm-centric business outcomes such as economic performance.

Although family business literature acknowledges that family firms owners are motivated by a set of socioemotional wealth (SEW) goals along with firm-centric business goals, yet a consistently predictable pattern of relationship between SEW and financial wealth is yet to be discerned. The purpose of this paper is to propose a theoretical model based on the stakeholder approach to suggest that family commitment mediates the association between the dimensions of SEW and firm performance.

A set of hypotheses are proposed that are tested using structural equation modeling with data collected from 357 medium to large sized privately held family firms in Bangladesh. The data analysis is done with SmartPLS (v.3.2).

The results indicate that family commitment partially mediates the relationships between family control and influence, family identification, emotional attachment and renewal of family bonds through dynastic succession and firm performance. The only non-significant relationship was between binding social ties and firm performance. The results provide a more nuanced understanding of the link between SEW goals and firm performance, and present important implications for theory and practice.

The cross-sectional nature of the study exposes it to the specter of common method bias despite the fact that procedural remedies were initiated to minimize the impact of such occurrence. A longitudinal study with data obtained from multiple individuals at different levels of the organization would possibly yield more robust findings. Furthermore, in the absence of a multi-country and multi-sector analysis, a broad generalization of the findings may not be feasible.

The knowledge that family identity, emotional attachment and renewal of family bonds through dynastic succession may be leveraged to enhance the commitment of subsequent generation of family firm owners to the firm that may be pertinent to incumbents who desire to see their successors more engaged in the family enterprise. Furthermore, knowing that excessive focus on family control over the firm leads to negative outcomes is also pertinent to family firm leaders.

Survival of family businesses is vital to the global economy as one of the primary drivers of global GDP growth and source of new employment. Policy makers can benefit from the findings of this study to customize policies that take into cognizance the importance of SEW owners of family firms and the fact that some of these SEW goals actually benefit the firm in terms of enhanced commitment to the enterprise and consequently superior firm performance.

The role of family commitment as a mediator between SEW and firm performance has not been dominant in the literature. By providing a finer-grained understanding of how family commitment accounts for the relationship between family-centric non-economic goals such as SEW and firm-centric goals such as business performance, the study presents a theoretical link between sociomemotional wealth and financial wealth in the context of private family firms.