在我们信任的家族企业中——关于可持续发展报告可信度的实验证据:一项扩展的复制研究

IF 9.5 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Family Business Strategy Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jfbs.2022.100498
Adrian Stutz , Sabrina Schell , Andreas Hack
{"title":"在我们信任的家族企业中——关于可持续发展报告可信度的实验证据:一项扩展的复制研究","authors":"Adrian Stutz ,&nbsp;Sabrina Schell ,&nbsp;Andreas Hack","doi":"10.1016/j.jfbs.2022.100498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study takes a fresh look at the credibility of corporate communication in family firms, as compared to corporate communication in non-family firms, in voluntary sustainability reporting. In his pioneering work Hsueh (2018) discovered that family firms suffer from a credibility disadvantage in terms of their sustainability reporting efforts, from the point of view of external stakeholders. This is called the ‘credibility gap’. This finding however is in stark contrast to the superior trust attribution of external stakeholders towards family firms in the general family firm literature. Our replication study shows that indeed, family firms do not suffer from a credibility gap compared to their non-family firm counterparts. In fact, in our experimental extension we can show that family firms, when perceived as such, are considered to be benevolent, which in turn increases the credibility of their sustainability reporting from an external perspective. Thus, contrary to the original study by Hsueh (2018), we suggest that family firms have a credibility advantage over non-family firms when it comes to their sustainability reporting. Furthermore, our results suggest that this credibility advantage remains, even when tested with specific stakeholder roles (customers, job-seekers), and that it ultimately influences their interactions with the firm positively.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47661,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Business Strategy","volume":"13 4","pages":"Article 100498"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187785852200016X/pdfft?md5=cfa2d7f9c1df99d4cc09b37979f44129&pid=1-s2.0-S187785852200016X-main.pdf","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In family firms we trust – Experimental evidence on the credibility of sustainability reporting: A replication study with extension\",\"authors\":\"Adrian Stutz ,&nbsp;Sabrina Schell ,&nbsp;Andreas Hack\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jfbs.2022.100498\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This study takes a fresh look at the credibility of corporate communication in family firms, as compared to corporate communication in non-family firms, in voluntary sustainability reporting. In his pioneering work Hsueh (2018) discovered that family firms suffer from a credibility disadvantage in terms of their sustainability reporting efforts, from the point of view of external stakeholders. This is called the ‘credibility gap’. This finding however is in stark contrast to the superior trust attribution of external stakeholders towards family firms in the general family firm literature. Our replication study shows that indeed, family firms do not suffer from a credibility gap compared to their non-family firm counterparts. In fact, in our experimental extension we can show that family firms, when perceived as such, are considered to be benevolent, which in turn increases the credibility of their sustainability reporting from an external perspective. Thus, contrary to the original study by Hsueh (2018), we suggest that family firms have a credibility advantage over non-family firms when it comes to their sustainability reporting. Furthermore, our results suggest that this credibility advantage remains, even when tested with specific stakeholder roles (customers, job-seekers), and that it ultimately influences their interactions with the firm positively.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47661,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Family Business Strategy\",\"volume\":\"13 4\",\"pages\":\"Article 100498\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187785852200016X/pdfft?md5=cfa2d7f9c1df99d4cc09b37979f44129&pid=1-s2.0-S187785852200016X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Family Business Strategy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187785852200016X\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Family Business Strategy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187785852200016X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

本研究对自愿可持续发展报告中家族企业与非家族企业的企业沟通的可信度进行了重新审视。在他的开创性工作中,Hsueh(2018)发现,从外部利益相关者的角度来看,家族企业在可持续发展报告方面存在信誉劣势。这就是所谓的“可信度差距”。然而,这一发现与一般家族企业文献中外部利益相关者对家族企业的优越信任归属形成鲜明对比。我们的复制研究表明,与非家族企业相比,家族企业确实没有信用缺口。事实上,在我们的实验扩展中,我们可以证明,家族企业被认为是仁慈的,这反过来又从外部角度增加了其可持续发展报告的可信度。因此,与Hsueh(2018)的原始研究相反,我们认为家族企业在可持续发展报告方面比非家族企业具有可信度优势。此外,我们的研究结果表明,即使在特定利益相关者角色(客户、求职者)的测试中,这种可信度优势仍然存在,并且它最终会积极影响他们与公司的互动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
In family firms we trust – Experimental evidence on the credibility of sustainability reporting: A replication study with extension

This study takes a fresh look at the credibility of corporate communication in family firms, as compared to corporate communication in non-family firms, in voluntary sustainability reporting. In his pioneering work Hsueh (2018) discovered that family firms suffer from a credibility disadvantage in terms of their sustainability reporting efforts, from the point of view of external stakeholders. This is called the ‘credibility gap’. This finding however is in stark contrast to the superior trust attribution of external stakeholders towards family firms in the general family firm literature. Our replication study shows that indeed, family firms do not suffer from a credibility gap compared to their non-family firm counterparts. In fact, in our experimental extension we can show that family firms, when perceived as such, are considered to be benevolent, which in turn increases the credibility of their sustainability reporting from an external perspective. Thus, contrary to the original study by Hsueh (2018), we suggest that family firms have a credibility advantage over non-family firms when it comes to their sustainability reporting. Furthermore, our results suggest that this credibility advantage remains, even when tested with specific stakeholder roles (customers, job-seekers), and that it ultimately influences their interactions with the firm positively.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
19.40%
发文量
53
期刊介绍: The Journal of Family Business Strategy takes an international perspective, providing a platform for research that advances our understanding of family businesses. Welcoming submissions across various dimensions, the journal explores the intricate interplay between family dynamics and business operations, contributing new insights to this specialized field.
期刊最新文献
Fulfillment or status: Job seekers’ reward expectations towards family and non-family employers Editorial Board Unveiling environmental, social, and governance dynamics in family firms Creating and sustaining mutualistic well-being: Toward a theory of family and business symbiosis Measuring family influence from the non-family employee perspective: The perceived family influence scale (PFIS)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1