bachelor thesis project - hochschule-luzern · lucerne university of applied sciences and arts -...
TRANSCRIPT
Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts - Business
Bachelor of Science in Business Administration
International Management & Economics
BACHELOR THESIS PROJECT:
Corporate Social Responsibility in
Swiss family-owned Corporations
Student: Supervisor and Client:
Pascal Diebold Dr. Claudia Astrachan Binz
Hochschule Luzern – Wirtschaft Hochschule Luzern - Wirtschaft
([email protected]) ([email protected])
___________________________________________________________________________
June 2015
2
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Previous research suggests that family firms are more likely to be socially
responsible and, hence, to satisfy societal stakeholders. What distinguishes family
firms from non-family firms is the owning family, which is an additional stakeholder
group in the business. This thesis investigates whether the uniqueness of family-owned
organizations implies that family firms, and consequently their owner families, have
distinguished economic, but also non-economic goals which they pursue by acting
socially responsible with their stakeholders. The study contributes to the existing
family firm research in this field and provides a deeper understanding of the Swiss
family firms’ approach towards corporate social responsibility (CSR).
In total, 12 qualitative interviews were conducted with family and non-family
members of family-owned corporations in Switzerland. Based on the interviews,
12 anonymous case studies were established in which each firm-specific approach
towards CSR was described. The research continued by a cross-case comparison of
the individual results.
CSR for the strategic sample especially concerns the way how the respective
corporation’s stakeholders are managed and the way how the firm acts in order to
ensure that the business will still exist across generations. Next to corporate motives
of family firms to behave in a socially responsible way, several underlying goals could
be identified. The study shows that, whether they are or of economic or non-economic
nature, the goals pursued by means of CSR are mainly family-centered, employee-
centered or business-centered. Whereas for the family-centered goals the non-
economic side prevails, the employee related goals cannot solely be classified into
either direction.
The research indicates that CSR is a personal concern of the respective owner
family and implies that the approach towards CSR is dependent on the owner family’s
attitudes and values. The respective family firms’ measures in place also contribute to
the well-being of the owner families themselves. Next to long-term targets, such as
sustained family ownership, control and influence, CSR is insofar interesting for the
owner families as it serves them with a platform for family-internal purposes.
Keywords: Family Firms, CSR, Family Firm Goals, Stakeholder Management,
Qualitative Case Study Research
3
PREFACE
The topic was chosen because during my studies, I have been interested by the
contemporary research area of CSR and the intriguing family firm literature. It was
therefore my idea to combine these two topics and to go more in-depth. Both research
topics are extensive and therefore, I have narrowed down the research focus in such a
way that the thesis was still realizable.
I would like to thank the client and supervisor, Dr. Claudia Astrachan Binz,
who provided the scientific support during the formation of my bachelor thesis. It was
a pleasure to work with her as she has profound experience in this field of research. I
would also like to give special thanks to the respective family firms and accordingly,
to the interviewees who took their valuable time to contribute to my project.
Lucerne, June 25, 2015 Pascal Diebold
4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Family Firm Definition by Degree of Family Involvement 12
Figure 2: Social Responsibility Categories 19
Figure 3: The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility 20
Figure 4: Stakeholder View of Firm 25
Figure 5: Conceptual Framework of the Thesis 27
Figure 6: Research Design 33
Figure 7: Dynamic Visualization of Identified Family Firm Goals 76
5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Five Dimensions of CSR 21
Table 2: CSR Actions vis-a-vis Key Stakeholders 26
Table 3: CSR Approach and Implied Goals within Family Firms 71
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 2
PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................. 3
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 4
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... 6
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 8
1.1. BACKGROUND OF THE THESIS ...................................................................................................... 8
1.2. AIM OF THE THESIS ...................................................................................................................... 10
1.3. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS ................................................................................................. 10
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................ 11
2.1. FAMILY FIRMS .............................................................................................................................. 11
2.1.1 Defining the Family Firm .............................................................................................................11
2.1.2 Goals within Family Firms ..........................................................................................................14
2.1.2.1 Economic Goals .............................................................................................................................15
2.1.2.2 Non-Economic Goals ..................................................................................................................15
2.2. CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ...................................................................................... 16
2.2.1 Defining Corporate Social Responsibility .............................................................................16
2.2.2 Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility .................................................................18
2.2.3 CSR in the Context of Family Firms .........................................................................................21
2.2.4 CSR and Corporate Citizenship .................................................................................................22
2.3. THE STAKEHOLDER APPROACH ................................................................................................. 23
2.3.1 The Stakeholder Theory ...............................................................................................................23
2.3.2 Implications of CSR in a Stakeholder Context ....................................................................25
2.4. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK........................................................................................................ 27
3. METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURE .................................................................................. 29
3.1. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................. 29
3.2. QUALITATIVE APPROACH ........................................................................................................... 29
3.3. EMPIRICAL DESIGN ...................................................................................................................... 30
3.4. MULTIPLE CASE STUDY ............................................................................................................... 32
3.5. RESEARCH DESIGN ....................................................................................................................... 33
4. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 34
4.1. CASE STUDIES ............................................................................................................................... 34
7
4.1.1 Case Study – Corporation A ........................................................................................................35
4.1.2 Case Study – Corporation B ........................................................................................................37
4.1.3 Case Study – Corporation C ........................................................................................................39
4.1.4 Case Study – Corporation D ........................................................................................................41
4.1.5 Case Study – Corporation E ........................................................................................................44
4.1.6 Case Study – Corporation F ........................................................................................................46
4.1.7 Case Study – Corporation G ........................................................................................................48
4.1.8 Case Study – Corporation H ........................................................................................................51
4.1.9 Case Study – Corporation I .........................................................................................................53
4.1.10 Case Study – Corporation J .......................................................................................................56
4.1.11 Case Study – Corporation K .....................................................................................................59
4.1.12 Case Study – Corporation L ......................................................................................................62
4.2. CROSS-CASE COMPARISON ......................................................................................................... 65
4.2.1 CSR Approach and Implied Goals within Family Firms .................................................65
4.2.2 Implications on the Family Firms’ Approach to CSR ......................................................72
5. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 74
6. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 77
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 79
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW OUTLINE FOR FAMILY MEMBERS ........................................ 83
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW OUTLINE FOR NON-FAMILY MEMBERS ............................. 84
APPENDIX C: INFORMATION SHEET FOR THE INTERVIEWEES ................................... 85
APPENDIX D: CATEGORIES / THEMES ................................................................................... 86
APPENDIX E: CSR AND PROFITS: LIKELY BENEFITS AND COSTS ................................. 89
APPENDIX F: DECLARATION OF SOLE AUTHORSHIP ....................................................... 90
8
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Thesis
Family firms are the most predominant form of organizations worldwide,
contributing to the major share of the global economy (Lindow, 2013, p. 7). In the
United States (U.S.), “family businesses represent a substantial portion and have a
massive impact on the economy as a whole” (Astrachan & Shanker, 2003, pp. 217-
218). In Europe, they “make up more than 60% of all European companies,
encompassing a vast range of firms of different sizes and from different sectors”
(European Commission, 2009, p. 4). In their report, the European Commission
identified that family businesses account for approximately 40% - 50% of employment
in Europe (id. at p.12).
In Switzerland, approximately 88% of all companies are family firms
(Zellweger, 2006, p.19) which employ more than 60% of the economy’s work force
and contribute to more than half of the country’s economic output (Daellenbach, 2011,
p. 2). Zellweger (2006) used several data sources (i.e. La Porta et al., 1999; Frey et al.,
2004; Fueglistaller, 1995) to identify the fractions of family managed and non-family
managed companies in Switzerland. The research shows that the majority of small and
mid-sized companies (SMEs) are family managed (p.19), whereas large publicly
quoted companies are mainly non-family managed (p. 18). This fact correlates with
the results of previous studies which indicate that, increasing company size is often
accompanied by diminishing family involvement (Bhattacharya & Ravikumar, 2001;
Klein, 2000; La Porta et al., 1999). In sum, Swiss family firms are referred to as being
the backbone of the national economy.
According to Zellweger and Nason (2008, p. 205), what distinguishes family
from non-family companies is the owning family, which is an additional stakeholder
group in the business. Furthermore, owners tend to identify with their company: family
members take pride in being part of the family and the organization (id. at p. 207), and
as they identify with the company, they view the company as an extension of their own
identity (Dyer & Whetten, 2006, Sundaramurthy & Kreiner, 2008, Zellweger,
Eddleston & Kellermanns, 2010). Therefore, “family entrepreneurs often view their
firms as an extension of the self and their families, which makes them more likely to
9
be socially responsible and, hence, satisfy societal stakeholders” (Zellweger & Nason,
2008, p. 205; see also Dyer & Whetten, 2006).
Whether or not a corporation is family owned, corporations have stakeholders,
that is, “groups and individuals who benefit from or are harmed by, and whose rights
are violated or respected by, corporate actions” (Freeman, 1984, p. 25). How
organizations prioritize their stakeholders’ needs might depend on their corporate
strategy and their corporate governance principles. Correspondingly, the business
owners’ values and principles shape the way businesses operate. While some argue
that “corporations are freed from any immediate legitimacy demands and thus are not
required to expose themselves to public scrutiny and justify their behavior as long as
they comply to the law” (Friedman, 1962, in Scherer & Palazzo, 2008, p. 421),
corporations also have to go beyond economic and legal responsibilities and have to
implement non-economic goals into their corporate strategies because “business firms
have an additional political responsibility to contribute to the development and proper
working of global governance” (Scherer & Palazzo, 2008, p. 414).
Over the last couple of decades, organizations had to acknowledge the
consequences of bad corporate governance practices, even before corporate scandals
have emerged in the public eye, such as the Enron auditing scandal in 2001. The
implementation of CSR measures in family, as well as in non-family businesses, has
become a standard in practice, and also a popular research topic in management
literature (e.g. Bowen 1953; Caroll 1979; Caroll 1991; Davis, 1960; Hopkins, 2003;
McGuire, 1963). CSR, which “is concerned with treating the stakeholders of a
company or institution ethically or in a responsible manner” (Hopkins, 2003, p. 1), is
a timely and relevant issue. Investigating non-monetary goals of family and non-
family firms is a topic especially worth pursuing as there is a “bias towards analyzing
only the financial performance of family firms in the family versus nonfamily
performance literature” (Zellweger & Nason, 2008, p. 205). The uniqueness of family-
owned organizations implies that family firms, and consequently their owner families,
might have distinguished economic, but also non-economic goals which they pursue
by acting socially responsible with their stakeholders. Although studies in the area of
CSR and in Swiss companies already exist (e.g. Baumann-Pauly, Wickert, Spence, &
Scherer, 2013; Jakob, 2012), there has been no similar qualitative study focusing on
the underlying motives of CSR in family-owned corporations.
10
1.2. Aim of the Thesis
As outlined by Smith (2003), today’s question is not whether a business is
committed to CSR: rather, the focus should lie on how companies live up to their CSR
commitments. How family firms approach CSR might depend on the influence and the
goals of the owner family. To investigate the origin of the way in which CSR is
implemented, this thesis also aims to identify distinguished economic and non-
economic goals which Swiss family firms pursue by treating their stakeholders in a
socially responsible way. Hence, this thesis addresses the following research
questions:
How do Swiss family-owned corporations approach CSR?
Which distinguished goals do family firms pursue by means of CSR?
In order to establish a baseline concerning CSR in family firms, a preliminary
literature review will be performed. The first step in the review process is to gain
insights about the topic and to develop insightful questions for the interview outlines.
For the thesis, decision makers of 12 selected family firms are interviewed. By
applying the technique of semi-structured interviewing, the researcher aims to identify
the underlying motives of CSR. Case studies will serve as the preferred research
strategy. As identified by Yin (1994, p. 9), case studies are an appropriate research
strategy when “a how or why question is being asked about a contemporary set of
events over which the investigator has little or no control”.
1.3. Organization of the Thesis
The first chapter consists of the introduction which highlights the relevance of
this topic, the aim, and the organization of the thesis. Subsequently, in the theoretical
background section, the reader should become familiar with the theoretical
background where some of the major contributions in the context of family firms,
CSR, and the stakeholder theory, are highlighted and synthesized. Next, the qualitative
research methodology of this thesis is outlined, before the results are described in the
form of 12 case studies, accompanied by a cross-case comparison. Last, following a
discussion of the results, a conclusion is drawn and commented upon.
11
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1. Family Firms
2.1.1 Defining the Family Firm
As outlined in Chapter 1, family firms contribute to the major share of the
global economy and, as can be seen by the example of Switzerland, are referred to as
being the backbones ofnational economies. Yet, despite their relevance in the world of
business and the growing area of family firm literature, no commonly agreed definition
of a family firm exists. In this subchapter, attempts to create a generally accepted
family firm definition will be delineated and a “concept” will be chosen in order to
establish coherence throughout this paper.
In 1989, Handler stated that “defining the family firm is the first and most
obvious challenge facing family business researchers” (p. 258). The challenge of
defining the family business remains as, according to Binz (2013), “the field has been
struggling to develop a generally accepted definition of what constitutes a family firm,
as compared with a non-family company” (p. 35). Astrachan, Klein and Smyrnios
(2002, p. 45) find that most definitions used focus on content, ownership, ownership
and management involvement of the owner family, generational transfer and family
business culture. This could indicate that depending on the research focus and
accordingly, the different characteristics of family-owned businesses, family firm
researchers have used a high variation of definitions. Subsequently, the problem of
defining the family business even became a research topic itself (e.g. Astrachan, Klein
& Smyrnios, 2002; Chua, Chrisman & Sharma, 1999; Heck & Scannell, 1999; Litz,
1995; Shanker & Astrachan, 1996).
As previous research shows, the involvement of the owner family plays an
important role when it comes to the distinction between family and non-family firms.
For example, Chrisman, Chua and Steiner (2005) argue that “family firms are unique
as a result of the involvement of the family through ownership, governance,
management, and vision” (p. 237).
Along with a study attempting to measure the family businesses’ contribution
to the U.S.economy, an approach to solve the definition dilemma came from Shanker
and Astrachan in 1996. By using research from multiple fields and sources, the authors
have classified definitions by the degree of family involvement, resulting in the three
12
categorizations of: “Broad”; “Middle”; and “Narrow” (Shanker and Astrachan, 1996,
p. 109), as depicted in Figure 1 below:
Figure 1: Family Firm Definition by Degree of Family Involvement
(Shanker & Astrachan, 1996, p. 109)
As seen in Figure 1, the broad definition is characterized by relatively little direct
family involvement. The owner family within this category needs to have effective
control over the strategic direction of the company and there has to be an intention that
the business remains within the family. The middle definition includes the broad
definition. In this classification, where the family has some family involvement, the
founder, or descendants of the founder, must run the company and furthermore, the
owner family needs to have the legal control of the voting stock. The narrow
definition, including the middle and the broad definitions, is comprised of family
members from multiple generations and the direct involvement of at least one family
member in the management of the family firm (Shanker and Astrachan, 1996, p. 109).
Another study that further demonstrates the relevance of family influence
comes from Astrachan, Klein and Smyrnios. In 2002, the authors proposed a scaled
framework, called the F-PEC scale, to solve the family business definition problem.
On a continuous scale, this conception is “assessing the extent of family influence on
any enterprise, enabling the measurement of the impact of family on outcomes such as
success, failure, strategy, and operations” (Astrachan et al., 2002, p. 45). Based on
main themes derived from an in-depth content analysis of various family business
definitions, the F-PEC scale was standardized into three continuous dimensions:
power, experience and culture (id. at pp. 47-51).
13
On the other hand, a study in 1999 found that a family firm can be distinguished
from non-family firms by behavior. By reviewing over 250 research papers, Chua,
Chrisman and Sharma (1999) compiled a list with 21 family business definitions from
which they proposed that “a company is a family business because it behaves as one
and that this behavior is distinct from that of non-family firms” (p. 22). The authors
observed that “the definitions include three qualifying combinations of ownership and
management” (Chua et al., 1999, p. 20):
(A) family-owned and family-managed;
(B) family-owned but not family-managed;
(C) family-managed but not family-owned
Whereas the combination of family-owned and family-managed (A) by a nuclear
family seems to be widely recognized as what constitutes a family business, there is
disagreement amongst researchers between the combinations (B) and (C) and other
ownership patterns which deviate from the nuclear family perspective (id. at pp. 20-
22).
The relevance of succession is another characteristic that has gained
momentum in the family firm research literature. According to Ward (1987), a
distinguished factor of a family business has to be that “it will be passed on for the
family's next generation to manage and control” (p. 252). Although this bachelor thesis
is not focused specifically on succession in family firms, it remains a component to be
considered for the sampling. As Astrachan, Klein and Smyrnios (2002) highlighted:
“the level of experiences gained from the succession process is greatest during the shift
from first to second generations” (p. 49). Therefore, in order to be differentiated from
non-family businesses, it might be argued that a family firm should be operating at
least in the second generation; or, if not already in the second generation, a succession
plan should be in place for the transition of the family business from the first to the
second generation.
A comprehensive and convertible definition was delineated by Frey, Halter,
and Zellweger in 2004. In their article, Family Business in Switzerland: Significance
and Structure, the authors created a broad, objective definition (Frey, Halter &
Zellweger, 2004, p. 3):
14
A family business is a company that is influenced by one or more families in a
substantial way. A family is defined as a group of people who are descendants
of one couple and their in-laws as well as the couple itself. Influence in a
substantial way is considered if the family either owns the stock or, if not, the
lack of influence in ownership is balanced through either influence through
corporate governance (percentage of seats in the supervisory board, or others
held by family members) or influence through management (percentage of
family members in the top management team). For a business to be a family
business, some shares must be held by the family.
In sum, the review of existing attempts to define a family firm shows that there is no
common agreement amongst researchers. As Binz (2013) concludes on the dilemma
of defining the family business, “there is no broad consensus regarding what
constitutes a family firm and in what aspects exactly they differ from their non-family
analogues” (p. 38).
In the context of this thesis, the owner family still has to be influential in the
business and therefore, family firms are defined as businesses which meet the
following criteria:
Multiple generations (business needs to be operated by the owner family at
least in the second generation)
Direct involvement of the family in the board of directors or in the senior
management (at least one member involved in an executive level position or in
the directorate)
Legal control (the majority of the firm’s stock is owned by the family)
2.1.2 Goals within Family Firms
As within non-family owned corporations, family firms have distinguished
goals which they pursue. However, referring back to Zellweger & Nason (2008, p.
205), what distinguishes family from non-family firms is the owning family, which is
de facto an additional stakeholder group in the business. Hence, the family as a stake-
holder, and particularly as the owner of a corporation, pursues goals that might differ
from their counterparts. Current research suggests that family firms have two
distinguished goal dimensions, namely the family-centered and the business-centered
15
goals (Astrachan Binz & Ferguson, 2014; Zellweger, Nason, Nordqvist, & Brush,
2013). Whereas family-centred goals refer to the goals directly related to the owning
family, the business-centred goals are mainly related to the company (Astrachan Binz
& Ferguson, 2014, p. 6). Both set of goals can be either from an economic or a non-
economic nature. The degree to which family firms pursue their family goals depend
on various factors, such as on how involved (Zellweger et al., 2010, p. 60) or how
integrated the owning family is in the business (Sundaramurthy & Kreiner, 2008, p.
491). Certainly, goals within family firms are diverse and its causation became a
relevant research topic itself (Astrachan Binz & Ferguson, 2014; Zellweger et al.,
2013).
2.1.2.1 Economic Goals
Like any other corporation in the competitive world of business, family firms
pursue economic goals. Thus, according to economic theory, in a competitive market,
they seek to maximize their utility (Boatright, 2013, p. 8). In order to do so,
corporations have to “produce goods and services that society wants and to sell them
at a profit” (Carroll, 1979, p. 500). However, as outlined above, family firms differ
from their counterparts and, to some extent, so do their economic goals. Astrachan
Binz & Ferguson (2014, pp. 9-12) propose that family financial wealth (family-
centered), financial independence, financial stability, and long-term firm survival
(business-centered) are among the distinguished economic goals of family firms.
2.1.2.2 Non-Economic Goals
According to Zellweger et al., “there is little theory explaining why family
firms should be particularly inclined to strive for nonfinancial goals” (p. 12) and
“a compelling theory-based rationale explaining the relationship between nonfinancial
goals at the family level and nonfinancial goals at the firm level is lacking” (id. at p.
3). Even if there is little empirical evidence about why family firms strive for non-
economic goals, there seems to be a common agreement among researchers that family
firms are the better corporate citizen (Block, 2010; Dyer & Whetten, 2006; Niehm,
Swinney & Miller, 2008; Zellweger, Kellermanns, Eddleston, & Memili, 2012).
Implying that family firms are indeed the better corporate citizens compared to non-
family firms, it might be supposed that their non-economic goals vary from their
16
counterparts. Astrachan & Ferguson (2014, pp. 6-12) propose various specific non-
economic goal dimensions within family firms which are classified as family
entrepreneurial sustainability, family emotional sustainability, family non-financial
wealth (family-centered) and quality centricity, firm reputation, as well as employee
satisfaction (business centered). Zellweger et al. (2013, p. 2) for example, argue that
“unique factors such as the visibility of the family in the firm, the transgenerational
sustainability intentions oft he family, and the capability of the firm for self-
enhancement of the family often create particularly strong incentives to pursue nonfi-
nancial goals.”
2.2. Corporate Social Responsibility
2.2.1 Defining Corporate Social Responsibility
The role of Corporate Social Responsibility has become a global issue since
the 1950s when the term was first coined in the U.S. According to Carroll (1999, p.
269), the era of CSR started with the 1953 publication of Howard R. Bowen’s book
Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Still not in an extensive way, but with
increasing frequency, businesses and societies were viewed as essentially coterminous
(Heald, 1970, p. 270). However, not before the 1960s, the proper social role of
corporate enterprises came to a debate (id. at p. 271). In Europe, since the 1980s, CSR
was mainly promoted by the governments “as a way of replacing the traditional role
of the state in regulating business and providing for people’s well-being” (Boatright,
2013, p. 293). Over time, the standard of doing business in a socially responsible
manner has evolved and developed. This might also be the case because firms which
were acting unethically or immorally, became the subject of public scrutiny.
Nowadays, especially in developing countries, corporations face demand to contribute
towards the welfare state. As Scherer & Palazzo find (2008, p. 414), “business firms
have an additional political responsibility to contribute to the development and proper
working of global governance”. Yet, the implementation levels of global CSR
standards in corporations differ between regions, a fact which might be based on the
differences of the respective underlying business cultures (Welford, 2005, pp. 40-42;
see also Hopkins, 2003).
Although CSR has become an important research topic, there has been
discrepancy amongst researchers about what is really meant by CSR. As stated by
17
Votaw in 1972, “Corporate social responsibility means something, but not always the
same thing to everybody” (p. 25). Furthermore, as previous research shows, the
different meanings and interpretations of CSR have changed over time. According to
Carroll & Shabana (2010, p. 85):
Over the decades, the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has
continued to grow in importance and significance. It has been the subject of
considerable debate, commentary, theory building and research. In spite of the
ongoing deliberations as to what it means and what it embraces, it has
developed and evolved in both academic as well as practitioner communities
worldwide.
The beginning of the CSR era might be represented by Howard R. Bowen, the
“father of Corporate Social Responsibility” (Carroll, 1999, p.269), who in 1954 stated
that “it refers to the obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those
decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the
objectives and values of our society” (Bowen, 1953, p. 6). In the 1960s, another major
contribution came from Davis (1960, p. 71), who claimed that “social responsibilities
of businessmen need to be commensurate with their social power”. The author further
argued that if social responsibility and power were to be relatively equal, “the
avoidance of social responsibility leads to gradual erosion of social power” (id. at p.
73). In the same century, McGuire (1963, p. 144) stated that “the idea of social
responsibilities supposes that the corporation has not only economic and legal
obligations but also certain responsibilities to society which extend beyond these
obligations”. The 1970s were mainly comprised by the “proliferation of CSR
definitions and attempts to define distinctive features and rules of CSR” (Leitão &
Silva, 2007, p.4). Carrol’s Four-Layer Model, published at the end of the 1970s, might
be seen as a milestone. According to Carroll (1979, p. 499),“for a definition of social
responsibility to fully address the entire range of obligations a business has to society,
it must embody the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary categories of business
performance”. Carroll’s Four-Layer Model will be further examined in Chapter 2.2.2.
In a later stage, complementary concepts of CSR are introduced, such as “corporate
social responsiveness, corporate social performance, ethics in business and
18
management of the relationships established between the stakeholders, and public
policies” (Leitão and Silva, 2007, p.4).
For this thesis, a rather broad, extended, and timely definition will be used
which also takes the stakeholder approach into account. Hopkins (2003, p. 1) has
defined CSR as follows:
CSR is concerned with treating the stakeholders of the firm ethically or in a
responsible manner. ‘Ethically or responsible’ means treating stakeholders in
a manner deemed acceptable by society. Social includes economic
responsibility. Stakeholders exist both within a firm and outside – the natural
environment is a stakeholder. The wider aim of social responsibility is to create
higher and higher standards of living, while preserving the profitability of the
corporation, for peoples both within and outside of the corporation.
2.2.2 Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility
As outlined in Chapter 2.2.1, “corporate social responsibility means something,
but not always the same thing to everybody” (Votaw, 1972, p. 25). Along with the
different definitions which have evolved over time, literature on CSR has focused on
several dimensions. The most cited dimensions in literature came from Archie B.
Carroll in 1979 and in 1991 quoted as “Social Responsibility Categories” and “The
Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility”.
In his first model, Carroll (1979, p. 499) has categorized social responsibilities
into four groups, namely: the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (see Figure
2). According to Carroll (1979, pp. 499-500), “the proportions suggest the relative
magnitude of each responsibility” and “are ordered in the Figure only to suggest what
might be termed their fundamental role in the evolution of importance”.
19
Figure 2: Social Responsibility Categories
(Carroll, 1979, p. 499)
Along with their economic responsibilities, businesses first have to “produce
goods and services that society wants and to sell them at a profit” (id. at p. 500). The
economic mission simultaneously has to be fulfilled “within the framework of legal
requirements” (id. at p. 500). This indicates that the economic and legal categories
create the underlying foundation, before organizations move towards the ethical and
discretionary categories. Carroll attempts to define ethical responsibilities as
“additional behaviors and activities that are not necessarily codified into law but
nevertheless are expected of business by society’s members” (id. at p. 500).
Furthermore, the discretionary category concludes that businesses also have voluntary
social roles and “the decision to assume them is guided only by a business’s desire to
engage in social roles not mandated, not required by law, and not even generally
expected of businesses in an ethical sense” (id at. p. 500).
In 1991, Carroll further revised the four categories to propose the “Pyramid of
Corporate Social Responsibility”, as seen in Figure 3 below:
20
Figure 3: The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility
(Carroll, 1991, p. 42)
The four categories are similar to Carroll’s “Social Responsibility Categories”,
however, the “discretionary” category is now named “philanthropic”. The economic
responsibilities build the foundation on which all others rest; “beginning with the basic
building block notion that economic performance undergirds all else” (Carroll, 1991,
p. 42). Especially, because the “ethical and philanthropic functions have taken a
significant place” (id. at p. 40), next is to obey the law; furthermore, businesses have
to be ethical and on top of that, be a good corporate citizen, if they aim to be widely
recognized by society. In sum, a "firm should strive to make a profit, obey the law, be
ethical, and be a good corporate citizen" (id at., p. 43).
Another approach to identify dimensions of CSR came by Alexander Dahlsrud,
published in 2008. While analyzing definitions of CSR, the author finds that “they
were referring to many of the same dimensions of CSR. Thus, the phrases that referred
to the same dimension were grouped together” (Dahlsrud, 2008, p. 3). In his study,
Dahlsrud has used the technique of emergent coding to identify five dimensions of
CSR (id. at pp. 3-4).
21
Table 1: Five Dimensions of CSR
(Adapted from Dahlsrud, 2008, p. 4)
The above example in Table 1 shows that no clear line can be drawn between the
dimensions and highlights that CSR is composed of different “spheres”. For instance,
taking the definition of Hopkins (2003, p. 1) into consideration, the environmental
dimension would belong to the stakeholder dimension, as “the natural environment is
a stakeholder”. Certainly, the categorized dimensions of Dahlsrud show that CSR is
not a clear-cut research area. Rather, each “sphere” is composed of different
fundamental theories.
2.2.3 CSR in the Context of Family Firms
Prior research has shown that, overall, the family firms’ commitment towards
the society and the environment is considered to be higher if compared to non-family
owned companies (e.g. Block, 2010; Dyer & Whetten, 2006; Niehm, Swinney &
Miller, 2008). In 2010, Block analyzed a sample of 500 listed companies in the U.S.,
and found that “family-owned firms are less likely to downsize than nonfamily firms,
even under conditions of low profitability” and thus, “are more stable employers even
Dimensions
The definition is coded to the
dimension if it refers to Example phrases
The environmental dimension The natural environment
‘a cleaner environment’
‘environmental stewardship’
‘environmental concerns in business
operations’
The social dimension The relationship between
business and society
‘contribute to a better society’
‘integrate social concerns in their business
operations’
consider the full scope of their impact on
communities’
The economic dimension
Socio-economic or financial as-
pects, including describing CSR
in terms of a business operation
‘contribute to economic development’
‘preserving the profitability’
‘business operations’
The stakeholder dimension Stakeholders or stakeholder
groups
‘interaction with their stakeholders’
‘how organizations interact with their
employees, suppliers, customers and
communities’
‘treating the stakeholders of the firm’
The voluntariness dimension Actions not prescribed by law
‘based on ethical values’
‘beyond legal obligations’
‘voluntary’
22
in economically depressed conditions than other types of firms”. As family-owned
businesses stand with their names behind the brand, and the owners are likely to be
directly held accountable for anything that happens within the company, they may
have a stronger desire to implement CSR measures than their non-family counterparts.
Thus, family firms are often said to have stronger ties to the community that surrounds
them (Zellweger et al., 2012, p. 243).
2.2.4 CSR and Corporate Citizenship
Next to CSR, other terms have been used interchangeably, such as business
ethics, sustainability or sustainable development, corporate environmental
management, business & society, business & governance, business & globalisation,
stakeholder management and corporate citizenship (Visser, 2006, p. 32). According to
Matten & Crane, “corporate citizenship has emerged as a prominent term in the
management literature dealing with the social role of business” (2005, p. 166). Matten
& Crane (2005, p. 173) have furthermore suggested a definition of Corporation
Citizenship (CC) as follows:
CC describes the role of the corporation in administering citizenship rights for
individuals. Such a definition reframes CC away from the notion that the
corporation is a citizen in itself (as individuals are) and toward the
acknowledgement that the corporation administers certain aspects of
citizenship for other constituencies. These include traditional stakeholders,
such as employees, customers, or shareholders, but also include wider
constituencies with no direct transactional relationship to the company.
For Carroll (1991, pp. 41-43) on the other hand, being a good corporate citizen
represents the corporations’ voluntary contributions to the community, or in other
words, to exercise philanthropic responsibilities. Delineating CSR from corporate
citizenship in detail would venture beyond the scope of this paper. Thus, due to the
familiarity with the term, this thesis paper will remain on CSR.
23
2.3. The Stakeholder Approach
2.3.1 The Stakeholder Theory
Outlined previously, the corporations’ primary goal is to fulfill their economic
obligations, or in other words, to “produce goods and services that society wants and
to sell them at a profit” (Carroll, 1979, p. 499). Hence, one might argue that for
centuries, the main (or sole) responsibility for corporations was to create value for
customers and monetary returns for shareholders. Arguments in favor of this
assumption were mainly supported by Adam Smyth’s “invisible hand” theory and
advocates of shareholder capitalism. A study which was published in 1962, that further
justified the rights of individuals (and corporations) to solely pursue the maximization
of their self-interests, came from Milton Friedman. In the author’s influential
publication, Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman states (1962, p. 133):
The view has been gaining widespread acceptance that corporate officials and
labor leaders have a "social responsibility" that goes beyond serving the
interest of their stockholders or their members. This view shows a fundamental
misconception of the character and nature of a free economy. In such an
economy, there is one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its
resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it
stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free
competition, without deception or fraud.
This statement still leaves room for interpretation and whether or not Friedman is
correct, is a subject of debate and will not be further discussed within this thesis.
Rather, Friedman’s argumentation might be used in order to elaborate upon the
stakeholder theory. Dima Jamali, for example, argues that the “needs of shareholders
cannot be met without satisfying to some degree the needs of other stakeholders”
(2008, p. 217). Referring to Friedman’s statement, this would indicate that even if
increasing profits would be the exclusive aim and responsibility of businesses, even
then, they would have to take care of their (or at least part of their) external
stakeholders in order to do so. That is, a corporation, by pursuing its economic (and
non-economic) goals, has to balance the demands of different interest groups (Grant,
24
2010, p. 35). This approach, which focuses on multiple constituencies, is referred to
as the stakeholder approach (id. at pp. 34-35).
The stakeholderperspective first gained importance in 1984, due to the
publication of R. Edward Freeman’s book Strategic management: A stakeholder
approach. In his study, Freeman attempted to build a bridge between theory and
practice. He came to realize that “because of the fast changing business environment,
managers are in need of a framework to manage their environment in a proactive way”
(Freeman, 1984, p. 4). According to Freeman (id. at pp. 5-7), to encompass present
and future changes, new concepts are needed so that the modern corporation needs to
go beyond the “production view” and the “managerial view”, where the focus only lies
on resource conversion, the returns provided to owners and the compensation of
employees.
Freeman has identified two sources of internal and external turbulences which
need to be handled carefully by organizations. First, the author refers to the familiar
sources of “internal change”, which deal with the demands of customers, employees,
stockholders (owners) and suppliers. Second, and more difficult to assess, are the
sources of “external change”, that is “the emergence of new groups, events and issues
which cannot be readily understood within the framework of an existing model or
theory” (Freeman, 1984, pp. 11-12). Those new groups which include governments,
competitors, consumer advocates, environmentalists, special interest groups (SIG), the
media and the local community organizations also “have a stake in the actions or
inactions of the corporation” (id. at pp. 13-25). For the success of a corporation, each
of these groups plays a vital role and thus, corporations have to understand their
environment, and accordingly, their stakeholders.
Freeman (1984, p. 25) defines a stakeholder as “any group or individual who
can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm’s objectives”. In Figure 4, the
categories of stakeholders that influence the firm and vice versa are depicted:
25
Figure 4: Stakeholder View of Firm
(Freeman, 1984, p. 25)
The view on stakeholders might differ compared to non-family firms, because of the
unique attributes of family firms. As outlined by Zellweger & Nason (2008, p. 205),
“in contrast to nonfamily enterprises, family firms have de facto an additional
stakeholder group, the family”.
2.3.2 Implications of CSR in a Stakeholder Context
As examined in Chapter 2.2.1, “CSR is concerned with treating the
stakeholders of the firm ethically or in a responsible manner. ‘Ethically or responsible’
means treating stakeholders in a manner deemed acceptable by society” (Hopkins,
2003, p. 1). According to Jamali (2008, p. 5), “Several authors have indeed favored a
stakeholder approach when examining CSR”. In a Cypriot study conducted in 2005,
businesses were asked about “CSR projects, covering social responsibility not only
towards customers and society at large but also towards employees, suppliers,
investors, and theenvironment” (Papasolomou-Doukakis, Krambia-Kapardis &
Katsioloudes, 2005, p. 263). In this study, the data of 40 questionnaires was analyzed
26
and the perceived responsibilities of businesses towards each stakeholder group were
delineated. Jamali (2008, p. 6) has summarized the findings of Papasolomou-Doukakis
et al. (2005), as can be seen in Table 2 below:
Stakeholder
Actions vis-a-vis key stakeholders
Employees
Provides a family friendly work environment
Engages in responsible human resource management
Provides an equitable reward and wage system for employees
Engages in open and flexible communication with employees
Invests in employee development
Encourages freedom of speech and promotes employee rights to speak up and report
their concerns at work
Provides child care support/paternity/maternity leave in addition to what is expected by
law
Engages in employment diversity in hiring and promoting women, ethnic minorities and
the physically handicapped
Promotes a dignified and fair treatment of all employees
Consumers Respects the rights of consumers
Offers quality products and services
Provides information that is truthful, honest and useful
Products and services provided are safe and fit with their intended use
Avoids false and misleading advertising
Discloses all substantial risks associated with product or service
Avoids sales promotions that are deceptive/manipulative
Avoids manipulating the availability of a product for purpose of exploitation
Avoids engagement in price fixing
Community Fosters reciprocal relationships between the corporation and community
Invests in communities in which corporation operates
Launches community development activities
Encourages employee participation in community projects
Investors Strives for a competitive return on investment
Engages in fair and honest business practices in relationships with shareholders
Suppliers Engages in fair trading transactions with suppliers
Environment Demonstrates a commitment to sustainable development
Demonstrates a commitment to the environment
Table 2: CSR Actions vis-a-vis Key Stakeholders
(Adapted from Jamali, 2008, p. 6, based on Papasolomou et al., 2005)
The study from Cyprus concludes that “local corporations primarily emphasize the
importance of meeting their responsibilities and obligations towards their employees
and customers” (Papasolomou-Doukakis et al., 2005, p. 277). Philanthropic donations,
on the other hand, were mainly conducted because of tax reasons and financial gain
appears to be a key motive for the adoption of social responsibility” (id at p. 277).
27
Hopkins (2003, p. 147) has outlined possible benefits and costs for
corporations which treat their stakeholders in a socially responsible manner (see
Appendix E). By applying socially responsible practices into their conduct of business,
firms will receive direct or indirect benefits and costs which can be associated to the
different stakeholder groups. Certainly, the benefits and costs identified by Hopkins
seem to be more of an economic nature and require more explanation as there is no
description given by the author of how this matrix was developed.
2.4. Conceptual Framework
Implementing the content from the theoretical background of this paper, the
motivations of family firms to engage in CSR-related activities can be synthesized.
Due to its unique attributes, family firms differ from non-family firms depending on
various factors, such as ownership, family involvement and generational transfer.
Furthermore, previous research proposes that family firms have distinguished family-
centered and business-centered goals (Astrachan & Ferguson, 2014; Zellweger et al.,
2013). The nature of these goals might be classified into economic and non-economic
clusters. The flowing process of implementing CSR measures is depicted in Figure 5
below:
Figure 5: Conceptual Framework of the Thesis
The goal dimensions might be interrelated to some extent as for example, a particular
family firm could be a formidable employer, but, the reasons of being a good employer
could be associated with business-centered, non-economic goals, such as to provide
job security. On the other hand, happy employees are likely to be more productive, so
the very nature of that goal could relate to the extrinsic, business-centered, economic
Goals within Family Firms
Family-centred
Business-centred
Nature of Goals
Economic
Non-economic
Measures
Corporate Social
Responsibility
28
goals of the family firm. CSR measures are the stakeholder-related consequences and
build the visual part in this mutual relationship between the various goals family firms
pursue.
29
3. METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURE
3.1. Literature Review
To become familiar with the topic, a literature review will be conducted.
Throughout the research process, the researcher will screen for major contributions
explaining the need for CSR and its current challenges in the world of business. As
outlined, family firms might be perceived to be a good corporate citizen. To further
investigate this possible family firm phenomenon, literature which covers the family
firms’ ethical and philanthropic commitments will be discussed and synthesized.
According to Hart (2001), “a thorough critical evaluation of existing research often
leads to new insights by synthesizing previously unconnected ideas, and can provide
methods for the collection of data” (p. 2). Scientific literature on the topic in the form
of books and journal articles can be found in libraries and online databases (e.g.
iluplus, Research Platform Alexandria, Social Science Research Network, etc.).
Furthermore, the references and bibliographies found in the relevant literature will
serve as another starting point. The literature review serves as “a means to an end and
not - as many people have been taught to think - an end in itself” (Yin, 2003, p. 9). It
is embedded throughout this thesis and thus, no separate chapter will cover this point.
3.2. Qualitative Approach
Although studies in the area of CSR and in Swiss companies already exist (e.g.
Baumann-Pauly, Wickert, Spence, & Scherer, 2013; Jakob, 2012), there has been no
similar qualitative study focusing on the underlying motives of CSR in family-owned
corporations. In an attempt to find out which distinguished goals in a family firm
context exist by means of CSR, the researcher has to elaborate on the theory, which
means that “existing theory in the area exists but gaps or oversights need to be filled
in” (Pratt, 2009, p. 859).
In order to grasp an understanding of the world from the perspective of the
sample, a qualitative research approach will be applied, which is particularly suitable
for addressing "how" – rather than “how many” questions (Pratt, 2009, p. 856).
Qualitative research locates the observer in the world and makes it visible (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2003, p. 4). Therefore, “qualitative researchers study things in their natural
30
settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meaning
people bring to them” (p. 5). Silverman (2000, p. 8) argues that “the methods used by
qualitative researchers exemplify a common belief that they can provide a ‘deeper’
understanding of social phenomena than would be obtained from purely quantitative
data”. According to Halfpenny (1979), qualitative methods are rather “soft, flexible,
subjective, political, case study oriented, speculative or grounded”, compared to
quantitative methods which are, on the other hand, “hard fixed, objective, value-free,
survey-oriented, hypothesis testing or abstract” (p, 799).
However, there are concerns that are inherently associated with qualitative
research methods. One such concern provides the argument that qualitative research
can be influenced by the researcher’s values (Silverman, 2000, p. 2). The focus rests
on how the researcher categorizes the events or activities. Due to the issue of reliabil-
ity, qualitative research “should only be contemplated at early or ‘exploratory’ stages
of a study” (id. at p. 9). Other critics place concern on the validity of qualitative re-
search. These critics argue that because the researchers do not undertake an attempt to
deal with the contrary case of their study, the result cannot be valid. Furthermore,
Silverman states that the “immersion in the ‘field’, so typical of qualitative research,
leads to a certain preciousness about the validity of the researcher’s own interpretation
of ‘their’ tribe or organization” (p. 9).
3.3. Empirical Design
3.3.1. Semi-Standardized Interview Approach
In order to gain valuable information, a qualitative research requires qualitative
research methods, such as in-depth interviews to find out what cannot be answered by
quantitative research. As the goal is an unyielding and deeper understanding of the
research topic, a semi-structured interview approach will be considered. According to
Rubin & Rubin (2005), “depth is achieved by going after context; dealing with the
complexity of multiple, overlapping, and sometimes conflicting themes; and paying
attention to the specifics of meanings, situations, and history” (p. 35). The elements of
a semi-standardized interview are diverse: first, it consists of open questions; second,
it consists of theory-driven questions; and last, of confrontational questions (Flick,
2006, pp. 155-156). In contrast to survey research, responsive interviewing uses follow
up questions and requires a flexible research design in order to be able to
31
“accommodate new information and to adjust to unexpected situations” (Rubin &
Rubin, 2005, p.35). Thus, it might be possible that the researcher has to add or alter
the questions in the interview outlines as the research evolves. The final interview
outlines (one for family members and one for non-family members) can be found in
Appendix A & B.
3.3.2. Strategic Sample
This section aims to give an overview about how and why the different
corporations and the corresponding interview partners will be chosen. First, the
researcher chooses family firms to be considered for the case studies that meet specific
conditions. Family-owned businesses that will be considered for this paper need to
have the legal form of a corporation. The reason for choosing corporations is that this
legal form is the most prevalent legal form in Switzerland and the only legal form that
has to cope with the interests of shareholders. Thus, in corporations, a corporate
strategy might depend on the ownership rights of the several shareholders and their
influence in the business over all. Moreover, as outlined in the theoretical background
part of this study, to be considered as a family-owned corporation, the owner family
has to hold at least 50% of the total shares of the company.
Second, the sample already needs to have certain CSR measures in place. Thus,
the researcher will screen for family-owned corporations in Switzerland (preferably
also operating internationally) which are perceived to as being a good employer, have
a good reputation in general, or have dedicated themselves to sustainable management
practices. Such organizations might be found on www.oebu.ch, www.family-business-
award.ch, in the book, Schweizer Standards – aus bester Familie, or other related data
sources.
The subsample for the interviews consists of 12 decision makers working in
family firms. In order to be considered for an interview, the interviewees were required
to meet specific conditions. They were required to be either: 1) members of the owning
family; 2) CEOs, members of the board of directors, or senior managers; 3) employees
working in CSR-related functions (e.g. sustainability managers, CSR officers, etc.); or
4) occupied within a specific function covering the demands of stakeholders (e.g. HR
managers, marketing and communication managers). To gain the most valuable
insights, family members are the preferred interview partners. If not enough family
members can be convinced to be interviewed, other non-family decision makers will
32
be taken into consideration. The possible interviewees are first approached by
telephone calls and later on by e-mail including an information sheet attachment (see
Appendix C).
3.4. Multiple Case Study
For this study, case study research serves as an appropriate methodology.
According to Yin (2003, p. 1),“in general, case studies are the preferred strategy when
‘how’ or ‘why’ questions are being posed, when the investigator has little control over
events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life
context”. The first research question is a “how” question and the second one is an
indirect “why” question. Furthermore, two interview outlines are established. They
consists of questions which are laid on a “how” and “why” foundation. The researcher
has no control about the actions of the particular firms and the respective responses of
the interviewees. CSR is a contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context for
businesses and its stakeholders. Schramm (1971, p. 6) states that “the essence of a case
study, the central tendency among all types of case study, is that it tries to illuminate
a decision or set of decisions: why they were taken, how they were implemented, and
with what result”.
Case studies are being used in order to understand complex social phenomena
where the investigator aims to “retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of
real-life events – such as in organizational and managerial processes” (Yin, 2003, pp.
1-2). In the special form of case study research, the researcher has the possibility to
choose between qualitative methods, quantitative methods, or both - depending on the
purpose of the study. Case studies can be mainly of an exploratory, descriptive, or
explanatory nature; however, there is sometimes no clear distinction which can be
made between the three directions (id. at pp. 5-7).
There are different types of case study approaches. The multiple case study
approach, in contrast to the isolated single case study approach, uses many sources of
evidence for the data collection (Yin, 2003, p. 97). By using multiple sources for cross-
case comparisons, it might be possible to develop “converging lines of inquiry” (id. at
p. 98).
33
3.5. Research Design
An overview of the overall research process is illustrated in Figure 6 below:
Figure 6 Research Design
The first step is to develop a focus and to derive the research questions. In order to
comprehend the topic and the field of research, a literature review and accordingly, the
development of a theoretical background is necessary. As outlined, the literature
review is reflected throughout the paper. The methodology is based on existing theory
and qualitative methods are chosen, such as the semi-structured interview approach.
Based on the theoretical background, a conceptual framework is developed where the
theory on the core topic is synthesized. The theory-based steps are interrelated and
remain flexible throughout the research process.
Once the respective family firms are selected and 12 interviewees are found,
the interviewing process will begin. After the interviews are conducted and the
relevant responses are collected on paper, a case study database will be established
based on these responses. The case study database will serve as the master file were
the researcher refers back to the original responses of the interviewees. After the 12
case studies are conducted, the cases will be compared, followed by a discussion and
a conclusion.
34
4. RESULTS
Based on the 12 qualitative interviews with decision makers from the selected
family firms, 12 case studies were conducted. During the process of conducting the
case studies, the researcher has laid emphasis on the family firm goal dimensions
proposed by Astrachan Binz and Ferguson (see Astrachan Binz & Ferguson, 2014, p.
13). The case studies are followed by a cross-case comparison, including a table which
summarizes the corporations’ approach towards CSR and the respective implied
family firm goals pursued. Furthermore, the table reflects the respondent’s exclusive
view towards the distinguished attributes of family firms in general.
4.1. Case Studies
The case studies are anonymous. This was arranged, together with the
interviewees, before the interviews were conducted. In the case studies, references to
the respective responses are given in brackets. These codes refer to the master
Microsoft Excel file, called “case study database” that can be found on the data CD.
For example, the sentence “whether it yields a competitive advantage or a better image
is rather secondary (L6)” refers to the case study database, whereupon “L” represents
the column (the family firm) and “6” the row (the theme). Therefore, in the case study
database, all relevant responses are subdivided into themes and the corporations
respectively. Also on the data CD is the “data collection” which contains all the
relevant and original responses from the interviewees.
The case studies begin with the background of the respective family firm and
continue with the firm’s meaning and implementation of CSR. Next, the identified
corporate motives are outlined, followed by a short family firm goals section and a
case discussion. In order to guide the reader throughout the results section, the
identified goals are illustrated with italicized font. It is important to keep those goals
in mind, as the thesis will provide an overview of all underlying implied family firm
goals identified in the form of a table in Chapter 4.2. Subsequently, a dynamic
visualization of the goals is shown in Chapter 5.
35
4.1.1 Case Study – Corporation A
Background
The corporation was founded before the 20th century and is operating in the 4th
family generation. The work force consists of approximately 1000 employees. The
products, which mainly consist of textile machines, are not directly sold to customers.
However, the brand is well known by Swiss citizens, and therefore, the corporation
sells its products via the business-to-business (B2B) market. It has one production site
in Switzerland and another one in Southeast Asia. Furthermore, the company owns
several subsidiaries around the world. The interview was conducted with a non-family
member working as the HR manager.
CSR – Meaning and Implementation
For Corporation A, CSR means that in all their activities, you do not only think
about the present, but also a little into the future, and accordingly, for a possible
successive generation (B2). Next, to obey the law and to adhere to regulations, CSR
in the view of this company representative consists of the aspiration for the environ-
ment and the stakeholders, so that nobody comes short (B2).
There is no specific CSR strategy or policy in place. For the interviewee, this
is especially the case because the corporation is privately and not public owned, so the
public interest for CSR is not as big, compared to a company which is public (B3).
However, for the firm, CSR is an all-encompassing topic in all their decisions (B3).
The CSR measures are determined by the owner, the CEO, and the entire management
in the daily actions (B5).
On their corporate website, the firm states that sustainability is an important
topic. For the interviewee, this sustainability has to be considered on one hand in
relation to the ecology, but also in the context of the whole environment, the
employees, and the customers (B4). Ecological aspects are being considered during
the production process, where the firm uses sustainable, recyclable material (B4). For
their production site in Southeast Asia, they are voluntarily applying Swiss standards
there as well (B4). Concerning their employees, the firm insofar takes care of them as
they do not dismiss personnel in difficult economic times. This can be evidenced by
the low personnel turnover rate of around 2-3% (B4).
36
Corporate Motives of CSR
For the corporation, over this socially responsible behavior of the firm, the
employees can identify and work for a company which produces sustainable products
(B6). Therefore, it is basically good for employee identification, but it can also lead to
a better image (B6). CSR is nevertheless a fundamental philosophy which the firm
cultivates (B6). The firm only publishes certain CSR-related content on its website and
no direct profit motive could be identified. However, the interviewee states that image
and quality are itsfirst priority (B7).
Family Firm Goals
The interviewee states that the factory in Southeast Asia was built because
otherwise, the firm would not exist anymore (B9). This indicates that it was a desire
of the owner family to strive for long-term firm survival. If the focus would lay on
profit maximization, the firm would have been sold because there was a potential
investor (B12). The brand would still exist, but Switzerland as a location for the
business would probably not exist anymore (B12). The family preferred that the
business gets continued for their own children and this is reflected in the firm’s
behavior (B12). On top of the desirability for sustained family ownership as an out-
come, for the family, social responsibility is a top priority.
Case Discussion
Corporation A views CSR as a holistic, all-encompassing, and fundamental
philosophy, for all of their decisions. It is concerned with the stakeholders and the
natural environment. Thus, the company acts in such a way that no stakeholder comes
short. Even if there are no specific corporate goals mentioned by the respective means
of CSR, the interviewee believes that it is an important internal factor. People who
seem to identify with the firm, can be represented by the low personnel turnover rate
of 2-3%. Even if the corporate image was mentioned as a possible benefit, the CSR-
related contributions are not actively published. Furthermore, this indicates that, for
this company, CSR is rather used for internal purposes.
However, goals of the owner family could be identified by the socially
responsible behavior of the corporation. Social responsibility is amongst the top
priorities for the family and the family strives for long-term survival of the firm and
its sustained family ownership.
37
4.1.2 Case Study – Corporation B
Background
The corporation was founded more than 150 years ago. Subsequently, the 5th
generation is currently leading the firm. Around 100 employees are currently
employed. It is a hotel and therefore, the well-known local business operates in the
business-to-customer (B2C) market. The interview was conducted with a non-family
member working as the Sales & Marketing Manager.
CSR – Meaning and Implementation
For Corporation B, CSR is concerned with the influence and responsibility
relating to their employees and their guests, i.e. the consequences of their daily actions
on humans (C2). It is reflected in the company’s respectful treatment of all
stakeholders. Therefore, fairness, respect, and decent behaviorare amongst their core
principles (C2).
No specific CSR strategy or policy is implemented, as CSR rather plays a
background role and is conducted instinctively (C3). According to the interviewee,
their CSR-related measures just happen, so they do not formally put it on their agenda
(C3). The CSR-related measures are determined by the owner family and the direc-
torate (C5).
Specifically, the hotel focuses on employee satisfaction, as it has established
fair employment conditions and on top of this, offers many additional and voluntary
benefits for the staff (C4). Also considered to be a social responsibility is the
company’s policy to focus on local suppliers (C4). The hotel also provides voluntary
contributions in support of a foundation which integrates disabled young people into
the working life (C4). In total, the family firm trains seven disabled young persons and
provides them with all-around support in their shared apartment (C4). Furthermore, in
order to respect the religions of the international guests, the hotel has invested 1200
working hours for intercultural employee trainings (C4).
Corporate Motives of CSR
The interviewee states that the CSR measures “just happen”. However, it might
be useful for corporate image purposes (C6). In their industry, employees like to talk
a lot about their working conditions. Thus, if someone would spread a negative rumor
about bad employment conditions, this could hurt the corporate image of the hotel
38
accordingly (C6). For the interviewee, somehow the employee and customer side
converge, as loyal employees can account for loyal customers (C6). For example, the
guests are also happy to see the same employee behind the reception three times in a
row (C6). Also, “something” comes back because of this behavior which can be seen
by the big portion of long-term employees (C6).
Family Firm Goals
For the owner family, CSR is a big personal concern as it is not only the
corporate image of the hotel, but also the personal image which would suffer if things
went wrong (C9 & C12). This indicates that the family’s business-centered goals are
directly linked to their family-centered goals, such as non-economic family wealth.
Financially, the respective behavior is also important for the owner family, because
depending on their corporate image, their salaries are directly affected by it (C10). A
non-financial goal of the owner family is that the employees are happy (C11).
However, this is also related to the target that the guests are happy (C11). Even if these
goals are not directly linked to performance targets, they are certainly business-
centered because they are amongst the key success factors for the hotel.
Case Discussion
Corporation B’s CSR is concerned with the consequences of their daily actions
on humans. Therefore, they treat their stakeholders with fairness, respect, and decent
behavior. The environment, for example, was not mentioned. Except on the webpage,
no CSR-related content is being published as CSR “just happens”. However, the firm
operates in an industry where the employee-employer relationships play a crucial role.
Accordingly, their CSR-related measures are, in a first instance, implemented in order
to increase employee satisfaction. However, there is a direct correlation between the
happiness of the employees and the happiness of their guests - loyal employees,
usually equate to loyal guests.
For the owner family, the corporate image of the hotel also affects their own
reputation. This indicates that the owner family cares for the firm’s, but also for the
family’s image. The goals mentioned might be directly interrelated and no clear line
can be drawn whether financial or non-financial aspects prevail. The owner family
values happy employees and happy guests accordingly, but, is also well aware of the
fact that at the end of the day, their own salaries are paid because of that.
39
4.1.3 Case Study – Corporation C
Background
The corporation was founded in the 1940s. It is operating in the 2nd family
generation and employs approximately 130 employees. The products are sold to
customers by retailers; therefore, the firm is only active in the B2B market.
Furthermore, the brand of the company is not directly visible on their products. Mainly
sweets, fruit gums, and instant drinks are being produced in Switzerland and in the
Italian subsidiary. The interview was conducted with a non-family member working
as the Sales & Marketing Manager.
CSR – Meaning and Implementation
For Corporation C, CSR is concerned with the social behavior and the social
development towards the customers and employees, as well as everything that is
concerned with the corporate image of the firm, how one gets perceived (D2). What
the company also views as CSR is to obey the law during the production process, or
in other words, to obey the law in the process of purchasing raw materials (D2).
CSR is a part of the company and quality policy (D3). There is no CSR-related
content published so far, but the firm is overhauling the webpage and more related
content will be published in the future, according to the motto “do well and talk about
it” (D3). The measures are determined by the management and hence, the owner fam-
ily (D5).
The company supports diverse institutions, is involved in fair trade, and also
organic production (D4). Furthermore, the firm is currently auditing their suppliers.
Their suppliers are required to have certain quality management systems in place and
will be subsequently inspected to see whether the respective legal requirements are
met (D4). Their profits are mostly reinvested into new infrastructure. This includes the
installation of new social rooms, new showers, meeting rooms, and so forth (D4).
Corporate Motives of CSR
CSR gained importance because of the increasing public concern for the envi-
ronment (D6). As the firm is mainly a contract supplier of finished goods for big
retailers, they are required to show what they are doing in the sense that they are
audited by their retailers (D6). What the firm understands as CSR is not only
40
demanded, it is required (D6), because they need to deliver on their promises to their
customers (the retailers). Therefore, it must be certain that the firm’s own suppliers
also act accordingly (D6). Furthermore, the measures indicated help to acquire new
employees and once they are employed within the firm, it provides them an additional
sense of security (D6).
Family Firm Goals
According to the responses of the interviewee, the owner family pursues goals
that can be related to family-centered goals, mainly to non-economic wealth. As the
name of the family is embedded in the name of the company, anything that the family
does, not only affects the company, but also the family. Thus, the founder has spent
many years shaping the corporation to what it is today, not only because it was
important for him, but also because his name stands behind the brand (D12).
Furthermore, sustained family ownership is also vital for the family since ownership
will ultimately be passed on, from generation to generation (D12).
Case Discussion
The interview made clear that, for Corporation C, CSR is not voluntary, but is
a requirement. With their current position in the market, they are especially concerned
with the value chain. Therefore, the firm needs to make sure that their supply chain
acts accordingly. It seems that, given the market they are operating in, CSR needs to
be applied due to external pressure. As the corporation has no direct contact to
customers and because their brand is not directly visible on their products, no CSR-
related measures are being published so far.
When it comes to the goals pursued, the corporate image is certainly a reason
for the company’s concerns, as the name of the family stands behind the brand. Hence,
the family is at the center of attention when the business is affected. Finally, the owner
family wants the business to be passed on to their children. This might also explain
why quality tops the list of priorities (D7), next to price (D8), as quality might be a
key success factor within this industry. If the company cannot compete on quality and
price, the company would quickly lose business, and therefore, the long-term financial
success for the company and the family will be in danger.
41
4.1.4 Case Study – Corporation D
Background
The corporation was founded in the 19th century, in central Switzerland, and is
operating in the 4th family generation. Meanwhile, the work force consists of
approximately 2000 employees. The brand and their home-manufactured products are
well-known not only by Swiss residents, but also by people from around the world.
Next to the direct selling through their flagship stores, their products are sold by
selected partners. Nevertheless, the corporation is mainly active in the B2C market and
has direct communication channels with their end customers. The family firm also
owns several subsidiaries around the world.
CSR – Meaning and Implementation
No precise response was provided about the meaning of CSR. However, the
interviewee mentioned that it is principally embedded in the vision statement and that
it is basically in the cornerstone of the firm (E2). They do not label their socially
responsible philosophy as CSR, because their behavior has grown automatically out
of the natural, or Christian behavior (E2 & E3).
Therefore, the firm has no CSR strategy in place. This is mainly because,
according to the interviewee, CSR has to grow bottom-up and not the other way around
(E3). The company’s values, which also might be seen as their success formula, are
mainly based on Christian values, such as believability, trust, thankfulness, solidarity,
openness, respect, humbleness and determination (E7). For the corporation, it is a
philosophy to act based on these values, and this philosophy gets carried out internally
and externally (E3). No precise response was provided about the decision maker of
this philosophy, but the family firm’s message will be spread mainly by their
Organization/HR Manager (E5).
The firm has implemented many measures which highlight a socially
responsible way of management. First, the owner of the firm has established their own
foundation which supports development projects in Africa (E4). The other measures
are mainly related to the employees and the environment. For example, the firm has
never dismissed an employee due to economic reasons, even though the company has
faced several difficult economic times (E4). On top of the working place security, there
are many other benefits for the employees. The corporation fosters equal employment
42
opportunities and the basic principle of fairness – “same work, same salary” (E4). They
are looking in-house for new candidates to be promoted and every employee gains
from profit-sharing (E4). Furthermore, they have a family policy in place from which
they pay their employees who are starting a family, more than required (E4). The
company also offers their working force private language courses at no cost (E4). They
are provided with extra time for recreation during the office hours and older employees
get free courses which prepare them for their retirement (E4). Once they are retired,
the owner still invites them for an annual meeting, as well as for the Christmas dinner,
where they also receive presents (E4). The firm also employs approximately 20-30
disabled people (E4). Another important stakeholder for the firm is the environment.
Every year, the firm retrieves approximately 600 tons of steel (E4). Therefore,
recycling is an important aspect for the firm, because the end products are usually
100% recyclable. The production sites are crude oil independent (E4). Furthermore,
the employees receive a booklet from the firm which explains to them how to save
water and electricity at home (E4). The family firm also audits their suppliers (E4).
Corporate Motives of CSR
For Corporation D, it is a foundation for success when there is a desire to go
through life with fairness (E6). They behave like this because it is, and has become, a
tradition to do so (E6). Another motive of socially responsible behavior is the general
thought of “you have to make the others happy first” (E6). Even if it was not stated as
a direct motive or goal of this philosophy, with this, the firm is able to keep their
competitors at bay (E6). Furthermore, the fair treatment of their stakeholders has a
positive impact because, “the more you give, the more you get” (E6). For example, the
additional time given to employees for recreation has cut down the working hours lost
from 50’000 to 25’000, significantly halving the amount (E4).
Family Firm Goals
The owner family had to establish two foundations in order to be able to
preserve the firm in the long-run (E9). This indicates that long-term firm survival is
one of the major goals of the owner family. The socially responsible measures
mentioned also indicate that the establishment of total employee satisfaction is a
distinguished goal of the family. The statement, “there is no paradise, but here, we are
almost there”, from an employee, supports this fact (E11). It is important for the owner
43
family to protect and perpetuate their legacy and values as it would be a high risk if
nobody from the family would be there, who could continue the thought and carry on
the established philosophy (E12). According to the interviewee, fairness is a personal
concern of the owner and it is important for him to be perceived as a role model (E12).
Case Discussion
For Corporation D, CSR is something that needs to grow bottom-up. It is a
corporate philosophy and its associated values have become a tradition. For genera-
tions, the family firm is operating based on Christian values. This might also explain
the firm’s extraordinary fair stakeholder management practices, especially with
regards to their employees. The employees receive a huge bundle of benefits. Even if
there were no specific goals mentioned by the way this philosophy gets carried out, it
might give the company a competitive advantage, according to the principle “the more
you give, the more you get”. As the interviewee stated, “the goal is not to have a lot of
money at the end of the day, but rather, the goal is to be a great family at the end of
the year” (E8). Therefore, the corporate philosophy, next to the values outlined above,
also fosters a familial atmosphere within the firm. Even if the corporation brings their
philosophy to the public, it is especially important for company-internal purposes.
Certainly, employee satisfaction is a big concern for the owner family.
Otherwise, the generous and mostly non-monetary benefit package for the employees
cannot be explained. The firm might already be seen as a social entity because of the
way in which it treats their employees. Otherwise, the owner family strives for
sustained family ownership in a way that the firm can survive sustainably in the long
run. Furthermore, it is of importance for the owner family that the established
philosophy and its concerning values, such as fairness, remain within the firm
throughout the generations.
44
4.1.5 Case Study – Corporation E
Background
Corporation E was established more than 80 years ago and is operating in the
4th family generation. The work force consists of approximately 1500 employees. The
firm is a specialized player in a competitive manufacturing industry and active only in
the B2B market. The company owns several subsidiaries around the world. The
interview was conducted with the Chairman who is a member of the owner family.
CSR – Meaning and Implementation
For Corporation E, CSR is comprised of the entrepreneurial responsibility
towards the employees and by compliance with the law (F2). Concerning the
employees, this is based on the Swiss Code of Obligations and the collective labor
agreement (F2). For the Chairman, CSR is especially concerned with the way in which
individuals treat each other and that employees feel comfortable (F2). However, this
does not automatically mean that the firm feels responsible for every individual (F3).
CSR is not on the daily agenda and there is no formal strategy for it (F3). Social
responsibility is, nevertheless, an important factor within the firm. To ensure the right
course of actions, the Chairman himself has implemented a code of conduct (F3). The
firm is environmentally aware and treats their stakeholders responsibly, and based on
ethical principles (F3). No specific CSR decision maker was mentioned. However,
there is a family constitution in place where it is stated how the corporation has to be
managed (F3).
The firm has taken several measures concerning the environment. Whenever
possible, renewable resources are to be used. For example, they have installed solar
panels on the roofs of their Swiss sites and re-use the water needed for the production
process (F4). The firm ensures legal compliance with internal auditing and also makes
sure that their suppliers obey the law (F4). For many years, a Brazilian aid organization
has been supported with a five-figure amount. This project has been supported because
the Chairman personally knows the families and the members of the particular aid
organization for many years (F4). Furthermore, the interviewee cares about equal
treatment of employees and an employee-employer relationship which is based on trust
(F7).
45
Corporate Motives of CSR
No special motives were mentioned for what the corporation understands as
CSR. However, during the interview it became clear that for the Chairman, especially
the employer-employee relationships are important, so that the company “walks the
talk” and that everyone within the firm knows what can, and cannot, be done. The firm
certainly wants to be perceived as a good employer as they have received several “best
employer” awards. The Chairman, for example, does not understand why there are
companies around which do not comment on topics like labor union negotiations (F6).
Family Firm Goals
The Chairman’s corporate image is primarily to “be and stay competitive” (F9).
This might indicate that the owner family personally takes care of how performance
goals get reached. Another business-centered goal identified is the firm reputation,
because the interviewee tries to avoid negative headlines (F10). However, it is not only
the firm reputation, but also the personal (family) reputation which would be
concerned (F12). It is the family’s desire that one complies with the code of conduct
and that the corporation is getting managed based on ethical principles (F12). It is of
personal concern for the owner that the established values get perpetuated by the next
management (F12).
Case Discussion
Corporation E views CSR as the entrepreneurial responsibility towards the
employees and as the compliance with the law. To specialize, it is concerned with how
the firm treats their employees and vice versa. Therefore, the family firm has
established five leadership principles, namely: 1) role model; 2) trust; 3) responsibility;
4) transition; and 5) connection (F7). The company’s internal code of conduct mainly
determines how the firm and its employees treat their stakeholders. The fact that their
measures relating to the environment and the financial support of the African aid
program are not getting published indicates that CSR is rather used for internal
purposes. Additionally, the firm may not be explicitly publishing CSR-related content
because of the competitive B2B market they are operating in.
This might explain why, even if there are certain non-economic goals
mentioned by the owner family, to “be and stay competitive” is of major importance.
As outlined by the Chairman, the industry is very competitive and if the firm would
46
lose its competitiveness, their business would be captured by foreign competitors (F8).
Next to the direct business-centered goals, the owner also cares for the family and firm
reputation. Furthermore, the family constitution indicates that the business is intended
to remain within the family in the long-run.
4.1.6 Case Study – Corporation F
Background
The corporation was founded before the 20th century and is operating in the 4th
family generation. The work force consists of approximately 1000 employees and the
brand is well-known by Swiss citizens. Private households, especially families, are the
main target group for the organization. The products are being sold by retailers, so the
firm is mainly active in the B2B market. However, the brand is visible on their
products. The interview was conducted with a non-family member working as the
Corporate Communication Manager.
CSR – Meaning and Implementation
Concerning the meaning of what is comprised by the term CSR, no explicit
response was given. However, for Corporation F, CSR is concerned with what their
model looks like; in which, for example, their stakeholders and partners are treated in
a certain way (G2).
Indeed, the firm has no specific CSR strategy in place, as it belongs to their
corporate culture (G3). It can also be seen as a system of values, or a philosophy
(G3).The interviewee states that “it belongs to the brand of the corporation” to handle
the environment and the resources in a responsible way (G3). Even if the brand is
clearly visible to customers, the company is not marketing their contributions (G3).
Nevertheless, there is a company newspaper which will be delivered internally and to
households in the surrounding region (G3). No specific CSR decision maker was
mentioned, however, it might be determined and lived especially by the family as the
interviewee states that “it has a lot to do with the owner family” (G12).
Several CSR-related measures are implemented. For approximately 30 years,
the firm has established a project where more than 100’000 articles of their core
products will be given away to destitute children of the world, for no cost (G6).
Concerning the environment, the firm has installed solar panels on their building
47
rooftops and a new scrap heater with which the plant and other surrounding buildings
are heated (G4). Every article of their core product which is slightly defective will be
recycled, and except for one ingredient, the firm is producing without the use of crude
oil (G4). The employees are especially highly valued. They are co-owners of the firm
and tend to highly identify with the company, as can be seen from the low personnel
turnover rate (G3 & G7). Moreover, for the family firm, it is also important how their
suppliers treat their respective partners and the environment (G4). Accordingly, their
suppliers have to suit the company’s values (G7).
Corporate Motives of CSR
Even if the corporation is not advertising their culture or philosophy, it
nevertheless has to do with marketing (G6). The people associate the brand with the
culture, which is relatively known in the whole country (G6). Basically, the people
also notice the firm and buy their products because of the specific culture or
philosophy attached to it (G6). According to the interviewee, this special culture or
philosophy is also a valuable and unique selling proposition (G6). Moreover, if the
brand has a positive reputation, and the brand image suits it, then the firm can profit
from all the products which are diversified under that brand (G6). In addition to the
sales-related benefits which the firm’s value-based system delivers, the firm also uses
their model for employer branding purposes. Most of the employees are coming out of
the region and it attracts certain individuals who suit this particular firm philosophy
(G3 & G6). Therefore, the employees also tend to highly identify with the firm (G3).
Family Firm Goals
The fact that the firm has invested more than 300 million Swiss francs for
infrastructure indicates that the owner family clearly strives for long-term firm survival
(G9). Furthermore, the family is not dismissing employees because of the know-how
which would get lost (G9). Even if the owner family is caring, they also want to be
profitable (G10). However, despite the strong Swiss franc, it is the owner family’s
desire to keep their employees and if not possible otherwise, to relocate them to other
firms before the economic conditions start to improve again (G11). This fact and the
caring for the employees, indicates that sustained employee satisfaction is of major
concern for the family.
48
According to the interviewee, the biggest stakeholder is the family itself (G12).
They do not want to maximize their profits, but rather, they are long-term oriented and
sustainable (G12). The owner family is present every day which indicates the desire
for sustained family control and influence (G12).
Case Discussion
For Corporation F, CSR is essentially their own culture and philosophy. It is a
special value-based system, and not only for the firm itself, but also for the people
outside the firm, who know and value it. As “it belongs to the brand of the corporation”
to handle the environment and the resources in a responsible way, many measures are
being applied intuitively and voluntarily without any external pressure. However, there
are certain implied motives relating to their behavior, such as employee recruiting
within the surrounding region. Furthermore, even if the firm is not marketing its
culture and CSR-related measures directly to customers, the firm is well-aware that at
the end of the day, they can profit from how the general public perceive their brand.
The owner family clearly strives for long-term sustainability, firm survival and
employee satisfaction. Even if the owner family is the largest stakeholder, the focus is
not on profit maximization, but rather, the owner family takes a sustainable, long-term
approach, and tries to control and influence this special corporate culture on a daily
basis.
4.1.7 Case Study – Corporation G
Background
Corporation G was founded more than 100 years ago and is operating in the 4th
family generation. The work force consists of approximately 100 to 200 employees.
This residential appliance manufacturer is well known in Switzerland, as the products
are sold by many retailers, stores, and distributors. The company has their own brand
which is visible on their products; however, the corporation is operating in the B2B
market. Part of the production is outsourced. Still, most of the manufacturing processes
are based in Switzerland. The interview was conducted with a non-family member
working as the Senior Manager Services.
49
CSR – Meaning and Implementation
For Corporation G, CSR is concerned with the social responsibility the firm
does and wishes to recognize (H2). For a long time, it belongs to the culture of the firm
to have economic success, but in the same time, to also exercise social responsibility
so that social aspects always have their place (H2). Therefore, the family firm
excercises social responsibility with respect to their stakeholders, such as the suppliers,
customers, employees and other institutions which have an interest in the firm (H2).
The firm wishes to manage the business in such a way that they can look into
the mirror in the evening, in order to be able to say “yes we can represent it” (H3). In
general, people who are working for the company have a certain ethical background
(H3). It is important for the firm to be perceived as a socially responsible organization
(H6). Nevertheless, a corporation which is solely socially responsible while not
survive in the long-run, as economic success is fundamental (H3). Their biggest
customers are not placing orders because of the firm’s CSR (H7). For the firm, social
responsibility is especially important concerning their employees (H3). However,
other stakeholders know that the corporation is a reliable partner which pursues certain
ethical principles (H3). For the interviewee, it is clearly identifiable that the
present-day’s owners are behind those measures and actions (H5). The management
will be provided with a certain financial budget so that it can be implement (H5).
The company places emphasis on long-term supplier relationships, where
social topics are also important (H4). When possible, the firm conducts audits, and
since the last two years, the social responsibility or the business ethics has gained
importance (H4). The company was one of the first SMEs in Switzerland which had
received the label of a “friendly workspace”, a label which is concerned with the
creation of a structured occupational health management system (H4). Concerning the
customers, the firm makes sure that the products are durable and sustainable, so that
the firm does not encourage a throw-away mentality (H4). Furthermore, they are
recycling steel in such a way that it cycles back into the manufacturing process (H4).
The corporation has a big attachment with the community (H4). For example, the
municipality is therefore allowed to use the company’s infrastructures for events (H4).
On top of their contributions mentioned above, the firm is well-known for the Asian
monastery which was built close to the headquarters from the initiative of the firm
owners during the 1960s (H4).
50
Corporate Motives of CSR
With the actions one takes, if they look at the mirror in the evening, they should
be able to say, “I can stand behind that what I have done today” (H6). Also, because
of the fair treatment of their employees, people appreciate working for them in a
diligent way and have a high identification with the company (H6). Because of the
location and the family name in the firm name, the company is basically “condemned”
until an infinite time to stay in there (H6). This might also explain why the firm acts
accordingly together with the local community. For the family firm, CSR does not
yield something in economic terms, but it is good for the reputation and certainly an
advantage concerning the recruiting of employees (H6). Of course, as a firm that deals
with consumer goods, one is much more exposed to public scrutiny, compared to a
firm that has its main customer base within the industry sector (H6).
Family Firm Goals
The owner family gives the corporation certain stability (H9).
They try other measures, rather than dismissing employees during difficult economic
times, which indicates that they seek employee satisfaction (H10). The Asian
monastery project was a personal idea of a family member (H4). The owner family
still stands behind its construction, which also bestows upon them a certain honor
when the firm is highlighted in the media (H11). The family members like to appear
within the community, with the specific reputation that people attach to the firm (H11).
This indicates that family non-economic wealth is certainly important for the owner
family, as they also have a big affiliation to the local community.
Case Discussion
Corporation G views CSR as the social responsibility that the firm does and
wants to recognize. It belongs to the culture of the firm to treat their stakeholders
accordingly and is also a part of their success formula. Even if economic success is
fundamental, social responsibility is also important. This can be seen especially by the
firm’s commitment towards their employees and the support of the Asian monastery.
Their suppliers are also audited because there is a certain reputational risk within their
supply chain that must be considered (H3). This indicates that external pressure is also
involved, especially because of the Asian sub-contractor, the Swiss cross branding on
their products, and the market their products are being sold in. However, the reason
51
why CSR is conducted is also because one wants to be able to look into the mirror or
stand behind their actions. Furthermore, CSR is used for recruiting purposes,
especially in order to attract people from the local community.
The firm and the family accordingly, have a big affiliation with the community.
The name of the municipality and the family is contained within the name of the firm.
Firm and family reputation therefore, are important factors to be considered when it
comes to CSR. Not only do CSR-related measures increase the reputation of the firm,
but also that of the family. In the end, the family wishes to be seen within the
community, with a certain image attached to them.
4.1.8 Case Study – Corporation H
Background
Corporation H is more than 120 years old. It is operating in the 5th family
generation and currently employs approximately 200 people. The firm is mainly oper-
ating in the transportation sector, but also has other branches with direct customer
contact. Hence, the company can be considered operating in both the B2B and the B2C
market. The interview was conducted with the current CEO, who is a member of the
owner family.
CSR – Meaning and Implementation
For the CEO of Corporation H, CSR concerns different aspects and is
especially concerned with the responsibility towards their employees (I2). It is also
concerned with their suppliers and customers (I4).
No CSR strategy is in place, as the firm’s respective measures are mainly over
the counter transactions which have to be financially attainable and also favorable to
yield a return on investment, specifically in terms of marketing and image branding
(I3). The related content will also not be published due to the low advertisement budget
(I3). Basically, the family, or the whole board of directors decides about CSR-related
measures (I5). However, in general, those decisions are usually made at the lunch
table, as a brief example (I5).
Even if the firm aims to be socially responsible by establishing and maintaining
personal supplier and customer relationships, in the past, socially responsible measures
were easier to decide on, but today, the one with the best financial conditions usually
52
secures the order (I4). Even if the budget is tight, the family firm is actively
sponsoring. For example, the company has sponsored a bus for a group of disabled
people to go to the Europa-Park theme park in Germany (I4). They also contribute to
a project called “snow for free”, where children are given the opportunity to go skiing
and snowboarding for free (I4). Whenever possible, the firm tries to integrate socially
marginalized people into their work force (I4). These persons will be integrated in
some of the businesses’ daily activities and sometimes, for example, people who start
with picking up waste are able to move up to the position of a chauffeur (I4). Other
measures which were mentioned are the closeness of the owners with the employees
and the maintenance of good relationships with other stakeholders, such as the
community, the municipality, and the banks, where the family firm recognizes the so-
cial aspects (I4).
Corporate Motives of CSR
The way the firm manages their stakeholders and establishes long-term
relationships is quite important, as repeatedly “something” comes back (I6). To be
regarded as a socially responsible company is very important because of the corporate
image (I6). Whenever possible, the firm attempts to pursue this path because it is cer-
tainly important for the whole image of the firm (I6). Such things which benefit
society, also serve to benefit the company, and because the company can communicate
their image in a positive manner (I6). Specifically, it brings new orders and new
relationships (I6). Furthermore, it also has an effect on people who are “not directly
dealing with the firm” (I6). Voluntary measures, such as sponsoring projects, yield a
positive effect in a later point of time (I6).
Family Firm Goals
For the family, their firm goals are important because it has helped maintain
their family business for 120 years now, and they wish to continue this (I9). Long-term
firm survival is therefore an important goal for the owner family, even if the firm will
not be held by the same family after the current generation steps down. When the
employees notice that the owner family is working here with passion, they are also
more motivated to do something. Employee satisfaction is therefore, also a business-
centered goal of the family firm. The family values are still strongly influencing the
firm and therefore, because there are three family members in the senior management,
53
the firm is very much influenced by the family (I12). By the respective means of CSR,
the owner family also tries to incorporate their interests into the firm, somewhat like
taking a personal hobby and applying that throughout the firm (I12). As both active
family members in the operative management do not have children, the firm can be
seen as their child (I12).
Case Discussion
For Corporation H, CSR is especially concerned with the responsibility
towards their employees. Furthermore, the firm tries to establish long-term
relationships with their stakeholders. Even if the firm is financially restricted, there are
certain contributions to be mentioned, such as the aforementioned sponsorings.
However, CSR is not only conducted because it yields a better corporate image and a
familial working environment, but also because the owner family uses this platform as
a vehicle for self-actualization.
4.1.9 Case Study – Corporation I
Background
Corporation I was founded approximately 80 years ago. It is operating in the
3rd family generation and employs more than 4000 employees. The firm has acquired
several businesses in Switzerland and is operating in the B2B market, more precisely,
in the transportation and logistics sector. The interview was conducted with the great-
grandson of the founder whose function is the Head of International.
CSR – Meaning and Implementation
The corporation has not named their socialy responisible behavior as CSR.
Rather, it is the basic principle to pass on the business to the next generation (J2). The
interviewee’s great-grandfather founded the company and it has been passed on, from
generation to generation (J2).
For the firm, the most important aspects are to make long-term investments, to
be long-term eco-sensitive, and to be a pioneer in certain things within their industry
(J3). It is this basic thought that the firm wants be long-term oriented (J3). This also
implies risk-taking for new ventures and to think sustainably (J3). The firm is not
excercising social responsibility because of external pressure (J3). Concerning the
54
CSR decision makers, it is basically the family together with the senior management
who decides this, even if the owner family has the biggest influence (J5).
The industry, in which the firm is operating in, produces a lot of carbon dioxide
(CO₂) emissions. The family firm tries to, whenever possible, use the rail network as
the preferred means of transport (J4). Already, 60% of the freight is handled over rail
transportation, as this is the most eco-sensitive mode (J4). The firm has also bought
the first full-electric truck, to show that they are eco-sensitive (J4). Additionally, at
their larger sites, solar panels are installed on the rooftops, rain water is collected,
while recyclable cardboard and waste are individually separated (J4). The chauffeurs
will be provided with annual training in order to drive ecologically, in particular, in
order to save fuel costs (J4). Furthermore, there are some hardship cases, like socialy
marginalized people, which will be provided with the opportunity to work for the firm
(J4). Concerning sponsorships, they make sure that they are supporting long-term
projects; for example, year after year, the firm supports a project called “cancer
league” [Krebsliga] which is of personal concern for the owner family (J4). Every
year, the firm also supports one young professional sports person (J4). The company
mainly looks for quality-oriented suppliers, in which they would like to cooperate
with, for the long-term (J4). The company also has three voluntary projects in place,
with which the firm tries to prevent accidents on the streets (J4). Furthermore, a main
objective for the company is to encourage people to enroll in an apprenticeship
program. Therefore, they provide many young people the opportunity to enroll in these
apprenticeships, which might also be seen as a contribution to society (J4).
Corporate Motives of CSR
For Corporation I, CSR certainly might be used for marketing purposes and
can enhance the corporate image (J6). The interviewee believes that public awareness
is important when it comes to CSR (J6). CSR is useful for external promotion
purposes, however, is mainly conducted for internal purposes. It is important for the
firm to communicate it internally, so that the employees know it (J6). Therefore, it is
really something internal that strengthens their work force (J6). The sponsoring, for
example, makes their employees proud to work for the company (J6).
Family Firm Goals
55
Several factors were mentioned which indicate that the family strives for long-
term firm survival. The shareholder capital is held only by the active family (J9). Non-
active family members must transfer the shares to the active family and it is definitely
not in the interest of the family to sell the firm (J9). Solely concerning the financial
aspects of the owner family, the family economic wealth, it is a priority to reinvest the
money earned back into the firm (J10). It is not the goal of the family to get rich, but
that the family keeps the money within the firm in such a way that they can live a
“non-excessive and good life” (J10). The family firm aims to become the best
employer (J11). Employee satisfaction is therefore an important goal of CSR in this
case. They try to give the employees a good feeling (J11). The employees should feel
that there is a family standing behind the firm who is clearly long-term oriented (J11).
Not only does the family want the business to continue in the long-term, but also to
pass it onto the next family generation, and to keep the firm within the family (J12). It
is essential to carry on the pioneering spirit of the interviewee’s great-grandfather, to
occupy a role as a pioneer (J12). In the end, the CSR-related measures provide the
owner family a good feeling that they are doing the right thing, as the goal is so that,
they can wake up in the morning and go to work with a smile (J12). By doing so, the
owner family is able to say that they are a good and fair employer, and that the people
who work for them, genuinely like them (J12).
Case Discussion
The basic principle for Corporation I is to pass on the family business to their
next generation of family members. All their measures show that long-term firm
survival is amongst their top priorities. Not only does the firm want the business to be
continued, but it has to remain within the family, and that the pioneering spirit of the
founder, has to live on. Even if the industry is very CO₂emissions intensive, the firm
has done a lot to be eco-sensitive. Certainly, the CSR-related measures indicated are
good for their corporate image, especially because of the transportation industry the
firm is operating in.
Mainly, however, the contributions towards the society are good for internal
purposes, such as employee satisfaction and employee identification. Hence, the owner
family wants to be perceived as the “best employer” within their industry and
therefore, it is crucial to give their employees a sense of “feeling good” about who
56
they work for. Especially the owner family members themselves, the measures
indicated give them a good feeling, too.
4.1.10 Case Study – Corporation J
Background
Corporation J was founded in the 18th century. At more than 250 years old, this
family firm is currently operating in the 9th family generation, and employs
approximately 300 people. The firm is mainly operating in the specialized steel
industry in the B2B market. The interview was conducted with the family member and
Chairman of the group.
CSR – Meaning and Implementation
For the corporation, CSR is a holistic approach which includes all social,
environmental, and economic contributions by the company for the voluntary adoption
of social responsibility (K2). The Chairman believes that a corporation is a part of the
society and a corporation, like an individual, has to contribute their part to the social
life and has to exercise their responsibility (K2). Furthermore, it concludes that one
has to be profitable and to obey the law (K2). However, social responsibility from an
entrepreneur has to go beyond the compliance with the law (K2).
Nevertheless, a corporation has to survive and has to make profits (K3). A part
of the profits can be invested in CSR, but there is a limit (K3). The firm is mainly
doing something in the local area (K3). Yet, the company does not actively promote
their CSR measures to the general public (K3). To exercise responsibility was basically
the personal concern of the Chairman who is also the owner (K5). He has approved
these budgets and has supervised these CSR measures himself (K5). Furthermore, the
attitude which he has towards this topic has certainly influenced his family (K5).
The firm is well-known for their social commitments, especially by the local
community. The firm has been located in the same municipality for more than 50
years. The corporation feels a sense of belonging to the municipality, and also to the
local community (K4). The firm has donated a little money to local associations and
for football tournaments (K4). For the family firm’s 250-year anniversary, suppliers
where asked for donations instead of presents (K4). Hereupon, 3x CHF 60’000 where
collected from the suppliers with which the firm has, in turn, financed three projects
57
(K4). First, they have financed a solar installation on a school rooftop which helps to
operate some tools in the local public swimming pool (K4). Second, they have
financed a project which is called “Die Dargebotene Hand”, a project that provides
free consultation for people in troubles (K4). A third donation was given for the
vocational trainings (K4). For a previous anniversary, the firm has also received
contributions from the business partners with which it has supported some projects
annually, mostly in cooperation with the welfare department of the municipality (K4).
Privately, the family is also trying to contribute to the well-being of the society on
voluntary basis. The wife of the interviewee, for example, is the president of two
foundations. Otherwise, for the Chairman, it is important that the employees are man-
aged well (K4). Therefore, the corporation tries to build a favorable working environ-
ment (K4), so that the employees enjoy working well (K4). For the firm,
apprenticeship training is important, so they employ approximately 30 apprentices
each year (K4). The corporation also employs disabled people (K4), as this is also a
possible way to exercise responsibility within the community (K4). Furthermore, for
the interviewee, the environment is also a stakeholder (K4). Eco-sensitive
management is important for the firm, and as such, a project has been launched to
install solar panels on their headquarters’ rooftop, and their trucks are equipped with
environmental friendly motors (K4).
Corporate Motives of CSR
The company’s CSR-related measures are exercised without big intentions
(K6). However, one can also say that for the corporate image, as a company which is
donating, it does not hurt in terms of recruitment (K6). At their headquarters, they feel
at home and affiliated with the community (K6). For the interviewee, this community
involvement is probably the main reason why they are donating in this area (K6). The
corporation is doing it out of conviction and this behavior is inherent with the
company’s DNA (K6). Even if there is a certain sympathy factor attached, they are not
doing it because they want to get more customers (K6). However, it contributes to a
good working environment and if you are treating your employees fairly, then they
also work better (K6). The firm is very interested in their employee satisfaction and
also believes that when the price is equal compared to the competitors, small
differences, such as CSR, can be decisive (K6).
58
Family Firm Goals
During the interview, no direct economic goals could be identified. For the
owner, social responsibility is important for him, personally, and for his family (K12).
The owner’s wife is also relatively active in this area (K12). For them, it is not always
about the money, as sometimes, it is about the good intentions and the awareness that
a problem exists in the world (K12). If one talks about sustainability, it means that one
acts in such a way now, so that the next generation can also live to meet their needs in
the future (K12). Furthermore, this point is especially important for family firms,
where the perspective is rather long-term and not short-term oriented (K12). Finally,
CSR is a personal concern for the family, but also contributes to sustained family
ownership of the firm.
Case Discussion
The case of Corporation J shows that the influence of the owner can become
an integral part in how CSR is conducted. It is the Chairman’s belief that “a
corporation is a part of the society and a corporation, like an individual, has to
contribute their part to the social life and to exercise their responsibility”. Furthermore,
“social responsibility from an entrepreneur has to go beyond compliance with the law”.
CSR, in this case, is not implemented because of economic reasons, but out of personal
conviction, as it is a personal concern for the owner family. The measures taken help
to support the statement that, the firm has a large social affiliation to the community.
Therefore, projects are being financed which mainly benefit the local community
around the municipality the firm is located. No financial return is expected, but it might
give the firm a certain “sympathy factor”.
CSR is conducted because of the family’s aspirations and can be seen as a
vehicle for self-actualization. The owner family also makes voluntary contributions
and supports projects privately. Last, the family’s goal is to hand over the corporation
to successive generations in a condition where sustainable management is possible.
59
4.1.11 Case Study – Corporation K
Background
Since 1868, the owner family has been in possession of the local mill located
in a small municipality. Meanwhile, the family has established a corporation. The
family firm is active in the local real estate business, and since 2015, owns a restaurant,
as well as a coworking space at Lake Constance. The 4th family generation is currently
managing this small local business in the B2C market that employs approximately 15
people. The interview was conducted with one of the future successors, a family
member working as the Sustainability Coordinator.
CSR – Meaning and Implementation
For the interviewee, his family, and the firm, CSR means to act sustainably
according to the three pillars: 1) socially; 2) ecologically; and 3) economically (L2).
Specifically for the firm, it is important that the family firm successfully exists across
generations, in harmony with the environment, and with social norms (L2). And, of
course, one has to be economically successful (L2).
For the interviewee, sustainability especially means that one, for example,
thinks across generations (L3). That one is not thinking of oneself, but of the
grandchildren while doing business, especially for a family firm, it is extremely
important to preserve and to carry on this identity over the generations (L3). The
sustainable values in the firm, come especially from the interviewee, who is
responsible as the Sustainability Coordinator (L3). Because of his studies, he has been
influenced with ethical and social responsibility theories (L3). Therefore, he
recognizes that nowadays, this social responsibility is very important (L3). The
interviewee aims to integrate the principle of sustainability into the core business
practice (L3). Hence, he wishes to go beyond making external projects and wants to
implement the sustainable thinking into the core business (L3). The firm is not making
their CSR-related commitments public and the respective decision-making power is
still within the responsibility of the current CEO and owner of the family firm (L5).
For decades, the family has contributed to the well-being of the local
community. The grandfather of the interviewee has done many charitable things for
the community (L4). For example, he has provided land at the lake to the local
community, such as the local lido, where the public can go swimming (L4). Currently,
60
the firm voluntarily contributes their resources towards a documentary about the
overfishing of the oceans (L4). Furthermore, the coworking space was mainly
established because of social and environmental aspects (L4). As different people are
working together in one office and are able to socialize, it is ecologically sustainable
and beneficial for the co-worker’s psyche (L4). Concerning the environment, the
corporation has established several energy-saving measures. Those include the
installation of solar panels, heat pumps, borehole heat exchangers, and other measures
related to thermal and water energy (L4). The current familial generation also cares
about the happiness and satisfaction of their customers. They want to take their tenants
on board, so that they have a stake in the business (L4). For example, concerning the
concept design of the new restaurant, the firm has established a communication plat-
form, where tenants could express their opinions and where they were able to
communicate with each other (L4). When it comes to the employees, the corporation
pays fair salaries and also aims to create and keep the jobs within the local community
(L4). This means that, compared to the municipality itself, the firm has a deep
affiliation with the local community surrounding the mill which has existed for more
than 1000 years (L4).
Corporate Motives of CSR
The restaurant was also established because of the feedback from the
community. People have said that, with the restaurant, the corporation has done
something good (L6). This is not only inspiring for the firm, but also for the
employees, who are happy and feel valued (L6). To a certain extent, the firm wants to
position itself with the restaurant, especially towards their main customers (L6).
Therefore, it gives the tenants also a sense of belonging (L6). The interviewee states
that it is a little bit of a mix between distinguishing oneself and exercising social
responsibility, and whether it yields a competitive advantage or a better image, is
secondary (L6). Furthermore, when the family has a clear conscience, they are more
motivated to act charitable (L6). And accordingly, motivated family members are good
for the family firm (L6). Therefore, indirectly, it is also beneficial for the business
(L6). Nevertheless, to be sustainable is mainly for the family and the environment: the
key stakeholders.
61
Family Firm Goals
To ensure that the firm will remain within the family, the new generation will
receive shares (L10). Another business-centered goal of the owner family is to foster
employee satisfaction. For the employees, it is important that the family is doing
something and it keeps the employees motivated (L11). However, mostly non-
economic, especially family-centered goals were mentioned. The restaurant, and also
the coworking space, were measures that were taken by the owner, in order to integrate
the family members into the firm (L12). The sustainable projects also have an influence
on the economic side because doing nothing in this area would probably ruin the
business family-internally as the family members would not feel connected with the
business anymore (L12). Hence, the current owner thinks far ahead into the firm’s
future, for his own children, and his future grandchildren. He has to think how he can
hand over his accumulated property to the next generation (L12). The owner has a
social responsibility towards the family, but sometimes, one has to be careful how they
distinguish between social responsibility and self-interest (L12). For him, it is also
good to see that once he will leave the business, his created lifework will continue
(L12).
The way the firm behaves indicates that staying together as a functional family
by the strategic and sustained family involvement is important to keep the firm within
the family over generations. The interviewee goes on to explain that it is basically less
important what external people think, but it is more important what the members of
the family think and what kind of a conscience and attitude the family members have
(L12). Therefore, it is primarily that the family feels well and that they know that they
are doing something good (L12). The salaries among the family members are fairly
distributed, and because of this, no inequality, disputes, greediness or jealousy, arises
(L12). By doing so, the harmony among the family members can be maintained. CSR
is also important for the family in order to remain realistic (L12).
Case Discussion
For Corporation K, CSR is an all-encompassing three pillar system, based on
social, ecologic, and economic values. The firm is deeply rooted within the local
community and especially feels a sense of responsibility for their closest stakeholders
around the local mill. It takes the interest of their stakeholders seriously and tries to be
energy efficient whenever possible. Sustainability for the family firm means that one
62
is not thinking of oneself, but of the grandchildren while doing business, as it is
important to preserve and to carry on this family firm identity over the generations.
Therefore, the measures taken, such as the establishment of the two other branches,
are mainly done in order to motivate and harmonize the family members to take an
integral part in the business. It provides them with a clear conscience and motivation
to work within the firm. The current owner’s goal is that his life’s work will continue
and that the business will remain within the family, for generations to come. Last, CSR
is conducted because it makes the family feel well and also because it gives them the
feeling that they are doing something good.
4.1.12 Case Study – Corporation L
Background
Corporation L was founded in the early 1980s and is operating in the 2nd family
generation. The firm is active in the competitive gastronomy industry, owns several
restaurants and therefore, is located in the B2C market. The interview was conducted
with the Chairman and founder of the family firm.
CSR – Meaning and Implementation
The interviewee is not familiar with the term CSR. However, what he
understands as social responsibility is to communicate fairly with employees, suppli-
ers, other subcontractors, and all parties involved (M3). Openly, directly, clearly,
spontaneously, and honestly, but also clearly based on the firm’s interests (M3).
Because the firm is strictly bound by legal requirements and comparatively low profit
margins, it basically cannot do more (M3). Suppliers have to fulfill their obligations
and are contractually governed through regulations and laws, hygienic standards, and
so forth (M3). For the Chairman, social responsibility means that he is there for his
employees if they have a problem (M3). No related content is published on the
company’s website, except that the firm is recognizing its social responsibility. The
employees should take over this part as they should know it and carry it out (M3).
Concerning the employees, the Chairman believes in providing better benefits
than others within the industry (M4). For example, the firm would not dismiss an
employee who has been working there for 20 years (M4). Furthermore, they have
never dismissed an employee of a certain age and also employ people who are over 50
63
(M4). Next, the Chairman also makes sure that they train apprentices (M4). Also,
according to the interviewee, the guests like to receive a certain experience and this
experience also contributes to their social happiness (M4). For 30 years, their
restaurants have not served any alcohol for people under 18, even if beer and wine is
allowed in Switzerland for people over 16 (M8). Quality control, amongst other related
factors, is also of major importance and the staff is trained for this accordingly (M8).
They are attempting to purchase and serve as many regional products as possible,
however, they mainly act based on the customer’s preferences (M8). Quality is central
to the firm, because the firm purchases what the young and travel-conscious clientele
values the most (M8).
Corporate Motives of CSR
No corporate motives were mentioned during the interview. The firm is taking
its responsibility on its own, “for the doing, and for the omission” (M6).
Family Firm Goals
With the way the family firm treats their stakeholders, certain goals are being
pursued. In the case of Corporation L, it is clear that with happy employees, a higher
sales turnover can be generated (M9 & M11). Certainly, employee satisfaction in this
case is directly linked to the performance targets of the firm. The family wants to be
long-term successful with this firm, “with these humans, with this hardware and that
they are dependent on that” (M9). Basically, if something went wrong, the firm’s and
the family’s image would both be affected (M11). Otherwise, it is essential for the firm
to develop their employees and to foster their careers so that they are happy in a later
point of time (M11). It is important that the employees feel well and this shows in the
amount of long-term employees the firm has (M11). Furthermore, it is important that
the family business remains in the family’s possession. The two sons of the founder
who entered into the business have been crucial, as they can continue the same
philosophy and are able to achieve certain targets (M12). The Chairman and his two
sons are actively involved in the business (M12). The other members of the family are
involved insofar as they live together with them and therefore, are also connected to
the restaurants (M12). For the owner, family is the most essential thing in life and he
thinks that in the end, there is nothing else that matters (M12). The goal is not for the
64
current generation to continue on with the business, but that there will come another
one (M12). Then, the family will grow and more will get a stake in the business (M12).
Case Discussion
CSR in the case of Corporation L is not known. However, social responsibility
for the firm means to communicate fairly, openly, directly, clearly, spontaneously and
honestly with their stakeholders. Responsibility in this case is especially concerned
with the way in which the family firm treats their employees. Therefore, the firm
strives for employee satisfaction, however, by doing so, pursues certain performance
targets. As of the competitiveness and the low profit margins within the industry,
quality is essential. Hence, there is no room for many socially responsible measures.
As mentioned, the firm wants to have happy employees so that they can
generate a higher sales turnover. Finally, long-term firm survival, in combination with
sustained family ownership, is essential. This might also explain why the whole family
is involved in the firm, so that the philosophy can be carried on throughout the
generations.
65
4.2. Cross-Case Comparison
4.2.1 CSR Approach and Implied Goals within Family Firms
Based on the individual case studies and the responses of the interviewees, a
table was developed in order to highlight the family firms’ approach to CSR, the
implied family firm goals, and the distinguished family firm attributes (see Table 3 on
the following page). The first column (“Family Firm”) provides a brief overview of
the company background. In the second column (“CSR Approach”), the respondents’
approach to CSR is reflected. The third column (“Implied Family Firm Goals”)
illustrates the implied goals pursued by the respective companies. The goals depicted
in this column are based on: 1) goals identified during the case study research; and 2)
the overall impression obtained during the interview process. Last, the table also
includes a fourth column (“Distinguished Family Firm Attributes”). In this column,
the interviewees’ responses, concerning the uniqueness of family firms in general and
in terms of CSR, are stated in the form of keywords.
66
Family Firm CSR Approach Implied Family Firm
Goals
Distinguished
Family Firm At-
tributes
Corporation A
Industry:
Manufacturing,
Consumer goods
Market: B2B
Operative family
generation: 4th
Size: Large-scale
enterprise
Interviewee:
Non-family member
CSR means that in all activities, one
does not only think about today or
now, but also a little bit into the fu-
ture and accordingly, for a possible
successive generation
To adhere to the law and to regulati-
ons. The aspiration for the environ-
ment and the stakeholders, so that no-
body ends up “short”
CSR is an all-encompassing topic in
all their decisions
CSR is a fundamental philosophy
which the firm cultivates
Firm reputation
Quality orientation
Employee identification
Long-term firm
survival
Sustained family
ownership
(no specific ans-
wer given)
Corporation B
Industry:
Hotel Business
Market:
B2C
Operative family
generation: 5th
Size: SME
Interviewee:
Non-family member
CSR is concerned with the influence
and responsibility relating to the
employees and the guests. The conse-
quences of the daily actions on
society which are reflected in the
company’s respectful treatment of all
stakeholders
Fairness, respect, and decent behavior
are amongst the core principles
CSR-related measures just happen
and CSR is rather in the background
Customer centricity
Employee satisfaction
Business excellence
Firm reputation,
Family reputation
Family income
Long-term
orientation
67
Corporation C
Industry:
Manufacturing,
Consumer goods
Market:
B2B
Operative family
generation: 2nd
Size: SME
Interviewee:
Non-family member
CSR is concerned with the social be-
havior and the social development to-
wards the customers and employees,
as well as all external factors affec-
ting the firm (i.e. how one gets per-
ceived)
CSR is to obey the law during the
production process
CSR is part of the company and qua-
lity policy
Sustained
competitiveness
Quality orientation
Employee recruitment
Job security for
employees
Firm reputation,
Family reputation
Sustained family
ownership
Long-term
orientaion
Financial
independence
Non-profit moti-
ves (less focus on
profit maximiza-
tion)
Closeness of the
owners to the
business
Corporation D
Industry:
Manufacturing,
Consumer goods
Market:
B2C
Operative family
generation: 4th
Size: Large-scale
enterprise
Interviewee:
Non-family member
CSR is principally embedded in the
vision statement. It is placed at the
heart of the firm. Much like environ-
mentalism, it has grown automati-
cally from the natural, or Christian
behavior
Believability, trust, thankfulness, so-
lidarity, openness, respect, humblen-
ess, and determination
It is a bottom-up philosophy, a tradi-
tion to act based on those values and
it gets carried out internally and ex-
ternally
To be a role model
Employee identification
Employee satisfaction
Employee recruitment
Job security for
employees
Community affiliation
Competitive advantage
Long-term firm
survival
Protection and perpe-
tuation of the family's
legacy and values
Entrepreneurial
and financial
independence
A community of
like-minded
people
The social
thought
Different atti-
tutude of the ow-
ners compared to
publicly-owned
corporations
Non-profit moti-
ves (less focus on
profit maximiza-
tion)
68
Corporation E
Industry:
Manufacturing,
Industrial goods
Market:
B2B
Operative family
generation: 4th
Size: Large-scale
enterprise
Interviewee:
Family member
CSR is comprised by the entrepre-
neurial responsibility towards the
employees and by compliance with
the law
CSR is especially concerned with
how society treats each other and that
employees feel comfortable
To be environmentally aware and to
treat the stakeholders responsibly and
based on ethical principles
Sustained
competitiveness
Business excellence
Quality orientation
Employee satisfaction
Firm reputation,
Family reputation
Perpetuation of the
established values
Family firms are
rather small
Everyone knows
each other
Closeness to the
employees
Individual
appreciation
The owners are
known
Different atti-
tutide of the ow-
ners compared to
publicly-owned
corporations
Non-profit moti-
ves (less focus on
profit maximiza-
tion)
The owner family
as an important
stakeholder
Corporation F
Industry:
Manufacturing,
Consumer goods
Market:
B2B
Operative family
generation: 4th
Size: Large-scale
enterprise
Interviewee:
Non-family member
CSR is concerned with how the cor-
poration's model looks like. It
belongs to the corporate culture and
also can be seen as a system of va-
lues, or a philosophy
It belongs to the brand of the corpora-
tion to handle the stakeholders and
the environment in a responsible way
Employee identification
Employee satisfaction
Employer branding
Employee recruitment
Employee
encouragement
Job security for
employees
Consumer-brand
identification
Community affiliation
Competitive advantage
Internal
communication
Long-term firm
survival
Sustained family
control and influence
Focus on long-
term firm survival
Long-term
orientation
Long-term
sustainability
Distinguised sta-
bility, tangibility
and personality
Focus on internal
communication
Non-profit moti-
ves (less focus on
profit maximiza-
tion)
The owner family
as the biggest sta-
keholder itself
69
Corporation G
Industry:
Manufacturing,
Consumer goods
Market:
B2B
Operative family
generation: 4th
Size: SME
Interviewee:
Non-family member
CSR is concerned with the social
responsibility the firm does, and wis-
hes, to recognize
CSR belongs to the culture of the
firm. To have economic success, but
to also exercise social responsibility
so that social aspects always have
their place. Concerning the stakehol-
ders, such as towards the suppliers,
customers, employees, and other in-
stitutions, which have an interest in
the firm
To manage the business in such a
way that one can look into the mirror
in the evening, in order to be able to
say, “I can stand behind what I have
done today"
Sustained
competitiveness
Quality orientation
Community affiliation
Employee recruitment
Employee satisfaction
Firm as a vehicle for
self-actualization
Firm reputation,
Family reputation in
the community
The way in which
CSR is promoted
(family firms are
not actively publi-
shing it)
Corporation H
Industry:
Transportation
(plus two other,
smaller branches)
Market:
B2B/B2C
Operative family
generation: 5th
Size: SME
Interviewee:
Family member
CSR concerns different aspects. For
the firm, it is especially concerned
with the responsibility towards the
employees
Firm reputation
Performance targets
Firm as a vehicle for
self-actualization
Family influence
Long-term firm
survival
Employee satisfaction
Closeness to the
community
Short communica-
tion channels
Overlapping of
business and pri-
vate life (busi-
ness and family
converges)
70
Corporation I
Industry:
Transportation and
Logistics
Market:
B2B
Operative family
generation: 2nd
Size: Large-scale
enterprise
Interviewee:
Family member
CSR is the basic principle to pass on
the business to the next generation.
To make long-term investments, to be
long-term eco-sensitive, and to be a
pioneer in certain things within the
industry
Sustained family
control and influence
Protection and perpe-
tuation of the founder's
pioneer spirit
Firm as a vehicle for
self-actualization (that
the owner family has a
good feeling)
Firm reputation
Employee identification
Employee satisfaction
Internal communica-
tion
Quality orientation
Business excellence
Long-term firm
survival
Humanity
Familial
atmosphere
Financial
sustainability
Non-profit moti-
ves (less focus on
profit maximiza-
tion)
Long-term
orientation
Corporation J
Industry:
Manufacturing,
Industrial goods
Market:
B2B
Operative family
generation: 9th
Size: Large-scale
enterprise
Interviewee:
Family member
CSR is a holistic approach which
includes all social, environmental,
and economic contributions by the
company for the voluntary adoption
of social responsibility
A corporation is part of the society
and, like an individual, has to contri-
bute to that society, and to exercise
their responsibilities. Furthermore, it
concludes that one has to be profi-
table and to obey the law. However,
social responsibility from an entre-
preneur has to go beyond compliance
with the law
The corporation is doing it out of
conviction and this behavior belongs
to the company’s DNA. One acts in
such a way that the next generation
can also live.
Community involve-
ment and affiliation
Firm as a vehicle for
self-actualization
Employee recruitment
Employee satisfaction
Competitive advantage
Problem awareness
Long-term firm
survival
Sustained family
ownership
Entrepreneurial
and financial
independence
Non-profit moti-
ves (less focus on
profit maximiza-
tion)
71
Corporation K
Industry:
Real estate manage-
ment, Gastronomy
(sub-branch, since
2015)
Market:
B2C
Operative family
generation: 4th
Size: Small
Interviewee:
Family member
CSR means to act sustainably accord-
ing to the three pillars: socially, eco-
logically, and economically. It is im-
portant that the family firm success-
fully exists across generations, also in
harmony with the environment and
social norms
One is not thinking of oneself, but
that one thinks of the grandchildren
while doing business, especially for a
family firm, it is extremely important
to preserve and to carry on this iden-
tity over the generations
Employee and family
member encourage-
ment
Community involve-
ment and affiliation
Stakeholder
involvement
Sustained family
ownership and family
member involvement
Perpetuation of the
owner's property and
created life’s work
Staying together as a
functional family,
Harmony among family
members
Firm as a vehicle for
self-actualization (that
the owner family has a
good feeling)
Job security for the
employees and people
from the local commu-
nity
Employee satisfaction
Brand positioning
Internal sustaina-
bility
Employee
appreciation
Appreciation to-
wards customers
and key stakehol-
ders
Self-interest
Corporation L
Industry:
Gastronomy
Market:
B2C
Operative family
generation: 2nd
Size: Large-scale
enterprise
Interviewee:
Family member
For the firm, social responsibility me-
ans to communicate fairly with their
employees, suppliers, other sub-
contractors, and all parties involved.
Openly, directly, clearly, spontaneou-
sly, and honestly, but also based on
the firm’s interests
Sustained
competitiveness
Quality orientation
Employee satisfaction,
Performance targets
Employee
encouragement
Perpetuation of the
established philosophy
Long-term firm survi-
val, sustained family
control, influence and
involvement
The owners are
known, as com-
pared to puclicly-
owned corporati-
ons
Overlapping of
business and pri-
vate (business and
family converges)
Table 3: CSR Approach and Implied Goals within Family Firms
72
4.2.2 Implications on the Family Firms’ Approach to CSR
The case studies illustrate that Swiss family-owned corporations do not agree
to what is generally meant by CSR. Each firm has a different meaning of CSR and
thus, approaches the topic differently. Furthermore, most of the organizations do not
name it as CSR. Rather, it is concerned with: 1) the way in which the firms treat their
stakeholders; and especially, 2) the social responsibility towards their employees.
Hence, employees are at the center of attention and it is important for the family firms
to take care of them. Another common denominator is the long-term orientation. To
act in such a way that the business will still exist for future generations, is crucial, and
this is reflected in the family firms’ respective behavior. For CSR measures, the firms
frequently mentioned voluntary contributions which go beyond legal compliance
towards their stakeholders, especially concerning the environment, the local
community, and indirectly, the owner family itself.
For some corporations, CSR is a philosophy, a tradition, a value-based system,
or an all-encompassing topic which is lived and cultivated. Therefore, CSR evolves
from the bottom-up, belongs to the corporate culture, is placed at the heart of the
company, or belongs in the family firm’s DNA.
For other family firms, a certain level of social responsibility is basically a
requirement, or it is expected from their customers. Notably, within this strategic
sample, this is the case for family firms which are dependent on big retailers as their
customers. Also, for the firms acting in competitive markets with low profit margins,
CSR only becomes a topic if there is a financial budget for it. Otherwise, due to the
competitive market environment, quality, and price are decisive.
Comparing the different approaches to CSR, it becomes clear that several
factors influence the way the selected family firms want to, and are able to, live up to
their social responsibility. Those factors include: 1) the owner family’s personal
attitudes and values; 2) the family firm’s market capitalization, including the financial
scope; and 3) the industry specific market environment (B2C or B2B), including the
type of goods sold (consumer goods or industrial goods). Except partially on the
corporate websites, no further CSR-related content is actively being published.
The 12 qualitative case studies show that CSR-related measures in family firms
are not used as a tool to mainly satisfy corporate profit motives. Rather, whether the
goals are consciously pursued or not, CSR is another platform established for
73
firm-internal purposes. Thus, the family firms in this sample mainly pursue goals
which are not directly identifiable by the public. This means that only the owner family
members, or “insiders”, know why the respective firm behaves in its individual and
socially responsible way. As indicated by the interviewees, this is supported by the
fact that non-public, family owned corporations are independent and do not have to
account for their corporate actions. Therefore, they also do not have to promote and
publish their socially responsible measures.
Furthermore, the results show that each family firm balances the goals pursued
by means of CSR differently. In certain cases, the family firm as an organization is
contributing to the personal happiness of the family members, by serving as a platform
or a vehicle for self-actualization. In other cases, the overall target is simply to be and
remain competitive in the long-run.
The goals pursued are mainly family-centered, business-centered, or
employee-centered. The goals identified are shown in Table 3 and a dynamic
classification of these goals is proposed in Figure 7 in the next chapter. Furthermore,
in the following chapter, the goals identified will be discussed in more detail.
74
5. DISCUSSION
To review, this bachelor thesis aims to answer the two research questions
concerning how Swiss family-owned corporations approach CSR, and which
distinguished goals they pursue by means of CSR. The results show that CSR, for the
12 family firms, is mainly concerned with:
1) the way the family firms treat their stakeholders, especially the social
responsibility towards their employees; and,
2) the way the family firms act, in order to ensure that the business will still exist
for future generations.
Furthermore, the results indicate that Swiss family-owned corporations have different
understandings to what is meant by CSR and how it should be implemented. The
family firms in this sample, thus, apply different measures in order to live up to their
social responsibility. Additionally, the research indicates that the way the respective
firm approaches CSR, might depend highly on the owner family itself, as the owner
family is de facto also an important stakeholder (Zellweger & Nason, 2008, p. 205).
The CSR measures identified might indeed vary by the owner family’s attitudes and
values towards the topic. The measures taken are mostly on a voluntary basis.
Therefore, they include measures which contribute to the well-being of the
stakeholders (including the natural environment), especially on a local level. Since
family firms have strong ties to the community that surrounds them (Zellweger et al.,
2012, p. 243), they have tendencies to exercise community-related social
responsibility. Putting this into the framework proposed by Carroll (1991), this
behavior would indicate that family firms in particular, strive for being or becoming a
good corporate citizen. As the interviewee of Corporation J points out, “a corporation,
like an individual, has to contribute its part to the social life and has to exercise its
responsibility”. Next to the community-related aspects, the measures taken indicate a
strong consideration for their employees. The various measures taken to contribute to
the well-being of the employees are therefore, also seen as major part of CSR by the
respective family firms.
During the data collection process and the case study analysis, specific goals
of each family firm could be identified (see Table 3 in Chapter 4.2.1). Among the
family firm goals identified, the qualitative case study research shows that the goals
pursued by means of CSR, are comparable to the conceptual and theory-based goal
75
dimensions proposed by Astrachan Binz and Ferguson (see Astrachan Binz &
Ferguson, 2014). This thesis shows that the family firms within this sample,
specifically pursue goals, which may be classified under the following catagories:
1) family-related
2) employee-related
3) business-related
The goals identified support the argument of Zellweger et al. (2013) that family firms
have strong incentives to pursue non-financial goals. Except the financial income for
family members, the family firm goals, which are family specific, might be classified
as mainly non-economic. It might also be argued that these goals are unique, compared
to the goals pursued by CSR in non-family owned corporations, because of the owner
family which stands behind the family firm. With the family firms’ natural desire to
pass the business to the next generation (Ward, 1987), the non-financial family-
specific goals are especially long-term oriented. Employee-related goals are also of
major importance for the family firms. In this sample, explicitly, these include
employee recruitment, employee satisfaction, employee identification, employee job
security, and employee encouragement. A clear classification of whether these goals
are either economic or not, might be a subject of debate. Last, there are certain
business-centered goals pursued which directly relate to the economic performance of
the firms. However, it might be argued that most of these goals do not deviate from
the goals pursued in non-family owned corporations. Several goals might be,
nevertheless, directly interrelated to family firm performance, such as family
reputation and firm reputation, as well as employee satisfaction and performance
targets. Furthermore, during the interviews, it also became obvious that quality
orientation and customer centricity are also directly linked to economic success.
Building on the work of Astrachan Binz & Ferguson (2014), Figure 7 proposes
a dynamic interrelationship of the family firm goals identified. The horizontal axis
illustrates the degree to which the respective goal is either economic or non-economic.
The vertical axis depicts to which degree the family firm goal is business-centered or
family-centered. The family firm goals are clustered based on the answers of the
interviewees. As previously indicated in Chapter 2.4, the goals can overlap and
therefore, no clear line is drawn in Figure 7. It is to be noted, that a slightly different
strategic sample might lead to a different result, and thus, the visualization is seen as
a dynamic one.
76
Figure 7: Dynamic Visualization of identified Family Firm Goals
77
6. CONCLUSION
This research proposes that, because of the uniqueness of Swiss family-owned
corporations and consequently the respective owner families, family firms might
pursue distinguished economic, but also non-economic, goals by acting socially
responsible with their stakeholders.
To conclude, the 12 qualitative case studies reveal that the phenomena of CSR
in family-owned, non-public corporations, is rather indiscernible for outsiders. CSR is
therefore, mainly utilized as a platform for internal purposes. Even if there are several
measures in place, which would indicate that CSR is used to increase competitiveness,
next to employee-related goals, overall, non-economic family-centered goals
dominate. As indicated by Zellweger (2008, p. 205), investigating non-monetary goals
of family firms is a topic especially worth pursuing. The research shows that, even if
the overall target for the owner families is to act in such a way that the business will
exist across generations, there are also solely personal non-economic goals pursued.
In several cases, CSR is therefore conducted from the personal conviction of the family
members and contributes to their own, sustained, non-economic, and the family’s
internal, well-being.
Linking back to the theory that, “CSR is concerned with treating the
stakeholders of the firm ethically or in a responsible manner” (Hopkins, 2003, p. 1),
the research finds that even if every family firm has a unique understanding of what
CSR is comprised of, the measures put in place concern the way in which they treat
their stakeholders. The respective family firm, therefore, takes measures to satisfy its
stakeholders and cares for the “groups or individuals who can affect or are affected by
the achievement of the firm’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 25). In a specific family
firm context, this study reveals that emphasis is given to the employees, the
environment, the local community, and indirectly, even to the owner family itself.
However, economic success is fundamental. The “firm should strive to make a profit,
obey the law, be ethical, and be a good corporate citizen" (Carroll, 1991, p. 43). Even
if there are differences amongst the sample, the family firms will continue to strive for
economic success, obey the law, have a certain ethical foundation, and if possible,
contribute their resources to the well-being of the local community.
This thesis paper seeks to contribute to the existing family firm research in this
field (see Zellweger et al., 2013; Astrachan Binz & Ferguson, 2014), as it offers the
78
reader a deeper understanding of the Swiss family firms’ approach towards CSR.
Furthermore, it supports the proposition that “family entrepreneurs often view their
firms as an extension of the self and their families, which makes them more likely to
be socially responsible and, hence, satisfy societal stakeholders” (Zellweger & Nason,
2008, p. 205; see also Dyer & Whetten, 2006). Based on the results of this thesis, the
researcher supposes that CSR is a personal concern of the owner family and thus,
family firms by nature have a larger incentive to behave socially responsible; not only
because of the benefits attached to the firm, but also because it serves the owner
families with a platform where they can incorporate their personal values and believes.
The study has focused on 12 family firms operating in different markets and
industries. The firms analyzed vary significantly by size and by their operative family
generation. An issue of validity raised, is that the interviews could not be conducted
with solely family members. Thus, only six family and six non-family members could
be interviewed, even though the researcher had planned to conduct the 12 interviews,
solely with family members (the reason of which, may be due to the family members’
senior and integral role within the firm, which would not allow for the time
commitment required). Next, the sample in this study is considered to be too small in
order to accurately test whether, amongst other factors, the market and industry, the
size, or the establishment of the family firm has a decisive influence on the way in
which CSR is approached.
Last, this bachelor thesis might be seen as a qualitative contribution to the
conceptual, theory-based model of Astrachan Binz & Ferguson (2014), and might be
used as a qualitative pre-study for further, more extensive, research on the topic.
79
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Astrachan, J.H., Klein, S.B., & Smyrnios, K.X. (2002). The F-PEC scale of family influence:
A proposal for solving the family business definition problem. Family Business
Review, 15(1), 45 – 58. Retrieved February 13, 2015, from www.iluplus.ch.
Astrachan, J. H., & Shanker, M. C. (2003). Family businesses’ contribution to the U.S.
economy: A closer look. Family Business Review, 16(3).
Astrachan Binz, C. & Ferguson, K. (30.06.2014). Paying a tribute to the family in family
business: The role of family goals and commitment in the context of family firm
citizenship. 14. Annual IFERA World Family Business Research Conference,
Lappeenranta, Finland.
Baumann-Pauly, D., Wickert, C., Spence, L. J., & Scherer, A. G. (2013). Organizing
corporate social responsibility in small and large firms: Size matters. Journal of
Business Ethics, 115(4), 693–705.
Bhattacharya, U., & Ravikumar, B. (2001). Capital markets and the evolution of family
businesses. The Journal of Business, 74(2). 187-219.
Binz, C. (2013). Branding the Family Firm. Unpublished dissertation, Lucerne University of
Applied Sciences and Arts.
Block, J.M. (2010). Family management, family ownership and downsizing: Evidence from
S&P 500 Firms. Family Business Review, 23(2), 109-130.
Boatright, J. R. (2013). Ethics and the conduct of business (7thed.). Pearson.
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.
Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral
management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional construct.
Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295.
Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K.M. (2010). The business case for corporate social
responsibility: a review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 12(1), 85-105.
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Steier, L. (2005). Sources and consequences of distinctive
familiness: an introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 237–247.
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the Family Business by Behavior.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19–39.
Daellenbach, M. (2011). How much is your family business worth? PwC DealTrends No.
1/2011. Retrieved November 24, 2014, from www.pwc.ch/de/dealtrends.html.
80
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37
definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1),
1–13.
Davis. K. (I960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California
Management Review, 11(3), pp. 70-76. Retrieved January 9, 2015, from
www.iluplus.ch
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials.
London: SAGE.
Dyer, W. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Family firms and social responsibility: Preliminary
evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 785–802.
European Commission. (2009). Overview of family-business-relevant issues: Research,
networks, policy measures and existing studies. Bruxelles: S. Vlaeminck, J. Bastino,
I. Augustin.
Flick, U. (2006). An Introduction to qualitative research. London: SAGE.
Freeman, C. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA:
Pitman.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Frey, U., Halter, F., & Zellweger, T. (2004). Bedeutung und struktur von familienunternehmen
in der Schweiz [Family business in Switzerland: significance and structure]. St.
Gallen: Schweizerisches Institut für Klein- und Mittelunternehmen (KMU-HSG).
Fueglistaller, U., (1995). Tertiarisierung und dienstleistungskompetenz in schweizerischen
klein- und mittelunternehmen [Tertiarization and service expertise in Swiss SMEs].
St. Gallen: KMU -Verlag University of St. Gallen.
Grant, R. M. (2010). Contemporary strategy analysis. (7th edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Halfpenny, P. (1979). The analysis of qualitative data. The Sociological Review, 27(4).
Handler, W. C., (1989). Methodological issues and considerations in studying family
businesses. Family Business Review, 2(3), 257-276. Retrieved February 13, 2015,
from www.iluplus.ch.
Hart, C. (2001). Doing a literature search: A comprehensive guide for the social sciences.
London; Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications Ltd.
Heald, M. (1970). The social responsibilities of business: Company and community, 1900-
1960. Cleveland OH: Case Western Reserve University Press.
Heck, R. K. Z., Scannell, T., (1999). The prevalence of family business from a household
sample. Family Business Review, 12(3), 209-224.
Hopkins, M. (2003). The planetary bargain: Corporate social responsibility matters. London;
Sterling, VA: Routledge.
Jakob, M. C. (2012). Corporate social responsibility in Schweizer KMU [Corporate social
responsibility in Swiss SMEs]. In Wehner, T (Ed.). Corporate Volunteering:
Unternehmen im Spannungsfeld von Effizienz und Ethik [Corporate Volunteering:
81
Companies between the poles of efficiency and ethics]. (pp. 183-202). Wiesbaden:
Springer Gabler.
Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: a fresh
perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 213–231.
Klein, S., (2000). Family businesses in Germany: Significance and structure. Family Business
Review, 13(3), 157-173. Retrieved January 9, 2015, from www.iluplus.ch.
La Porta, R., Lopez de Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., (1999). Corporate ownership around the
world. Journal of Finance, 54, 471-517.
Leitão, J., & Silva, M.J. (2007, November 7). CSR and social marketing: What is the desired
role for universities in fostering public policies? [Electronic version]. MPRA Paper,
2954, from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de.
Lindow, C. M. (2012). A strategic fit perspective on family firm performance. New York:
Springer Gabler.
Litz, R. A., (1995). The family business: towards definitional clarity. Family Business Review,
8(2), 71-81.
Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical
conceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.
McGuire, J. W. (1963). Business and society. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Niehm, L. S., Swinney, J., & Miller, N. J. (2008). Community social responsibility and its
consequences for family business performance. Journal of Small Business
Management, 46(3), 331–350.
Papasolomou‐Doukakis, I., Krambia‐Kapardis, M. & Katsioloudes, M. (2005). Corporate
social responsibility: the way forward? Maybe not! European Business Review, 17(3),
263–279. Retrieved February 26, 2015, from www.iluplus.ch.
Pratt, M. G. (2009). From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and
reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data. Thousand
Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Scherer, A. G. & Palazzo, G. (2008). Globalization and corporate social responsibility.
In Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. (Eds.). The oxford
handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press:
413-431.
Schramm, W. (1971). Notes on case studies of instructional media projects. Working paper
for academy of educational development. Washington DC.
Shanker, M. C., & Astrachan, J. H. (1996). Myths and realities: Family businesses’
contribution to the US economy - A framework for assessing family business
statistics. Family Business Review, 9(2), 107-123.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook. London: SAGE.
82
Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: not whether but how? California
Management Review 45(4), 52-76.
Sundaramurthy, C., & Kreiner, G. E. (2008). Governing by managing identity boundaries: The
case of family businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 415-436.
Visser, W. (2006). Revisiting Carroll’s CSR pyramid: An African perspective. In: E.R.
Pederson and M. Huniche, eds, Corporate Citizenship in Developing Countries
(Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press): 29-56.
Votaw, D. (1972). Genius becomes rare: a comment on the doctrine of social responsibility
Pt. I., California Management Review, 15(2). 25-31. Retrieved February 26, 2015,
from www.iluplus.ch.
Ward, J. L. (1987). Keeping the family business healthy: how to plan for continuing growth,
profitability, and family leadership. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
Welford, R. (2005). Corporate social responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia.
Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 17, 33-52.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: design and methods (2nded.). Thousand Oaks: B&T.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of Case Study Research (3rded.). Sage Publications.
Zellweger, T. M. (2006). Risk, return and value in the family firm. Dissertation, University
St. Gallen, No. 3188. Bamberg: Difo-Druck GmbH.
Zellweger, T. M., & Nason, R. S. (2008). A stakeholder perspective on family firm
performance. Family Business Review, 21(3), 203–216.
Zellweger, T. M., Eddleston, K. A., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2010). Exploring the concept of
familiness: Introducing family firm identity. Journal of Family Business Strategy,
1(1), 54-63.
Zellweger, T. M., Nason, R. S., Nordqvist, M., & Brush, C. G. (2013). Why do family firms
strive for nonfinancial goals? An organizational identity perspective.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 37(2), 229-248.
Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., & Memili, E. (2012). Building a
family firm image: How family firms capitalize on their family ties. Journal of Family
Business Strategy, 3(4), 239-25.
83
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW OUTLINE FOR FAMILY
MEMBERS
Was verstehen Sie unter Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) und wie wird es
gelebt in Ihrem Unternehmen?
Wie wird ‘soziale Verantwortung’ in Ihrer Familie gelebt, ist dies ein wichtiges
Konzept für Ihre Familie?
o Mit welchen Werten möchte Ihre Familie dabei in Bezug auf das
Unternehmen in Verbindung gebracht werden?
Wie wichtig ist es Ihnen, als sozial verantwortungsbewusstes Unternehmen
wahrgenommen zu werden?
o Was tun Sie konkret, um dies zu erreichen – sprich, welche
CSR-‘Massnahmen’ gibt es in Ihrem Unternehmen in Bezug auf:
o Mitarbeiter
o Kunden
o Lieferanten
o Umwelt
o …. andere Anspruchsgruppen (z.B. Community, NGOs, Hilfs-
projekte)
Machen Sie diese Massnahmen publik?
Wer entscheidet über die Art und Massnahmen im Bereich CSR?
Was denken Sie, leistet CSR für Ihr Unternehmen?
o Gibt es Ihrer Ansicht nach andere Beweggründe (ökonomische, nicht-
ökonomische), weshalb ’soziale Verantwortung’ oder ’nachhaltiges
Wirtschaften‘ in Ihrem Unternehmen so einen hohen Stellenwert hat?
Was macht Ihrer Ansicht nach Familienunternehmen bezüglich CSR im
Gegensatz zu Nicht-Familienunternehmen besonders?
84
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW OUTLINE FOR NON-FAMILY
MEMBERS
Was verstehen Sie unter Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) und wie wird es
gelebt in Ihrem Unternehmen?
o Wer entscheidet über die Art und Massnahmen im Bereich CSR?
(Besitzerfamilie, Verwaltungsrat, Geschäftsleitung, spezielle Abteilung)
Wie wichtig ist es Ihnen, als sozial verantwortungsbewusstes Unternehmen
wahrgenommen zu werden?
o Was tun Sie konkret, um dies zu erreichen – sprich, welche CSR-Massnahmen
gibt es in Ihrem Unternehmen in Bezug auf:
o Mitarbeiter
o Kunden
o Lieferanten
o Umwelt
o …. andere Anspruchsgruppen (z.B. Community, NGOs, Hilfs-
projekte)
Machen Sie diese Massnahmen publik?
Was denken Sie, leistet CSR für Ihr Unternehmen?
o Gibt es Ihrer Ansicht nach andere Beweggründe (ökonomische, nicht-
ökonomische), weshalb ’soziale Verantwortung’ in Ihrem Unternehmen so
einen hohen Stellenwert hat?
o Welche Motive könnten Sie in diesem Zusammenhang mit der
Besitzerfamilie in Verbindung bringen?
Was macht Ihrer Ansicht nach Familienunternehmen bezüglich CSR im
Gegensatz zu Nicht-Familienunternehmen besonders?
85
APPENDIX C: INFORMATION SHEET FOR THE INTER-
VIEWEES
Hochschule Luzern – Wirtschaft
Bachelor of Science in Business Administration
International Management & Economics
BACHELORARBEITSPROJEKT:
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Schweizer Familienunternehmen
Motive und Beweggründe für den nachhaltigen Umgang mit den jeweiligen Anspruchsgruppen
(Stakeholders)
AUSGANGSLAGE
In der Schweiz sind rund 88% aller Unternehmen Familienbetriebe. Gesamtschweizerisch gesehen sind
mehr als 66% der Erwerbsbevölkerung bei Familienunternehmen angestellt. Neben der enormen
wirtschaftlichen Bedeutung werden Unternehmen in Familienbesitz ebenfalls für langfristige Stabilität,
Nachhaltigkeit und gesellschaftliches Engagement von ihren jeweiligen Anspruchsgruppen geschätzt.
ZIELE DER ARBEIT
Das Ziel dieser Bachelorarbeit ist es, die Motive und Beweggründe von Familienfirmen für sozial
verantwortungsbewusstes Handeln aufzuzeigen. Die Forschungsfragen lauten wie folgt:
Was verstehen Schweizer Familienunternehmen unter CSR und wie wird es umgesetzt?
Welche Ziele verfolgen Schweizer Familienfirmen bei der Umsetzung von gesellschaftlich
verantwortlichen Massnahmen?
Da die Besitzerfamilie an sich eine zusätzliche Interessengruppe darstellt, könnte dieser Faktor bei der
Begründung für den verantwortungsbewussten Umgang mit den Anspruchsgruppen eine entscheidende
Rolle spielen.
METHODIK
Vorgängig wurde durch eine detaillierte Literaturauswertung der aktuelle Stand der CSR Forschung
ermittelt. Bei der Erstellung der Forschungsfrage wurden Bereiche berücksichtigt, welche zu neuen
Erkenntnissen der aktuellen Familienfirmenforschung beitragen können.
Vorbildlich agierende Unternehmen wurden sorgfältig ausgewählt und anhand von Experteninterviews
mit jeweiligen Entscheidungsträgern werden 12 Fallstudien erstellt und ausgewertet.
ZEITRAUM
Die Interviews würden im Zeitraum Ende März bis Ende Mai stattfinden. Die Interviews dauern
vermutlich zwischen 30 und 45 Minuten.
AUFTRAGGEBERIN STUDENT
Dr. Claudia Astrachan Binz Pascal Diebold
Hochschule Luzern-Wirtschaft Im Steinisacher 5
Zentralstrasse 9 8932 Mettmenstetten
6002 Luzern
86
APPENDIX D: CATEGORIES / THEMES
Theme Meaning Examples
Meaning of CSR What the corporation under-
stands as CSR
"For me, CSR means that in all your activities,
you do not only think at the today or now, but
also always a little bit into the future, for a
possible successive generation"
"For me, my family and our firm, CSR means to
act sustainably according to the three pillars:
socially, ecologically and economically"
CSR Strategy and
related Implications
Whether the corporation has a
strategic plan for CSR and
other related statements which
explain the way how CSR is
conducted
"Economic success is fundamental. But I think
that with our social responsibility, explicitly
towards our employees, we can expect a special
service from them. Towards other stakeholders,
they know that we are a reliable partner, that we
pursue certain ethical principles because busi-
ness ethics plays an important role for us despite
we are bound by our capabilities as a small
SME"
"Our business model is based on business
excellence. One of the points concerning busi-
ness excellence is the responsibility towards the
society. The society-related outcomes.
According to ethical principles"
Means of CSR and
Stakeholder
Management
Explicit measures taken by the
corporation
"The community in general, like I said, we are
Dietikon corporation and belong to Dietikon and
the local community. We are donating a little
money to local associations for their booklets
and we donate money for a football tournament
and so forth"
"We are using resources, me personally, for an
NGO or a project concerning a documentary
which we support in Geneva where I have
studied. It is a movie about the overfishing of the
ocean. Basically, it has nothing to do with our
own business. But, it is something nice which
we can give back to the environment even if we
are not necessarily directly affected. It means
that we contribute with our resources, with work,
to the progress of this documentary"
87
CSR Decision Maker The one who decides on CSR
and the respective measures
"It is basically the family together with the
senior management who decides this"
"It is clearly identifiable that the present-day’s
possessorship or the [present] owners of this
company are behind those measures and actions.
They provide us with a certain financial budget
so that it [CSR] can be implement"
Corporate Motives of
CSR
What motivates the corporati-
ons to be socially responsible
including the perceived be-
nefits for the corporation
"Certainly, it is an advantage concerning the
recruiting of employees where I think it [CSR]
plays a role. There were people who explicitly
mentioned that they want to work for a company
which takes this responsibility even if they could
earn more money somewhere else"
"Concerning the customers, I think it [CSR] is a
precondition. I don’t think that we have an ad-
vantage because of that. I think our competitors
can offer it as well. Like I said, it is a malus [ne-
gative thing] if you are not having or living it. In
my opinion, nowadays, it is basically a standard"
Company-centred Va-
lues
Refers to values which are
company spefic and do
not have a direct relationship
to CSR
"The quality concept is of first priority for us.
Otherwise we could not compete because our
prices are always higher compared to others"
"I think that price is always a topic. But also we
and our customers know that we are not the che-
apest. We have a certain size, volume, overhead
cost. Because of that we say that we are not the
cheapest but we also say that the cheapest is not
the best. And this we also apply for our supp-
liers"
Corporate Philosophy Refers to the the philosophy
which the firm as a corporation
or the owner family cultivates
"The goal is not to have a lot of money at the
end of the day. But rather the goal is to be a
great family, at the end of the year. That we
were a super team, that we had a good time
together, and that we can look into each other’s
eyes at the end of the year"
"one has to consider whether to be a social entity
which is here for everybody, a feel-good oasis,
or to be a corporation. In my opinion, this is a
corporation and not primarily a feel-good oasis"
Family Firm Goals
(economic, business-
centred)
Refers to to specific goals
pursued by the respective
family firm (classification ba-
sed on Astrachan Binz & Fer-
guson, 2014)
"For the family it [CSR] is in this terms im-
portant as the firm is already existing since 120
years and we want to continue the business. "
"For us, we know that we have and want to be
long-term successful with this firm"
88
Family Firm Goals
(economic, family-
centred)
Refers to to specific goals
pursued by the respective
family firm (classification ba-
sed on Astrachan Binz & Fer-
guson, 2014)
"At the end their own salaries get paid because
of that"
"Of course they [owner family] also want to
make profit"
Family Firm Goals
(non-economic,
business-centred)
Refers to to specific goals
pursued by the respective
family firm (classification ba-
sed on Astrachan Binz & Fer-
guson, 2014)
"This is something the employees should feel.
That we reinvest and that we ensure that any-
thing works well"
"When the people outside are happy, our
employees are happy, too. It’s always kind of an
interplay"
Family Firm Goals
(non-economic,
family-centred)
Refers to to specific goals
pursued by the respective
family firm (classification ba-
sed on Astrachan Binz & Fer-
guson, 2014)
"If you have the name of the family embedded in
the name of the company, anything that you do
is not only the company, it is also the family"
"The [owner] family wants that the business gets
continued for their own children and this is re-
flected in the [firm’s] behavior"
89
APPENDIX E:
CSR AND PROFITS: LIKELY BENEFITS AND COSTS
Adapted from (Hopkins, 2003, p. 147)
Stakeholder Group
Benefits
Costs
Directors
More independent non-executive directors
More meetings and briefings
Shareholders Increased investment from
ethically based pension funds
CSR premium on all company activities,
such as increased reparting costs, more
openness, etc.
Managers
Better human resources (HR) policies lead to increased
motivation
More awareness of ethical issues from focus-group ses-
sions lead to more confidence about employees
Increased training in ethics
Focus group sessions and reporting
Employees
Better HR polices lead to increased motivation
Good ethical conduct by superiors leads to improved
productivity
Less labour relations disputes and strikes
Better working conditions
Good CSR company leads to easier recruitment of high
fliers and young people
Reduced costs of recruitment
Inclusion of ethics training
More intra-company Communications
More effort on labour relations
Customers
Move to ethical consumption captured by company
Less disputes
Advertising can cite CSR image
Costs of goods may increase
in the short term
Subcontractors/
Suppliers
Better quality inputs
Less harmful effect on ‘public image’
Cost of inputs may increase
in the short term
Community More willingness to accept new investments
Improved public image
Requires continual interaction with commu-
nities
Will need to produce CSR reports
Will need to monitor internal
activities
Costs associated with human
rights policy
Government
More confidence in company
Fewer legal battles
No new potentially harmful legislation
More favourable trading regime
More willingness to accept expansion or downsizing
Costs of adhering to new regulations will in-
crease
Environment
Less legal battles
Improved public image
Contribution to sustainability of company
Investment in environmental damage control
90
APPENDIX F: DECLARATION OF SOLE AUTHORSHIP
I, Pascal Diebold, hereby certify that the attached Bachelor Thesis Project:
“Corporate Social Responsibility in Swiss family-owned Corporations” is wholly and
completely my own, and that I have indicated all the sources (printed, electronic, per-
sonal, etc.) that I have consulted. Any sections quoted from these sources are clearly
indicated in quotation marks or are otherwise so declared. I further attest that I have
included acknowledgement of the name(s) of any person(s) consulted in the course of
preparing this assignment.
Signed:
Date: