There is no need to shout to be heard! The paradoxical nature of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting in a Latin American family small and medium-sized enterprise (SME)

Abstract

Drawing on the paradox and reciprocal stewardship theory, this study focuses on tensions in corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting experienced by a family small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) in a developing Latin American country. Prior literature has suggested a prescriptive, tension-free process, led by family members and driven by an interest to protect and enhance the reputation of both the family and the firm. Relying on an in-depth qualitative approach, this study unveils that CSR reporting is not immune to contradictions between familial and external expectations. The findings reveal that religious beliefs can emerge as a strong source of tensions. A reciprocal stewardship perspective allows an understanding of how and why family and non-family members work together and handle paradoxes. A conceptual model is proposed which is based on multiple sources of emergence (family-related, business-related and external sources) and management/avoidance of tensions in CSR reporting, mediated by the types of relationships among family members and between family and non-family members. Implications and opportunities for further research are subsequently presented.

Keywords

corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting family small and medium-sized enterprise (SME)Latin America paradox theory reciprocal stewardship religion

Introduction

There is a growing interest in knowing how deep corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities run in family small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Baden et al., 2011; Soundararajan et al., 2018). Family SMEs represent the largest share of businesses worldwide (Howorth et al., 2010) and their socially responsible engagement, progressively reported under a CSR label, has not gone unnoticed (Van Gils et al., 2014; Spence, 2016). CSR revolves around how organisations address the concerns of those whose lives are affected by their operations (Carroll and Shabana, 2010; Wang et al., 2016). Yet, to be effective, CSR engagement needs to be trailed by communication (Du et al., 2010). Prior research suggests that the interest of family SMEs to communicate socially responsible activities relates to the strong desire of owning families to create and maintain a positive company image by being good corporate citizens, to protect the reputation of both the family and the firm (Dyer and Whetten, 2006). Notwithstanding, scholars suggest that CSR reporting may be challenged in some family SMEs and call to investigate such phenomena further (Campopiano and De Massis, 2015; Nekhili et al., 2017).

This study focuses on tensions around CSR reporting in family SMEs for several reasons. First, the assumption of a tension-free process, driven by the interest to protect and enhance the reputation of both the family and the firm, overlooks that communicating CSR may be burdened with contradictions (Du et al., 2010). Contradictions may emerge around the support or reservations of family and non-family members to disclose CSR initiatives and may persist around opposing business and personal rationales related to what to disclose and why (Pedersen and Neergaard, 2009). To understand persistent contradictions, which may occur simultaneously and become difficult to reconcile, scholars argue for the relevance of a paradox lens (Schad et al., 2016). A paradox lens examines family SMEs as a dynamic and complex system involving a variety of tensions and dilemmas (Schuman et al., 2010). Family businesses face many paradoxes (Clinton et al., 2018) and thus attention to CSR reporting through a paradox lens is warranted.

Second, contradicting ideologies and expectations in family SMEs highlight the juxtaposition of agency and stewardship perspectives to explain tensions in CSR reporting (Schad et al., 2016). Agency tensions may arise through non-family managers failing to act on behalf of family owners by misreporting or requiring higher incentives to disclose CSR information, or through family SME owners delaying formal reporting or minimising its importance (Salazar and Husted, 2008). Yet, an agency perspective may not fully address how and why family SME leaders manage tensions when fiduciary responsibilities compete with the duty to others and societal expectations. Prior studies suggest that CSR in family SMEs may reflect a stewardship perspective (Davis et al., 1997, 2010), revolving around shared interests to safeguard the welfare of an organisation (Caldwell et al., 2007). In situations in which family leaders aim to improve organisational welfare, focusing on intrinsic motivations and commitment to personal values, a reciprocal stewardship perspective (Neubaum et al., 2017; Pearson and Marler, 2010) may explain how agency tensions in CSR reporting may be minimised.

Finally, there is an assumption that CSR reporting is replicated around the world, overlooking differences between Western and international approaches (Wang et al., 2016). Scholars call for further examination of CSR in developing countries (Jamali and Karam, 2018). To contribute to the knowledge, this study examines CSR reporting in Latin America, where family SMEs dominate (Müller et al., 2019) and where CSR research has been the least covered (Peinado-Vara, 2006; Visser, 2008). While there is an expectation of family members leading CSR initiatives to enhance family and business reputation (Gupta et al., 2008), tensions between the motivations, values and beliefs of family and non-family members (Discua Cruz and Howorth, 2008) and variations in CSR engagement (Husted et al., 2010) cannot be underestimated. Thus, under conditions in which CSR reporting may cause tensions, understanding why family SMEs engage in communicating their socially responsible activities and how they cope with tensions that emerge from family-related (values, religious beliefs and reputation), business-related (reputation and performance) and external sources (international guidelines, industry pressures, associations, etc.) merits further attention.

Therefore, this study focuses on the following questions: Why does a family SME in a developing Latin American country engage in CSR reporting and how does it manage the tensions among family and non-family members in the decision to disclose socially responsible initiatives? To answer these questions, this study focuses on a holistic single case study (Reay and Zhang, 2014; Yin, 2018) in Honduras. CSR reporting in Honduras has been associated with large international firms and seen with scepticism by society (Were, 2003). While local Honduran SMEs are not encouraged to report on CSR, nor is it mandatory for them to engage in any kind of formally recognised effort, recent accounts indicate a spur of CSR reporting (FUNDAHRSE - Honduran Foundation for CSR, www.fundahrse.org 2016). A family SME in Honduras, winner of a CSR award, was purposefully selected as an exemplar that illustrates diverse tensions in CSR reporting over time, providing the opportunity to refine knowledge (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007).

The findings reveal that CSR reporting is not immune to tensions and is more complex than previously believed. In this study, paradoxes unfolded as CSR reporting compromised the intrinsic religious motivations of family owners. Findings reveal the role of organisational stewards and reciprocal relationships in handling paradoxes. This study contributes to the literature on CSR reporting, paradox and reciprocal stewardship perspectives by elucidating how and why a family SME negotiates tensions emerging from several sources.

The remainder of the article continues as follows: first, a focus on the unique context of family SMEs and CSR reporting, followed by a discussion on paradoxes and reciprocal stewardship. Then, the methodological approach is detailed to concentrate on the findings, discussion and a model that sketches the paradoxical nature of CSR reporting. Finally, limitations and future research opportunities are outlined.

The unique context of family SMEs and social responsibility reporting

SMEs differ from large-scale counterparts in terms of relationships, strategy and the integration of new practices (Cromie et al., 1995; Wynarczyk et al., 1993). The definitions of SMEs highlight features such as numbers of employees, annual turnover, and unique products and services (Craig et al., 2008; McAdam et al., 2014), and acknowledge that SMEs can be part of a group of enterprises owned and managed by one or several individuals (European Commission, 2015). Focusing on social responsibility, Soundararajan et al. (2018: 935) define SMEs as firms that have no more than 250 employees, are generally independent, resource constrained, reliant on personal relationships and informality, actively managed by owners, with personalised treatment, operating mostly locally and dependent on internal sources to finance growth. As definitions of family businesses abound (Diaz-Moriana et al., 2019), this study defines a family SME as a firm associated with the involvement of family members in the ownership and management of the firm, and the intertwining of family and business objectives (Howorth et al., 2010: 438). Such definitions are relevant, as a family SME is a context in which tensions can surface when business-related issues, such as growth and performance, overlap with family expectations (Fletcher, 2002).

Recent studies differentiate between socially responsible activities engaged in by SME owners and CSR activities, previously perceived to be poorly translated in the SME context (Soundararajan et al., 2018). This study focuses on the latter, as integrating CSR (i.e. introducing codes of conduct, standards and reporting) is perceived to be problematic (Baden et al., 2011). Tensions may emerge related to plurality of opinions, changes required and resource availability to meet requirements in external communication (Schad et al., 2016; Smith and Lewis, 2011).

CSR integration starts with owners/managers being attentive to diverse societal concerns, influenced by stakeholders making managers aware of pressing needs (Pedersen, 2006), or by reactions to changing industry standards (O’Donovan, 2002). Explicit and implicit motives, often competing with each other, influence integration (Matten and Moon, 2008). Knowledge and awareness, available firm resources and preferences help identify and select social issues to address (Pedersen and Andersen, 2006), which then informs SME practices that become operable, explicit and codified (Pedersen, 2006). Outcomes can include the support of charitable organisations, the hiring and training of the unemployed and/or disadvantaged, improved workplace safety, concern for the environment, education and transparency in financial reporting (Van Marrewijk, 2003). Yet, despite the positive outcomes, it has always been an open question of whether disclosure of outcomes is driven by a genuine commitment or by a deliberate approach to comply with institutional pressures, opportunistic motivations or self-interest (Iatridis et al., 2016).

Prior studies highlight that family SMEs may engage informally in socially responsible practices for a long period of time without a CSR label (Fitzgerald et al., 2010). In family SMEs, the values, beliefs, personal backgrounds and experiences of founders may encourage the addressing of societal concerns through resource commitment (e.g. human and financial) and time (Fitzgerald et al., 2010; Hemingway and Maclagan, 2004). Activities can relate to protecting the immediate environment, acts of kindness towards employees and long-term stakeholders, philanthropy or supporting causes closer to home (Campopiano et al. 2014; Uhlaner et al., 2004). This study considers such a range of activities as being part of CSR. Aguinis and Glavas (2019: 1068) advocate that it is rare that any firm will implement CSR perfectly, and thus a CSR approach will usually be somewhere on a continuum between peripheral (activities implemented as an initiative that is not part of a firm’s core activities, such as philanthropy and charity (Hutchins and Sutherland, 2008)) and embedded activities (integrated within an organisation’s strategy as well as daily operations). Recent studies posit that SMEs may reflect a unique level of sophistication and idiosyncrasy in communicating CSR outcomes (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013). Therefore, further attention to CSR reporting is needed.

CSR reporting

CSR reporting relates to the ‘process of communicating the social and environmental effects of organizations’ economic actions to particular interest groups within society and to society at large’ (Gray et al., 1996: 3). Most CSR communication focuses on a company’s involvement in social causes, which is associated with commitment, impact, rationale for engagement and the congruence between the cause and the firm’s business (Du et al., 2010). Reporting includes instruments such as social, environmental and sustainability annual reports, websites, media releases, public speeches and CSR-related advertising.

CSR reporting acknowledges that SMEs have relationships with a wide range of stakeholders – employees, suppliers, customers and local communities – which affect and are affected by a family SME’s operation (Garriga and Melé, 2004). Reporting informs about the consistency of values, norms and expectations between a family SME and its immediate context (Pedersen and Neergaard, 2009; Sweeney and Coughlan, 2008). CSR communication can provide positive benefits by spreading a good corporate citizen image, creating communication channels with stakeholders and legitimising business practices (Du et al., 2010; Pedersen, 2009). A lack of communication may undermine authenticity and credibility, diminishing positive perceptions of stakeholders of an SME’s activities (Du et al., 2010).

Recent studies highlight mixed findings about CSR reporting in family SMEs. Scholars agree that CSR reporting has a profound impact on the reputation, image and protection of the assets and interests of family members in a business (Campopiano and De Massis, 2015). Iyer and Lulseged (2013) found that the active involvement and direct monitoring of family owners in management could act as a substitute for public disclosure: longer investment horizons and less preoccupation about short-term performance, as well as lower information asymmetry between family owners and managers, may make family SMEs less likely to disclose CSR information. Such notions were supported by Nekhili et al. (2017), who argued that family firms publish less CSR information than non-family firms, having less motivation to disclose information because tensions between owners and managers are assumed to be minimal. The presence of independent directors, associated with higher levels of disclosure, may have little influence on family SMEs due to personal or familiar ties to family owners (Cuadrado-Ballesteros et al., 2015). In such circumstances, reporting gravitates around the behaviours of family members, who may perceive CSR reporting as a risk in relation to long-term financial performance unless it enhances reputation and image (Cuadrado-Ballesteros et al., 2015; Gavana et al., 2017).

Nevertheless, while some family SMEs may be inclined to favour detailed CSR reporting due to reputation and image (Gavana et al., 2017), others may prefer otherwise. While hard-earned legitimacy, embeddedness in the prevailing culture and society’s perceptions about the sincerity and trustworthiness of CSR activities may provide an advantage for family SMEs (Panwar et al., 2014), a lack of consensus on what should be disclosed (or not) – and for what purpose – may lead to tensions (Margolis and Walsh, 2003), as there may be little interest in turning CSR reporting into forced and selective communication exercises (Nielsen and Thomsen, 2009). A highly positive, over-reporting of CSR investments could be misinterpreted as ‘bragging’ (Nekhili et al., 2017), creating a backlash effect that could affect a family SME if stakeholders become suspicious and perceive predominantly extrinsic motives to shape and manipulate perceptions (Du et al., 2010). Moreover, tensions may arise if peripheral and/or embedded CSR initiatives that are reported are perceived as incongruent with business operations (Du et al., 2010). Thus, CSR reporting in family SMEs may showcase persistent contradictions that need to be investigated.

A paradox lens

Paradoxes refer to ‘persistent contradictions between interdependent elements’ (Schad et al., 2016: 10). Such elements ‘seem logical in isolation, but absurd and irrational when appearing simultaneously’ (Lewis, 2000: 760). Persistent dilemmas in family businesses may be inextricably intertwined (Litz, 2008). Smith and Lewis (2011) suggest that paradoxes can emerge when family SME leaders must decide what they are going to do in terms of CSR reporting, how they are going to do it, who is going to do it and in what time horizon. By defining how they are going to operate, they also define how they are not going to operate, creating organising tensions. Who is going to do what highlights conflicting identities, roles and values, creating belonging tensions. As leaders consider the time horizon for disclosure, between today and tomorrow, they create learning tensions. Finally, by defining what they are trying to do in terms of CSR reporting, family SME leaders also define what they are not trying to do, creating performing tensions. Performing paradoxes deal with varied goals and outcomes stemming from different internal and external demands (Margolis and Walsh, 2003), or tensions around interpreting the advantages/disadvantages of CSR reporting.

Paradoxes can persist over time and often remain latent until contextual conditions such as plurality, scarcity and change make them resurface (Schad et al., 2016; Smith and Lewis, 2011). Plurality deals with several stakeholders expressing contradictory perspectives about CSR reporting. Changes in the way family SMEs report CSR initiatives can trigger juxtaposing priorities. Scarcity of resources (e.g. financial, temporal and human) can create tensions about how to support social causes while safeguarding financial performance. Managing paradoxes is challenging because owners/managers may display contradictory responses to avoid discomfort (Hahn et al., 2014). As persistent tensions may revolve around the (mis)alignment of objectives, perceptions and expectations (Russo and Perrini, 2010), the potential of paradox perspectives to explain organisational phenomena rests on relationships between SMEs owners and managers (Schad et al., 2016).

A reciprocal stewardship perspective

Contradicting ideologies, norms of reciprocity and expectations of family SME owners and managers (Johannisson and Huse, 2000; Long and Mathews, 2011) underscore agency and stewardship perspectives (Schad et al., 2016). Agency theory (Eisenhardt, 1989) explains relationships in which the interests of family business leaders and managers are misaligned, and may only be aligned through appropriate compensation and monitoring (Le Breton-Miller and Miller, 2009). CSR reporting could be a strategy by owners or managers to benefit only themselves. Yet, an agency perspective may not explain how and why owners and managers manage tensions when fiduciary responsibilities compete with both the duty to others within the firm and societal expectations.

A contrasting perspective to agency is stewardship theory, which acknowledges that individuals are not always self-serving (Davis et al., 1997) and explains situations in which family and non-family owners and managers serve the organisational good and its mission, rather than pursuing opportunistic ends (James et al., 2017; Davis et al., 2010; Zahra et al., 2008). Neubaum et al. (2017) posit that stewardship creates a competitive advantage when – and if – agency costs can be reduced, and they demonstrate that family businesses possess stronger stewardship climates than non-family counterparts. A strong stewardship climate will explain employee engagement when policies, practices and procedures foster widely shared pro-organisational values.

Recent studies suggest that a reciprocal stewardship perspective, integrating stewardship theory and leader–member exchange (LMX) theory (Buch, 2015; Schriesheim et al., 1999; Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995), focusing on the social exchange norm of reciprocity, can offer a nuanced view of how stewardship behaviour occurs when dealing with paradoxes in CSR reporting. Leadership is relevant when approaching CSR to encourage involvement without coercive pressures (Pedersen, 2006). A central tenet of reciprocal stewardship lies in the initiating role of a leader and the subsequent exchange roles from followers (Pearson and Marler, 2010: 1119). When family leaders behave as good stewards, they are more likely to be concerned with the welfare of employees, the continuity of employment, assignments to challenging and desirable jobs, the opportunities to have new experiences and other behaviours that employees would view as supportive and positive. Such approaches would develop high-quality relationships between family leaders and employees – based on mutual trust, respect and obligations – and foster a sense of reciprocal behaviour, where employees may return the favourable treatment in some way. Conversely, if employees are not privy to family objectives, not given access to information about the intrinsic motives or values of a leader, not allowed to engage in constant and meaningful interactions with family owners, or receive limited support and encouragement, they may become less committed to show pro-organisational behaviours.

To date, there is no empirical evidence about how (whether) reciprocal stewardship may have any influence in CSR reporting in family SMEs. A recent review of the LMX theory, which undergirds reciprocal stewardship, suggests that the ongoing exchange between family SME leaders and managers needs to be examined in the light of cultural variations (Buch, 2015; Schyns and Day, 2010). Dimensions such as power distance, dealing with how people view superior/subordinate relationships in an organisation (Hofstede, 2001: 98) and individualism/collectivism, which explains the extent to which a culture focuses on individuals and their welfare rather than groups and their well-being (Hofstede, 2001: 225), are long-standing explanations of cultural variations in socially responsible behaviour around the world (Franke and Nadler, 2008; Karaibrahimoglu and Cangarli, 2016) that influence stewardship in family firms (Davis et al., 1997; Neubaum et al., 2017). Collectivism and low power distance may explain positive employee outcomes when integrating CSR (Waldman et al., 2006), as managers may subordinate personal goals to those of the organisations and are more likely to support CSR (Gupta et al., 2002). Nevertheless, recent studies suggest that tensions between owners and managers in Latin America, expected to be minimal, may influence CSR reporting (Gupta et al., 2008). Based on the previous discussions, this study focuses on answering the following questions: Why does a family SME in a developing Latin American country engage in CSR reporting and how does it manage the tensions among family and non-family members in the decision to disclose socially responsible initiatives?

Methodology

Answering ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions requires examining and articulating phenomena from the perspective of those studied (Pratt, 2009). CSR needs to be studied ‘where it is being practiced and should reflect the experiences of those involved’ (Dobers and Halme, 2009: 298). As the interest was in exploring and interpreting paradoxes in CSR reporting in a developing Latin American country, a single case study research was ideal (Stake, 2008), as detailed and in-depth insights from those involved directly in CSR reporting, which could illustrate the tensions involved, was needed (Miles et al., 2013).

Single case studies provide a nuanced, empirically rich, holistic account of specific phenomena in detail and offer rich insights when focusing on complex processes in family businesses (Clinton et al., 2017; Barbera et al., 2018; Reay and Zhang, 2014), such as CSR in SMEs (Fuller and Tian, 2006). This study relies on a holistic case study (Yin, 2018), focusing on one organisation, with the analysis undertaken seeking to be holistic and studied in its context (Tight, 2017), shaped by an approach that relies on narrative, phenomenological descriptions (Hamilton et al., 2017).

Context: Latin America and Honduras

Honduras is a relevant context of study for several reasons. First, it is a Latin American developing country where family SMEs dominate (Discua Cruz, 2010) and where socially responsible values are an extension of family values, often instilled by founders (Gupta et al., 2008) and often associated with shared religious beliefs. Such an association is important, as in Latin American countries, the movement to support socially responsible initiatives has been linked to social values related to Catholicism (De Oliveira, 2006), which remains a dominant religious faith tied to local culture (Cleary, 2009). Religion can be a source of legitimation for family SME leaders in secular arenas such as politics and business (Morello et al., 2017). It is not uncommon to find family SME owners supporting renowned social initiatives led by the Catholic Church. Moreover, CSR would be expected to focus on peripheral activities, led by family members around reputation enhancement, with scarce input from non-family managers (Gupta et al., 2008). Non-family managers are expected to minimise values related to self-direction and autonomy in order to avoid managerial tensions (Lenartowicz and Johnson, 2003). Finally, it is a context in which CSR may be guided by external agents, including international organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), private foundations and multinational enterprises (Peinado-Vara, 2006; Were, 2003). For example, private organisations such as FUNDAHRSE guide businesses in CSR practices based on international standards.

The interest was to find a family SME that engaged in CSR, consistent with the research concern of understanding formal forms of social responsibility. In 2012, a family SME that won a national CSR award and fulfilled the definition of a SME in Honduras (Gaceta, 2009), consistent with the definition described earlier, was purposely selected. The case study offered insights that could expand theoretical understandings. As detailed information is difficult to obtain in Latin American family businesses (Jones, 2004), access was procured through family and professional relationships and under an anonymity request by participants.

The case firm: AsphaCo

AsphaCo is a family business founded in 1984 in Honduras by Maria and Jorge Asturias, after completion of their university degrees. AsphaCo started with six employees and concentrated initially on bartering palm oil from Honduras for asphalt from Nicaragua. Their business emerged during the political turmoil in Central America in the 1980s, when trading was problematic in the region (Leogrande, 1996). Over the years, AsphaCo grew from a single firm to a diversified small family business group employing 118 staff in sectors including energy, construction, office technology and farming. AsphaCo is currently owned and managed by members of two generations of the Asturias family. The founding generation is composed of Jorge and Maria, general managers. The second generation is composed of Jorge Jr. and Ana. At the time of the initial interviews, Jorge Jr, a business graduate, participated in AsphaCo’s management, while Ana was still studying a business degree in the United States and was not involved in management. The managerial structure of AsphaCo evolved from relying solely on family members to include non-family managers (Wynarczyk et al., 1993) in several SMEs created over time.

CSR engagement started through one of AsphaCo’s associated SMEs, InteCo, created by Jorge Jr. in 2007 to supply office technology equipment and services to large Honduran businesses. From 2008, InteCo’s management was entrusted to a non-family executive, Iris Perez, a business graduate, who has worked for AsphaCo since 2005. Her mandate was to position the firm as a leading office technology provider. In 2011, Iris was invited to attend a CSR seminar by one of InteCo’s largest customers, the BANCOF Group, a large Honduran financial conglomerate, and winner of numerous CSR awards. Training was guided by FUNDAHRSE. Participant firms were to be evaluated on CSR dimensions a few months after the seminar.

Data collection and analysis

Data collection started in 2012, with follow-up interviews in 2013, 2014 and 2016, focused on understanding CSR integration longitudinally. Collection involved in-depth interviews conducted in Spanish and collected verbatim, lasting between one and two hours. Translation was carried out later for future analysis. Phenomenological interview guidelines facilitated unrestricted accounts about CSR reporting (Hamilton et al., 2017). Interviews were held with AsphaCo family and non-family executives, as well as BANCOF and FUNDAHRSE representatives. At the time of the initial interviews, family and non-family members were discussing further CSR engagement and reporting. The interviews revealed the emergence and management of several tensions. A total of 15 interviews were conducted. This allowed follow-up on emerging themes (Patton, 1990). A range of different data elements (documents and articles related to InteCo’s CSR reporting) as well as secondary data from FUNDAHRSE and BANCOF (e.g. company brochures, annual reports, company websites and media reports) were collected for triangulation (Reay and Zhang, 2014; Yin, 2018).

Data analysis was inductive, as the study sought to understand perceptions and experiences (McAdam et al., 2014). The analysis was informed by prior theoretical understanding but not constrained by it (Finch, 2002). Analysis of the data was reiterative in moving between data and emerging findings (Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2000). Based on Shaw et al. (2017) and Zhang and Reay (2018), this study started by independently examining the data in interviews, observation notes and documents. Then a coding process was carried out by reading and rereading transcripts, notes and documents, and then using codes in sentences or paragraphs to organise data. Once coding was completed, data were organised to identify emerging themes. The interpretation of emergent findings was discussed with participants to gain their perspectives and inform ongoing analysis.

In analysing the data, experience of the local culture was important, as was experience in owning and managing family businesses, because both factors helped to increase understanding and confidence in analysis (Hamilton et al., 2017). Finally, the findings were ‘re-contextualised’ by comparing them with arguments in the existing literature. Table 1 summarises the data coding, themes and concepts that emerged in the process. Data in the table support the key themes emerging from the analysis (Pratt, 2009). Compelling excerpts from the data, with references to the temporality of the interviews, were used to illustrate arguments. Such an approach was undertaken to increase transparency and address validity (Gibbert and Ruigrok, 2010). To address reliability, a case study protocol and the development of a case study database was used (Yin, 2018).

Table 1.

Data coding.

Excerpts from data	First-order concepts	Second-order theme
. . . CSR was something I heard about at university in the USA . . . eventually it was going to influence large businesses here . . . some have their HQs in the USA, and those who work with them will know about it [CSR] in one way or another’. (Jorge Jr., July 2014)	Knowledge about international practices	Industry trends
‘. . . local small firms are becoming more aware of social responsibility and the ways that they can promote it in their firms. It [CSR] is a worldwide phenomenon’. (FUNDAHRSE, December 2012)
‘. . . firms are being evaluated constantly, not only if they provide jobs but what else they are doing for society, this was unheard of in the past yet we work with large players, for example BANCOF who are expected to show what they do for society . . . it is not so common with small firms but as a business grows people notice. . .’ (Iris, July 2014)	Knowledge about local evaluations
‘. . . our bank is known for increasing CSR engagement, it is something that we are now asking more of our providers, if we work at it but overlook what others do then we would not be sending the right message locally and internationally. . .’ (BANCOF, December 2012)
‘. . . manuals or explicitly written policies, processes or norms . . . these items will be required for certification and that will be possibly compulsory to continue working with some of them [large businesses]’ (Maria, April 2013)	Increasing industry requirements	Need for compliance
‘. . . [smaller] companies that want to do business with larger companies or even international ones have to think that CSR is a good presentation card’. (FUNDAHRSE, April 2013)
‘. . . we now engage in contract scrutiny constantly . . . we had to ensure that all suppliers provided original products, that clients were addressed appropriately . . . we have done it before and it is part of [AsphaCo] procedures nowadays’. (Iris, August 2014)	Increasing procedural scrutiny
‘. . . as part of our CSR policy we are now asking more of our providers to show how they do things’. (BANCOF, April 2013)
‘You really do not hear a lot about this [CSR], you can learn about it yourself but there is really no motivation to engage in it . . . you have to see it working in other companies and understand why they do it’. (Iris, April 2013)	Basic training availability	Information/training provided
‘. . . we cannot demand people to know about CSR already, we can provide the training as it helps us to refine our [commercial] approach to society’. (BANCOF representative, December 2012)
‘Nowadays there is a lot of information [about CSR], it was not like that before. A lot of firms are trying to work under management principles from the US’. (Jorge Jr, July 2014)	Specific information availability
‘. . . the information that is available for [large] companies is extensive and growing, and such information can shape training to make it easy to understand [for SMEs]’. (FUNDAHRSE, December 2012)
‘. . . there are a lot of projects that we have been involved in, from hospitals to paving roads . . . education has been a long interest of our family . . . it is the only way by which a society prospers, when you have educated people, and that is something that needs to be supported . . . People can use education to create new opportunities’. (Jorge Jr, July 2014)	Prior social responsibility experiences	Awareness of social activities of incumbents/successors
‘. . . the children [Jorge Jr. and Ana] have been involved with the parents in several activities for the underprivileged, everyone here [AsphaCo] knows that they do it as a family’. (Iris, July 2014)
‘. . . it is not really for us to do something and then have a picture taken . . . we as a family have done this since the time media was not even interested in these types of events . . . we do it because of conviction not because of promotion’. (Jorge Jr, July 2014)	Anonymous approach
‘Ms. Asturias [Maria] is very keen regarding philanthropic activities; she has been always involved in actions to help the community . . . she has helped employees and their communities over time . . . they [as a family] have helped to build churches, raise funds for expensive operations, paved access to remote communities . . . their involvement has always been there’. (Iris, January 2016)	Continued community involvement
‘. . . the story of this business, it is all about the type of family that leads this business. They have been working side by side with their employees even as the firm grows. Employee turnover here is rare, you will see that interaction everyday . . . they set the example for their children to treat employees’. (Iris, April 2014)	Knowledge of family background	Knowledge of family stories
‘. . . there are people here that have been working for decades, we have helped them in many ways, we have helped their communities, their family members, it is part of being in business’. (Jorge Jr., July 2014)
‘. . . I spend most of my time with my employees and with my family, it is hard to separate both worlds. It is hard to be human and not to be moved by employees’ problems, you only get to know them when you work side by side’. (Maria, April 2014)	Leader–employee constant interaction
‘They [the Asturias family] transmit a special way of caring for employees . . . they have modelled that into their children and new employees look up to them and go to them when they have issues. If one member of the family does not have an answer about how to help, they ask each other and solve the problem, employees know that they will look after them’. (Iris, April 2014)	Role models in organisation
‘Our faith is important . . . Our kids know that before anything they should be thankful to God, they have to develop that love for the company and for people, because we [as a family] have built it over time and only they [Jorge Jr and Ana] can sustain it over time’. (Maria, April 2013)	Family religious values and beliefs	Knowledge of family values/beliefs
‘. . . we are thankful to God, and that is reflected on how we act towards our employees and the community projects we support’. (Jorge Jr, July 2014)
‘. . . They are devout Catholics, and they live out their faith in what they do for others, I mean they never say it but I think actions speak more than words . . . if they [employees] would perceive a lack of connection between the family actions and their faith practices then I guess their activities [for the community/employees] would have little support . . . You could not say you are Catholic or Protestant and not live up to what society expects from you to act’. (Iris, January 2016)
‘. . . of whatever we have [material resources, money, time] we should always give something back [to others], even if just a little’. (Maria, April 2013)	Family axiom
‘. . . there are always activities in an organisation that are informal . . . this is something normal in organisations that have grown over the years yet work in an informal way, everyone knows what to do – it is just not in writing! If the company [AsphaCo] wants to help others in a more professional way then putting it down in paper would help the process’. (Iris, July 2014)	Need for formalisation in business procedures	Informal/formal business processes
‘. . . sometimes it is the lack of time to write down different things that are going on, everyone knows what has to be done, but we need time to look into these details now’. (Maria, April 2013)	Previous experience in business formalisation procedures
. . . Currently the business requirements [in terms of CSR compliance] are minimal . . . yet our experience with BANCOF showed the need to formalise existing processes and make the contributions to society more visible to the public’. (Iris, April 2013)	Expected change in business requirements	Future industry requirements in socially responsible engagement
‘. . . Most companies in the region want to know about your social engagement . . . it is something that is growing and will not stop, businesses have to adapt’. (BANCOF, April 2013)
‘. . . we have to tune in with international standards, most of our larger clients are getting certified and some are interested in showing off their certifications even when they make a small contribution’. (Jorge Jr, July 2014)	Awareness of increasing pressures
‘. . . companies that become CSR certified are now asking those who they work with to consider CSR principles’. (FUNDAHRSE, February 2016)
‘We [AsphaCo] have received feedback from our suppliers and customers and we have been assessed positively; however, internally we do not have written policies, processes or norms, we are working on it and getting there . . . these items will be required for certification and that will be possibly compulsory to continue working with some of them’. (Iris, April 2014)	Current approach to address existing issues
‘. . . the idea is to create an environment where employees are able to tell the family about social concerns or activities . . . then as there is a very low employee turnover [in AsphaCo] they [employees] are willing to support the [Asturias] family in their projects . . . they [employees] can use their experience and knowledge based on what they know about the family [socially responsible interests]’. (Iris, July 2014)	Future employee support	Growing complexity of socially responsible initiatives
‘. . . The social [responsibility] aspect will always be part of this family enterprise. It may be difficult to handle, and we may not have the resources to solve every problem, not even large companies can . . . but we [family] keep in mind that when we give a little back [time, resources, support] we can make something small grow’. (Maria, July 2014)	Awareness of future requests in business
‘There is very little time to do a lot of things . . . I mean when a business is small it is easier to manage but as the business [AsphaCo] has grown then you have to distribute your time and resources carefully, we need to have procedures in place to manage so many things if we want to continue helping others’. (Jorge Jr, July 2014).	Future resource management
‘. . . education has been a long-term interest of our family, we live in a society where the only tools that can really make a change are less and less linked to material things. People can use education to create new opportunities . . . I became part of this initiative [Global Shapers] with other friends of a similar background; we believe it would make a great impact in our society’. (Jorge Jr, July 2014)	Future socially responsible interests of successors	Continuity of family socially responsible engagement
‘. . . if you would ask, who would continue with the social projects? or who would consider continuing with CSR? that would be the children . . . they [Jorge Jr. and Ana] have been involved since they were young and are aware of employee concerns and what matters in their communities . . . they would do it’. (Iris, July 2014)	Family succession and expected engagement
‘. . . I have been involved in community activities since I was a child, it is part of who I am and it will continue with me’. (Jorge Jr, July 2014)
‘I am sure our kids will continue our traditions of social support in society, they have been involved with us since children with the community and we (parents) have seen how they have embraced it’. (Maria, April 2014)	Expectations around social responsibility
‘. . . often the only way to know [if you have addressed societal concerns] is if you report your actions’. (FUNDAHRSE, February 2016)

CSR: corporate social responsibility; SME: small and medium-sized enterprise.

Case analysis and findings

Data analysis revealed an undeliberate approach to CSR integration, where unexpected tensions surfaced between family and non-family executives in reporting outcomes.

Sources of tensions: business demands and industry trends

CSR engagement at InteCo was initiated after Iris attended a CSR seminar sponsored by BANCOF in 2011:

Initially, I did not know what CSR was really about, I thought that it was mostly about formal donations and financial support of social causes . . . I learned the basics about CSR through the experience of BANCOF. (Iris, April 2013)

A report on supplier and client relationships, employee welfare and community enhancement were the CSR dimensions demanded by BANCOF executives. After the seminar, Iris initially focused on supplier and client relationships, relying on her knowledge about how AsphaCo and InteCo operated to see if compliance was possible:

. . . we had to ensure that all suppliers [of InteCo] provided original products; that clients’ quotes were addressed appropriately . . . we often have to go through bidding processes with customers . . . as all our [InteCo] procedures followed every legal requirement, it was just a matter of reviewing what we were already doing and ensuring the process was well documented and formalised. (Iris, April 2013)

Knowledge of existing procedures shaped a detailed CSR report. Such action ensured the continuity of the commercial relationship between InteCo and BANCOF, as well as preserving the legal and fiduciary interest of InteCo’s family owners. At the end of 2011, InteCo’s detailed report received a CSR compliance award by BANCOF. Iris invited Maria to attend the award ceremony as ‘it provided a great opportunity for Ms. Asturias [Maria] to know more about CSR and the efforts done at InteCo’ (Iris, April 2013). After the ceremony, Iris asked Maria to consider further CSR engagement based on BANCOF dimensions, as it could benefit AsphaCo in the long run. Maria agreed.

Table 1 shows that business and external sources of tensions may emerge from growing pressures in an industry, awareness of such trends and information available, particularly when strong commercial relationships exist, which demand a prompt response to ensure business survival. Industry trends, the need for compliance and available information represented the sources of tensions around CSR reporting. Adequate reports were a positive signal to external stakeholders about the social responsibility efforts of firms. Moreover, further engagement showcased motivations to go beyond mere compliance. This was noted when Iris was invited by BANCOF to attend further CSR training in 2012. Iris recalled,

. . . following up the [CSR] training was not compulsory but I was really interested, and from my experience in AsphaCo a lot of things could be achieved . . . there is something special about our company . . . it is rooted in the way things are done and the family behind it. We had to engage further . . . it would impact the way this company survives in the long run. (April 2013)

Table 1 shows that Iris’s motivation to pursue further training was driven not only by the perceived benefits of CSR reporting but also by experiencing stewardship behaviours of family business leaders. Iris expressed,

There are many things in this workplace [AsphaCo] which were not written down. People that do not interact with the [Asturias] family do not know them. They [the Asturias family] transmit a special way of caring for employees they will find a solution to employee problems beyond what anyone could expect, be it financial, medical or whatever. That is a feeling that is transmitted when you start working here . . . they will go to great lengths to help their communities. I have worked in other companies before and I have never seen this . . . how can I then be indifferent to look after the firm if those who are on top [owners, family managers] care about us [employees] and where we live [community]? (July 2014)

The motivation to reciprocate such behaviours and ‘look after’ InteCo and AsphaCo in the same way that family leaders cared for employees and the community suggested the presence of high-quality relationships between leaders and employees. Such reciprocal behaviour aligned motivations to craft and support reporting of socially responsible initiatives engaged in by family leaders. Nevertheless, the demands of further reporting revealed the tensions between business and family expectations.

Managing tensions

Following CSR reporting demands, Maria and Iris approached the subject of communications about employee welfare activities. Iris expressed that such an approach concentrated on

. . . ensuring that all employees have formal contracts and job descriptions . . . that working conditions were appropriate, etc. was important to continue [to engage in CSR] . . . it was just a matter of ensuring it was well documented and clear for everyone to see. (April 2013)

As detailed legal procedures around employee tasks and functions were already in place, reporting on basic employee welfare practices progressed satisfactorily. Iris then focused on pinpointing any additional initiatives related to employee welfare and community engagement. Several CSR activities related to peripheral initiatives were identified, such as donating wheelchairs or supporting fundraising or social activities for the community, hospitals and retirement homes. Jorge Jr. emphasised that constant interaction between family members and among family leaders and employees allowed awareness of pressing societal concerns, making it easier to ‘step up’ and contribute. Maria stressed that a close relationship with AsphaCo employees allowed family members to understand and address their needs. Such an approach revolved around an axiom of the Asturias family, shared by family members, ‘of whatever we have [material resources, money, time] we should always give something back [to others], even if just a little’ (Maria, April 2013). Table 2 shows the peripheral CSR activities that the Asturias family engaged in, based on such an axiom.

Table 2.

Employee welfare and community involvement activities.

Employee welfare	Participant involved	Community involvement	Participant involved
Company resources used to pave roads in rural communities where employees live	Maria/Jorge	Involvement of founders in business and religious associations that provide donations to different communities.	Maria/Jorge
Financial support for medical issues for employees and their immediate families	Maria/Jorge	Company resources [construction equipment] used for water supply and sanitation projects.	Maria/Jorge
Engagement in extended employee family celebrations	Maria/Jorge/Jorge Jr/Ana	Employment of single mothers and childcare support.	Maria
Involvement of family members as godparents of the children of employees	Maria/Jorge/Jorge Jr/Ana	Involvement in education-based initiatives for underprivileged children.	Maria/Jorge Jr/Ana
Financial support for the home mortgages of employees	Maria	Fundraising activities for hospital wards, cancer patient support.	Maria/Jorge Jr/ Ana
Subsidies for transportation	Maria/Jorge Jr	Support of two homes for the elderly.	Maria

Table 1 shows that Iris was motivated to reciprocate in drafting further CSR reporting, based on stories of the family in business and knowledge of shared family values, as well as the awareness of employee welfare activities beyond legal compliance in business. Knowledge of the family story in business supported understanding of the motivations behind the activities engaged in:

It is all about the type of family that leads a business . . . this family [Asturias] started from humble beginnings, they faced many obstacles, that is why they have empathy with their employees and their communities – they experienced the same issues. (Iris, July 2014)

Iris believed that disclosing such information would further increase AsphaCo’s legitimacy in business.

Unpredicted tensions: there is no need to shout about it!

Tensions surfaced as reporting peripheral activities was perceived by family members as opportunistic and conflicting with long-standing family values and beliefs. Jorge Jr. noted,

. . . it is not really for us [the Asturias family] to do something and then have a photo taken to show it. Other companies do it and do not follow through [on their social engagement] after it . . . they [other companies] promote it in the media, in radio, TV or newspapers . . . we prefer to do it at a personal level, anonymous . . . and feel fulfilled by knowing that what we support will have lasting repercussions . . . we have a strong belief that this [reporting] should not be done . . . there is no need to shout about it! (July 2014)

Family leaders considered the reporting of peripheral activities as ‘bragging’ for something they felt was ‘a natural part of being a family in business’ (Jorge Jr., July 2014). While family leaders did not undermine the potential advantages that CSR reporting entail for the image of the firm, disclosing prior and current peripheral activities (Table 2) in a formal communication channel ran counter to their motivations. Such perceptions illustrated a paradox between business and family expectations. Iris expressed that such an approach was at odds with what CSR reporting could do strategically, as it could remain linked exclusively to the family:

All their [the Asturias family] community work was done at a personal level, this [approach] did not create any association [in the community] with the company [AsphaCo]. (July 2014)

When asked about the reasons behind a preference for underreporting peripheral activities, family members expressed that their desire for anonymity was based on religious beliefs. The Asturias family are devoted Catholics. Maria regards herself as a ‘devoted servant of the Virgin Mary’. Family members regularly attend religious events associated with the Catholic Church. Family members dedicate several days in a year to activities linked to Catholic projects to help the community. For instance, since 2008, Maria has visited retirement homes and spent time with the elderly as part of honouring her faith. Moreover, Maria expressed that the mission of AsphaCo was guided by a shared family religious principle: ‘We [the Asturias family] are thankful to God . . . my kids know that we should always be thankful to God that we have an opportunity to work and provide jobs for people’ (April 2013). Maria strongly advocated that such a principle, transmitted to the second generation from an early age, was reinforced by supporting, as a family, diverse peripheral initiatives anonymously (Table 2). This approach was expected to influence future socially responsible initiatives supported by the incoming generation.

While tensions arose due to family shared religious beliefs, Table 1 also shows that understanding associated practices was important to contextualise further CSR integration. Rather than avoiding tensions, and dismissing CSR reporting, an initiative that addressed business and family expectations was identified and supported to solve the paradox.

Avoiding future tensions

To handle tensions, family and non-family executives focused on a socially responsible project that could address intrinsic family motivations and the interests of employees to reciprocate the family’s stewardship behaviours in the future. Maria wanted to help the elderly and underprivileged children in Honduras, with the latter becoming more important. Jorge Jr. was interested in initiatives that addressed children’s education. Iris noted,

Maria is very keen regarding philanthropic activities; she has been always involved in actions to help the community and will continue to do so; she is now involved in a project around education . . . the children [Jorge Jr. and Ana] have been involved with their parents before in hospitals and with education scholarships . . . Jorge Jr. is now a member of an international programme that supports education for the underprivileged. (January 2016)

An opportunity to address tensions was identified in a peripheral initiative led by Maria. Months before receiving the CSR award, Maria became a board member of the most reputable non-governmental organisation (NGO) related to English-language instruction in Honduras. Upon becoming a member, Maria developed a scholarship programme to enable high-performing underprivileged children to learn English as a second language. The pilot programme, supported by the US embassy, provided 50 scholarships. Yet, the size and complexity of managing such a project became problematic, as 400 scholarships and funding up to US$ 1500 per participant were envisioned. Time away from the business to coordinate such a project would be required. Family members acknowledged that the time, resources and skills of family and non-family members could address the growing complexity of such a project and provide a framework for future CSR initiatives. Iris expressed,

There is a need to look at this [education project] from a strategic perspective as to how employees could contribute in the long term. In the future, there can be several projects addressed at the same time: some linked to hospitals, or to artists, or to other education projects . . . the idea is to create a structure where employees are able to tell the [Asturias] family about social concerns or activities and the structure could accommodate dealing with such concerns, and where employees may contribute with their time or solutions. (July 2014)

A managerial structure that included volunteering employees to help the family manage the English education project could be devised collectively by family and non-family members. Such a project, despite having a low association with the operations of AsphaCo, could reflect an alignment of interests between family and non-family members to support a socially responsible initiative. Table 1 shows that knowledge of the interests of family members to continue supporting CSR initiatives and specific societal concerns may allow non-family employees to support a specific low-fit CSR project that could be formally communicated without contradicting family religious beliefs. Moreover, such a collective approach would assist in understanding how to scale-up socially responsible initiatives at the business level in order to manage tensions in future CSR reporting.

Discussion

The findings challenge previous assumptions of prescriptive and tension-free phenomena, and lead us towards a greater understanding of how family businesses build on paradoxes in CSR reporting. Drawing on the paradox and reciprocal stewardship theory, this study contributes to the literature on CSR reporting by elucidating the ways in which tensions emerge and are managed. In doing so, reciprocal stewardship has offered an explanation of how and why a family SME negotiates the tensions emerging from external, business-related and family-related sources involved in CSR reporting in a Latin American family SME.

In terms of a paradox perspective, this study empirically reveals that paradoxes in CSR reporting within family SMEs are much more complex than previously reported in the CSR and family business literature. The findings reveal the emergence of organising and performing tensions, as demands for detailed CSR reporting challenged how the business operated (Du et al., 2010). Underlying tensions emerged due to the plurality of perceptions of family and non-family members around disclosing the scope and reach of peripheral CSR activities, as it can be associated with ‘bragging’ or a forced business-related marketing exercise (Nielsen and Thomsen, 2009) that compromised the intrinsic motivations of family members (Smith and Lewis, 2011).

A paradox persisted, because family leaders faced a dilemma as peripheral CSR activities related to employee welfare or community enhancement were preferred to be kept anonymous and underreported. In this study, such a rationale can be explained through social ethics expectations in Catholicism (Arruñada, 2010), encouraging a discreet approach when CSR is engaged (Cornwall and Naughton, 2003; Tropman, 2002). Detailed reporting contradicted underlying expectations, which could affect the image of a religious family in society (Sandelands, 2008). This is a surprising finding, which extends studies suggesting that family SMEs may rationalise CSR engagement based on religious norms and expectations (Brammer et al., 2007). While prior studies pose that the higher the devotion to religion, the stronger the interest in CSR engagement (Jamali and Sidani, 2013), this study evidences that religious intensity in family members can create a paradox when the business rationale for CSR reporting runs counter to underlying religious expectations. Thus, although CSR could be engaged systematically, guided by external or business-related sources, the religious intensity from a family-related source can create tensions that affect CSR reporting.

This study also contributes to the reciprocal stewardship literature in four ways. First, the findings highlight that agency theory alone does not fully explain how tensions in CSR reporting may be resolved. This study provides empirical evidence of the role of reciprocal stewardship in handling tensions in CSR reporting. High-quality relationships, initiated by the leaders of a family SME, and reciprocal behaviours by employees allowed the devising of collective solutions to handle a paradox, rather than relying on agency controls to align motivations. Second, this study extends our understanding of how religion can influence reciprocal stewardship behaviours and its repercussions for CSR reporting. Shared religious beliefs among family members aligned motivations to engage in specific socially responsible initiatives over time. As family members were open about prior CSR peripheral initiatives being guided by religious beliefs, non-family employees were aware of the intrinsic motivations behind wider stewardship behaviours within and outside the firm. Constant interactions in business, knowledge of family stories and access to information about shared family religious beliefs supported employee perceptions of genuine, intrinsic motivations of family members, distant from self-interest. The outcome was manifested in the alignment of efforts to support a low-fit CSR project (English instruction for underprivileged children), which could differentiate a family SME as being more sincere in its underlying motives and increase the support and effectiveness for CSR reporting over time (Du et al., 2010).

Third, by examining the tensions of CSR reporting, this study contributes to reciprocal stewardship theorising by identifying the role of non-family organisational stewards. The findings suggest that non-family organisational stewards may confront difficult dilemmas when normative and instrumental expectations in business and society do not perfectly align with family expectations. Insights were gained into how their reciprocal behaviour was enacted through becoming integrators of shared interests, acting upon their concern for the long-term welfare of the family SME rather than self-interest, and having a key managerial role (Berger et al., 2007; Caldwell et al., 2007). By deciphering and translating the underlying motivations of family members into the ‘fit’ between socially responsible initiatives and a family SME, organisational stewards can turn the tensions in CSR reporting into sources of insight about how initiatives can be scaled-up over time (Dobers and Halme, 2009).

Finally, this study enhances the existing reciprocal stewardship literature by presenting a conceptual framework to understand the tensions in CSR reporting of family SMEs in a developing country (Figure 1). The model departs from three sources of tensions (family-related, business-related and external) and illustrates that their management and avoidance are affected by the relationships between family members and among family and non-family members. High-quality relationships enable family SMEs not only to ascribe meanings to shared narratives, influenced by family values and beliefs (Hamilton et al., 2017), but also to consider the avoidance of tensions by looking into the continuity of socially responsible behaviour based on such narratives, potentially nurturing a socially responsible legacy (Hammond et al., 2016).

The model suggests that family-related, business-related and external sources of tensions surface when a family SME experiences plurality, change and scarcity in order to meet CSR reporting requirements. Figure 1 illustrates that the quality and type of relationship can affect the way paradoxes are handled. High-quality relationships between family and non-family executives may allow organisational stewards to manage tensions, based on knowledge of socially responsible activities, stories, shared values and the underpinning motivations of the family in business. Organisational stewards can then devise solutions around the complexity of socially responsible projects, future demands, shared interests and the wider involvement of employees. Where tensions are unresolved and low-quality relationships persist, the model speculates that family/non-family members with unfulfilled incentives for CSR reporting will pursue isolated CSR initiatives, delay investments and underreport activities (dotted arrow).

For practitioners, this study underscores that CSR reporting may allow a family SME to be transparent about its underlying motivations to address societal concerns. The risks of underreporting CSR activities are that such behaviour could be considered contradictory to the expectations of an industry. Yet, benefits from CSR disclosure may be difficult to achieve unless reporting is done effectively and efficiently. The findings highlight the often-overlooked role, yet privileged position, of professional executives in addressing tensions related to the adaptability and transformation of business practices embodied in CSR reporting (Howorth et al., 2016). This is more likely to occur when the underlying motivations of family SME owners (including religious beliefs) to engage in CSR are known. Failure to appreciate such influences may prolong tensions when trying to communicate CSR activities. High-quality relationships between family leaders and non-family managers can shape CSR integration around collective interests that may minimise the recurrence of tensions over time, catering for family and business expectations (Pedersen and Neergaard, 2009). For policymakers, the findings suggest that without legislation or official government support, it is unlikely that CSR will become a norm for family SMEs in Latin America. Recognising that CSR reporting has to acknowledge the cultural aspects (religion) is key to understanding how to promote the adoption of CSR reporting guidelines. Devising policies that encourage appropriate communication could prevent CSR from being perceived as a nominal response to satisfy public relations.

Limitations and future research

This study has a few caveats and therefore its findings must be interpreted with caution. First, while relying on a single in-depth case study provides a comprehensive understanding of tensions in CSR reporting, it also limits the generalisability of results to contexts and situations that do not wholly match the specificities of the case (Stake, 2008). In this study, the participants were highly educated individuals. The selected firm had a higher level of professionalisation, which may not be the general condition for most family SMEs in Honduras (Discua Cruz, 2010). Further research using a wider sample of family SMEs engaging in CSR reporting is needed to establish the empirical generalisability of findings.

Second, this study supports the view that findings are dependent on the firm studied and the context in which business is carried out (McAdam et al., 2014). Religious motivations of family members should not be underestimated in CSR reporting. As the choice of CSR activities was based around the social ethics of business owners (Cornwall and Naughton, 2003), the variety of cultural dimensions and faith systems around the world can motivate researchers to revisit personal values, beliefs and motivations behind CSR reporting (Blindheim, 2015; Gond and Moser, 2019). Future studies could explore to what extent the variability of CSR reporting is influenced by cultural expectations, and the level of adherence to religious beliefs (Ibrahim et al., 2008; Miller and Ewest, 2015).

Third, a paradox lens offers much promise to researchers looking to understand the different types of tensions in CSR reporting (Schad et al., 2016; Schuman et al., 2010). It provides an alternative approach to contrast perspectives that dominate social responsibility and family business research, providing a natural fit to study tensions and their management in family SMEs that engage in diverse forms of social responsibility (Zahra et al., 2014). Future research might compare how learning, organising and belonging paradoxes in CSR reporting emerge and unfold in diverse types of family SMEs (Westhead and Howorth, 2007), and reveal if different sources of tensions and their management add to the discussion presented here.

Moreover, this study was conducted in one developing country in Latin America, Honduras, and therefore it may be difficult to infer similar results in other countries. Further comparative work that focuses on how CSR reporting tensions are solved across countries that share common or contrasting cultural traits (Gupta and Levenburg, 2010) is needed. Multiple case studies in contrasting regions may support, expand or challenge the findings presented here (Reay and Zhang, 2014). This study shows that developing countries offer a fascinating context to explore paradoxes in family business research. Future quantitative and qualitative studies could look into developing economies, as well as emerging and transition economies (e.g. Tibet, Cuba, Venezuela and Russia), in order to explore the nuances of institutional, religious and political influences in the paradoxes of CSR reporting.

Finally, this study did not explore whether reciprocal stewardship solves tensions in CSR reporting when succession occurs. Pearson and Marler (2010) argue that reciprocal stewardship will be more difficult to foster when family SME leadership becomes dispersed across generations. The approach and rationale of sibling partnerships and cousin consortiums to handling paradoxes in CSR integrations need to be further examined. Such undertakings are important, as family SMEs face increasing pressure to report on their social responsibility efforts, calling for further research into the paradoxes involved.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of this paper have been presented at the International Small Business and Enterprise Conference (2015), the European Academy of Management (2017) and the EIASM workshop on family firm management research (2017). I am thankful to Manuel Gomez (Universidad de Los Andes) for support on initial data collection and discussion. The author is thankful for guidance from the SI editors and two anonymous reviewers as well as friendly feedback from Carole Howorth (University of York), Jess Chua (University of Calgary), Giovanna Campopiano (Lancaster University), Rodrigo Basco (American University of Sharjah) and Elias Hadjielias (Cyprus University of Technology).

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Allan Discua Cruz

Author biography

Allan Discua Cruz is a faculty member of the Centre for Family Business at the Department of Entrepreneurship and Strategy in Lancaster University Management School, UK. His research focuses on families in business, family SMEs, entrepreneurial teams, portfolio entrepreneurship, and social contexts of entrepreneurship.

References

Aguinis

Glavas

(2019) On corporate social responsibility, sensemaking, and the search for meaningfulness through work. Journal of Management 45(3): 1057–1086.

Alvesson

Skoldberg

(2000) Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Arruñada

(2010) Protestants and Catholics: Similar work ethic, different social ethic. The Economic Journal 120(547): 890–918.

Baden

Harwood

Woodward

(2011) The effects of procurement policies on ‘downstream’ corporate social responsibility activity. Content-analytic insights into the views and actions of SME owner-managers. International Small Business Journal 29(3): 259–277.

Barbera

Stamm

DeWitt

R-L

(2018) The development of an entrepreneurial legacy: Exploring the role of anticipated futures in transgenerational entrepreneurship. Family Business Review 31: 352–378.

Baumann-Pauly

Wickert

Spence

, et al. (2013) Organizing corporate social responsibility in small and large firms: Size matters. Journal of Business Ethics 115(4): 693–705.

Berger

Cunningham

Drumwright

(2007) Mainstreaming corporate social responsibility: Developing markets for virtue. California Management Review 49(4): 132–157.

Blindheim

B-T

(2015) Institutional models of corporate social responsibility: A proposed refinement of the explicit-implicit framework. Business & Society 54(1): 52–88.

Brammer

Williams

Zinkin

(2007) Religion and attitudes to corporate social responsibility in a large cross-country sample. Journal of Business Ethics 71(3): 229–243.

10.

Buch

(2015) Leader–member exchange as a moderator of the relationship between employee–organization exchange and affective commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 26(1): 59–79.

11.

Caldwell

Hayes

Bernal

, et al. (2007) Ethical stewardship – Implications for leadership and trust. Journal of Business Ethics 78(1–2): 153–164.

12.

Campopiano

De Massis

(2015) Corporate social responsibility reporting: A content analysis in family and non-family firms. Journal of Business Ethics 129(3): 511–534.

13.

Campopiano

De Massis

Chirico

(2014) Firm philanthropy in small- and medium-sized family firms: The effects of family involvement in ownership and management. Family Business Review 27(3): 244–258.

14.

Carroll

Shabana

(2010) The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews 12(1): 85–105.

15.

Cleary

(2009) How Latin America Saved the Soul of the Catholic Church. New York: Paulist Press.

16.

Clinton

Faherty

Diaz-Moriana

, et al. (2017) Glennon brothers: Old dogs need to learn new tricks. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 41(3): 455–468.

17.

Clinton

McAdam

Gamble

(2018) Transgenerational entrepreneurial family firms: An examination of the business model construct. Journal of Business Research 90: 269–285.

18.

Cornwall

Naughton

(2003) Who is the good entrepreneur? An exploration within the Catholic social tradition. Journal of Business Ethics 44(1): 61–75.

19.

Craig

Dibrell

Davis

(2008) Leveraging family-based brand identity to enhance firm competitiveness and performance in family businesses. Journal of Small Business Management 46(3): 351–371.

20.

Cromie

Stephenson

Monteith

(1995) The management of family firms: An empirical investigation. International Small Business Journal 13(4): 11–34.

21.

Cuadrado-Ballesteros

Rodríguez-Ariza

García-Sánchez

I-M

(2015) The role of independent directors at family firms in relation to corporate social responsibility disclosures. International Business Review 24(5): 890–901.

22.

Davis

Allen

Hayes

(2010) Is blood thicker than water? A study of stewardship perceptions in family business. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 34(6): 1093–1116.

23.

Davis

Schoorman

Donaldson

(1997) Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review 22(1): 20–47.

24.

De Oliveira

JAP

(2006) Corporate citizenship in Latin America. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 21: 17–20.

25.

Diaz-Moriana

Hogan

Clinton

, et al. (2019) Defining family business: A closer look at definitional heterogeneity. In: Memili

Dibrell

(eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Heterogeneity among Family Firms. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.333–374.

26.

Discua Cruz

(2010) Collective perspectives in portfolio entrepreneurship: A study of Honduran family business groups. EDAMBA Journal 8: 91–105.

27.

Discua Cruz

Howorth

(2008) Family business in Honduras: Applicability of agency and stewardship theories. In: Gupta

Levenburg

Moore

, et al (eds) Culturally-Sensitive Models of Family Business in Latin America. Hyderabad, India: ICFAI University Press, pp.222–243.

28.

Dobers

Halme

(2009) Corporate social responsibility and developing countries. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16(5): 237–249.

29.

Bhattacharya

Sen

(2010) Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews 12(1): 8–19.

30.

Dyer

Whetten

(2006) Family firms and social responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30(6): 785–802.

31.

Eisenhardt

(1989) Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review 14(1): 57–74.

32.

Eisenhardt

Graebner

(2007) Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal 50(1): 25–32.

33.

European Commission (2015) User Guide to the SME Definition. Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/revised-user-guide-sme-definition-0_en (accessed 17 January 2019).

34.

Finch

(2002) The role of grounded theory in developing economic theory. Journal of Economic Methodology 9(2): 213–234.

35.

Fitzgerald

Haynes

Schrank

, et al. (2010) Socially responsible processes of small family business owners: Exploratory evidence from the national family business survey. Journal of Small Business Management 48(4): 524–551.

36.

Fletcher

(2002) Understanding the Small Family Business (Routledge Studies in Small Business). Abingdon: Routledge.

37.

Franke

Nadler

(2008) Culture, economic development, and national ethical attitudes (Cross-Cultural Business Research). Journal of Business Research 61: 254–264.

38.

Fuller

Tian

(2006) Social and symbolic capital and responsible entrepreneurship: An empirical investigation of SME narratives. Journal of Business Ethics 67(3): 287–304.

39.

FUNDAHRSE (2016) Fundahrse celebra resultados y logros de 2015. Available at: http://fundahrse.org/boletines/fundahrse-celebra-resultados-y-logros-de-2015/ (accessed 15 February 2017).

40.

Gaceta (2009) Ley para el fomento y competitividad de la micro, pequeña y mediana empresa. Gobieno de Honduras. Available at: https://sde.gob.hn/fomento-de-la-micro-pequena-y-mediana-empresa/ (accessed 17 January 2019).

41.

Garriga

Melé

(2004) Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics 53(1–2): 51–71.

42.

Gavana

Gottardo

Moisello

(2017) Sustainability reporting in family firms: A panel data analysis. Sustainability 9(1): 38.

43.

Gibbert

Ruigrok

(2010) The ‘what’ and ‘how’ of case study rigor: Three strategies based on published work. Organizational Research Methods 13(4): 710–737.

44.

Gond

Moser

(2019) The reconciliation of fraternal twins: Integrating the psychological and sociological approaches to ‘micro’ corporate social responsibility. Human Relations. Available at: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/22403

45.

Graen

Uhl-Bien

(1995) Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly 6(2): 219–247.

46.

Gray

Owen

Adams

(1996) Accounting & Accountability: Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting. London: Prentice Hall.

47.

Gupta

Levenburg

(2010) A thematic analysis of cultural variations in family businesses: The CASE project. Family Business Review 23(2): 155–169.

48.

Gupta

Hanges

Dorfman

(2002) Cultural clusters: Methodology and findings. Journal of World Business 37(1): 11–15.

49.

Gupta

Levenburg

Moore

, et al. (2008) Culturally Sensitive Models of Family Businesses in Latin America. A Compendium on the Family Business Models around the World. Hyderabad, India: ICFAI University Press.

50.

Hahn

Preuss

Pinkse

, et al. (2014) Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review 39(4): 463–487.

51.

Hamilton

Discua Cruz

Jack

(2017) Re-framing the status of narrative in family business research: Towards an understanding of families in business. Journal of Family Business Strategy 8(1): 3–12.

52.

Hammond

Pearson

Holt

(2016) The quagmire of legacy in family firms: Definition and implications of family and family firm legacy orientations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 40(6): 1209–1231.

53.

Hemingway

Maclagan

(2004) Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 50(1): 33–44.

54.

Hofstede

(2001) Culture’s Consequences, Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

55.

Howorth

Rose

Hamilton

, et al. (2010) Family firm diversity and development: An introduction. International Small Business Journal 28(5): 437–451.

56.

Howorth

Wright

Westhead

, et al. (2016) Company metamorphosis: Professionalization waves, family firms and management buyouts. Small Business Economics 47(3): 803–817.

57.

Husted

Allen

Rivera

(2010) Governance choice for strategic corporate social responsibility evidence from Central America. Business & Society 49(2): 201–215.

58.

Hutchins

Sutherland

(2008) An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. Journal of Cleaner Production 16(15): 1688–1698.

59.

Iatridis

Kuznetsov

Whyman

(2016) SMEs and certified management standards: The effect of motives and timing on implementation and commitment. Business Ethics Quarterly 26(1): 67–94.

60.

Ibrahim

Howard

Angelidis

(2008) The relationship between religiousness and corporate social responsibility orientation: Are there differences between business managers and students? Journal of Business Ethics 78(1–2): 165–174.

61.

Iyer

Lulseged

(2013) Does family status impact US firms’ sustainability reporting? Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 4(2): 163–189.

62.

Jamali

Karam

(2018) Corporate social responsibility in developing countries as an emerging field of study. International Journal of Management Reviews 20(11): 32–61.

63.

Jamali

Sidani

(2008) Classical vs. modern managerial CSR perspectives: Insights from the Lebanese context and cross-cultural implications. Business and Society Review 113(3): 329–346.

64.

James

Jennings

(2017) Is it better to govern managers via agency or stewardship? Examining asymmetries by family versus nonfamily affiliation. Family Business Review 30(3): 262–283.

65.

Johannisson

Huse

(2000) Recruiting outside board members in the small family business: An ideological challenge. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 12: 353–378.

66.

Jones

(2004) The rhythms of Latin America: A context and guide for qualitative research. In: Marschan-Piekkari

Welch

(eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.439–457.

67.

Karaibrahimoglu

Cangarli

(2016) Do auditing and reporting standards affect firms’ ethical behaviours? The moderating role of national culture. Journal of Business Ethics 139(1): 55–75.

68.

Le Breton-Miller

Miller

(2009) Agency vs. stewardship in public family firms: A social embeddedness reconciliation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33(6): 1169–1191.

69.

Lenartowicz

Johnson

(2003) A cross-national assessment of the values of Latin America managers: Contrasting hues or shades of gray? Journal of International Business Studies 34(3): 266–281.

70.

Leogrande

(1996) Making the economy scream: US economic sanctions against Sandinista Nicaragua. Third World Quarterly 17(2): 329–348.

71.

Lewis

(2000) Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review 25(4): 760–776.

72.

Litz

(2008) Two sides of a one-sided phenomenon: Conceptualizing the family business and business family as a möbius strip. Family Business Review 21(3): 217–236.

73.

Long

Mathews

(2011) Ethics in the family firm: Cohesion through reciprocity and exchange. Business Ethics Quarterly 21(2): 287–308.

74.

McAdam

Dunn

, et al. (2014) Development of small and medium-sized enterprise horizontal innovation networks: UK agri-food sector study. International Small Business Journal 32(7): 830–853.

75.

Margolis

Walsh

(2003) Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48(2): 268–305.

76.

Matten

Moon

(2008) ‘Implicit’ and ‘explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review 33(2): 404–424.

77.

Miles

Huberman

Saldana

(2013) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

78.

Miller

Ewest

(2015) A new framework for analyzing organizational workplace religion and spirituality. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 12(4): 305–328.

79.

Morello

Romero

Rabbia

, et al. (2017) An enchanted modernity: Making sense of Latin America’s religious landscape. Critical Research on Religion 5(3): 308–326.

80.

Müller

Botero

Discua Cruz

, et al. (2018) Family Firms in Latin America. New York: Routledge.

81.

Nekhili

Nagati

Chtioui

, et al. (2017) Corporate social responsibility disclosure and market value: Family versus non-family firms. Journal of Business Research 77: 41–52.

82.

Neubaum

Thomas

Dibrell

, et al. (2017) Stewardship climate scale: An assessment of reliability and validity. Family Business Review 30(1): 37–60.

83.

Nielsen

Thomsen

(2009) Investigating CSR communication in SMEs: A case study among Danish middle managers. Business Ethics: A European Review 18(1): 83–93.

84.

O’Donovan

(2002) Environmental disclosures in the annual report: Extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 15(3): 344–371.

85.

Panwar

Paul

Nybakk

, et al. (2014) The legitimacy of CSR actions of publicly traded companies versus family-owned companies. Journal of Business Ethics 125(3): 481–496.

86.

Patton

(1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd edn). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

87.

Pearson

Marler

(2010) A leadership perspective of reciprocal stewardship in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 34(6): 1117–1124.

88.

Pedersen

(2006) Making corporate social responsibility (CSR) operable: How companies translate stakeholder dialogue into practice. Business and Society Review 111(2): 137–163.

89.

Pedersen

(2009) Modelling CSR: How managers understand the responsibilities of business towards society. Journal of Business Ethics 91(2): 155–166.

90.

Pedersen

Andersen

(2006) Safeguarding corporate social responsibility (CSR) in global supply chains: How codes of conduct are managed in buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Public Affairs 6(3–4): 228–240.

91.

Pedersen

Neergaard

(2009) What matters to managers? The whats, whys, and hows of corporate social responsibility in a multinational corporation. Management Decision 47(8): 1261–1280.

92.

Peinado-Vara

(2006) Corporate social responsibility in Latin America. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 21: 61–69.

93.

Pratt

(2009) For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal 52(5): 856–862.

94.

Reay

Zhang

(2014) Qualitative methods in family business research. In: Melin

Nordqvist

Sharma

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Family Business. London: Sage, pp.573–593.

95.

Russo

Perrini

(2010) Investigating stakeholder theory and social capital: CSR in large firms and SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics 91(2): 207–221.

96.

Salazar

Husted

(2008) Principals and agents: Further thoughts on the Friedmanite critique of corporate social responsibility. In: Crane

McWilliams

Matten

, et al (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.137–155.

97.

Sandelands

(2008) The business of business is the human person: Lessons from the Catholic social tradition. Journal of Business Ethics 85(1): 93–101.

98.

Schad

Lewis

Raisch

, et al. (2016) Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. The Academy of Management Annals 10(1): 5–64.

99.

Schriesheim

Castro

Cogliser

(1999) Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. The Leadership Quarterly 10(1): 63–113.

100.

Schuman

Stutz

Ward

(2010) Family Business as Paradox. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

101.

Schyns

Day

(2010) Critique and review of leader–member exchange theory: Issues of agreement, consensus, and excellence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 19(1): 1–29.

102.

Shaw

Wilson

Pret

(2017) The process of embedding a small firm in its industrial context. International Small Business Journal 35(3): 219–243.

103.

Smith

Lewis

(2011) Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review 36(2): 381–403.

104.

Soundararajan

Jamali

Spence

(2018) Small business social responsibility: A critical multilevel review, synthesis and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 20(4): 934–956.

105.

Spence

(2016) Small business social responsibility expanding core CSR theory. Business & Society 55(1): 23–55.

106.

Stake

(2008) Qualitative case studies. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (3rd edn). London: Sage, pp.119–150.

107.

Sweeney

Coughlan

(2008) Do different industries report corporate social responsibility differently? An investigation through the lens of stakeholder theory. Journal of Marketing Communications 14(2): 113–124.

108.

Tight

(2017) Understanding Case Study Research: Small-Scale Research within Meaning. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

109.

Tropman

(2002) The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Community. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

110.

Uhlaner

van Goor-Balk

HJM (Annemieke)

van Masurel

(2004) Family business and corporate social responsibility in a sample of Dutch firms. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 11(2): 186–194.

111.

Van Gils

Dibrell

Neubaum

, et al. (2014) Social issues in the family enterprise. Family Business Review 27(3): 193–205.

112.

Van Marrewijk

(2003) Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics 44(2–3): 95–105.

113.

Visser

(2008) Corporate social responsibility in developing countries. In: Crane

McWilliams

Matten

, et al (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.473–479.

114.

Waldman

Luque

de Washburn

, et al. (2006) Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal of International Business Studies 37: 823–837.

115.

Wang

Tong

Takeuchi

, et al. (2016) Corporate social responsibility: An overview and new research directions. Academy of Management Journal 59(2): 534–544.

116.

Were

(2003) Implementing corporate responsibility – The Chiquita case. Journal of Business Ethics 44(2–3): 247–260.

117.

Westhead

Howorth

(2007) ‘Types’ of private family firms: An exploratory conceptual and empirical analysis. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 19(5): 405–431.

118.

Wynarczyk

Watson

Storey

, et al. (1993) The smaller firm. In: Wynarczyk

Watson

Storey

, et al (eds) The Managerial Labour Market in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. London: Routledge, pp.26–40.

119.

Yin

(2018) Case Study Research and Applications (6th edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

120.

Zahra

Labaki

Abdel Gawad

, et al. (2014) Family firms and social innovation: Cultivating organizational embeddedness. In: Melin

Nordqvist

Sharma

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Family Business. London: Sage, pp.442–459.

121.

Zahra

Hayton

Neubaum

, et al. (2008) Culture of family commitment and strategic flexibility: The moderating effect of stewardship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 32(6): 1035–1054.

122.

Zhang

Reay

(2018) Managing the Yin and Yang of family capital: A study of Chinese immigrant entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 30(7–8): 722–748.