Ivan Miroshnychenko

Drawing on comparative institutional theory, we study the nature and magnitude of the effects of national environmental policies on corporate green innovation in developed versus emerging markets. Using a sample of 1831 listed firms in 34 countries from 2002 to 2020, we find that national environmental policies increase corporate green innovation in emerging markets but not in developed markets. Our results further suggest that in emerging markets, market environmental policies act as a substitute for weak formal institutions, and nonmarket environmental policies mirror informal institutions. With our findings, we underline and clarify the strong role of national environmental policies on firm‐level green innovation and the crucial role of national institutions in this process.

This article examines the role of businesses and managers in driving sustainable development, with a focus on family firms. Drawing on the mixed gamble perspective, we compare the progress of family and non-family firms toward achieving SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy). We develop a framework that illustrates how ownership, management structures, and the national context shape firms’ sustainability behavior. Using panel data from listed firms in 39 countries over 14 years, we show that family-owned firms led by non-family managers achieve a higher level of progress toward SDG 7 than non-family firms and family firms led by family members. Contrary to expectations, country-level progress toward SDG 7 does not significantly influence the relative performance of family versus non-family firms. This study contributes to the family business literature and broader debates on corporate roles in advancing the SDGs, challenging assumptions about national context, and underscoring the pivotal role of non-family managers. For policymakers and business leaders, the study offers insights into how governance structures can foster sustainable development in the global business sector.

Despite the notable body of research, the family firm (FF) internationalization literature has overlooked the role of innovation strategies in explaining FFs' export performance. We focus on the innovation through tradition (ITT) strategy—specifically, the degree to which a firm leverages its firm‐specific, mature (i.e., past) knowledge in the innovation search and recombination process. This strategy is particularly relevant for FFs as it can have ambivalent effects on export performance. On the one hand, it may ease the liability of foreignness; on the other, it could exacerbate it, creating tensions that firms must carefully navigate. Drawing from the socioemotional wealth perspective, we argue that FFs will be more prone to adopt an ITT strategy. However, the extent to which they will be able to reap the advantages or suffer the constraints of such a strategy for export depends on the particular type of family governance. Specifically, we contend that family managers will have a positive moderating effect on the relationship between the degree to which a firm leverages firm‐specific mature knowledge and export intensity thanks to their direct involvement and operational control over innovation activities. Conversely, family owners lacking this direct involvement will have a negative moderating effect on this relationship. Our analyses, based on a global longitudinal sample of 134 listed firms in the automotive and pharma/biotech industries observed from 2008 to 2020, support our hypotheses. Our results contribute to the nexus of the FF internationalization and FF innovation literature streams, the ITT research in FFs, and the broader internationalization literature.

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have gained significance for all types of firms, including family firms. However, unlike other business contexts, family firms face unique challenges in adopting complex and generative technologies, such as AI. This is particularly evident when examining the heterogeneous nature of family firms distinguished by passive (i.e., family ownership) and active (i.e., family management) family involvement. Specifically, we adopt a social capital perspective and combine inductive qualitative and deductive quantitative research into a mixed‐methods design. In the first step, we conduct a multiple case study of eight firms using rich data from 125 interviews and archival documents. While the case evidence shows that strong external network ties with suppliers, customers, and competitors help overcome the challenges related to AI technologies, we reveal opposing impacts of passive and active family involvement. Interestingly, our qualitative insights emphasize a negative moderation effect for passive family ownership exacerbating the challenges of AI and a positive moderation effect for active family management facilitating AI adoption. In the second step, we conduct a quantitative test of this conceptual model. On the basis of large‐scale data from 1444 firms, we find empirical support that increasing strengths of external network ties with suppliers, customers, and competitors drive AI adoption. Moreover, we find support for the opposing roles of passive family ownership as a negative moderator and active family management as a positive moderator in the relationship between supplier ties on the one hand and AI adoption on the other. Our study contributes toward a nuanced understanding of the idiosyncratic challenges of AI adoption faced by different types of family firms and the role of social capital in this regard and, more broadly, to research on innovation and technology adoption in family firms.

Drawing on legitimacy theory, we study the nexus between green communication and the implementation of green practices, and in particular, we focus on the determinants of their discrepancy. Based on a large sample of firms in 58 countries over a 19‐year period, we employ an index to measure the discrepancy between green operations and the communicated practices, mapped to each firm's board structure. The results provide the first empirical evidence that larger, more gender‐diverse, and more independent boards are associated with a preponderance of green communication over implementation. We interpret this imbalance as a strategy to participate in the public discourse to gain moral legitimacy. Conversely, CEO duality is associated with a discrepancy in the opposite direction, with firms focusing more on implementing green practices than talking about them, suggesting that these firms aim mainly at gaining pragmatic legitimacy from their stakeholders.

Combining insights from the socioemotional wealth and institutional perspectives, we hypothesize that firms controlled by families offer greater job security to employees relative to non‐family firms, and this positive employment effect is amplified in riskier institutional environments around the world. Using an unbalanced panel of 3181 listed firms from 33 countries over a 10‐year period, we provide strong support for our hypotheses: family‐controlled firms on average are less likely to reduce their workforce compared to their non‐family counterparts, and this differential effect is magnified in weak institutional environments characterized by high political risk. These findings indicate that socioemotional wealth in family firms has a positive impact on employee welfare and that the use of a cross‐country design serves to bridge discrepancies or inconsistencies in single country studies that have been done in the past. From a practical perspective we conclude that the beneficial role of socioemotional wealth on employment relations is more evident when it is needed the most, namely under a dysfunctional institutional environment.

This article critically reviews and meta-analyzes the environmental performance of family firms. Using a sample of 40,910 firms covering a 12-year period, we conclude that the average effect of family involvement on environmental performance is negative, albeit small. This negative effect is more pronounced in primary studies that measure environmental performance via the environmental operational practices adopted and in those that define family business using the family ownership and management criteria. Our findings suggest that from an agency perspective, and compared with nonfamily firms, the negative view of the environmental performance of family firms prevails over the positive view.