This page is older archived content from an older version of the Emerald Publishing website.

As such, it may not display exactly as originally intended.

Institutional Influences on Entrepreneurial Behaviours of Business Families, Family Businesses, and Family Business Groups

Special issue call for papers from International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research

Guest Editors: Claire Seaman, Queen Margaret University, UK ([email protected]), Celine Barredy, University Paris Ouest Nanterre La Defense, France ([email protected]), Kathleen Randerson, Audencia Business School, France ([email protected]), Joshua J Daspit, Mississippi State University, USA ([email protected]

Considering that family businesses are a prominent organizational form in nearly every country and have vast effects on national employment, gross national product, and wealth creation (Beckhard & Dyer, 1983; Feltham, Feltham & Barnett, 2005; Kelly, Athanassiou & Crittenden, 2000; Shanker & Astrachan, 1996), much research is emerging around understanding the multi-level effects associated with family entrepreneurship seeks to understand the emergence and influences of entrepreneurial behaviors on outcomes such as firm start-up, growth, diversification, CSR and sustainable development, philanthropy, and beyond (Bergamaschi & Randerson, 2016; Randerson, Bettinelli, Dossena & Fayolle, 2016). However, understanding the entrepreneurial behaviors of the individual, family, family firm, and family business group becomes more complex when contextual influences are considered (Randerson, Bettinelli, Fayolle & Anderson, 2015), noting that effects may manifest differently across communities and countries (Seaman, Bent, & Unis, 2015).

An institutional perspective offers the potential to gain insight into the contextual influences affecting family and family firm entrepreneurial behaviour (Randerson et al., 2015). Institutions, or “ the rules of the game” (North, 1991:98), range from formal pressures of government regulation to more latent, socially constructed cultural influences (Bruton, Ahlstrom, & Li, 2010; Javidan et al., 2006; Scott, 1995, 2005; Stephan & Uhlaner, 2010). Although institutions are noted to affect entrepreneurial activity (Zahra & Wright, 2011), approaches differ. According to the institutional void perspective (Dacin, Dacin & Matear, 2010; Estrin, Mickiewicz, & Stephan, 2013), resource scarce environments are conducive to entrepreneurial behaviors given that individuals or families behave entrepreneurially to provide services or create infrastructures that the government fails to provide. Conversely, the institutional support perspective posits that entrepreneurial activity flourishes in countries with more developed governments that support entrepreneurial behaviors (Evans, 1996; Korosec & Berman, 2006; Zahra & Wright, 2011).

The variation in institutional voids and institutional support (i.e., institutional context) is noted to affect the form of the family business (e.g., Barredy, 2016), succession options (e.g., Jaskiewicz, Heinrichs, Rau & Reay, 2016), structural and relational social capital (e.g., Daspit & Long, 2014), corporate social responses (ef.g., Berrone, Cruz, Gomez-Mejia, & Larraza-Kintana, 2010), and other factors across various levels. The primary purpose of this special issue is to extend current understanding of the institutional context and investigate how such forces (alone or together) affect entrepreneurial behaviors and outcomes at the individual, family, family business, and family business group levels. A non-exhaustive list of possible topic areas for this special issue includes:
• How the institutional context affects entrepreneurial behavior within the individual, family, family business, and/or family business group level(s);
• How the institutional context affects family firm start-up, development, growth, innovation, social capital, and corporate entrepreneurship;
• Whether institutional factors influence the family’s pursuit of family-centered, noneconomic goals and socioemotional wealth;
• What institutional contexts are most supportive of family firm internationalization and family business groups;
• How are family logics altered by interactions with external stakeholders who may be necessary to overcome institutional constraints;
• What institutional contexts support/hinder the family’s interactions with external business partners and the consequences on the family firm;
• What individual, group, firm, and business group behaviors and outcomes (e.g., employee satisfaction, family harmony, family legacy, succession, innovation, diversification, internationalization, CSR actions) are affected by institutional contexts and how; and
• How institutional forces at various levels interact to affect the individual, family, family business and/or family business group.

Submission Guidelines: We invite both theoretical and empirical papers that explore the institutional context and their outcomes. All submissions are subject to the standard double-blind review process. Manuscripts must be original, unpublished works not concurrently under review for publication at another outlet and are expected to follow the standard formatting guidelines for the journal. Submission must be made  though the ScholarOne site at by May 31, 2017. Submissions should be prepared according to the Author Guidelines found at When submitting your manuscript, please ensure you select this special issue from the relevant drop down menu on page four of the submission process.
Barrédy, C. (2016). In search of future alternatives for family business: Family law contributions through Civil and Common Law comparison, Futures, 75: 44-53.
Beckhard R., & Dyer G. (1983). Managing change in the family firm: Issues and strategies. Sloan Management Review, 24(3): 59–66.
Bergamaschi, M., & Randerson, K. (2016). The futures of family businesses and the development of corporate social responsibility. Futures, 75: 54-65.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 55: 82-113.
Bettinelli, C., Fayolle A., & Randerson K. (2014). Family entrepreneurship: A developing field. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship 10: 161-236.
Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Li, H.-L. (2010). Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: Where are we now and where do we need to move in the future? Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 34(3): 421–440.
Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. A., & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3): 37–57.
Daspit, J. J., & Long, R. G. (2014). Mitigating moral hazard in entrepreneurial networks: Examining structural and relational social capital in East Africa. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 28(6): 1343-1350.
Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Stephan, U. (2013). Entrepreneurship, social capital, and institutions: Social and commercial entrepreneurship across nations. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 37(3): 479–504.
Evans, P. (1996). Government action, social capital and development: Reviewing the evidence on synergy. World Development, 24(6): 1119–1132.
Feltham, T. S., Feltham, G., & Barnett J. J. (2005). The dependence of family businesses on a single decision-maker. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(1):1–15.
Habbershon, T., & Williams, M.L. (1999). A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family Business Review, 12(1), 1–22.
Habbershon, T. G., Williams, M., & MacMillian, I. C. (2003). A unified systems perspective of family firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 451-465.
Jaskiewics, P., Heinrichs, K., Rau, S. B., & Reay, T. (2016). To be or not to be: How family firms manage family and commercial logics for succession. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 40(4): 781-813.
Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & Sully de Luque, M. (2006). Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: A comparative review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6): 897–914.
Kelly L. M., Athanassiou N., & Crittenden W. F. (2000). Founder centrality and strategic behavior in the family-owned firm. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25(2): 27–42.
Korosec, M. L., & Berman, E. M. (2006). Municipal support for social entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 66(3): 448–462.
North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(2): 97–112.
Randerson, K., Bettinelli, C., Fayolle, A., & Anderson, A. (2015). Family entrepreneurship as a field of research: Exploring its contours and contents. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6(3), 143-154.
Randerson, K., Bettinelli, C., Dossena, G., & Fayolle, A. (Eds.). (2016). Family entrepreneurship: rethinking the research agenda. Routledge.
Rogoff, E. G., & Heck, R. K. Z. (2003). Evolving research in entrepreneurship and family business: Recognizing family as the oxygen that feeds the fire of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 559-566.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In K. G. Smith, & M. A. Hitt (Eds), Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seaman, C., Bent, R., & Unis, A. (2015). Family entrepreneurship culture, entrepreneurial intent, futures and foresight in Scottish Pakistani communities. Futures, 75: 83-91.
Shanker M. C., & Astrachan. J. H. (1996). Myths and realities: Family businesses’ contribution to the US economy. A framework for assessing family business statistics. Family Business Review, 9(2): 107–123.
Stephan, U., & Uhlaner, L. (2010). Performance-based vs. socially-supportive culture: A cross-national study of descriptive norms and entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1347-1364.
Zahra, S. A., & Wright, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship’s next act. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(4): 67–83.