Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management · Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ... Supply...

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pursup

Supply management and family business: A review and callfor research☆

Michael J. Maloni⁎, Mark S. Hiatt, Joseph H. Astrachan

Department of Management & Entrepreneurship, Coles College of Business, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:Supply chain managementSupply managementFamily business

A B S T R A C T

Family-owned enterprises dominate global business, generating 70–90% of the world's gross domestic product.Existing management research has validated that family businesses often behave differently than non-familybusinesses, primarily by focusing on idiosyncratic non-economic goals that are not typically assessed intraditional business research. Extant supply management literature has yet to investigate the influences offamily business, thus overlooking a potential significant source of variation in our research as well as limitingour managerial relevance. The objective of this paper is to introduce supply management scholars to familybusiness, including its prominence and unique characteristics. Applying socioemotional wealth as a theoreticallens, we develop a research agenda from existing supply management and family business literature by offeringpropositions for future research where family business influences may permeate contemporary supplymanagement topics including strategic supply management, sourcing strategy, supplier relationships, sustain-ability, risk, and e-procurement. In doing so, we provide an initial foundation for supply management scholarsto both incorporate family business effects into research and launch new research streams. This is one of thefirst papers to our knowledge that introduces the field of family business to supply management scholars.

1. Introduction

The quantity, breadth, and rigor of research in supply managementhas greatly expanded in recent decades (Spina et al., 2013; Wynstra,2010). Yet consider the possibly that despite such a voluminousresearch effort and literature base, the supply chain academic fieldhas overlooked a key variable that could potentially increase theexplanatory power and managerial relevance of our work. We contendherein that such is the case with family business.

For this paper, we follow the widely-accepted European FamilyBusinesses (2016) definition of a family business as “an organizationwith decision-making control (direct or indirect) held within a familyand at least one family member actively involved in governance of theorganization.” This definition is effective regardless of firm size and age(longevity). Family enterprises dominate business by creating anestimated 70–90% of annual global gross domestic product (GDP)and 50–80% of job growth in a majority of countries worldwide(International Family Enterprise Research Academy, 2003). Despiteits global ubiquity and prominence, family business represents arelatively new, maturing field in academia (Litz et al., 2012).Although highly-regarded family business publications have emerged

in recent decades and other important business journals are publishingfamily business work, the field remains relatively under-researched(Astrachan, 2010). Nevertheless, existing literature consistently de-monstrates that family firms behave and perform differently than non-family firms (Astrachan, 2010; Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013;Chrisman et al., 2010). Their objectives, capabilities, and businesspractices frequently differ from traditional expectations.

Such differences between family and non-family enterprises likelyextend to supply management in profound ways, potentially impactingpractices such as sourcing strategy and supplier integration as well asrisk and sustainability (Jayaram et al., 2014). To initially investigatethis contention, we conducted a comprehensive, systematic literaturereview (Tranfield et al., 2003), which we detail later herein, and foundextremely few papers focusing on either family business effects onsupply management or supply management practices in family firms.This includes no papers in supply chain journals and just a handful inmanagement journals. The limited research that does exists suggeststhat supply chains for family firms behave and perform differently thanthose of non-family firms to some extent (Smith et al., 2014; Stanleyand McDowell, 2014). Yet, the general paucity of literature greatlyurges more research.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.12.002Received 1 December 2015; Received in revised form 1 December 2016; Accepted 27 December 2016

☆ Article Classification: Literature Review.⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (M.J. Maloni).

Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

1478-4092/ © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Maloni, M.J., Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.12.002

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14784092

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/pursup

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.12.002



A parallel can be made with supply chain in small to medium-sizedenterprises (SMEs), which went unexplored until recently (Ellegaard,2006; Zheng et al., 2007). Since then, research has found not onlymany SME distinctions from larger firms but also overall SME supplychain performance gaps (Arend and Wisner, 2005; Thakkar et al.,2008). We contend that scholars will also find supply chain distinctionswith family firms.

Given the lack of supply chain research in family business, ourliterature has largely ignored an important variable that could sig-nificantly advance the explanatory power of our research and perhapsyield insight for more effective supply management practice. Stateddifferently, family business may represent a missing link in supplymanagement research. To address this gap, this paper develops aresearch agenda for family business supply management. Applyingsocioemotional wealth (SEW) as a theoretical lens (Berrone et al.,2012; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007), we pursue two research objectives toprovide an initial foundation for supply management scholars toincorporate family business effects into new avenues of research inthe field:

• Introduce supply management scholars to family business, includingthose differentiating characteristics that make family businessesdistinct from non-family businesses.

• Integrate existing supply management and family business literatureto develop propositions for future research wherein family businesseffects might permeate contemporary supply management researchtopics.

Below, we first introduce the field of family business, highlightingdifferences from non-family businesses as well as providing an over-view of socioemotional wealth used as theoretical support for theresearch propositions. We next describe our systematic review ofsupply management and family business literature that yielded a smallnumber of articles. Given the absence of such research, we then identifyprominent supply management research topics, relating family busi-ness influences to these topics to build research propositions. Thepropositions synthesize supply management and family businessresearch while providing critical thought and specific starting pointsfor scholars to pursue future research. We close with thoughts on howto proceed with such research. Ultimately, we hope that this paperlaunches new interdisciplinary research and strengthens the explana-tory power of supply management research.

2. Family business

Given the definition of family business relating to decision-makingcontrol and governance (European Family Businesses, 2016), familybusinesses come in all sizes. Fiat, Wal-Mart, Volkswagen, Ford, BMW,ArcelorMittal, and Anheuser-Busch InBev represent a few of the manyfamily businesses with individual annual revenues of more than 25billion Euros. At the opposite end of the continuum, tens of millions offamily businesses, either because of their own interest or as a result ofmarket conditions, remain small (Fairlie, 2013).

The global impact of family business is irrefutable. Family busi-nesses in Europe account for 1 trillion Euros in turnover (revenue) and60% of all companies (Family Firm Institute, 2015). Other industria-lized nations show similar impacts. Just over half of all publically-listedU.S. firms are family-owned (Family Firm Institute, 2015), and as awhole, family businesses generate 62% of U.S. employment, up to 60%of GDP, and 78% of new job creation (Astrachan and Shanker, 2003;Sharma et al., 2014). In China, 85% of private enterprises are family-owned, and two-thirds of India's GDP and 90% of its gross industryoutput are produced by family firms (Family Firm Institute, 2015).Lastly, 60% of Latin American businesses are family-owned (Blodgettet al., 2011; La Porta et al., 1999). With the prominence of familybusiness, supply management scholars have most likely been unin-

tentionally collecting data from family businesses but generally haveyet to investigate family effects.

2.1. Characteristics of family businesses

With family influences in decision-making control and governance,existing literature highlights numerous meaningful distinctions be-tween the characteristics of family and non-family firms, many ofwhich could impact supply management practices. To start, familybusinesses tend to be more long-term oriented, fiscally conservative,and risk averse in their business considerations (Cassia et al., 2012;Levenburg and Magal, 2005). Specifically, there is a strong intentamong family firm owners to preserve associated financial and non-financial business benefits for family members as well as enhance thelongevity of the family and business (Berrone et al., 2012; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007). Moreover, family relationships within the firm cantranslate to similar ties with external stakeholders as development of astrong social capital position allows family businesses to have long-standing relationships across generations, including with suppliers andother external partners (Dyer Jr and Whetten, 2006). A relatedcharacteristic of family business is organizational isomorphism where-in family businesses seek business partners with their similar char-acteristics (Dacin, 1997; Deephouse, 1996; DiMaggio and Powell,1983; Martinez and Aldrich, 2014). A desired partner is thus likely tobe another family business of the same size and longevity that sharessimilar long-term relational and family orientations.

Family businesses differ from their non-family counterparts inother ways. Setting aside internal strife and politics as well assuccession of leadership, family companies generally make decisionsand move towards business opportunities more quickly than morebureaucratic non-family firms (Allio, 2004; Stanley and McDowell,2014). Long-term internal relationships as well as concentrated own-ership allow decision-making to proceed at a much more efficient andswift pace. Likewise, resource availability is another advantage asfamily businesses typically retain greater control of cash for reinvest-ment than in non-family firms (Allio, 2004). These conditions enablemanagers to move quickly to realize growth opportunities.

Additionally, opportunism and associated agency and governancecosts can be lower in family firms (Anderson and Reeb, 2003a; Lesterand Cannella Jr., 2006; Memili et al., 2011). Specifically, family firmsgenerally pay their CEOs less (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2003; McConaughy,2000), can more easily moderate agency costs (Uy, 2014), and havegreater borrowing capacity due to lower debt levels and cost of debtthan non-family businesses (Anderson et al., 2003; Anderson andReeb, 2003a; Gallo, 2004; Romano et al., 2001), all indicating that theyhave resources available for reinvestment and can take rapid advantageof beneficial opportunities when they arise. Conversely, family firmstend to view creativity and innovation as being of lower importancecompared to non-family firms. This results in less innovation in newproduct development (Donckels and Frolich, 1991), though recentresearch demonstrates a higher rate of return on innovation (Chrismanet al., 2015; Classen et al., 2014; De Massis et al., 2012; Duran et al.,2016; Sciascia et al., 2015). Further, the drive to create and lead changeis lessened in family firms from generation to generation as later agegroups tend to become less innovative and more complacent (StoyHayward/BBC, 1992). Furthermore, nepotism may increase the risk ofmanagement ineffectiveness and lack of professionalism (Mehrotraet al., 2011).

Firm performance represents another significant family businessdistinction. Family business literature contends that the family itselfcan provide exclusive, difficult-to-imitate resources that lead to stron-ger firm performance (Anderson and Reeb, 2003a; Chrisman et al.,2009) with evidence that family firms financially outperform non-family firms (Anderson et al., 2003; Villalonga and Amit, 2006;Zellweger et al., 2007). Dyer Jr (2006) highlights the need to examinethe performance advantages and disadvantages of family businesses in

M.J. Maloni et al. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

2

considering the “family effect” on firm performance. For instance,family cohesion correlates with family business profitability in largerfirms (EY, 2014). Dyer Jr (2006) further outlines factors that cansupport or hinder family business performance, including agencybenefits versus agency costs and family assets versus family liabilities.As an example, lower agency costs can exist in a family firm due tostrong alignment between principal and agent interests. By contrast,conflicting business goals within a family can create higher agencycosts (Schulze et al., 2001).

2.2. Socioemotional wealth

The above discussion highlights compelling, distinctive character-istics of family businesses. Many of these points indicate that non-financial goals can often retain greater importance than financial goalsfor family firms (Chrisman et al., 2010; Yu et al., 2012). Astrachan(2010, p. 10) cautions against a focus on traditional business perfor-mance measures as opposed to unique “idiosyncratic performancemetrics and goals” that differ for family businesses. This includes non-financial and internal objectives such as emotional commitment,legacy, and job creation versus financial goals highlighted in typicalsupply management research (Astrachan, 2010; Yu et al., 2012). Inother words, financial performance, both from firm and supply chainperspectives, which often serve as the dependent variables in supplymanagement research (given the underlying assumption that firmsgenerally seek higher levels of profitability), may be unsuited forstudying supply management of family businesses. Moreover, familyfirms will differ relative to one another in their emphasis of non-financial goals.

Non-financial performance considerations for family businessesoriginate at least in part from personal attachments to the businessand identification of the business as an extension of the family itself(Astrachan and Jaskiewicz, 2008; Berrone et al., 2012; Zellweger andAstrachan, 2008). As such, social capital characterizes one key non-financial goal. Specifically, if a family business builds strong externalrelationships (that is, has a developed sense of social capital), both astronger level of goodwill and a positive family image will prevail.Conversely, a family can fail to develop social capital as a result ofdistrust of outsiders (Dyer Jr and Whetten, 2006), even to a pointwhere a characteristic cultural sense of feudalism prevails (Chalhoub,2011).

The prominence of idiosyncratic, non-financial goals complicatesapplication of theory to the study of family business. For example,transaction cost economics, a theory that is classically applied in supplymanagement, may be ineffective for family business given considerabledifficulty in quantifying or even identifying family and social objectives.As another, the relational view as a component of the resource-basedview can yield insight into family versus non-family firm relationships(Dyer and Singh, 1998) but does not incorporate family ownershipeffects or the distinctive behavior of family members. Scholars contendthat even established management theories do not encapsulate thecomplexity of non-financial goals (Berrone et al., 2012). As examples,agency theory does not capture the relational, psychological, andemotional components of family business (Baron, 2008;Sundaramurthy and Lewis, 2003), and stewardship theory does notincorporate the self-interested objectives of family members (Berroneet al., 2010),

Given the lack of an effective theory to capture the complex goals offamily businesses, Gómez-Mejía et al. (2007, p. 106) introducedsocioemotional wealth (SEW) as “non-financial aspects of the firm thatmeet the family's affective needs, such as identity, the ability to exercisefamily influence, and the perpetuation of the family dynasty.” Adoptedfrom behavioral agency theory (Wiseman and Gómez-Mejía, 1998),SEW emphasizes serving the family's needs and values, preserving itsauthority, and maintaining social capital. Table 1 summarizes the fivedimensions of SEW as the degrees of: family control and influence;

family member identification with the firm; binding social ties;emotional attachment; and renewal of family bonds to the firm throughdynastic succession (Berrone et al., 2012). Key SEW componentstherefore include non-financial performance outcomes such as reputa-tion, family legacy, family harmony, family values, job creation forfamily members, community impacts, reputation, social status, risktolerance, and organizational control (Berrone et al., 2010; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2011, 2007; Miller and Le Breton-Miller, 2014).

Family business decisions are made to preserve SEW above allother objectives. “Losing this socioemotional wealth implies lostintimacy, reduced status, and failure to meet the family's expectations”(Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007, p. 106). SEW suggests that the family mayuse the business to meet non-financial needs even at the detriment andconflict of financial and business performance. Financial losses mightbe considered indirectly only when such losses threaten SEW (Berroneet al., 2012).

Berrone et al. (2012, p. 260) prescribe SEW as “the single mostimportant feature of a family firm's essence that separates it from otherorganizational forms,” and SEW has become a highly prominent anddistinct theoretical approach in current family business literature(Miller and Le Breton-Miller, 2014; Schulze and Kellermanns, 2015).Given the prominence of SEW and the aforementioned lack of fit withinother existing theory typically used in supply management research(i.e., transaction cost economics, relational view), we apply SEW hereinas the theoretical lens to explore family business effects on supplymanagement. Similar to findings from family business literature, wepropose that SEW may simultaneously empower and impair supplychains for family businesses relative to non-family businesses.Moreover, SEW elements may cause family firm characteristics (e.g.,size, age) to moderate family firm impacts on supply management.With the propositions, we also extend SEW theory given that existingfamily business literature has yet to assess SEW effects on supply chainpartners.

3. Approach

The above family business distinctions and SEW theory could causefamily firms to not only plan and execute supply managementdifferently than non-family firms but also retain distinct supplymanagement advantages and disadvantages. In the attempt to sum-marize family business-related supply management literature to date,we sought to collect papers directly assessing family business effects onthe practice of supply management by executing a systematic literaturereview (Quarshie et al., 2016; Spina et al., 2016). We first conductedkey word searches to locate relevant articles (Quarshie et al., 2016),casting a broad net in source identification and selection. We searchedall peer-reviewed journals via ProQuest ABI/INFORM, EBSCOhostAcademic Search Complete, and Google Scholar without specifyingjournal topic or quality to provide an extensive reach to differentbusiness and supply chain related journals. We included papers, notes,and essays while excluding editorials and dissertations (Quarshie et al.,2016). We searched on key words such as “family business,” “familyfirm,” “family enterprise,” and “family” with terms such as “supplymanagement,” “supply chain,” “procurement,” “purchasing,” and“sourcing.” We then expanded the search terms to include words suchas “supplier,” “vendor,” and “buyer.” This search produced 1520articles.

We evaluated the papers by reading the title, abstract, and portionsof the content to determine the extent of any investigation into therelationship between family business and supply management forrelevance to the study herein. A noted international family businessscholar as a member of the research team help to ensure that the searchand review were rigorous and accurate. The search produced 36potential articles for further review. Additionally, we individuallyreviewed abstracts from all issues of Family Business Review (1988–2015) (761 articles) and the Journal of Family Business Strategy


3

(2010–2015) (121 articles), the two prominent family business jour-nals included in the Social Sciences Citation Index, for supply manage-ment related topics and terms. Again, we assessed the papers forrelevance by reading the title, abstract, and portions of the content.This review identified some papers already found in the previous opensearch and also yielded nine additional articles for further review.

We individually reviewed in detail the combined 45 papers (36 fromthe open search and nine from the review of specific journals) to assessrelevance to the study of supply chain topics in family business. Wediscussed each inclusion decision until consensus was reached. Whileseveral papers tangentially mention supply management topics, onlythree directly investigate supply management (Jayaram et al., 2014;Smith et al., 2014; Stanley and McDowell, 2014). Table 2 summarizesthese papers, including family measures and controls to help readersunderstand family business research design. Omitted papers, such asBullington and Bullington (2005), relate family issues with supplymanagement but do not directly investigate the topics in a combinedfashion.

While published works in Table 2 suggest family-firm impacts onsupply management, the limited quantity urges further research.Despite the ubiquity of family business and the curious distinctionsfrom non-family firms discussed above, supply management researchin the field is virtually void. We contend that scholars are thusneglecting fruitful opportunities for future research and are alsopotentially missing the possibility to significantly increase the expla-natory power of existing supply management research by incorporatingfamily firm effects.

Given the lack of family business supply management literature, weseek herein to stimulate research opportunities by synthesizing thefamily business literature with the most contemporary supply manage-ment research topics. We first identify several prominent supplymanagement topics. We then follow the foundations of SEW to developresearch propositions, thereby offering actionable research prospectsfor supply management scholars to both strike new ground andincrease the relevance of our body of knowledge.

3.1. Prominent supply management topics for consideration

To first identify potential prominent supply management topics, wecollected published studies that aggregate existing supply managementliterature (looking back) and/or focus on prescribing important topics

of future supply management research (looking forward) (Table 3). Wealso consulted summaries covering the broader field of supply chainmanagement (i.e., including production and logistics topics). Directcomparison of these reviews is difficult due to differences in categor-ization logic and detail (van Weele and van Raaij, 2014). Many of thestudies are also dated (Wynstra, 2016). Of the studies looking back,Spina et al. (2013) provide the broadest, most comprehensive review,systematically evaluating 20 journals for supply management research.Of the studies looking forward, Schoenherr et al. (2012), which uses thenominal group technique across noted supply management scholars,seemingly provides the most thorough and rigorous consideration offuture research topics. Both works are also among the most current inTable 3.

To reduce the difficulty in comparing prominent topics across all ofthe disparate studies, we focus on topics identified by Spina et al.(2013) and Schoenherr et al. (2012). Still, we also use the other sourcesin Table 3 to both provide support for the topics identified by Spinaet al. (2013) and Schoenherr et al. (2012) and uncover potentialadditional important yet overlooked topics. Table 4 presents theaggregate list of topics, which include strategic supply management,sourcing strategy, buyer-supplier relationships, sustainability, uncer-tainty and risk, and e-purchasing. We recognize the construction of thislist is somewhat subjective, and that additional important supplymanagement topics could be considered for family firm impacts. Still,the list is well-grounded in existing literature and presents a soundstarting point to develop a sample of initial research propositions.

4. Family business and supply management

Focusing on the topics in Table 4, we next formulate researchpropositions of family business effects on supply management, follow-ing a similar approach to Sharma et al. (2014) who considered familybusiness and organizational behavior. Starting with strategic supplymanagement, we first introduce each supply management topic. Wethen discuss findings from the limited family business supply manage-ment literature from Table 2 where possible and relate available familybusiness literature under the SEW lens to develop research proposi-tions wherein supply management of family firms may be differentfrom that of non-family firms.

Table 1Dimensions of socioemotional wealth.

Dimension Description

Family control and influence Family members seek to maintain authority, control, and influence over the firm through key organization and boardroles, possibly even in contradiction to financial objectives.

Family member identification with the firm The firm serves as an important part of the personal identity of the family member, is considered as an extension of thefamily, and is tied to the family name.

Binding social ties Family members maintain strong bonds and embeddedness with one another and also with non-family employees,business partners, and the community. Relationships are grounded in trust.

Emotional attachment Strong levels of emotions and emotional attachment among family members impact business decision-making.Renewal of family bonds to the firm through

dynastic successionFamily members seek to pass down the firm to future generations, encouraging a long-term sustainable perspective of thefirm and the family legacy.

Table 2Papers addressing family business influences on supply management.

Paper Context Measures, Controls

Jayaram et al. (2014) Case studies of family-owned manufacturing firms in India to integratefamily business characteristics with supply chain managementcapabilities.

Family businesses only (small and medium enterprises). Considers firmage, generations involved, capital investment, non-family board andmanagement.

Smith et al. (2014) Empirical analysis of family influences on retailer-supplier partnerships(relationship commitment, trust, value).

Family businesses only. Uses F-PEC (Astrachan et al., 2002) to measuredegree of family influence.

Stanley and McDowell(2014)

Empirical analysis of family and non-family-owned suppliers’organizational efficacy and trust in buyers.

Family versus non-family businesses. Applied scale to identify familybusinesses (Chrisman et al., 2005). Controls for firm dependence, size, age.


4

4.1. Family business and strategic supply management

Although supply management was historically viewed as a tacticalsupport function of the organization, it has more recently gainedgreater visibility and status within the firm (Chena et al., 2004;Johnson and Leenders, 2006; Johnson et al., 2006). This includeslinks between supply management practices and the competitivepriorities of the organization (Carter and Ellram, 2003; Johnsenet al., 2016; Watts et al., 1995). Schoenherr et al. (2012) effectivelyemphasize the importance of the role of supply management in bothsupporting the strategy of the organization and significantly impactingits financial performance. Despite progress in validating such connec-tions (Hartmann et al., 2012; Zimmermann and Foerstl, 2014), a richarea of future research remains in assessing “the link between PSM(purchasing and supply management) and financial value by utilizingfinancial measures, demonstrating the impact of strategic PSM”

(Schoenherr et al., 2012, p. 4568). The link between PSM and financialvalue remains critical to our field as it enhances the relevance,legitimacy, and significance of all facets of supply managementresearch.

Research by Stanley and McDowell (2014) and Jayaram et al.(2014) suggests the link between supply management and organiza-tional performance will differ between family and non-family firms.Yet, SEW proposes mixed support for the potential differences offamily versus non-family firms relative to the strategic importance ofsupply management. On one hand, SEW highlights the importance offamily control of the business (Chua et al., 1999), so family businessesrecognizing this importance are likely to position supply managementas critical within the organization. Similarly, the importance of the longterm sustainability of the family business and its legacy further impelsthe prominence of supply management in the organization (Astrachanand Jaskiewicz, 2008). However, SEW also proposes that due to desirefor control, the family may place family members with less competencein strategic roles than other available non-family employees, which can

be detrimental to management professionalization (Berrone et al.,2012; Stewart and Hitt, 2012). This could cause the firm to lag supplymanagement best practice and impair financial advantages of strategicsupply management.

Jayaram et al. (2014) provide direction for resolution of theseopposing perspectives by incorporating growth orientation into theprofessionalism and supply chain capabilities of family firms. Growthorientation can be tied to organizational size for family business.Specifically, smaller family firms, particularly those with “a businessas a lifestyle” orientation, are likely to not pursue large scale growth(Delmar et al., 2003; Upton et al., 2001; Verhees and Meulenberg,2004), therefore under-valuing the professionalism and importance ofsupply management in the organization. Larger family firms that targetgrowth will likely be more professionalized, enhancing the internalstatus of supply management. Therefore, the desire for family controlprescribed by SEW will impel the family firm to engage supplymanagement strategically within the organization less so than innon-family firms (P1 below), but this relationship will be moderatedby firm size (P1a).

P1: The relationship between supply management and firm financialperformance will be lower for family firms than non-family firms.P1a: Firm size will moderate the relationship between supplymanagement and firm financial performance in that the relationshipwill be stronger for larger family firms than smaller family firms.

4.2. Family business and sourcing strategy

Supply management decisions should align with the strategicobjectives of the organization through sourcing strategy, includingoutsourcing and supplier selection decisions (Anderson and Katz,1998; Kaplan and Norton, 2001). Originally, Kraljic (1983) underlinedthe strategic importance of sourcing strategy, introducing the portfolioapproach to the selection process (Gelderman and van Weele, 2005;

Table 3Supply management topic reviews.

Paper Sources Timeframe Focus

(Carter and Ellram, 2003) One journal 1965 – 2000 Summary of first 35 years of the Journal of Supply Chain Management(Das and Handfield, 1997) Doctoral dissertations 1987 – 1995 Summary of doctoral dissertations in purchasing(Grimm et al., 2015) 5 management journals 2004 – 2013 Supply chain management research in top management journals(Johnsen et al., 2016) 27 journals 1990 – 2013 Supply management articles by Nordic scholars(Morlacchi et al., 2002) Conference proceedings 1992 – 2000 Review of International Purchasing and Supply Education and Research Association (IPSERA)

conference proceedings(Schoenherr et al., 2012) Prominent scholars 2012 Nominal group technique to identify supply management research opportunities(Spina et al., 2013) 20 journals 2002 – 2010 Comprehensive summary of supply management articles(van Weele and van Raaij, 2014) Five other reviews 2002 – 2010 Identify opportunities to improve research rigor and relevance(Wynstra, 2010) One journal 1994 – 2009 Summary of first 15 years of the Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management(Wynstra, 2016) 20 journals 2002 – 2010 Review of Spina et al. (2016)(Zheng et al., 2007) 42 papers (13 sources) 1995 – 2003 Analysis of papers focusing on the future of supply management

Table 4Prominent supply management research topics.

Category Topics Supporting Sources

Strategic supplymanagement

Link between supply management andorganizational strategy

(Carter and Ellram, 2003; Grimm et al., 2015; Johnsen et al., 2016; Schoenherr et al., 2012;Wynstra, 2010)

Sourcing strategy Global/local purchasing, reverse marketing,competitive priorities, outsourcing

(Carter and Ellram, 2003; Das and Handfield, 1997; Grimm et al., 2015; Johnsen et al., 2016;Morlacchi et al., 2002; Schoenherr et al., 2012; Spina et al., 2013; Wynstra, 2010, 2016)

Buyer-supplierrelationships

Buyer-supplier relationships, partnerships, trust,dependency, network perspective

(Carter and Ellram, 2003; Das and Handfield, 1997; Grimm et al., 2015; Schoenherr et al.,2012; Spina et al., 2013; Wynstra, 2010, 2016)

Sustainability Sustainability, green supply management (Johnsen et al., 2016; Schoenherr et al., 2012; Spina et al., 2013; Wynstra, 2016)Uncertainty, risk Disruptions, risk management, uncertainty (Schoenherr et al., 2012; Spina et al., 2013)E-purchasing Electronic purchasing, e-commerce (Das and Handfield, 1997; Morlacchi et al., 2002; Schoenherr et al., 2012; Spina et al., 2013;

Wynstra, 2010)


5

Padhi et al., 2012). Spina et al. (2013) and Carter and Ellram (2003)identify highly-researched sourcing strategy topics such as reversemarketing and competitive priorities (e.g., cost, quality, innovation,etc.), while Schoenherr et al. (2012) and Grimm et al. (2015) projectrich opportunities for future research with outsourcing and global/localsourcing (e.g. offshoring). We first address the outsourcing and off-shoring elements of sourcing strategy then supplier selection.

To start, outsourcing can allow for better buyer focus on corecompetencies and reduced capital investment while increasing perfor-mance via suppliers with cost, quality, and other competitive advan-tages. Existing supply management literature continues to study theconditions and success factors for effective outsourcing (Kang et al.,2014; Rehme et al., 2013). Recent literature has also focused onchallenges in offshoring to lesser-developed global regions (Horn et al.,2013; Najafi et al., 2013).

Existing family business literature has established that family firmsavoid internationalization and diversification due to risk perceptionsand loss of control (George et al., 2005). Additionally, Memili et al.(2011) assert that family firms subcontract less than non-family firmsdue to risk-averse, conservative mindsets. SEW supports this notion ofminimization of risks associated with loss of family control of thebusiness.

Still, the traditional gradual and localized growth approach pursuedby family businesses is very quickly becoming outmoded as customersand suppliers continue to spread to international markets (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013). This is more probable for larger family firms asthey tend to act more like non-family firms based on strategicconformity tendencies or greater professionalization of the firm(Miller et al., 2013; Songini, 2006; Stewart and Hitt, 2012). Giventhat family businesses tend to rely on strategic alliances for inter-nationalization (Cappuyns, 2006; Fuentes-Lombardo and Fernandez-Ortiz, 2010), outsourcing and offshoring become more likely. Followingthe previous argument about growth orientation and firm size, largerfamily businesses are more likely to globalize so that they can maintaintheir relative position in a specific supply chain network (Patel et al.,2012; Rodrigues and Child, 2012). We thus propose that family firmswill outsource and offshore less frequently in order to maintain SEWaspects of control and relational stability (P2, P3), yet this relationshipwill be weakened as firm size increases (P2a, P3a).

P2:Family firms will outsource less than non-family businesses.P2a:Firm size will moderate outsourcing levels for family firms aslarger family firms will outsource more than smaller family firms.P3:Family firms will offshore less than non-family businesses.P3a:Firm size will moderate offshoring levels for family firms aslarger family firms will offshore more than smaller family firms.

Sourcing strategy also includes supplier selection, thereby extend-ing competitive priorities to the supply chain. Spina et al. (2013)identifies six primary competitive priorities of supply managementappearing most frequently in extant literature, including cost, innova-tion, quality, time, sustainability, and flexibility. Schoenherr et al.(2012) primarily focuses on the sustainability priority. Both sourcesalso insinuate the essential concept of managerial fit. Highlighted byscholars since the emergence of the partnership literature, “fit” includesdifficult-to-quantify soft factors such as organizational culture, strat-egy, and technology (Ellram, 1990).

The family business literature base directly addressing supplierselection is lacking. However, SEW as well as other existing familybusiness literature provide strong support for the importance ofquality, managerial fit, and sustainability while downplaying cost andinnovation. As already discussed in Section 2 above, family businessresearch is generally united and resolute about lower family firmemphasis on financial priorities like cost. Retaining non-financialSEW considerations like control, image, and emotional ties trumpeconomic goals (Berrone et al., 2012). In fact, SEW elements will

sometimes conflict with financial goals (Miller and Le Breton-Miller,2014). Moreover, innovation and new product development tend toretain less importance for family firms (Donckels and Frolich, 1991).

In contrast, quality is very important for family businesses con-sidering customer connections of products and services to the familyname and long-term business brand (Carrigan and Buckley, 2008;Craig et al., 2008). SEW theory supports this pro-quality position sincedefects will be detrimental to external image, status, and ultimatelycontrol (Micelotta and Raynard, 2011; Westhead et al., 2001).Managerial fit is also likely to be important for family firms due toorganizational isomorphism discussed in Section 2.1. Family busi-nesses pursue suppliers with similar characteristics (e.g., family busi-ness, comparable values, etc.) (Dacin, 1997; Deephouse, 1996;DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Martinez and Aldrich, 2014) with trustbeing important to the external relationships (Berrone et al., 2012).SEW implies that buyers can enhance prestige with important referents(i.e., other family businesses) by selecting these family businesses assuppliers and business partners (Uhlaner, 2006). Furthermore, socialties, including reciprocal bonds as additional key SEW components, areoften extended to suppliers as family-like connections (Uhlaner et al.,2004).

The importance of sustainability as a competitive supply manage-ment priority for family businesses follows a similar logic. As will bediscussed more thoroughly in Section 4.4 below, existing literaturegenerally points to stronger sustainability practices by family busi-nesses (Berrone et al., 2010; Block and Wagner, 2014; Dyer Jr. andWhetten, 2006). SEW elements such as altruistic priorities, long-standing ties to and investment in local communities, and identity ofthe family name with the firm's brand further promote the pursuit ofsustainability opportunities in family firm supply chains (Cennamoet al., 2012; Craig et al., 2008; Karra et al., 2006; Wiklund, 2006).Combining these above points, we therefore propose that supplierselection for family firms will deemphasize price and innovation whilemore heavily stressing quality, managerial fit, and sustainability asselection criteria than non-family firms (P4).

P4:Family firms will place less emphasis on price and innovationand greater emphasis on quality, managerial fit, and sustainability insourcing decisions than non-family firms.

There could also be effects of family firm age on individual criterion(e.g., quality, sustainability) or firm size (e.g., price, managerial fit) thatscholars could further delineate. Moreover, Schoenherr et al. (2012)offer compelling extensions to consider when researching sourcingstrategy that could be particularly impactful for family businesses.Examples include intellectual property protection, supply chain trace-ability, and security. With such concerns, family business emphasis oncontrol and risk minimization discussed above would suggest even alesser likelihood to outsource and offshore and could affect selectioncriteria weights. Thus, one or several of these factors (i.e., intellectualproperty, traceability, and security) could moderate the aforemen-tioned sourcing strategy propositions.

4.3. Family business and supplier relationships

The supply management literature reviews consistently underlinethe prominence of existing and future research in supplier relation-ships and integration (Carter and Ellram, 2003; Das and Handfield,1997; Schoenherr et al., 2012; Wynstra, 2010). Such literature hasbeen evolving primarily since the 1980's with work by Dwyer et al.(1987) and others who contend that closer relationships with suppliersthat are characterized by strong degrees of cooperation, trust, andcommitment can result in not only improved performance but alsocompetitive advantage. Recent reviews reveal the intensity and sophis-tication of this research (Daugherty, 2011; Power, 2005). Other recentliterature has linked the role of supplier relationships to contemporary


6

supply management concerns such as sustainability, new productdevelopment, and resiliency (Hoejmose et al., 2014; Kache andSeuring, 2014; Sjoerdsma and van Weele, 2015; Touboulic andWalker, 2015).

Some family business literature does examine inter-firm integrationand strategic partnerships, though typically not specific to supply chain(Debicki et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2014). As a result, Stanley andMcDowell (2014) urge more family business research in this area.Wortman (1994) establishes the importance of strategic partnershipsin family business, and several authors have qualitatively examinedsuch partnerships (Cappuyns, 2006; Fuentes-Lombardo andFernandez-Ortiz, 2010). In one view, researchers contend that inter-firm integration jeopardizes family firm independence (Roessl, 2005).Further, Niemelä (2004) voices concerns over the complications ofpower relative to cooperation between family firms.

In a contrasting view, Smith et al. (2014) build on the work ofMorgan and Hunt (1994) to reveal some impact of “familiness” of abusiness on commitment and trust in relationships between retailersand suppliers. Likewise, Zahra (2010) indicates that family firms candevelop stronger supplier relationships via social capital. Stanley andMcDowell (2014) validate some evidence for organizational efficacyand trust within supplier relationships in influencing family businessperformance, though they found no difference in the levels of efficacyand trust between family and non-family firms. Lester and Cannella(2006) maintain that family businesses have capabilities to build“community-level social capital” through intermingling of corporateboards. From the consumer perspective, family business can beassociated with a high degree of customer loyalty and trust (Carriganand Buckley, 2008).

Another advantage of family firms in building inter-firm relation-ships lies with their long-term orientation (Brigham et al., 2014;Lumpkin and Brigham, 2011; Lumpkin et al., 2010), further estab-lished as a critical partnership success factor in supply managementliterature (Ellram, 1990). As Huybrechts et al. (2011) mention, thelong-term perspective of family businesses creates significant oppor-tunity to develop long-term supplier relationships. This long-termorientation can also result in family members of one firm extendingownership (through independent entities) to supplier organizations(Memili et al., 2011). The perceived negative effects of family businessrisk aversion can be attenuated when partners have direct kinship ties.

SEW literature further supports stronger supplier relationshipswith emphasis on the importance of robust external, emotionally-basedsocial relationships with business partners (Berrone et al., 2012).Furthermore, long-term relationships also allow family firms to main-tain their identity and status within their referent networks. SEW alsopoints to family businesses likely pursuing integrated supplier relation-ships to reduce risk and enhance control in order to further safeguardfirm survival (Cennamo et al., 2012).

Given these points and the more recent empirical family businessresearch, we propose that family businesses will more frequently useintegration (i.e., partnerships) than non-family firms, and such inte-gration will be stronger than in non-family firms due to social capital,organizational efficacy, and long-term focus. Additionally, institutionalisomorphism and the ability to reciprocate SEW with other family firmssuggest that such partnerships will more likely be with other familybusinesses. Relationships will be characterized by increased levels oftrust and commitment, combined with lower transaction costs andless-formalized governance (Dyer and Chu, 2003). Moreover, olderfamily firms will be at a greater risk for loss of SEW as a result of moreestablished social bonds, deeper emotional attachment, and trans-generational succession (Berrone et al., 2012). Specifically, such firmslikely have stronger and more extensive social ties and greateremotional attachment with suppliers (P5, P6). Family firm age is thuspredicted to moderate supplier integration strength for family firms(P5a, P6a).

P5: Family firms will more frequently use integration and partner-ships with suppliers than non-family firmsP5a:Firm age will moderate use of integration and partnerships asolder family firms will use higher levels of integration and partner-ships than younger family firms.P6:Supplier integration and partnerships will be stronger betweenfamily-owned buyers and family-owned suppliersP6a:Firm age will moderate the strength of integration and partner-ships between family-owner buyers and family-owned suppliers asolder family firms will use higher levels of integration and partner-ships than younger family firms.

Extending P5 and P6, we posit that family firms are more likely tosole source than non-family firms (P7). To start, family firms are lesslikely to diversify risk (Berrone et al., 2012). Moreover, as they pursueorganizational isomorphism, family firms may have limited choiceswhen seeking similar supplier partners (i.e., also family firms of similarsize, age, values, etc.). As discussed above, SEW emphasizes long-termsocial bonds and emotional attachment that would foster sole sourcerelationships (Berrone et al., 2012). Likewise, sole sourcing wouldsupport the importance of control.

P7:Family firms are more likely to sole source than non-family firms.

In a similar vein, a high sense of supplier loyalty is shown in familyfirms (File et al., 1994). We propose that the more personalized,emotional, and social nature of family businesses will extend thelifespan of its supplier relationships. Existing supply managementresearch has recently begun to explore the importance of personalconnections in supply chain relationships (Gligor and Holcomb, 2013).Family firms often emphasize their commitment to longstandingpersonal relationships with their suppliers, who may be seen asextended family members (Uhlaner et al., 2004). As historical experi-ences and relationships affect decision-making (Berrone et al., 2012),external suppliers are therefore more likely to develop personalattachments to family business members partly because of the long-term trust effect that accompanies business relationships with familyfirms (Dyer Jr and Whetten, 2006).

SEW also maintains the importance of status and harmony withstakeholders, and emotions and values play strong roles in decision-making (Baron, 2008). Severing long-standing relationships createsundesired emotional loss, so these relationships are often maintainedeven through non-harmonious times (Berrone et al., 2012). Therefore,family firms may be relatively slow to change suppliers when problemssurface and will offer repeated opportunities to correct issues anddeficiencies (P8). By the similar logic above, the risk for loss of SEWwill increase with the age of the firm due to more established socialbonds and deeper emotional attachment (P8a) (Berrone et al., 2012).

P8: Family firms will remain in supplier relationships longer thannon-family firms.P8a:Firm age will moderate the supplier relationship duration forfamily firms as relationship duration will be greater for older familyfirms than younger family firms.

Researchers may consider additional moderators for the abovefamily business effects on supplier relationships. For example, theimpacts of non-family management and family culture could be studiedas moderators (Gupta et al., 2009; Jayaram et al., 2014). Schoenherret al. (2012) present many additional considerations for buyer-supplierrelationship research such as dependency, network perspective, andbehavioral impacts. The family business research environment couldhelp extend existing supply management research in these areas.


7

4.4. Family business and supply chain sustainability

Sustainability has materialized strongly and rapidly in supplymanagement literature in recent years (Carter and Ellram, 2003;Johnsen et al., 2016; Quarshie et al., 2016; Schoenherr et al., 2012;Spina et al., 2013). Many organizations are increasingly pursuingsustainability to proactively address long-term business threats, antici-pate government regulations, and meet customer and public expecta-tions (Carroll and Shabana, 2010). Margolis and Walsh (2003) review30 years of research in corporate social responsibility and sustain-ability, affirming a strong positive association with organizationalfinancial performance. Still, Igarashi et al. (2013) offer concerns aboutthe fragmented, underdeveloped nature of existing supply managementsustainability literature.

Sustainability remains relatively underexplored in family businessliterature, especially regarding efforts across the supply chain(Campopiano et al., 2012; Dyer Jr. and Whetten, 2006; O’Boyleet al., 2010; Sharma and Sharma, 2011). A relative minority of theliterature suggests weaker family business support for sustainability(Dyer Jr. and Whetten, 2006). For instance, some submit that familyfirms have less motivation to pursue sustainability due to a higherdegree of self-interest at the expense of society (Dyer Jr. and Whetten,2006; Morck and Yeung, 2004) and lower pressure from externalstakeholders and shareholders (Schulze et al., 2003; Wooi and Zailani,2010). This may be more likely when the family business's presence(e.g., production facilities) are not localized in a single community(Berrone et al., 2010).

Per our initial discussion of sustainability in Section 4.2 abovehowever, SEW as well as a larger share of the family business literatureadvocate stronger family business support for sustainability. Asespoused by the triple-bottom-line (3BL) view, sustainability requiresa long-term focus, balance between financial and non-financial perfor-mance, and collaboration across organizational partners and stake-holders (Elkington, 1994). Such characteristics align well the orienta-tion of family businesses, which pursue non-financial and long-termobjectives more so than other firms (Astrachan and Jaskiewicz, 2008;Le Breton-Miller and Miller, 2006). As such, family businesses mayposition sustainability to operationalize altruism for the community orenhance recognition from the community (Berrone et al., 2012).

Moreover, family firms can better control factors for sustainabilitysuccess, including managerial attitudes and resource allocation(Sharma and Sharma, 2011). Additionally, the decreased likelihoodof outsourcing and offshoring proposed earlier further enhancescontrol. We also previously proposed stronger supplier relationshipsof family firms, which supply management literature stresses asimportant to sustainability initiatives (Caniëls et al., 2013; Sanchaet al., 2015; Touboulic and Walker, 2015). Ultimately, the few familybusiness studies that attempt to empirically validate the family busi-ness-sustainability link generally indicate that family businesses aremore sustainable (Berrone et al., 2010; Block and Wagner, 2014; DyerJr. and Whetten, 2006).

SEW further points to greater motivation for sustainability due tofamily pride, social bonds with the community, risk reduction, and amulti-generational legacy view (Berrone et al., 2010; Block andWagner, 2014; Craig and Dibrell, 2006; Wiklund, 2006). Stakeholderconcerns about sustainability performance harm SEW with respect tothe family's external image (Micelotta and Raynard, 2011; Westheadet al., 2001). Additionally, preservation of family values might alsoinfluence a greater focus on sustainability practices (Berrone et al.,2012).

Furthermore, a more established (i.e., older) family business haslikely built up a stronger legacy and community ties and thereforegreater SEW, thus enhancing the need to protect the family name andreputation while minimizing risk of SEW loss (Berrone et al., 2012).Additionally, older family businesses typically have more familymembers, including multiple generations, involved in the business,

yet correspondingly individual family member participation in thebusiness generally decreases (Gersick et al., 1997). The generation ofyounger, less-involved family members still seek to derive meaning andsocial standing from the business (Pieper, 2007), and sustainabilityprojects can provide such opportunities. So, integration of supply chainsustainability will be greater for family firms than non-family firms(P9). Also, family firm age will likely moderate sustainability intentions(P9a).

P9: Family firms are more likely to integrate sustainability in theirsupply chains than non-family firmsP9a:Firm age will moderate the level of integration of supply chainsustainability for family firms as sustainability integration will begreater for older family firms than younger family firms.

Schoenherr et al. (2012) highlight the opportunity to study theeffects of supply management on the 3BL. We further suggest anextension of the 3BL to account for the family business focus onsustaining the family itself in terms of legacy, income, jobs, andrelationships. (Olson et al., 2003; Stafford et al., 1999). Consistentwith promoting SEW, this quadruple-bottom-line (4BL) thus adds thenotion of sustainability of the family itself to the conventional profit-ability, environmental, and social 3BL elements. Researchers couldvalidate the trade-offs of family business decision making among these4BL elements, capitalizing on existing family business literature thatexamines longevity (Fahed-Sreih and Djoundourian, 2006; Gallo,2004; Zellweger et al., 2012), long-term orientation (Brigham et al.,2014; Lumpkin and Brigham, 2011; Lumpkin et al., 2010), andsurvival (Pieper, 2007).

4.5. Family business and uncertainty and risk

Spina et al. (2013) and Schoenherr et al. (2012) both maintain thatsupply risk and disruptions represent developing streams of researchthat have intensified in the last decade (Grudinschi et al., 2014;Hoffmann et al., 2013). Supply risk can be defined as the probabilityof a negative supply chain event (i.e., disruption) multiplied by theseverity of this event (Christopher and Peck, 2004). Such risk continuesto escalate due to increases in outsourcing and offshoring, productlifecycles, demand variability, frequency and intensity of naturaldisasters, and supplier bankruptcies (Kache and Seuring, 2014;Pereira et al., 2014). Schoenherr et al. (2012) also identify challengeswith price volatility, currency fluctuations, and security.

In general, family business literature indicates that family firms aremore risk averse from an entrepreneurial standpoint (Naldi et al.,2007). Family firms also tend to retain lower debt (Anderson and Reeb,2003b; Mishra and McConaughy, 1999), which decreases the like-lihood of bankruptcy risk in the supply chain. Again, the overall senseis that family businesses are highly concerned about losing control(Hiebl, 2014), especially when their goals focus on family needs(Carland III et al., 1995). Family business researchers have notthoroughly studied risk, disruptions, and resiliency. In one of the fewexamples, Stafford et al. (2013) highlight the importance of adaptivecapacity and flexible leadership in responding to natural disasters. Inanother, inclination toward risk is associated with strong technologyinvestment and supply chain capabilities (Jayaram et al., 2014).

In developing SEW, Gómez-Mejía et al. (2007) determined thatfamily businesses are simultaneously risk willing and adverse, takingon more risk at the expense of performance to maintain SEW whileavoiding actions that extend the potential loss of such SEW. In eithercase, SEW purports to greater levels of control, especially in relation tominimizing risks to the family name and long-term sustainability of thebusiness. Similarly, disruptions can upset emotional stability, anotherkey dimension of SEW. Despite P7 above (i.e., family firms are morelikely to sole source), we maintain that family firms will be lessvulnerable due to greater risk aversion and the propensity to develop


8

strong long-term relationships (from P5 and P6) that promote stabilityeven in the face of crisis. The tendency of family firms to globalize lessthan non-family firms provides further corroboration of this contention(George et al., 2005).

P10: Family firm supply chains will be less vulnerable to disruptionsthan those of non-family firms.

Additionally, firm age could impact risk propensity. Claver et al.(2008) reveal that risk perceptions decrease over family generationsthough increase with firm globalization. Researchers generally concurthat risk taking increases with involvement of newer generations in thebusiness (Casillas et al., 2011; Zahra, 2005) as well as the introductionof non-family members into the firm management (Casillas et al.,2011). SEW supports this view. With limited SEW endowments,younger firms have little to lose in pursuing risk and may be morewilling to take on risk in order to build SEW. By comparison, olderfirms with greater SEW face losing these SEW endowments, whichsuggests a more cautious approach to risk that contradicts the aboveexisting research by Casillas et al. (2011) and Zahra (2005). Given suchcomplexity, we suggest a curvilinear relationship for supply disruptionvulnerability (P10a).

P10a:Family firm supply chain vulnerability may be curvilinearrelative to firm age. Vulnerability will be high for young family firmsthen decrease with firm age. Vulnerability will eventually begin toincrease for older firms as new generations become involved in thebusiness.

Researchers propose the concept of supply chain resiliency as theproficiency of a chain to restore normal operations after a disruption(Whitney et al., 2014). Pereira et al. (2014) establish intra- and inter-organizational enablers of supply resiliency, including flexibility,visibility, collaboration, information sharing, coordination/control, riskmanagement, and organizational knowledge. Kache and Seuring(2014) further highlight the importance of collaboration in addressingsupply risk and performance. With P5 and P6 above promotingstronger supplier relationships for family business, we maintain thatfamily firms will be more resilient than non-family firms due tostronger levels of supplier integration and collaboration as previouslyestablished. Additionally, family firms pursue higher levels of socialcapital (Dyer Jr and Whetten, 2006), another resiliency success factor(Johnson et al., 2013). Ultimately, family firm supply chain resiliencywill be higher (P11) with the similar above arguments about the age ofthe family firm influencing the likelihood (P5), strength (P6), andduration (P8) of integrated supplier relationships, family firm age willalso moderate resiliency effects (P11a).

P11: Family firm supply chains will be more resilient than those ofnon-family firmsP11a:Firm age will moderate the level of supply chain resiliency forfamily firms as resiliency will be greater for older family firms thanyounger family firms.

As one consideration for additional research related to supply riskand resiliency, family business literature contends that risk takingcould depend on the extent of family ownership and involvement(Wang and Panikkos, 2010; Zahra, 2005). Future research may alsostudy barriers to resiliency in family firms, such as risk management,innovation, and flexibility. Following Johnson et al. (2013), researcherscan expand different components of social capital (e.g., structural,cognitive, and relational) on family and non-family firm resiliencycapabilities.

4.6. Family business and e-procurement

Spina et al. (2013) note that although the research focus on e-procurement evolved with the Internet boom at the beginning of thecentury, the topic still remains important to the field. Schoenherr et al.(2012) and Morlacchi et al. (2002) concur with the importance e-procurement systems, which have widespread potential to positivelyimpact supply management (Presutti Jr., 2003; Puschmann and Alt,2005). Yet e-procurement applications can broadly range from trans-actional (e.g., EDI) to collaborative (e.g., e-tendering) in nature(Schoenherr and Tummala, 2007). In fact, reverse auctions can beconsidered to be adversarial depending on the implementation ap-proach (Smart and Harrison, 2003).

Literature investigating technology adoption by family business issparse (Bruque and Moyano, 2007; König et al., 2013; Ogbonna andHarris, 2005). König et al. (2013) suggest that family businesses areslower to recognize the need for technological change, but when theydo, they are faster and demonstrate greater perseverance than otherorganizational forms. Consistent with König et al. (2013), we posit thaton one hand, the heighten control facet of SEW would favor e-procurement adoption, and the collaborative nature of some e-procure-ment applications, such as information exchange between buyers andsuppliers, would align well with arguments developed with the supplierrelationship propositions (e.g., P5). In contrast, more transactional orcompetitive-oriented applications such as reverse auctions would bedetrimental to the social ties and emotional attachment SEW dimen-sions. So, we propose that e-procurement adoption by family businessis moderated by the relational nature of the application.

P12:Relational e-procurement applications will be adopted more byfamily firms than non-family firms.P12a:Competitive applications of e-procurement will be adopted lessby family firms than non-family firms

5. Conclusions and challenges

The majority of businesses worldwide are family-owned. Whileexisting management literature emphasizes the idiosyncratic behaviorand performance of family firms relative to non-family firms, familyeffects relative to supply management have only been scarcelyresearched. In fact, many supply management researchers are likelylargely unaware of the distinctions of family business. While supplymanagement scholars have certainly unintentionally collected datafrom family businesses and perhaps unknowingly captured somecharacteristics of family business in researching global supply chains,we have not specifically investigated how these characteristics differbetween family and non-family firms. Very few papers to date haveexplicitly examined family effects in supply management. In otherwords, we have overlooked a potential additional source of variation inour supply management data.

Operations and supply chain scholars maintain the importance ofenhancing relevance and creativity in the field. “It is incumbent uponthe academy to move forward and seek out opportunities in fertileareas of research that can have practical impact” (Simpson et al., 2015,p. 96). This paper strongly contends that family business representsone such opportunity. To develop a research agenda in family businesssupply management, this paper has offered numerous propositions(Table 5) as examples to conjecture the effects of family business onsupply management. Supply management researchers could empiri-cally assess these propositions. Researchers could also consider addi-tional supply management topics that may be affected by family firminfluences as well as study add other moderating variables.

5.1. Extending socioemotional wealth (SEW)

Application and validation of theory remain a work-in-progress for


9

supply chain research as we not only seek to apply existing theoriesfrom other disciplines but also develop our own supply chain theories(Goldsby and Autry, 2011). The introduction of SEW to supplymanagement scholars in this paper could help with both intentions.On the former point, SEW has only recently emerged as a theoreticalfoundation for family business research with much of the existing SEWliterature base remaining conceptual in nature and few empiricalstudies validating specific SEW effects. Miller and Le Breton-Miller(2014) describe SEW as lacking precision and not fully-developed.Supply management scholars could certainly enhance the applicationand understanding of SEW theory. Specifically, existing SEW literaturegenerally examines just the single family firm without consideringinter-firm effects and interactions. As a result, supply chain presents avaluable extension of scope for SEW to consider impacts on supplypartners (Miller and Le Breton-Miller, 2014). For instance, sources ofSEW such as harmony, status, power, and survival may extend beyondthe firm to encompass dyads, triads, and entire networks within supplychains.

Conversely, application of SEW in supply management literaturecan likely help the supply chain field expand consideration of non-financial and behavioral impacts in the supply chain, which our fieldhas traditionally disregarded or assumed to be not influential (Ginoand Pisano, 2008). The professional practice of supply chain, likefamily business, can be ripe with idiosyncratic behaviors that havelargely gone unexplored to date. Recent literature has emphasized theimportance of individual behavior, including psychological and groupinfluences, in operations and supply chain management (Bendoly et al.,2010, 2006) as well as effects of personal relationships (Gligor andAutry, 2012; Gligor and Holcomb, 2013). Extending the complexity ofSEW and its related components to such work could allow scholars to

dig deeper into the psychological and social considerations of supplychain decision making and relationships to even possibly develop ourown theories.

5.2. Pursuing research opportunities

To learn more about family research, scholars can consult well-respected journals such as Family Business Review and the Journal ofFamily Business Strategy (both indexed with impact factors in theWeb of Science). Additionally, several highly-touted managementjournals frequently publish family business research, including theJournal of Small Business Management, Entrepreneurship Theoryand Practice, and the Journal of Business Venturing (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2013). Family business handbooks (Melin et al., 2014)and scales (Pearson et al., 2014) are also available to support researchin the field.

Yet, researchers face challenges with studying family businesseffects on supply management. As one, the definition of family business(i.e., decision-making control and governance) can be difficult toempirically capture as scholars do not necessarily agree on how tospecifically measure the spectrum of business “familiness.” For in-stance, Astrachan et al. (2002) offer their F-PEC measurement scale,which assesses power, experience, and culture to measure the amountof family influence and extent of “familiness” in an organization (Franket al., 2010). This approach recognizes the heterogeneity of familybusinesses that may need to be taken into account during researchdesign. We do not intend to establish in this paper a single approach toidentify a family business or measure “familiness” given the lack ofagreement still occurring in family business literature. Rather, westress that family business scholars must carefully consider research

Table 5Summary of research propositions.

Topic Proposition

Strategic PSM P1 The relationship between supply management and firm financial performance will be lower for family firms than non-family firms.P1a Firm size will moderate the relationship between supply management and firm financial performance in that the relationship will be

stronger for larger family firms than smaller family firms.Sourcing strategy P2 Family firms will outsource less than non-family businesses.

P2a Firm size will moderate outsourcing levels for family firms as larger family firms will outsource more than smaller family firms.P3 Family firms will offshore less than non-family businesses.P3a Firm size will moderate offshoring levels for family firms as larger family firms will offshore more than smaller family firmsP4 Family firms will place less emphasis on price and innovation and greater emphasis on quality, managerial fit, and sustainability in

sourcing decisions than non-family firms.

Buyer-supplier relationships P5 Family firms will more frequently use integration and partnerships with suppliers than non-family firmsP5a Firm age will moderate use of integration and partnerships as older family firms will use higher levels of integration and partnerships

than younger family firms.

P6 Supplier integration and partnerships will be stronger between family-owned buyers and family-owned suppliers

P6a Firm age will moderate the strength of integration and partnerships between family-owner buyers and family-owned suppliers as olderfamily firms will use higher levels of integration and partnerships than younger family firms.

P7 Family firms are more likely to sole source than non-family firms.P8 Family firms will remain in supplier relationships longer than non-family firms.P8a Firm age will moderate the supplier relationship duration for family firms as relationship duration will be greater for older family firms

than younger family firms.

Sustainability P9 Family firms are more likely to integrate sustainability in their supply chains than non-family firmsP9a Firm age will moderate the level of integration of supply chain sustainability for family firms as sustainability integration will be greater

for older family firms than younger family firms.

Uncertainty, risk P10 Family firm supply chains will be less vulnerable to disruptions than those of non-family firms.P10a Family firm supply chain vulnerability may be curvilinear relative to firm age. Vulnerability will be high for young family firms then

decrease with firm age. Vulnerability will eventually begin to increase for older firms as new generations become involved in the business.P11 Family firm supply chains will be more resilient than those of non-family firmsP11a Firm age will moderate the level of supply chain resiliency for family firms as resiliency will be greater for older family firms than younger

family firms.

e-Procurement P12 Relational e-procurement applications will be adopted more by family firms than non-family firms.P12a Competitive applications of e-procurement will be adopted less by family firms than non-family firms


10

design to fully properly study family firm effects.Different approaches are currently being applied in the literature.

As one, some researchers dichotomize family and non-family firmrespondents based on the family firm definition. In studying supplierorganizational efficacy, trust, and performance for example, Stanleyand McDowell (2014) use the family firm as a control variable,identifying family firms based on family effects on strategic direction,control, behavior, and capabilities (Chrisman et al., 2005). Otherresearchers measure the degree of familiness. For instance, Smithet al. (2014) measure the effects of F-PEC scale components (power,experience, and culture) (Astrachan et al., 2002) on supply relationshipvariables such as commitment and trust.

Regardless, control variables remain important to effectively isolatefamily effects. On one hand, Stanley and McDowell (2014) control fornumber of employees, firm age, and supplier dependence on the buyer.On the other hand, Smith et al. (2014) aggregate family firm respon-dents regardless of size, firm generation, and type of firm (retailer orservice provider).

Given the complexity of research design in family business, westrongly recommend that supply management researchers not onlythoroughly review contemporary family business literature but alsopartner with family business scholars to initiate the pursuit of researchideas like those proposed herein. Expertise in the field of familybusiness by and large remains held in a moderately small, close-knitacademy of scholars. Still, a surprisingly large number of familybusiness centers prevail at academic institutions worldwide. Likesupply management, family business scholars are eager to broadenthe field, seek out new research streams, and expand the base ofauthorship (Wynstra, 2010). As such, we recommend that interestedresearchers directly contact family business centers and editors of theabove-listed journals. Additionally, organizations such as the FamilyBusiness Network (FBN), International Family Enterprise ResearchAcademy (IFERA), and the Family Firm Institute (FFI), can providedirection for collaboration.

Supply chain journals would be well-served by encouraging familybusiness research. Sanders et al. (2013) report difficulty with imple-menting academic supply chain solutions in industry and recommendinterdisciplinary research that targets the entire business as the endcustomer. We assert that many of these end customers are family firmswith unique needs. Rich research opportunities exist to compare familyfirm and non-family firm supply management strategy and practice.Such opportunities can not only lead to innovative topics and enhancedmanagerial relevance but uncover new sources of data and researchfunding. We hope that readers have found motivation and ideas withinthis paper to pursue this important research agenda.

References

Allio, M.K., 2004. Family businesses: their virtues, vices, and strategic path. StrategyLeadersh. 32 (4), 24–33.

Anderson, M.G., Katz, P.B., 1998. Strategic sourcing. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 9 (1), 1–13.Anderson, R., Reeb, D., 2003a. Founding-family ownership and firm performance:

evidence from S & P 500. J. Financ. 58 (3), 1301–1327.Anderson, R.C., Mansi, S.A., Reeb, D.M., 2003. Founding family ownership and the

agency cost of debt. J. Financ. Econ. 68 (2), 263–285.Anderson, R.C., Reeb, D.M., 2003a. Founding-family ownership, corporate

diversification, and firm leverage. J. Law Econ. 46 (2), 653–684.Anderson, R.C., Reeb, D.M., 2003b. Founding-family ownership, corporate

diversification, and firm leverage. J. Law Econ. 46 (2), 653–684.Arend, R.L., Wisner, J.D., 2005. Small business and supply chain management: is there a

fit? J. Bus. Ventur. 20 (3), 403–436.Astrachan, J.H., 2010. Strategy in family business: toward a multidimensional research

agenda. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 1 (1), 6–14.Astrachan, J.H., Jaskiewicz, P., 2008. Emotional returns and emotional costs in privately

held family businesses: advancing traditional business valuation. Fam. Bus. Rev. 21(2), 139–149.

Astrachan, J.H., Klein, S.B., Smyrnios, K.X., 2002. The F-PEC scale of family influence: aproposal for solving the family business definition problem. Fam. Bus. Rev. 15 (1),45–58.

Astrachan, J.H., Shanker, M.C., 2003. Family businesses' contribution to the U.S.economy: a closer look. Fam. Bus. Rev. 16 (3), 211–219.

Baron, R.A., 2008. The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Acad. Manag. Rev. 33(2), 328–340.

Benavides-Velasco, C.A., Quintana-García, C., Guzmán-Parra, V.F., 2013. Trends infamily business research. Small Bus. Econ. 40 (1), 41–57.

Bendoly, E., Croson, R., Goncalves, P., Schultz, K., 2010. Bodies of knowledge forresearch in behavioral operations. Prod. Oper. Manag. 19 (4), 434–452.

Bendoly, E., Donohue, K., Schultz, K.L., 2006. Behavior in operations management:assessing recent findings and revisiting old assumptions. J. Oper. Manag. 24 (6),737–752.

Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L.R., 2012. Socioemotional wealth in family firms:theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research.Fam. Bus. Rev. 25 (3), 258–279.

Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Larraza-Kintana, M., 2010. Socioemotionalwealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: do family-controlled firmspollute less? Adm. Sci. Q. 55 (1), 82–113.

Block, J.H., Wagner, M., 2014. The effect of family ownership on different dimensions ofcorporate social responsibility: evidence from large US firms. Bus. Strategy Environ.23 (7), 475–492.

Blodgett, M.S., Dumas, C., Zanzi, A., 2011. Emerging trends in global ethics: acomparative study of U.S. and international family business values. J. Bus. Ethics 99(1), 29–38.

Brigham, K.H., Lumpkin, G.T., Payne, G.T., Zachary, M.A., 2014. Researching long-termorientation: a validation study and recommendations for future research. Fam. Bus.Rev. 27 (1), 72–88.

Bruque, S., Moyano, J., 2007. Organisational determinants of information technologyadoption and implementation in SMEs: the case of family and cooperative firms.Technovation 27 (5), 241–253.

Bullington, K.E., Bullington, S.F., 2005. Stronger supply chain relationships: learningfrom research on strong families. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 10 (3/4), 192–197.

Campopiano, G., De Massis, A., Cassia, L., 2012. The relationship between motivationsand actions in corporate social responsibility: an exploratory study. Int. J. Bus. Soc.13 (3), 391–425.

Caniëls, M.C.J., Gehrsitz, M.H., Semeijn, J., 2013. Participation of suppliers in greeningsupply chains: an empirical analysis of German automotive suppliers. J. Purch.Supply Manag. 19 (3), 134–143.

Cappuyns, K., 2006. Internationalization of family business through strategic alliances:an exploratory study. In: Poutziouris, P.Z., Smyrnios, K.X., Klein, S.B. (Eds.),Handbook of Research on Family Business. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.,Northampton, 445–459.

Carland III, J.W., Carland, J.W., Jr., Carland, J.A.C., Pearce, J.W., 1995. Risk takingpropensity among entrepreneurs, small business owners and managers. J. Bus.Entrep. 7 (1), 15–23.

Carrigan, M., Buckley, J., 2008. 'What's so special about family business?' An exploratorystudy of UK and Irish consumer experiences of family businesses. International. J.Consum. Stud. 32 (6), 656–666.

Carroll, A.B., Shabana, K.M., 2010. The business case for corporate social responsibility:a review of concepts, research and practice. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 12 (1), 85–105.

Carter, C.R., Ellram, L.M., 2003. Thirty-five years of the Journal of supply chainmanagement: where have we been and where are we going? J. Supply Chain Manag.39 (1), 27–39.

Casillas, J.C., Moreno, A.M., Barbero, J.L., 2011. Entrepreneurial orientation of familyfirms: family and environmental dimensions. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 2 (2), 90–100.

Cassia, L., De Massis, A., Pizzurno, E., 2012. Strategic innovation and new productdevelopment in family firms. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 18 (2), 198–232.

Cennamo, C., Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L.R., 2012. Socioemotional wealth andproactive stakeholder engagement: why family-controlled firms care more abouttheir stakeholders. Entrep. Theory Pract. 36 (6), 1153–1173.

Chalhoub, M.S., 2011. Culture, management practices, and the entrepreneurialperformance of small and medium enterprises: applications and empirical study inthe Middle East. J. Small Bus. Entrep. 24 (1), 67–84.

Chena, I.J., Paulraja, A., Ladob, A.A., 2004. Strategic purchasing, supply management,and firm performance. J. Oper. Manag. 22 (5), 505–523.

Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J., De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Wright, M., 2015. The ability andwillingness paradox in family firm innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 32 (3),310–318.

Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J.H., Kellermanns, F.W., 2009. Priorities, resource stocks, andperformance in family and nonfamily firms. Entrep. Theory Pract. 33 (3), 739–760.

Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J.H., Sharma, P., 2005. Trends and directions in the developmentof a strategic management theory of the family firm. Entrep. Theory Pract. 29 (5),555–576.

Chrisman, J.J., Kellermanns, F.W., Chan, K.C., Liano, K., 2010. Intellectual foundationsof current research in family business: an identification and review of 25 influentialarticles. Fam. Bus. Rev. 23 (1), 9–26.

Christopher, M., Peck, H., 2004. Building the resilient supply chain. Int. J. Logist.Manag. 15 (2), 1–14.

Chua, J.H., Chrisman, J.J., Sharma, P., 1999. Defining the family business by behavior.Entrep. Theory Pract. 23 (4), 19–39.

Classen, N., Carree, M., Van Gils, A., Peters, B., 2014. Innovation in family and non-family SMEs: an exploratory analysis. Small Bus. Econ. 42 (3), 595–609.

Claver, E., Rienda, L., Quer, D., 2008. Family firms' risk perception: empirical evidenceon the internationalization process. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 15 (3), 457–471.

Craig, J., Dibrell, C., 2006. The natural environment, innovation, and firm performance:a comparative study. Fam. Bus. Rev. 19 (4), 275–288.

Craig, J.B., Dibrell, C., Davis, P.S., 2008. Leveraging family-based brand identity toenhance firm competitiveness and performance in family businesses. J. Small Bus.Manag. 46 (3), 351–371.


11

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1478-16)30087-sbref1













































































































Dacin, M.T., 1997. Isomorphism in context: the power and prescription of institutionalnorms. Acad. Manag. J. 40 (1), 46–81.

Das, A., Handfield, R.B., 1997. A meta-analysis of doctoral dissertations in purchasing. J.Oper. Manag. 15 (2), 101–121.

Daugherty, P.J., 2011. Review of logistics and supply chain relationship literature andsuggested research agenda. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 41 (1), 16–31.

De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Lichtenthaler, U., 2012. Research on technological innovationin family firms: present debates and future directions. Fam. Bus. Rev. 26 (1), 10–31.

Debicki, B.J., Matherne, C.F., Kellermanns, F.W., III, Chrisman, J.J., 2009. Familybusiness research in the new millennium: an overview of the who, the where, thewhat, and the why. Fam. Bus. Rev. 22 (2), 151–166.

Deephouse, D.L., 1996. Does isomorphism legitimate? Acad. Manag. J. 39 (4),1024–1039.

Delmar, F., Davidsson, P., Gartner, W.B., 2003. Arriving at the high-growth firm. J. Bus.Ventur. 18 (2), 189–216.

DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphismand collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48 (2), 147–160.

Donckels, R., Frolich, E., 1991. Are family businesses really different? Fam. Bus. Rev. 4(2), 149–160.

Duran, P., Kammerlander, N., van Essen, M., Zellweger, T., 2016. Doing more with less:innovation input and output in family firms. Acad. Manag. J. 59 (4), 1224–1264.

Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H., Oh, S., 1987. Developing buyer–seller relationships. J. Mark.51 (2), 11–27.

Dyer, J.H., Chu, W., 2003. The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs andimproving performance: empirical evidence from the United States. Jpn., KoreaOrgan. Sci. 14 (1), 57–68.

Dyer, J.H., Singh, H., 1998. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources ofinterorganizational competitive advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23 (4), 660–679.

Dyer Jr, W.G., 2006. Examining the “family effect” on firm performance. Fam. Bus. Rev.19 (4), 253–273.

Dyer Jr, W.G., Whetten, D.A., 2006. Family firms and social responsibility: preliminaryevidence from the S & P 500. Entrep. Theory Pract. 30 (6), 785–802.

Elkington, J., 1994. Towards the sustainable corporation: win-win-win businessstrategies for sustainable development. Calif. Manag. Rev. 36 (2), 90–100.

Ellegaard, C., 2006. Small company purchasing: a research agenda. J. Purch. SupplyManag. 12 (5), 272–283.

Ellram, L.M., 1990. The supplier selection decision in strategic partnerships. Int. J.Purch. Mater. Manag. 26 (4), 8–14.

European Family Businesses, 2016. Definition of a family business. (accessed 19.04.16),⟨www.europeanfamilybusinesses.eu/family-businesses/definition⟩.

EY, 2014. In harmony: family business cohesion and profitability. (accessed 28.07.15),⟨www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Family_business_cohesion_and_profitability/$FILE/EYFamilybusinesscohesionprofitability.pdf⟩.

Fahed-Sreih, J., Djoundourian, S., 2006. Determinants of longevity and success inLebanese family businesses: an exploratory study. Fam. Bus. Rev. 19 (3), 225–234.

Fairlie, R., 2013. Kaufmann index of entrepreneurial activity: 1996–2012, In: EwingMarion Kaufmann Foundation.

Family Firm Institute, 2015. Global data points. (accessed 14.07.15), ⟨www.ffi.org/?Page=GlobalDataPoints⟩.

File, K.M., Mack, J.L., Prince, R.A., 1994. Marketing to the family firm: a newconsideration for business-to-business marketers. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 9 (3), 64–72.

Frank, H., Lueger, M., Nose, L., Suchy, D., 2010. The concept of 'familiness': literaturereview and systems theory-based reflections. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 1 (3), 119–130.

Fuentes-Lombardo, G., Fernandez-Ortiz, R., 2010. Strategic alliances in theinternationalization of family firms: an exploratory study on the Spanish wineindustry. Adv. Manag. 3 (6), 45–54.

Gallo, M.A., 2004. The family business and its social responsibilities. Fam. Bus. Rev. 17(2), 135–149.

Gelderman, C.J., van Weele, A.J., 2005. Purchasing portfolio models: a critique andupdate. J. Supply Chain Manag. 41 (3), 19–28.

George, G., Wiklund, J., Zahra, S.A., 2005. Ownership and the internationalization ofsmall firms. J. Manag. 31 (2), 210–233.

Gersick, K.E., Davis, J.A., Hampton, M.M., Lansberg, I., 1997. Generation to generation:life cycles of the family business. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA.

Gino, F., Pisano, G.P., 2008. Toward a theory of behavioral operations. Manuf. Serv.Oper. Manag. 10 (4), 676–691.

Gligor, D.M., Autry, C.W., 2012. The role of personal relationships in facilitation supplychain communications: a qualitative study. J. Supply Chain Manag. 48 (1), 24–43.

Gligor, D.M., Holcomb, M., 2013. The role of personal relationships in supply chains: anexploration of buyers and suppliers of logistics services. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 24 (3),328–355.

Goldsby, T.J., Autry, C.W., 2011. Toward greater validation of supply chain managementtheory and concepts: the roles of research replication and meta-analysis. J. Bus.Logist. 32 (4), 324–331.

Gómez-Mejía, L.R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P., De Castro, J., 2011. The bind that ties:Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Acad. Manag. Ann. 5 (1),653–707.

Gómez-Mejía, L.R., Haynes, K.T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K.J.L., Moyano-Fuentes,J., 2007. Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms:evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Adm. Sci. Q. 52 (1), 106–137.

Gómez-Mejía, L.R., Larraza-Kintana, M., Makri, M., 2003. The determinants of executivecompensation in family-controlled public corporations. Acad. Manag. J. 46 (2),226–237.

Grimm, C., Knemeyer, M., Polyviou, M., Ren, X., 2015. Supply chain managementresearch in management journals: a review of recent literature (2004–2013). Int. J.Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 45 (5), 404–458.

Grudinschi, D., Sintonen, S., Hallikas, J., 2014. Relationship risk perception anddeterminants of the collaboration fluency of buyer–supplier relationships in publicservice procurement. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 20 (2), 82–91.

Gupta, V., Levenburg, N., Moore, L., Motwani, J., Schwarz, T., 2009. Anglo vs. Asianfamily business: a cultural comparison and analysis. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 3 (2), 46–55.

Hartmann, E., Kerkfeld, D., Henke, M., 2012. Top and bottom line relevance ofpurchasing and supply management. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 18 (1), 22–34.

Hiebl, M.R.W., 2014. Risk aversion in the family business: the dark side of caution. J.Bus. Strategy 35 (5), 38–42.

Hoejmose, S.U., Grosvold, J., Millington, A., 2014. The effect of institutional pressure oncooperative and coercive ‘green’ supply chain practices. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 20(4), 215–224.

Hoffmann, P., Schiele, H., Krabbendam, K., 2013. Uncertainty, supply risk managementand their impact on performance. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 19 (3), 199–211.

Horn, P., Schiele, H., Werner, W., 2013. The “ugly twins”: failed low-wage-countrysourcing projects and their expensive replacements. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 19 (1),27–38.

Huybrechts, J., Voordeckers, W., Lybaert, N., Vandemaele, S., 2011. The distinctivenessof family-firm intangibles: a review and suggestions for future research. J. Manag.Organ. 17 (2), 268–287.

Igarashi, M., de Boer, L., Fet, A.M., 2013. What is required for greener supplierselection? A literature review and conceptual model development. J. Purch. SupplyManag. 19 (4), 247–263.

International Family Enterprise Research Academy, 2003. family businesses dominate:international family enterprise Research Academy (IFERA). Fam. Bus. Rev. 16 (4),235–240.

Jayaram, J., Dixit, M., Motwani, J., 2014. Supply chain management capability of smalland medium sized family businesses in India: a multiple case study approach. Int. J.Prod. Econ. 147 (B), 472–485.

Johnsen, T.E., Giannakis, M., Paulraj, A., 2016. The character and significance of Nordicpurchasing and supply management research: a systematic review of the literature. J.Purch. Supply Manag. 22 (1), 41–52.

Johnson, N., Elliott, D., Drake, P., 2013. Exploring the role of social capital in facilitatingsupply chain resilience. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 18 (3), 324–336.

Johnson, P.F., Leenders, M.R., 2006. A longitudinal study of supply organizationalchange. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 12 (6), 332–342.

Johnson, P.F., Leenders, M.R., Fearon, H.E., 2006. Supply's growing status andinfluence: a sixteen-year perspective. J. Supply Chain Manag. 42 (2), 33–43.

Kache, F., Seuring, S., 2014. Linking collaboration and integration to risk andperformance in supply chains via a review of literature reviews. Supply ChainManag.: Int. J. 19 (5/6), 664–682.

Kang, M., Wu, X., Hong, P., Park, K., Park, Y., 2014. The role of organizational control inoutsourcing practices: an empirical study. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 20 (3), 177–185.

Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 2001. The strategy focused organization: how balancedscorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Harvard BusinessSchool Press, Boston, MA.

Karra, N., Tracey, P., Phillips, N., 2006. Altruism and agency in the family firm: exploringthe role of family, kinship, and ethnicity. Entrep. Theory Pract. 30 (6), 861–877.

König, A., Kammerlander, N., Enders, A., 2013. The family innovator's dilemma: howfamily influence affects the adoption of discontinuous technologies by incumbentfirms. Acad. Manag. Rev. 38 (3), 418–441.

Kraljic, P., 1983. Purchasing must become supply management. Harv. Bus. Rev. 61 (5),109–117.

La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., 1999. Corporate ownership around theworld. J. Financ. 54 (2), 471–517.

Le Breton-Miller, I., Miller, D., 2006. Why do some family businesses out-compete?Governance, long-term orientations, and sustainable capability. Entrep. TheoryPract. 30 (6), 731–746.

Lester, R.H., Cannella, A.A., Jr., 2006. Interorganizational familiness: how family firmsuse interlocking directorates to build community-level social capital. Entrep. TheoryPract. 30 (6), 755–775.

Levenburg, N.M., Magal, S.R., 2005. Applying importance-performance analysis toevaluate E-business strategies among small firms. e-Serv. J. 3 (3), 29–48.

Litz, R.A., Pearson, A.W., Litchfield, S., 2012. Charting the future of family businessresearch: perspectives from the field. Fam. Bus. Rev. 25 (1), 16–32.

Lumpkin, G.T., Brigham, K.H., 2011. Long-term orientation and intertemporal choice infamily firms. Entrep. Theory Pract. 35 (6), 1149–1169.

Lumpkin, G.T., Brigham, K.H., Moss, T.W., 2010. Long-term orientation: implicationsfor the entrepreneurial orientation and performance of family businesses. Entrep.Reg. Dev. 22 (3–4), 241–264.

Margolis, J.D., Walsh, J.P., 2003. Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives bybusiness. Adm. Sci. Q. 48 (2), 268–305.

Martinez, M.A., Aldrich, H.E., 2014. Sociological theories applied to family business. In:Melin, L., Nordqvist, M., Sharma, P. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of FamilyBusiness. SAGE Publications Ltd, London, 83–99.

McConaughy, D.L., 2000. Family CEOs vs. nonfamily CEOs in the family-controlled firm:an examination of the level and sensitivity of pay to performance. Fam. Bus. Rev. 13(2), 121–131.

Mehrotra, V., Morck, R., Shim, J., Wiwattanakantang, Y., 2011. Must love kill the familyfirm? Some exploratory evidence. Entrep. Theory Pract. 35 (6), 1121–1148.

Melin, L., Nordqvist, M., Sharma, P., 2014. The SAGE Handbook of Family Business.SAGE Publications Ltd, London.

Memili, E., Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J.H., Chang, E.P.C., Kellermanns, F.W., 2011. Thedeterminants of family firms’ subcontracting: a transaction cost perspective. J. Fam.Bus. Strategy 2 (1), 26–33.

Micelotta, E.R., Raynard, M., 2011. Concealing or revealing the family? Corporate brand


12







































http://www.europeanfamilybusinesses.eu/family-businesses/definition

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Family_business_cohesion_and_profitability/FILE/EYFamilybusinesscohesionprofitability.pdf

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Family_business_cohesion_and_profitability/FILE/EYFamilybusinesscohesionprofitability.pdf



http://www.ffi.org/?Page=GlobalDataPoints

http://www.ffi.org/?Page=GlobalDataPoints




























































































































identity strategies in family firms. Fam. Bus. Rev. 24 (3), 197–216.Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., 2014. Deconstructing socioemotional wealth. Entrep.

Theory Pract. 38 (4), 713–720.Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., Lester, R.H., 2013. Family firm governance, strategic

conformity and performance: institutional versus strategic perspectives. Organ. Sci.24 (1), 189–209.

Mishra, C.S., McConaughy, D.L., 1999. Founding family control and capital structure: therisk of loss of control and the aversion to debt. Entrep. Theory Pract. 23 (4), 53–64.

Morck, R., Yeung, B., 2004. Family control and the rent-seeking society. Entrep. TheoryPract. 28 (4), 391–409.

Morgan, R.M., Hunt, S.D., 1994. The commitment–trust theory of relationshipmarketing. J. Mark. 58 (3), 20–38.

Morlacchi, P., Lamming, R., Wynstra, F., 2002. IPSERA: ten years and beyond. Eur. J.Purch. Supply Manag. 8 (1), 63–70.

Najafi, N., Dubois, A., Hulthén, K., 2013. Opportunism or strategic opportunity seeking?Three approaches to emerging country sourcing. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 19 (1),49–57.

Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., Sjöberg, K., Wiklund, J., 2007. Entrepreneurial orientation, risktaking, and performance in family firms. Fam. Bus. Rev. 20 (1), 33–47.

Niemelä, T., 2004. Interfirm cooperation capability in the context of networking familyfirms: the role of power. Fam. Bus. Rev. 17 (4), 319–330.

O’Boyle Jr, E.H., Rutherford, M.W., Pollack, J.M., 2010. Examining the relation betweenethical focus and financial performance in family firms: an exploratory study. Fam.Bus. Rev. 23 (4), 310–326.

Ogbonna, E., Harris, L.C., 2005. The adoption and use of information technology: alongitudinal study of a mature family firm. New Technol., Work Employ. 20 (1),2–18.

Olson, P.D., Zuiker, V.S., Danes, S.M., Stafford, K., Heck, R.K.Z., Duncan, K.A., 2003.The impact of the family and the business on family business sustainability. J. Bus.Ventur. 18 (5), 639–666.

Padhi, S.S., Wagner, S.M., Aggarwal, V., 2012. Positioning of commodities using theKraljic portfolio matrix. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 18 (1), 1–8.

Patel, V.K., Pieper, T.M., Jr., J.F.H, 2012. The global family business: challenges anddrivers for cross-border growth. Bus. Horiz. 55 (3), 231–239.

Pearson, A.W., Holt, D.T., Carr, J.C., 2014. Scales in family business studies. In: Melin,L., Nordqvist, M., Sharma, P. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Family Business. SAGEPublications Ltd, London, 33–44.

Pereira, C.R., Christopher, M., Lago Da Silva, A., 2014. Achieving supply chain resilience:the role of procurement. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 19 (5/6), 626–642.

Pieper, T.M., 2007. Mechanisms to assure long-term family business survival: a study ofthe dynamics of cohesion in multigenerational family business families. SaarlandUniversity Saarbrücken, Frankfurt, Germany.

Power, D., 2005. Supply chain management integration and implementation: a literaturereview. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 10 (3/4), 252–263.

Presutti Jr, W.D., 2003. Supply management and e-procurement: creating value added inthe supply chain. Ind. Mark. Manag. 32 (2), 219–226.

Puschmann, T., Alt, R., 2005. Successful use of e‐procurement in supply chains. SupplyChain Manag.: Int. J. 10 (2), 122–133.

Quarshie, A.M., Salmi, A., Leuschner, R., 2016. Sustainability and corporate socialresponsibility in supply chains: the state of research in supply chain managementand business ethics journals. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 22 (2), 82–97.

Rehme, J., Nordigården, D., Brege, S., Chicksand, D., 2013. Outsourcing to a non-developed supplier market: the importance of operational aspects in outsourcing. J.Purch. Supply Manag. 19 (4), 227–237.

Rodrigues, S.B., Child, J., 2012. Building social capital for internationalization. Rev. De.Adm. Contemp. 16 (1), 23–38.

Roessl, D., 2005. Family businesses and interfirm cooperation. Fam. Bus. Rev. 18 (3),203–214.

Romano, C.A., Tanewski, G.A., Smyrnios, K.X., 2001. Capital structure decision making:a model for family business. J. Bus. Ventur. 16 (3), 285–310.

Sancha, C., Longoni, A., Giménez, C., 2015. Sustainable supplier development practices:drivers and enablers in a global context. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 21 (2), 95–102.

Sanders, N.R., Zacharia, Z.G., Fúgate, B.S., 2013. The interdisciplinary future of supplychain management research. Decis. Sci. 44 (3), 413–429.

Schoenherr, T., Modi, S.B., Benton, W.C., Carter, C.R., Choi, T.Y., Larson, P.D., Leenders,M.R., Mabert, V.A., Narasimhan, R., Wagnei, S.M., 2012. Research opportunities inpurchasing and supply management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50 (16), 4556–4579.

Schoenherr, T., Tummala, V.M.R., 2007. Electronic procurement: a structured literaturereview and directions for future research. Int. J. Procure. Manag. 1 (1/2), 8–37.

Schulze, W.S., Kellermanns, F.W., 2015. Reifying socioemotional wealth. Entrep. TheoryPract. 39 (3), 447–459.

Schulze, W.S., Lubatkin, M.H., Dino, R.N., 2003. Exploring the agency consequences ofownership dispersion among the directors of private family firms. Acad. Manag. J. 46(2), 179–194.

Schulze, W.S., Lubatkin, M.H., Dino, R.N., Buchholtz, A.K., 2001. Agency relationshipsin family firms: theory and evidence. Organ. Sci. 12 (2), 99–116.

Sciascia, S., Nordqvist, M., Mazzola, P., De Massis, A., 2015. Family ownership and R&Dintensity in small and medium sized firms. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 32 (3), 349–360.

Sharma, P., De Massis, A., Gagné, M., 2014. Family business: a fertile ground forresearch on time, teams and positive organizational study. Eur. J. Work Organ.Psychol. 23 (5), 674–679.

Sharma, P., Sharma, S., 2011. Drivers of proactive environmental strategy in familyfirms. Bus. Ethics Q. 21 (2), 309–334.

Simpson, D., Meredith, J., Boyer, K., Dilts, D., Ellram, L.M., Leong, G.K., 2015.Professional, research, and publishing trends in operations and supply chainmanagement. J. Supply Chain Manag. 51 (3), 87–100.

Sjoerdsma, M., van Weele, A.J., 2015. Managing supplier relationships in a new productdevelopment context. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 21 (3), 192–203.

Smart, A., Harrison, A., 2003. Online reverse auctions and their role in buyer–supplierrelationships. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 9 (5–6), 257–268.

Smith, D., Hair, J.F., Jr., Ferguson, K., 2014. An investigation of the effect of familyinfluence on commitment–trust in retailer–vendor strategic partnerships. J. Fam.Bus. Strategy 5 (3), 252–263.

Songini, L., 2006. The professionalization of family firms: theory and practice. In:Poutziouris, P.Z., Smyrnios, K.X., Klein, S.B. (Eds.), Handbook of Research onFamily Business. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., Northampton, MA, 269–297.

Spina, G., Caniato, F., Luzzini, D., Ronchi, S., 2013. Past, present and future trends ofpurchasing and supply management: an extensive literature review. Ind. Mark.Manag. 42 (8), 1202–1212.

Spina, G., Caniato, F., Luzzini, D., Ronchi, S., 2016. Assessing the use of external grandtheories in purchasing and supply management research. J. Purch. Supply Manag.22 (1), 18–30.

Stafford, K., Danes, S.M., Haynes, G.W., 2013. Long-term family firm survival andgrowth considering owning family adaptive capacity and federal disaster assistancereceipt. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 4 (3), 188–200.

Stafford, K., Duncan, K.A., Danes, S., Winter, M., 1999. A research model of sustainablefamily businesses. Fam. Bus. Rev. 12 (3), 197–208.

Stanley, L.J., McDowell, W., 2014. The role of interorganizational trust andorganizational efficacy in family and nonfamily firms. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 5 (3),264–275.

Stewart, A., Hitt, M.A., 2012. Why can’t a family business be more like a nonfamilybusiness? Modes of professionalization in family firms. Fam. Bus. Rev. 25 (1),58–86.

Stoy Hayward/BBC, 1992. The Stoy Hayward/BBC family business index, London.Sundaramurthy, C., Lewis, M., 2003. Control and collaboration: paradoxes of

governance. Acad. Manag. J. 28 (3), 397–415.Thakkar, J., Arun, K., Deshmukh, S.G., 2008. Supply chain management in SMEs:

development of constructs and propositions. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 20 (1),97–131.

Touboulic, A., Walker, H., 2015. Love me, love me not: a nuanced view on collaborationin sustainable supply chains. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 21 (3), 178–191.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developingevidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J.Manag. 14 (3), 207–222.

Uhlaner, L.M., 2006. Business family as a team: underlying force for sustainedcompetitive advantage. In: Poutziouris, P.Z., Smyrnios, K.X., Klein, S.B. (Eds.),Handbook of Research on Family Business.. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc,Northampton, MA, 125–144.

Uhlaner, L.M., van Goor-Balk, H.J.M., Masurel, E., 2004. Family business and corporatesocial responsibility in a sample of Dutch firms. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 11 (2),186–194.

Upton, N., Teal, E.J., Felan, J.T., 2001. Strategic and business planning practices of fastgrowth family firms. J. Small Bus. Manag. 39 (1), 60–72.

Uy, A.O.O., 2014. A study of agency costs in Filipino firms. DLSU Research Congress,Manila, Philippines, 1–4.

van Weele, A.J., van Raaij, E.M., 2014. The future of purchasing and supply managementresearch: about relevance and rigor. J. Supply Chain Manag. 50 (1), 56–72.

Verhees, F.J.H.M., Meulenberg, M.T.G., 2004. Market orientation, innovativeness,product innovation, and performance in small firms. J. Small Bus. Manag. 42 (2),134–154.

Villalonga, B., Amit, R., 2006. How do family ownership, control and management affectfirm value? J. Financ. Econ. 80 (2), 385–417.

Wang, Y., Panikkos, P., 2010. Entrepreneurial risk taking: empirical evidence from UKfamily firms. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 16 (5), 370–388.

Watts, C.A., Kim, K.Y., Hahn, C.K., 1995. Linking purchasing to corporate competitivestrategy. Int. J. Purch. Mater. Manag. 31 (1), 2–8.

Westhead, P., Cowling, M., Howorth, C., 2001. The development of family companies:management and ownership imperatives. Fam. Bus. Rev. 14 (4), 369–385.

Whitney, D.E., Luo, J., Heller, D.A., 2014. The benefits and constraints of temporarysourcing diversification in supply chain disruption and recovery. J. Purch. SupplyManag. 20 (4), 238–250.

Wiklund, J., 2006. Commentary: “family firms and social responsibility: preliminaryevidence from the S & P 500”. Entrep. Theory Pract. 30 (6), 803–808.

Wiseman, R., Gómez-Mejía, L.R., 1998. A behavioral agency model of managerial risktaking. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23 (1), 133–153.

Wooi, G.C., Zailani, S., 2010. Green supply chain initiatives: investigation on the barriersin the context of SMEs in Malaysia. Int. Bus. Manag. 4 (1), 20–27.

Wortman Jr, M.S., 1994. Theoretical foundations for family-owned business: aconceptual and research-based paradigm. Fam. Bus. Rev. 7 (1), 3–27.

Wynstra, F., 2010. What did we do, who did it and did it matter? A review of fifteenvolumes of the (European) Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. J. Purch.Supply Manag. 16 (4), 279–292.

Wynstra, F., 2016. Past, present and future trends of purchasing and supplymanagement: an extensive literature review. A review and outlook. In: Bartezzaghi,E., Cagliano, R., Caniato, F., Ronchi, S. (Eds.), A Journey through Manufacturingand Supply Chain Strategy Research. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland,199–228.

Yu, A., Lumpkin, G.T., Sorenson, R.L., Brigham, K.H., 2012. The landscape of familybusiness outcomes: a summary and numerical taxonomy of dependent variables.Fam. Bus. Rev. 25 (1), 33–57.

Zahra, S.A., 2005. Entrepreneurial risk taking in family firms. Fam. Bus. Rev. 18 (1),23–40.


13












































































































































































Zahra, S.A., 2010. Harvesting family firms' organizational social capital: a relationalperspective. J. Manag. Stud. 47 (2), 345–366.

Zellweger, T., Meister, R., Fueglistaller, U., 2007. The outperformance of family firms:the role of variance in earnings per share and analyst forecast dispersion on the Swissmarket. Financ. Mark. Portf. Manag. 21 (2), 203–220.

Zellweger, T.M., Astrachan, J.H., 2008. On the emotional value of owning a firm. Fam.Bus. Rev. 21 (4), 347–363.

Zellweger, T.M., Nason, R.S., Nordqvist, M., 2012. From longevity of firms to

transgenerational entrepreneurship of families: Introducing family entrepreneurialorientation. Fam. Bus. Rev. 25 (2), 136–155.

Zheng, J., Knight, L., Harland, C., Humby, S., James, K., 2007. An analysis of researchinto the future of purchasing and supply management. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 13(1), 69–83.

Zimmermann, F., Foerstl, K., 2014. A meta-analysis of the “purchasing and supplymanagement practice–performance link. J. Supply Chain Manag. 50 (3), 37–54.


14
















Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management · Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ... Supply...

Documents

Transcript of Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management · Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management ... Supply...