Impact of second-, third- and fourth-generation family firms on ESG performance
| Full sample | Matched sample | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
| Variable | ESG | ENV | CG | SOC | ESG | ENV | CG | SOC |
| 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation | 4.148*** (3.20) | 9.635*** (5.41) | 3.211*** (3.06) | 5.802*** (3.68) | 1.822*** (2.71) | 5.964*** (2.71) | 2.178*** (3.63) | 3.055*** (2.97) |
| AGE | 0.116 (0.97) | 0.0672 (0.41) | 0.490*** (3.01) | 0.224 (1.54) | 0.182*** (3.36) | 0.276*** (3.40) | 0.697** (2.12) | 0.529* (1.84) |
| TA | 5.403*** (46.90) | 7.162*** (45.21) | 3.517*** (22.44) | 5.288*** (37.74) | 3.622*** (5.66) | 5.361*** (6.17) | 1.340*** (2.56) | 4.177*** (5.32) |
| Equity | 2.759*** (23.66) | 2.992*** (18.66) | 2.240*** (14.12) | 3.136*** (22.11) | 3.992*** (6.26) | 4.290*** (4.95) | 4.091*** (4.78) | 3.686*** (4.71) |
| Leverage | 5.545*** (9.18) | 2.859*** (3.44) | 6.780*** (8.25) | 5.938*** (8.08) | 7.652*** (2.56) | 7.244* (1.78) | 5.842 (1.46) | 9.134** (2.49) |
| ROA | 0.00400 (0.17) | 0.0475 (1.51) | 0.00689 (0.22) | 0.0252 (0.90) | 8.274** (2.09) | 7.897*** (2.57) | 16.70*** (3.14) | 4.812** (2.17) |
| Industry | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Country | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| _cons | −22.22*** (−26.79) | −39.09*** (−34.27) | −3.708** (−3.29) | −22.55*** (−22.35) | −18.01*** (−4.59) | −37.41*** (−7.01) | 0.958 (0.18) | −18.50*** (−3.84) |
| N | 23,226 | 23,226 | 23,226 | 23,226 | 779 | 779 | 779 | 779 |
| R2 | 0.446 | 0.414 | 0.185 | 0.410 | 0.556 | 0.512 | 0.305 | 0.534 |
| adj. R2 | 0.445 | 0.414 | 0.184 | 0.409 | 0.536 | 0.491 | 0.274 | 0.514 |
| Full sample | Matched sample | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
| Variable | ||||||||
| 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation | 4.148 | 9.635 | 3.211 | 5.802 | 1.822 | 5.964 | 2.178 | 3.055 |
| 0.116 (0.97) | 0.0672 (0.41) | 0.490 | 0.224 (1.54) | 0.182 | 0.276 | 0.697 | 0.529 | |
| 5.403 | 7.162 | 3.517 | 5.288 | 3.622 | 5.361 | 1.340 | 4.177 | |
| 2.759 | 2.992 | 2.240 | 3.136 | 3.992 | 4.290 | 4.091 | 3.686 | |
| 5.545 | 2.859 | 6.780 | 5.938 | 7.652 | 7.244 | 5.842 (1.46) | 9.134 | |
| 0.00400 (0.17) | 0.0475 (1.51) | 0.00689 (0.22) | 0.0252 (0.90) | 8.274 | 7.897 | 16.70 | 4.812 | |
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| −22.22 | −39.09 | −3.708 | −22.55 | −18.01 | −37.41 | 0.958 (0.18) | −18.50 | |
| 23,226 | 23,226 | 23,226 | 23,226 | 779 | 779 | 779 | 779 | |
| 0.446 | 0.414 | 0.185 | 0.410 | 0.556 | 0.512 | 0.305 | 0.534 | |
| adj. | 0.445 | 0.414 | 0.184 | 0.409 | 0.536 | 0.491 | 0.274 | 0.514 |
This table presents regression results examining the influence of second-, third- and fourth-generation family firms on environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance. Columns (1)–(4) depict findings from the full sample, while Columns (5)–(8) focus on the matched sample, using propensity score matching to mitigate selection bias issue. *, ** and *** Indicate statistical significance at the 10, 5 and 1% levels, respectively
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.