The Role of Missionary and Darwinian Founder Identities for Family Firm Philanthropy

Family Firm Philanthropy

Over the last decade, research focusing on philanthropy of family firms has started to flourish, given the prevalence of this type of organization around the world, but also because of their focus on non-financial goals. Initial research indicates that comparing family firms to non-family firms does not yield straightforward insights. Instead, these studies do not detect a general difference between family and non-family firms with regard to firm philanthropy but reveal the complex dynamics and motives driving family firm philanthropy (Atkinson & Galaskiewicz, 1988; Campopiano et al., 2014; Ge & Micelotta, 2019). While some studies (Dou et al., 2014) argue that family firms should express higher engagement in philanthropy due to their socioemotional wealth considerations, other studies highlight the parsimonious behavior of family firms, particularly if family members are involved in firm ownership and management (Campopiano et al., 2014), given that each investment in philanthropy reduces the owners’ own financial resources. ²

Highlighting this complexity, studies have uncovered the importance of context for family firm philanthropy (Bhatnagar et al., 2019, 2020; Ge & Micelotta, 2019) and the need to balance the overreliance on insights deriving from the United States (Feliu & Botero, 2016). Studies have also started to reveal important and unique drivers of family firm philanthropy, notably the quest to have a favorable family firm reputation (Bhatnagar et al., 2020; Ge & Micelotta, 2019; Harvey et al., 2011; Uhlaner et al., 2004), an upcoming family firm succession (Y. Pan et al., 2018), and the gender of family members (Campopiano et al., 2019). Collectively, scholars stress that family firm philanthropy can be driven by instrumental motives—such as to promote a favorable reputation (Ge & Micelotta, 2019) or to cover up corporate misconduct (Du, 2015)—as well as by value-based motivations (Astrachan et al., 2020; Feliu & Botero, 2016). The most common value-based motivation of family owners to engage in philanthropy is the desire to promote family members’ positive self-concepts and identification with the firm (Breeze, 2009). However, so far, we do not know anything about how the early days of the family firms, that is, the time of the founder, affect philanthropy. This is astonishing given that family firm research has already identified a substantial founder effect on other aspects of family firm behavior, such as innovation (Erdogan et al., 2020; Kammerlander et al., 2015) or entrepreneurship (Jaskiewicz et al., 2015). In particular—although various scholars highlight identity enhancement as a key motivation to engage in philanthropy—we do not yet know how the identity of the founder shapes family firm philanthropy. In this context, our study explores the role of the founder identity on family firm philanthropy. Doing so, we draw on two primary founder identity types—“Missionary founders” and “Darwinian founders” (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011; Sieger et al., 2016).

Missionary Founder Identity and Family Firm Philanthropy

The Missionary founder identity, as described by Fauchart and Gruber (2011), is characterized by the founder’s belief that firms ought to be change agents of society. As such, Missionary founders seek to fulfill their political vision and advance social causes through the firms they create (Ko & Kim, 2020). Missionary founders are driven to make the world a better place and to act responsibly and empathetically. They self-evaluate their actions through their own and their firms’ contributions to humanity and view their firms as role models for society. Missionary founders are determined to introduce new social practices and to show that a transformational change of the status quo is indeed possible (Sieger et al., 2016).

Although the insights generated by Fauchart and Gruber (2011) make a powerful contribution to the existing literature on founders, they have not yet fully reached the adjacent literature streams focusing on social motivations and outcomes, notably scholarship exploring the nexus between philanthropy and entrepreneurial firms such as family firms (Anheier & Leat, 2006; Dees, 2008; Maclean & Harvey, 2016). As a result, the influence of the founder’s Missionary identity on family businesses and their philanthropic efforts remains unexplored. This lack of insight is particularly surprising because Fauchart and Gruber (2011) hold that Missionary founders imprint the firms they create with their distinct self-concepts (Stinchcombe, 1965) and thus have long-lasting effects on the organizations’ social contributions. Specifically, research has revealed that values and visions of founders often persist beyond the founder’s departure from the firm (Geroski et al., 2010; Kimberly & Bouchikhi, 1995; Ogbonna & Harris, 2001).

The emerging literature on philanthropy in entrepreneurial firms finds that—in line with the Missionary founder identity—the “self” and “society” are intertwined for founders who choose to engage substantially in philanthropy through their firms (Giddens, 1991; Maclean & Harvey, 2020). As a result, these founders often identify as game changers or social crusaders (Maclean & Harvey, 2020). As such, the self-concept of Missionary founders involves seeking to change the status quo and promote their firms as role models for leading such holistic shifts.

We argue that Missionary founders who pursue a social mission through their firms upon venture creation are also driven by transformational motives once the firm is established; such identity hence promotes the family firm’s philanthropic engagement. Missionary founders are likely to embed their self-concept in their firms, which are intended to become change agents of society (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011) through a long-term philanthropic vision and investment. Accordingly, the founder’s family members, who are aware of the founder’s identity, are likely to uphold and extend the social mission of the founder beyond the start-up context. Specifically, the knowledge about the founder’s Missionary identity motivates later-generation family members to pursue a wider social vision for their organization by engaging in philanthropic causes.

Several family business studies have argued and provided support for the long-term effects of founding values. Hence, we argue that in the context of philanthropy, the family business is characterized by high levels of empathy among its key decision makers (McDonald & Messinger, 2011; Smith, 2006), which can be traced back to the missionary identity of the founder. Such empathy is associated with an enhanced sensitivity to injustice and inequality in the world (Smith, 2006). As a consequence, and in line with the missionary founder, the key decision makers of the family business are likely to perceive themselves as citizen of the world (Sieger et al., 2016) and hence to connect with disadvantaged groups regardless of personal ties or self-serving interests. Hence, being aware of the founder’s missionary identity promotes the firm’s holistic and substantial philanthropic engagement. The instilled feeling of social responsibility (Ko & Kim, 2020), the urge to revise the status quo in society (Wry & York, 2017) and the mission to advance a social cause (Gruber & MacMillan, 2017), which are all triggered by the awareness of family business having been started by a Missionary founder, increases family firm philanthropy. This leads us to the following hypothesis:

Moderating Role of Family Generation on Missionary Founder Identity

Although scholars emphasize the effect of founder identities on their firms (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011), it remains little understood how different generations of family members perceive the founder’s identity and its relevance for the firm. Specifically, it remains unclear how the influence of the founder changes over time (Coman & Casey, 2020). This lack of knowledge seems particularly pertinent, as we currently do not know whether the influence of the founder on the organization becomes stronger or weaker over generations. Hence, we are interested in the moderating effect of family generations on the role of the Missionary founder identity for family firm philanthropy.

Research indicates that over time, the founder’s identity may become an emotionally laden testimony of commitment (Sasaki et al., 2020) that creates a sense of purpose (Carton, 2018) and strongly influences current firm behavior (Hatch & Schultz, 2017; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006). Interestingly, recent studies highlight that subsequent generations of family members can selectively cherish those aspects of the past that they perceive as desirable (Sasaki et al., 2020). In line with such literature, we argue that the founder’s Missionary identity is a source of great pride for the business family and that the founder’s apparently noble character and dedication to social causes will be cherished and idealized by later family generations. ³ Over generations, the founder will become an important figurehead who enhances the family members’ collective identity with the founder’s missionary beliefs and societal values. As a result, these inheritor generations of family members are likely to enact and re-interpret the founder’s missionary identity by engaging in modern-day philanthropy through the family firm (cf. Bhatnagar et al., 2019, 2020). The more generations that have passed on the family firm since its inception, the prouder current family members are likely to be about the founder’s mission of doing good for society and their long history of giving back to society. As a consequence, their motivation to step into the founder’s footsteps by perpetuating the firm’s commitment toward philanthropy will increase over time. Accordingly, we propose that the number of generations between the founder and the current family business owners will moderate the relationship between a Missionary founder identity and family firm philanthropy. As such, later generation family members are particularly likely to enact the missionary identity of the founder by engaging in family firm philanthropy. Such charitable engagements enhance their sense of self-worth by—stepping in their ancestor’s footsteps—doing their “bit” for today’s society (Maclean & Harvey, 2020). To summarize, we argue,

Darwinian Founder Identity and Family Firm Philanthropy

In contrast to Missionary founders, Darwinian founders create their firms with the primary intention to generate profits and accumulate personal wealth (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011). Accordingly, these founders focus on establishing profitable, financially successful firms rather than attending to social or emotional matters (N. D. Pan et al., 2019). The Darwinian identity promotes a generic approach to venturing, unattached to a certain industry or community, and an appreciation for a professional “business school” approach to creating and running a firm (Sieger et al., 2016). As a result, Darwinian founders perceive other players in the industry as rivals and focus on achieving a competitive advantage (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011). Darwinian founders put themselves, and their firms, at the core of their considerations because they perceive themselves to be distinct from others and thus act primarily in a self-interested way by pursuing their own economic goals (Gruber & MacMillan, 2017). Accordingly, Darwinian founders seek to identify and explore the most profitable market segments. Moreover, Darwinian founders focus their attention on commercially successful products that satisfy important and already known customer needs. With economic profits in mind, Darwinian founders often choose mass production methods, relying on low-wage countries. Prior studies revealed that Darwinian founders score the lowest in terms of social inclusiveness among the proposed identity types (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011; Gruber & MacMillan, 2017; Sieger et al., 2016).

Having outlined the essence of the Darwinian identity, we hypothesize that this identity type of the firm founder will also influence the family firm’s later philanthropic engagement. Taking the perspective that philanthropy and social engagement in general is frequently carried out in an instrumental way (Chiu & Sharfman, 2011), one might assume that a Darwinian identity fosters philanthropic investment, as long as it increases the family’s social status in society or helps the business attract and retain talent to the firm (Feliu & Botero, 2016; Niehm et al., 2008). For instance, Darwinian-infused family firms might recognize the value of philanthropy because, in particular, talents valuing self-transcendence, who are motivated to improve environmental and societal conditions, tend to have a positive view of family firms (Hauswald et al., 2016) and hence might contribute to the family firm’s stock of human capital. Yet in this article, we argue that the predominant stance of a firm instilled by the founder’s Darwinian values and beliefs is that philanthropy—because it is, by definition, a non-profit investment (Maclean & Harvey, 2020)—detracts financial resources from the business. As such, we predict that family firm members, who remember well the Darwinian approach of their firm’s founder, might be more hesitant to invest in philanthropy, in particular when it refers to considering disadvantaged individuals or communities, which are not or only loosely connected to the firm. Unlike corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities which relate to the firm’s core operations and can thus be of strategic importance, and environmental improvements, which are often financially attractive for the firm due to cost reduction, philanthropy—which refers to giving back and making a difference to society beyond the firm and its owning family (cf. Maclean & Harvey, 2020)—does not provide direct and obvious financial benefits to the firm. As a result, we assume that—lacking the inherent focus on social inequalities and attending first and foremost to their economic self-interest—the Darwinian identity decreases philanthropy in the initial family firm stage. Along the lines argued above, we also assume that such an approach to philanthropy has a long-lasting effect on the family firm, also affecting the philanthropic engagement after the founder’s exit. The founder’s descendants who are knowledgeable about their ancestor’s values and business approach likely cherish her or him for the business acumen, the parsimony, and the entrepreneurial success. Given the stories they might have heard about their family business’s past, they will likely not connect “business” with “charitable actions.” As such, we assume that the Darwinian founder’s critical stance toward firm-level philanthropy will last in the respective family firms. Put formally,

Moderating Role of Transgenerational Control Intentions on Darwinian Founder Identity

In the context of family firms, transgenerational role intentions (TCI) often play a decisive role in family owners’ sense- and decision making (Zellweger et al., 2012). TCI reflects the goal to hand the firm over to subsequent generations, ensuring continued control over the firm by family members (Brinkerink & Bammens, 2018; Matzler et al., 2015; Miller et al., 2011). When pursuing TCI, family firm decision makers focus on their long-term family goals and perceive the firm as a vehicle to address the family’s needs over generations (Brinkerink & Bammens, 2018; Miller et al., 2011). Family-internal succession of top management positions in the firm forms a central part of the family’s TCI, as such a succession secures and cements the family’s long-term control over the firm (Klein et al., 2005). TCI is often referred to as the most distinguished feature of family firms, directing family members’ attention toward long-term family goals, most importantly the wish to ensure continued control over the firm, which ultimately affects strategic decisions on firm level (Chua et al., 1999; Hoffmann et al., 2019; Zellweger et al., 2012). Most notably, family owners pursuing TCI are particularly incentivized to invest in the firm’s favorable reputation (Zellweger et al., 2013) to enhance the attractiveness of succession for next-generation family members. The underlying rationale is that next-gen family members will more likely commit their future professional life to the family firm if it has a good reputation, which might spill over to the family members themselves.

However, members of different business families differ in the extent to which they pursue TCI: Whereas some families find intra-family succession rather undesirable as they do not want to constrain their kids’ future (professional) lives, for others it constitutes the raison d’être of the firm (Zellweger et al., 2013). The level of TCI is likely to impact the degree of family members’ social identification with the firm. Research has argued that family members generally tend to identify more strongly with their firm, compared to employees without such family connections, because they are more aware of their group membership, value it, and are emotionally invested in it (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013; Tajfel, 1982). Moreover, especially in cases of high levels of TCI, the firm constitutes a vital part of their personal life, enhancing the self-identification with the firm (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013; Dyer & Whetten, 2006; Zellweger et al., 2013), resulting in self-reinforcement: As a result of TCI, family members highly value the security that comes with owning the firm over generations and perceive this as an important benefit, which again fosters their social identification with the business (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013). Finally, if TCI is high, family members are likely to be emotionally invested in the firm and care for its long-term survival, enhancing the centrality of their social identity derived through family firm membership (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; Zellweger et al., 2012). To the contrary, when TCI is low, family firm decision makers might perceive their business as merely a useful means to finance their lifestyle, leading them to opt for potentially selling the business at a later stage in their life rather than handing it over to the next generation (Dehlen et al., 2014).

Given the decisive yet divisive role of TCI for family firms, we explore its moderating role in the above-argued relationship. ⁴ Specifically, we argue that TCI weakens the effect of the imprinted Darwinian founder identity on family firm philanthropy. This is because engaging in philanthropy becomes strategically important when the family pursues TCI (Y. Pan et al., 2018), even if the self-interested Darwinian beliefs permeate the family firm. The reason is that a firm’s engagement in philanthropy has been proven to increase its reputation (Uhlaner et al., 2004). We thus argue that if TCI is high, philanthropy is more aligned with the Darwinian identity because it increases the self-interested motive to engage in philanthropy. In other words, even though the original founder identity would not encourage philanthropy, their high identification with the firm and desire to motivate their offspring to take over, will motivate decision-makers in firms with Darwinian founder identity and high levels of TCI to invest in philanthropy; the rationale is that such philanthropic investment will enhance firm reputation and hence make succession more attractive for the next generation, which fulfills the underlying needs of TCI. In the absence of TCI, however, family firms influenced by a Darwinian founder might still conclude that philanthropy is an expense that does not provide measurable benefits to the firm, as argued above in H3. However, if TCI is high, this might change as TCI shifts family members’ emphasis on family goals rather than firm goals, specifically securing the firm into the next generation.

Specifically, family owners who strive for transgenerational continuity need to convince their offspring to take a successor role. Presenting the family firm as a “good citizen” that helps reduce some of the most important problems of the world can help increase the attractiveness of family firm succession, as philanthropy generates positive external perceptions of the firm and its owning family, which can translate into reputational capital (Bingham et al., 2011; Schwass & Lief, 2008; Uhlaner et al., 2004). As such, transgenerational control intentions might weaken the effect of the founder’s Darwinian identity on philanthropy due to the instilled high level of social identification and the concern of family owners to present themselves and their firm in a favorable light. As such, we expect a self-interested, reputational incentive to engage in philanthropy when Darwinian founder values and beliefs coincide with TCI of family business owners, who strongly identify with the firm and who prioritize family goals over business goals. The family members might strategically rely on philanthropy to polish the firm-inside and firm-outside image of the family firm, and such a polished image is likely to enhance the next generation’s identification with the firm (cf. Berrone et al., 2012), increasing the attractiveness of a family-internal succession. To summarize, we argue,

Sample and Statistical Procedure

To test the hypotheses, we relied on an international survey, conducted in partnership with a global professional services firm. The international focus was chosen to allow for identifying globally relevant findings, given that both founder importance and importance of philanthropy might depend on the institutional context (Feliu & Botero, 2016). The entire survey was dedicated to exploring family firm philanthropy. Data were collected through a telephone survey administered to family firm owners and managers. The following sampling criteria were applied: First, we focused on the 30 most influential countries in the world in terms of their economic strength. Second, to engage in a systematic data collection approach and avoid arbitrarily selecting companies, we identified the 60 most influential family firms in each country. Third, for operational reasons, we only considered companies for which we could attain key decision makers’ names and contact details. The final sample comprised key decision-makers in family firms operating in 21 countries, yielding 525 responses. For the purpose of this study, we filtered our sample to include only responses from key decision-makers of family firms who could recall or were aware of the values and goals of the firm founder. After excluding cases with missing observations for our dependent, control, or independent variables, the final regression model contained 237 responses. We applied ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to test our hypotheses.

Measures

Results

Descriptive Analysis

The correlation matrix and descriptive statistics for all variables included in our model are shown in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Descriptives.

No	Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
1	Philanthropy	3.471	0.899	1
2	Missionary	3.754	0.815	.351	1
3	Darwinian	3.680	0.764	.222	.535	1
4	Generation	2.41	1.088	.095	−.005	.009	1
5	TCI	3.043	1.002	.125	.080	.138	.133	1
6	Gender	1.34	0.475	.108	.083	−.005	−.024	.021	1
7	Memory	2.454	0.499	.059	.178	.040	.032	−.024	.001	1
8	Collectivism	4.336	0.412	.182	.121	0,030	−.040	.025	−.043	−.055	1
9	In-Group Coll.	4.926	0.761	.063	.013	−.025	−.173	−.134	.058	−.135	.153	1
10	Australia	0.050	0.218	.011	−.030	.009	−.031	.032	.050	−.081	−.027	−.235	1
11	Europe	0.413	0.493	−.115	−.091	.018	.135	.086	−.080	.060	−.530	−.424	−.192	1
12	North America	0.097	0.296	.021	.075	−.048	−.076	.021	.021	.115	−.040	−.298	−.075	−.275	1
13	South America	0.091	0.289	−.030	.024	.082	.022	−.098	.076	−.058	−.297	.240	−.073	−.266	−.104	1
14	Asia	0.271	0.445	.233	.080	−.012	−.090	−.086	−.005	−.094	.731	.505	−.140	−.512	−.20	−.194	1
15	Industry	1.794	0.405	.074	−.037	−.077	.016	−.034	−.073	−.014	.145	.102	−.041	−.033	−.042	−.174	.195	1
16	Size	3.66	1.340	.184	−.006	.034	.122	−.084	.071	−.071	.113	.092	−.037	−.020	−.225	.088	.231	.050	1
17	Profitability	3.93	0.880	.188	.228	.206	.042	.037	−.004	.121	−.042	−.090	.108	.063	−.008	−.020	−.071	.022	−.001	1
18	Fam. Branding	3.530	1.460	.267	.097	.042	.124	.197	.046	.028	−.033	−.229	.004	.169	.029	−.163	−.025	−.013	−.007	.219	1
19	Phil. Integration	3.46	1.153	.334	.353	.251	.066	.149	.137	.186	.136	−.048	.049	−.088	−.030	.115	.050	−.077	.109	.070	.224	1
20	% Fam. Owner	3.294	1.447	−.078	−.086	.150	.062	.205	.093	−.009	−.188	−.082	−.103	.151	−.014	.085	−.179	−.091	.007	−.087	.128	.171	1

Note. All correlations with absolute values above 0.104 are significant at p < .05.

Overall, there are only low to medium correlations between the variables. Interestingly, the Missionary founder identity is positively correlated with the Darwinian founder identity in our sample of family firms, which we will evaluate in the discussion and future research section. Overall, we collected responses from the most influential family firms in each of the 21 countries. As a result, over 75% of the family firms in our sample have more than 500 employees, with 33% of our sampled family firms having more than 5,000 employees. 19.3% of the family firms in our final sample are still founder-controlled, 38.7% are in the second generation of family control, 29.8% are in their third generation, 7.9% are in their fourth generation, 2% are in their fifth generation, and 2.3% are in their sixth generation of family control.

Regression Results

To test our hypotheses, we estimated an OLS regression with family firm philanthropy as the dependent variable. Table 2 shows the regression results. Model 1 in the regression only includes control variables. Subsequently, independent and moderator variables are added in Models 2-4.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

OLS Regression on Family Firm Philanthropy.

Family firm philanthropy
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Control variables
Gender	0.113*	0.089 †	0.079	0.096 †	0.084
Memory of founder	0.132*	0.098 †	0.088	0.100 †	0.087
Collectivism	−0.025	−0.090	−0.077	−0.092	−0.070
In group collectivism	0.093	0.058	0.113	0.053	0.110
Australia	0.094	0.075	0.091	0.059	0.082
Europe	0.120	0.083	0.121	0.075	0.121
North America	0.207*	0.159 †	0.141	0.157 †	0.142
South America	0.083	0.048	0.039	0.040	0.036
Asia	0.241*	0.253**	0.235*	0.243*	0.228*
Industry	0.099 †	0.073	0.052	0.072	0.053
Firm size	0.085	0.080	0.056	0.083	0.059
Firm profitability	0.134*	0.032	0.027	0.033	0.029
Family branding	0.170**	0.171**	0.177**	0.168**	0.180**
Integration of family firm and philanthropy	0.239***	0.159**	0.179**	0.159**	0.178**
Percentage of family ownership	−0.033	−0.050	−0.041	−0.064	−0.051
Independent variables
Missionary founder identity		0.219***	0.198**	0.225***	0.202**
Darwinian founder identity		0.153*	0.183*	0.143*	0.175*
Moderation variables
Number of generations			0.095 †		0.095 †
Missionary Founder × Number of Generations			0.113*		0.113*
TCI				0.078	0.028
Darwinian Founder × TCI				−0.128*	−0.090
Adjusted R2	.264	.332	.348	.342	.348
F-Test	6.66***	7.93***	6.98***	7.48***	6.42***
Observations	237	237	213	237	213

Note. All variables were standardized. Using the Middle East and Russia as reference categories.

†

p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Model 1 reveals that, in line with arguments and findings of the prior literature (Campopiano et al., 2019), being female (β = 0.113; p < .05) is associated with higher levels of family firm philanthropy. Moreover, we observe a positive effect on philanthropy when respondents strongly recall the founder’s values and motivations (β = 0.132; p < .05). This might be traced back to the fact that non-financial aspects are particularly relevant to individuals who remember the founder’s values. Moreover, Model 1 highlights two region-level effects by showing that being based in North America (β = 0.207; p < .05) or Asia (β = 0.241; p < .05) significantly increases family firm philanthropy. We evaluate this interesting finding in the discussion section. Profitability (β = 0.134; p < .05) also has a significant effect as it enhances the financial power of the firm, fueling its philanthropic giving. Moreover, family branding (β = 0.170; p < .01) of the firm also increases family firm philanthropy, in line with the literature on the importance of reputational concerns for family firms. Finally, in line with the adjacent literature (Cruz et al., 2024), we see that the integration of firm strategy and the philanthropic mission at the family level also increases family firm philanthropy (β = 0.239; p < .001). The adjusted R² of Model 1 is .264. In Model 2, the Missionary founder identity significantly increases family firm philanthropy (β = 0.219; p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 1. Interestingly, the Darwinian founder identity also significantly increases family firm philanthropy (β = 0.153; p < .05), contradicting Hypothesis 3. The adjusted R² of Model 2 is .332. In Model 3, the number of generations significantly increases the positive effect of the Missionary founder identity on family firm philanthropy (β = 0.113; p < .05), providing support for Hypothesis 2. This moderation effect is depicted in Figure 1. The adjusted R² of Model 3 is .348. We further see that this moderation effect is significant in the full model (Model 5, Table 2), accounting for both moderators simultaneously (β = 0.113; p < .05). Related to Hypothesis 4, Model 4 shows that transgenerational control intentions (TCI) weaken the effect of the Darwinian founder identity on family firm philanthropy (β = -0.128; p < .05), although the interpretation of this effect is reverse to our predictions in the hypothesis development, in that it weakens the positive rather than the negative effect of the Darwinian founder identity. This moderation effect is depicted in Figure 2. The adjusted R² of Model 4 is .342. However, we see that in the full model accounting for both moderators (see Model 5, Table 2), this moderation effect becomes insignificant. This might be due to the significant correlation between the number of generations and TCI (0.133, p < .05).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Interaction of Missionary Identity and Number of Generations and Its Effect on Family Firm Philanthropy.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Interaction of Darwinian Identity and TCI and Its Effect on Family Firm Philanthropy.

Post Hoc Tests

First, this study focuses on the Missionary founder identity and the Darwinian founder identity (Sieger et al., 2016), the two most extreme archetypes of founder identities. Surprisingly, we find that both the Missionary founder identity and the Darwinian identity increase family firm philanthropy, albeit for different reasons, as we argue in the discussion section. Given this surprising finding, we conducted a post hoc test that included the third founder identity type identified by prior research—Communitarian founder identity—in our model. Test 1 of Table 3 indicates that the Communitarian identity type has no significant effect on family firm philanthropy (β = 0.014; p > .1), whereas the positive effects of the Missionary founder identity (β = 0.210; p < .05) and the Darwinian founder identity (β = 0.151; p < .05) remain significant.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Post Hoc Tests.

Family firm philanthropy
	Test 1	Test 2	Test 3
Control variables
Gender	0.089 †	0.085	0.087 †
Memory of founder	0.096 †	0.072	0.089 †
Collectivism	−0.090	−0.066	−0.087
In group collectivism	0.060	0.116	0.039
Australia	0.075	0.085	0.066
Europe	0.082	0.120	0.074
North America	0.159 †	0.144	0.143 †
South America	0.048	0.039	0.054
Asia	0.252**	0.213*	0.248*
Industry	0.074	0.044	0.077
Firm size	0.080	0.053	0.087 †
Firm profitability	0.033	0.030	0.038
Family branding	0.171**	0.188**	0.167**
Integration of family firm and philanthropy	0.160**	0.162**	0.146*
Percentage of family ownership	−0.051	−0.047	−0.060
Independent variables
Missionary Founder Identity	0.210*	0.217**	0.242***
Darwinian Founder Identity	0.151*	0.191**	0.138 †
Communitarian Founder Identity	0.014
Moderation variables
Number of generations		0.078
Darwinian Founder × Number of Generations		−0.039
TCI			0.056
Missionary Founder × TCI			−0.099 †
Adjusted R2	.329	.334	.338
F-Test	7.46***	6.62***	7.36***
Observations	237	213	237

Note. All variables were standardized. Using the Middle East and Russia as reference categories.

†

p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

As a second post hoc test, we conducted the moderator analysis of Model 3 and Model 4 of our main analysis with the other, previously untheorized, founder identity type, respectively. We find (Table 3, Test 2), in line with our theoretical considerations, that the positive effect of the Darwinian founder identity does not change over generations (β = −0.039; p > .1). This implies that the Darwinian founder, unlike the Missionary founder, does not strengthen his or her influence over generations. Moreover, we find (Table 3, Test 3) a marginally significant effect of TCI weakening the positive effect of the Missionary founder identity on family firm philanthropy (β = −0.099; p < .1), providing further evidence for the potentially negative consequences of TCI in the context of our study.

Contribution to the Family Firm Literature

First, our study contributes to the family business literature. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to test whether the effects of founder values and beliefs on firm decisions become stronger or weaker over family generations. In line with the identity literature, our results show that the founder effect gets stronger over time as the founder is increasingly cherished and a source of self-identification over generations. However, we argue that this is only the case if the values and beliefs of the founder are worthwhile enacting (Suddaby & Jaskiewicz, 2020) because they are, as in the Missionary case, a source of pride and honor for the family (cf. Bhatnagar et al., 2019, 2020). In line with this reasoning, we do not find a significant moderation effect of family generations in case the Darwinian founder identity is pronounced because a Darwinian founder identity is less likely to increase its influence over generations, at least not with regard to socially-oriented projects. This finding has important implications for further studies on family firm theory, especially on the enduring effect of, for example, legacy in family firms. It points out that family firm theorizing on such temporal development needs to differentiate the “valence” of what was imprinted.

Our findings are also important because we are able to show that the founder is not only important for innovation (Erdogan et al., 2020; Kammerlander et al., 2015) and entrepreneurship (Jaskiewicz et al., 2015) in later-stage family firms, as argued in previous studies, but also shapes philanthropy. By shedding light on the role of the founder, we continue the initial dialogue on the role of individual-level factors for family firm philanthropy. As such, we add to existing studies researching the role of female directors (Campopiano et al., 2019) and family versus non-family managers (Campopiano et al., 2014) on family firm philanthropy by revealing another relevant antecedent. Our findings imply that further family firm philanthropy studies should control for the role of the founder as an important antecedent.

Moreover, our surprising and somewhat tentative finding about the negative moderation effect of TCI holds intriguing insights for the family business research community. On the one hand, TCI is positively correlated to family firm philanthropy, which is in line with the arguments brought forward in our hypothesis section. Due to the long-term focus, succession intention, and reputation concerns induced by TCI, family members might be particularly motivated to pursue philanthropy. On the other hand, our data indicates that TCI dampens the positive effect of the Darwinian identity on family firm philanthropy. Our findings thus also add to previous research highlighting TCI’s potential “dark side” (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007, 2010; Hoffmann et al., 2019). Specifically, TCI not only potentially harms business outcomes, such as growth and performance, as argued in the prior literature (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2010; Hoffmann et al., 2019), but our study also provides initial insights into its ambiguous societal effects, which warrant future investigation. Our results indicate that family members pursuing TCI might overly focus on the needs of future family members, neglecting the current business and its societal stakeholders (Kellermanns et al., 2012). As a result, TCI in firms influenced by a Darwinian founder might reduce the philanthropic engagement of family firms. These findings indicate that future TCI research needs to take a nuanced stance toward the specific conditions under which TCI does (or does not) result in beneficial outcomes.

Our results also highlight that it is important to move beyond simply assessing the presence of family ownership and involvement when studying outcomes such as family firm philanthropy (Mariani et al., 2023) but instead highlight the degree of the family’s control intentions, which largely differ from one family firm to the next. Doing so would speak to recent scholarly arguments that family firms can act as civic wealth creator, if they feel connected and embedded in a community that is larger than the owning family itself (Lumpkin & Bacq, 2022). We show that firms whose founders are characterized by a Missionary identity and thus carry a civic wealth creation mindset are less at risk of being negatively affected by TCI than those with a Darwinian identity when engaging in philanthropy.

Contribution to the Founder Identity Literature

Our study also contributes to the founder identity literature (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011; Gruber & MacMillan, 2017; N. D. Pan et al., 2019; Sieger et al., 2016). To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to test the imprinting assumption of this literature by exploring the lasting effects of founder identities on the decision-making of large, multigenerational firms. The previous literature has drawn on the identity literature to explain the imprinting effect of family firms versus lone founder firms. This research has argued that different identities, deriving from the nature of their founding, influence strategic decisions in established firms in different ways (Cannella et al., 2015). Yet, it remains unclear how the different identity types of the founder beyond the “family versus lone founder” context matter for the firm’s decision-making. We first differentiate the different founder identity types and assess their effects on family firm philanthropy. We then account for the family context by relying on TCI to explore the extent of importance placed on family control. This way, we are able to shed light on both, the individual effect of founder identity, as well as its interaction with family-related considerations. Our findings imply that future studies should not only control for founder identities but also theorize on, and empirically test, their interactions with industry-, family- and firm-related factors.

Moreover, the founder identities proposed by Fauchart and Gruber (2011) intend to generate an extended view on entrepreneurship—one that goes beyond a purely economic view of entrepreneurs and instead recognizes that “social aspects of a founder’s self-concept are likely to be of importance” (p. 935). However, despite this important theoretical development, we lack insights into the social outcomes of founder identities (Ko & Kim, 2020). Relatedly, scholars have argued that the founder identity types constitute a promising angle to study social entrepreneurship by providing a nuanced understanding of different types of social entrepreneurs, who might be motivated by benefiting themselves, known others, or distant others (N. D. Pan et al., 2019). Recently, researchers have also begun to explore how founder identity types might be influenced by grand challenges such as refugee events (Hsueh et al., 2023). Our study extends this emerging dialogue on founder identity types in the social context by exploring how founder identities relate to philanthropy. Our findings reveal a need for further research focusing on further economic and non-economic implications of founder identities at the owner-, firm-, and regional level.

Contribution to the Philanthropy Literature

Finally, we advance the recent literature on philanthropy (Cruz et al., 2024; Du, 2015; Giacomin & Jones, 2021; Jin & Hu, 2024; Maclean et al., 2015). Specifically, we continue applying identity theory in this literature stream by exploring the effect of founder identities (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011) on philanthropy. In doing so, we argue that the Missionary founder identity shares characteristics with the “game changer philanthropist” (Maclean & Harvey, 2020), as well as with the “social crusader philanthropist,” both of whom see themselves as promoting social movements and helping to reset current systems (Maclean & Harvey, 2020). As such, a Missionary founder is likely to be interested in a transformational approach to philanthropy that is represented by these two types of philanthropists. This finding has important implications for future theorizing: Future research could explore when a Missionary identity promotes rather small-scale transformational philanthropy, as represented by the social crusader type, or large-scale philanthropy, as symbolized by the game changer type.

Extending our research, we predict that a Darwinian founder is more likely to be motivated by conventional forms of philanthropy because he or she engages in philanthropy mainly due to instrumental, business motives rather than ideological, transformational aspirations. Those Darwinian founders might hence be pre-destined to act as “pillars of society philanthropist” focusing on supporting existing institutions and organizations (Maclean & Harvey, 2020). Based on the Darwinian self-concept, such philanthropic efforts are likely undertaken in a manner that adheres to social expectations while maintaining the status quo, rather than to initiate radical change by tackling social inequity (Maclean et al., 2015; Maclean & Harvey, 2020). We have started to explore the link between founder identities and philanthropy by showing that both, the Missionary founder and the Darwinian founder foster philanthropy. Our results imply that theorizing should not treat Missionary and Darwinian founder industries as universally beneficial or detrimental for tackling social and environmental issues, yet needs to take a nuanced perspective that considers boundary conditions. Future research could specifically test the effect of founder identity types on different approaches to philanthropy.

Moreover, we contribute to the philanthropy literature by exploring the wider context of entrepreneurs, many of which having accumulated and invested their substantial wealth in family enterprises. Specifically, our insights reveal that business-owning families might be pursuing transgenerational control goals, which influences their evaluation of philanthropy. Our results provide initial evidence that those family-related goals might lower the positive effects of the founders’ identity on philanthropy. Interestingly, this might be particularly the case if the founder identity is Darwinian. In this case, family interests might outweigh business incentives to engage in philanthropy. In comparison, the negative moderation of TCI is only marginally significant for the Missionary founder. As such, our study indicates that the positive effect of the Missionary founder identity on philanthropy is less at risk of being diluted by other, sometimes opposing family considerations. With regard to philanthropy theorizing, our findings suggest that some antecedents of philanthropy (such as a Missionary founder identity) might be more “sticky” and robust over time than others, requiring further research on the long-term effects of philanthropy drivers.

Limitations

Our study is not free of limitations, which open interesting avenues for future research. First, our insights are based on survey data. It would be valuable to complement and verify our findings by relying on alternative data and methods, such as experiments, qualitative interview data, or text analysis. Moreover, we relied on responses gathered from an international sample of family decision makers. Interestingly, we find that family firms in North America and in Asia reported a significantly higher engagement in philanthropy when compared with other regions. This is an interesting finding because the economic and cultural contexts of these two regions are very different from one another and are likely to promote philanthropy for different reasons. Research on philanthropy has predominantly relied on the context of the United States. This is because the economic and political systems in North America have fostered a long-standing philanthropic tradition (Feliu & Botero, 2016; Rey-Garcia & Puig-Raposo, 2013). Thus, family firms might feel compelled to engage in philanthropy to comply with existing norms. Contrarily, family firm philanthropy is a more recent scholarly inquiry in Asia in which family firms have been found to engage in philanthropy to increase their legitimacy (Dou et al., 2014; Du, 2015; Ge & Micelotta, 2019; Zhang et al., 2012). In addition to understanding the differences and similarities of family firm philanthropy in North America and Asia, it is also worthwhile to focus further research on family firm philanthropy in other geographical regions. Important questions are: How do family firm owners, and society, perceive philanthropy in these areas? How can philanthropy be encouraged in these regions? What institutional factors might incentivize them? Moreover, although the international nature of our survey is a key strength (Feliu & Botero, 2016), we recommend refining our empirical model on data deriving from the same region, as regional differences even within one country might make a difference on family firm philanthropy that cannot be accounted for in our international sample.

Moreover, we rely on respondents’ memories of the founder. This is in line with our research question as we are measuring the respondents’ perception of the founder’s identity, which ultimately promotes charitable participation, regardless of historical reality. Using a survey design rather than a qualitative study enriches the methodological approaches within the literature on founder legacies, which primarily applied qualitative approaches (Radu-Lefebvre et al., 2024). Nevertheless, future studies could draw on rich qualitative insights, notably on archival data, to explore the effect of Missionary and Darwinian founder identities further. Doing so would address issues of recall bias, family mythology, and social desirability.

Next, our results indicate that TCI has an ambivalent effect on societal stakeholders unrelated to the family. Even though it is overall positively correlated to family firm philanthropy, it seems to weaken the positive effect of the Darwinian founder identity on philanthropy. We recommend future studies to dig deeper into this unexpected and tentative, yet important finding of our research and scrutinize under which conditions and why such negative effects occur. For instance, TCI may amplify founder identity effects under certain governance or resource conditions but dampen them under others.

Next, our study reveals a positive correlation between the Missionary and Darwinian founder identities. Future research could explore this correlation further by focusing on the prevalence and effects of such hybrid founder identities combining a social and business logic (Aust et al., 2024; Fauchart & Gruber, 2011; Sieger et al., 2016).

Moreover, our study primarily relies on a global sample of primarily large family firms. These firms possess the necessary means to engage substantially in philanthropy. Moreover, they are likely sufficiently professionalized to have structures in place that allow them to diligently select and also carefully assess the impact of their philanthropic activities. While firms of all sizes can engage in philanthropy, the donations are likely more substantial from larger firms, justifying our sampling approach. Moreover, we expect that founder identity might be particularly relevant in large firms, given the typically high achievements of such founders. Yet this focus also comes with some drawbacks. For example, one could argue that our study suffers from survivability bias. Moreover, smaller family firms might substantially differ in how they engage in philanthropy. For instance, they might prefer more local or regional projects and become more personally engaged as compared to large companies. Hence, smaller companies might be particularly driven by increasing their employer branding through local philanthropy. Moreover, founder myths might be different in smaller firms compared to larger firms. Whereas in larger firms, founder myths might relate to the successful legacy of the creator of the firm, in smaller firms, myths might circle less around commercial success but the founder’s community engagement and non-financial impact. Future research could complement our study by sampling smaller family firms. Finally, we restricted the scope of our analysis to philanthropic engagement at the family firm level. In future studies, it would be interesting to scrutinize the interplay of philanthropy at the firm level, at the family/individual level through donations, and at the family foundation level.