Distinguishing characteristics of Family Controlled Businesses

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Planning for compliance

Not only did the FCBs emphasized compliance with regulations but both Shiloh Industries and Rudhäll Group actively planned for compliance with regulations by being mindful of the foreseeable changes in regulations and upgrading technologies accordingly to preserve competitive advantage.
The two FCBs Gnosjö Automatsvarvning and Värnamo Sliperi & Glasmästeri, in contrast, were not only complying with regulations but exceeding them. For example, Gnosjö Automatsvarvning by implementing internal controls as elaborated by the example of how the company has been saving their measurements since 1995. However, since the company continuously invests in new technologies, it can be argued that there’s some strategizing involved in maintaining that lead. And therefore, involves an element of planning for compliance. Furthermore, investing in technology and implementing policies and regulations 25 years ahead of the industry is reflective of the perseverance mindset of the decision makers which consequently affects the futurity of the firm as well. In that, the firm is not only willing to use patient capital but also implements policies that ultimately benefits the business’s successors (Le Breton-Miller & Miller, 2011; Lumpkin & Brigham, 2011).

Calls for stringent regulations

The calls for more stringent regulations in the automotive industry are reflective of the inability of the decision-makers to be proactive with their investments in clean technologies. In our opinion this constraint can also be because the CEOs or decision makers of this non-FCB and Rudhäll Group might have shorter tenures (Walsh and Seward 1990; Zellweger 2007). As a consequence, they more likely to give into shareholder pressures and make investments that create immediate economic benefits. Furthermore, since these investments are usually substantial (González, 2005), fear of sunk costs especially when investing in new technologies may discourage a proactive attitude to clean technology implementation. Hence in the absence of LTO, compliance seems to be the most viable alternative for these companies
From the arguments presented above, following insights can be derived. Firstly, for some companies being sustainable is very important, while for others sustainability equals compliance with regulations (Berrone, Cruz, Gomez-Mejia, & Larraza-Kintana, 2010). Not only did the two FCBs, Gnosjö Automatsvarvning and Värnamo Sliperi & Glasmästeri, respond to institutional demands in an excessively substantive manner (Berrone et al., 2010), certain LTO dimensions such as futurity and perseverance also point towards some degree of planning for maintaining their lead on compliance (Lumpkin & Brigham, 2011). Similarly, the tendency of valuing environmental performance more than financial gains can also be linked to considerations for continuity (Berrone et al., 2010; Lumpkin & Brigham, 2011). Since poor environmental performance will affect firm reputation and family name, maintaining higher environmental standards, as the firms has in past, could prevent that from happening. These motivations therefore could explain why these two FCBs, Gnosjö Automatsvarvning and Värnamo Sliperi & Glasmästeri, preferred sustainable development and why they proactively maintained lead over current regulations.
In contrast, the non-FCB and Rudhäll Group in our study seemed to be much more interested in being compliant with regulations. Not only did these companies surrender to price pressures, they also favoured planning for compliance over taking a proactive approach to clean technology implementation. Finally calls for stringent regulations seemed to be aimed at making up for timid decision-making. In line with these arguments, it may be reasonable to assume that for non-FCB and Rudhäll Group, proactive compliance was favoured over sustainable development

READ Institutional impact on the goodwill accounting

1. Introduction
1.1. Background
1.2. Problem formulation
1.2. Research purpose
1.3. Research question
1.4. Delimitations
2. Literature Review
2.1. Sustainable Developmen
2.2. Clean technology .
2.2.1. What is clean technology
2.2.2. Benefits .
2.2.3. Drivers
2.2.4. Barriers
2.4. Distinguishing characteristics of Family Controlled Businesses .
2.4.1. Long-term orientation as a distinguishing factor .
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Method
3.2. Research Philosophy
3.3. Research Approach .
3.4. Data collection
3.4.1. Sampling .
3.4.2. Why Gnosjö region.
3.5. Method Analysis
3.6. Trustworthiness
4. Empirical Findings
4.1. Companies’ Background
4.1.1. Gnosjö Automatsvarvning AB
4.1.2. Shiloh Industries AB
4.1.3. Rudhäll Group AB
4.1.4. Värnamo Sliperi & Glasmästeri AB
4.1.5. ISO.
4.2. Empirical Findings
4.2.1. Lack of frameworks for clean technology.
4.2.2. Proactive compliance:
4.2.3. Investment horizons: going beyond the quarter economy .
4.2.4. The Gnosjö Factor
5. Analysis .
5.1. Lack of frameworks for clean technology .
5.1.1. Intuitive approaches to sustainable development
5.1.2. Varied frameworks for measuring environmental performance .
5.1.3. Misinterpreting clean technology
5.2. Proactive compliance .
5.2.1. Non-existent supply-chain pressures in the automotive industry
5.2.2. Planning for complian
5.2.3. Calls for stringent regulations
5.3. Investment horizons: going beyond the quarter economy
5.3.1. Quarter economy and investments for continuous improvement ..
5.3.2. Values based investments .
5.4. The Gnosjö factor
5.4.1. Local Embeddedness as a driving factor
5.4.2. The Gnosjö spirit
6. Conclusion and Discussion .
6.1. Contribution
6.2. Implications
6.3. Limitations
6.4. Suggestions for future research
7. References
8. Appendices