Corporate Governance and Financial Performance: Family Firms vs. Non-Family Firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The essence of a family business captures the distinguishing factors differentiating them from non-family businesses. Among these factors, the constructs of family firms’ managing and governance elements are perceived differently by non-family firms. This is especially important in a developing country such as South Africa (SA) with many governance challenges. The objectives of this study were, first, to identify relationships among financial performance, corporate governance, and ownership concentrations of listed family and non-family businesses in SA. Next, a comparison was made between the different ownership structures. Secondary data were collected using purposive sampling from 2015 to 2019. These data were analysed using panel data analysis and descriptive statistics. The results show that family firms place a greater emphasis on ownership concentration, board size, and board gender diversity, which have a significant relationship with financial performance. Only board size was significant to financial performance for non-family firms. The results indicate that family businesses should appoint female family members as directors on their boards, given the significance of gender-diverse boards for financial performance. Non-family businesses should also consider having smaller boards. Theoretically, this study expands on the literature regarding family businesses in SA. However, the findings cannot be generalised due to a single industry being selected. This study should be replicated in different industries to compare the results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".