Family Firms and CSR Composition: Internal Versus External Practices in Latin America
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is central to debates on the legitimacy and competitiveness of family firms, yet evidence on ownership effects remains inconsistent. While socioemotional wealth perspectives highlight reputational motives, capability-based views suggest that resource constraints may limit substantive internal investments. Most prior studies focus on aggregate CSR levels and on Europe or North America, leaving unanswered whether ownership shapes the composition of CSR activities in under-represented contexts such as Latin America. This article examines 315 listed firms in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico between 2019 and 2023. Using environmental, social and governance ratings and generalised linear models with size, age, country and sector controls, this study tests whether family ownership predicts internal versus external CSR outcomes. The authors find that non-family firms outperform in capability-intensive internal CSR, while external CSR and governance show parity. These results highlight a visibility–capability trade-off and suggest that Latin American family firms must enhance their operational capabilities to address CSR gaps.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it