Next Article in Journal
Present Situation and Research Progress of Comprehensive Utilization of Antimony Tailings and Smelting Slag
Next Article in Special Issue
Spatial Distribution and Influencing Factors of High-Level Tourist Attractions in China: A Case Study of 9296 A-Level Tourist Attractions
Previous Article in Journal
The Southern Model Revisited: The Intersection of Race, Ethnicity, Immigration, and Health and Safety in Poultry Processing
Previous Article in Special Issue
Improving Cruise Crew Competency and Cultivating Global Citizenship: A Sustainable Development Approach for the Cruise Industry
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 18
10.3390/su151813944
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Influences of Start-Up’s Financial Intermingling on Entrepreneurial Stress in Sustainable Family Businesses: Mediation Effect of Work–Family Balance

by
Jucheol Choi
1 and
Daniel Kessler
2,*
1
Institute for Future Innovation, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 02453, Republic of Korea
2
International College, Dongseo University, Busan 47011, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(18), 13944; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813944
Submission received: 26 June 2023 / Revised: 4 September 2023 / Accepted: 18 September 2023 / Published: 20 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) in Hospitality and Tourism Sector)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
One factor affecting entrepreneurial success at the small-business start-up level is the impact on family life. This study examines the effects of intermingling financial resources on the quality of life of families operating businesses in South Korea. Based on the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2022 assessment, which ranks South Korea 9th out of 51 economies, South Korea emerges as a promising area for scholarly research in this area. The analysis results are as follows: First, when financial intermingling occurs (when family and business finances are merged to some degree), entrepreneurial stress was found to be higher. Second, financial intermingling between family funds and business finances increased entrepreneurial stress by impairing the work–family balance. Third, when one spouse is more dedicated to supporting start-ups, entrepreneurial stress caused by the pressure to use family funds as business finances is greater. As small-business start-ups often require creative means to generate primary financing, resource exchanges between families and businesses may sometimes be a regrettable necessity. However, if the potential downsides of resource exchange are ignored, and resource exchange frequently occurs over a long period of time, it can place significant stress on all parties and may adversely affect the sustainability of a family business.

1. Introduction

Around the world today, the basic means of economic development are family-owned businesses [1,2]. According to the OECD [3], small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are a primary driver of net job creation within member countries. Furthermore, the growth and development of SMEs are linked to a reduction in income inequality and poverty across various industries and regions. Additionally, encouraging and fostering entrepreneurship, particularly among women and young people, are crucial for promoting social inclusion and upward mobility. A study of seventy-one economies found that creative goods exports are positively associated with economic growth, indicating that all stakeholders should collaborate to strengthen the creative economy to achieve sustainable development [4]. The Republic of Korea has devoted significant resources to promoting a “creative economy” by diversifying its industries beyond traditional sectors like manufacturing and heavy industries [5]. This effort is predicated on the need to invigorate SMEs, which constitute the majority of new employment opportunities [6]. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in 2016, Korean SMEs accounted for 80% of business sector employment, ranking second highest, well above Japan (53%) and the United States (42%) [6]. According to a 2017 report by Statistics South Korea, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) were responsible for creating 2.5 million jobs that year, accounting for roughly 93% of the overall increase in employment in the country [5]. These statistics highlight the essential role SMEs play in boosting employment opportunities. Due to the prevalence of early retirement among many company employees, many individuals choose to establish their own SMEs using their retirement benefits [4]. As a result, SMEs have become an integral component of the country’s social safety net.
Based on the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2022 assessment, which ranks South Korea 9th out of 51 economies, South Korea has emerged as a promising area for scholarly research [7]. For many South Korean start-ups, developing SME income is a matter of survival in this environment of self-employment [4]. To solve this problem, many first-time entrepreneurs face the temptation to use household funds to support a company when facing financial hardships with their businesses. For South Korean entrepreneurs who have good credit, ample savings, and an effective business plan, this is not an issue. Due to the South Korean government’s self-employment lending support policies, the total amount of self-employed loans has increased annually since 2012 [5]. However, research by Yeh and Liao [8] found that family businesses tend to exhibit a higher level of risk compared to businesses started without personal family-based financing. Moreover, small businesses’ limited access to collateral, brief credit histories, and lack of expertise in preparing financial statements may make it difficult to obtain credit. These factors can limit the ability of small firms to gain access to funds, as they may not meet the lending requirements of traditional lending institutions [3]. Lending risk associated with SMEs is generally considered higher when compared to larger and more established firms. The risk associated with lending to smaller firms often prompts financial institutions to focus on larger firms, resulting in a reduction in the number and size of SME loans and forcing many entrepreneurs to intermingle household and business funds.
The commingling of household and business funds among business owners can result in a host of problems, prominent among them being the escalation of stress levels experienced by the operator [9]. Regulatory bodies, such as tax authorities, require entrepreneurs to meticulously document transactions involving personal and corporate funds and maintain separate financial records for the familial and business domains. Moreover, the convergence of financial transactions between familial and business spheres can potentially defer bill settlements for either domain, thereby jeopardizing both the continuity of business operations and the equilibrium of familial financial allocations [10,11].
The relationship between the household and the entrepreneurial venture encompasses the exchange of not only financial resources but also the effects of work–family balance and spousal commitment [12,13,14,15,16,17]. Commingling funds between families and companies causes discord and tension among family members, and these interactions play a significant role in shaping the overall function and success of the family business. Furthermore, they can create confusion regarding ownership and control within the business, resulting in potential conflicts and misunderstandings among family members [12,13,14,15,16,17]. In their review of the contemporary literature on family businesses, Jennings et al. [14] emphasized the significance of the intermingling of resources between the household and the business as a crucial area of inquiry. Family businesses are characterized by an intricate dynamic of interpersonal relationships and resource allocation, critical factors for both short-term and long-term business sustainability [18]. In the early stages of a business venture, family members can be an important source of financing, and they also provide emotional support that can help entrepreneurs during difficult times [12,13,14,15,16,17]. Moreover, according to Yedder [19], annually, a significant number of family-owned businesses fail during the transition of leadership and management, specifically in the process of succession.
This article highlights the negative ripple effects of capital utility between households and businesses, as well as the need to conduct further research on family start-ups in South Korea. Jones and Lee [4] pointed out two key characteristics of self-employed start-ups in Korea. First, the majority of these businesses can be classified as family-owned enterprises. Second, the competitiveness within this sector is very high due to the proportion of Korean self-employed start-ups in relation to the overall population [3,20]. In this regard, the self-employed market in Korea was judged to have suitable conditions, requiring additional family business research. As of 2022, there are about 2.9 million small businesses in South Korea, most of which have fewer than 10 employees and involve participation by family members [5]. Since the sample in this study represents the characteristics of South Korean start-up small businesses, the research topic and the results of the analysis can be said to be reliable. In this regard, the self-employment market in Korea was judged to have suitable conditions, requiring additional family business research.
The current research on Korean entrepreneurship has yielded valuable insights in relation to the creative economy, start-ups in the high-tech industry, and the effectiveness of the start-up ecosystem. However, there exists a distinct gap in research pertaining to the dynamics of family businesses [5,7]. The survival of small businesses is important to understand, not only for the good of individual businesses but also for the sustainability of the community as a whole [21].
The objective of this study is to examine the effect of intermingling family and business finances, a situation commonly found in family start-ups in South Korea, and the effect of this on the quality of life of families. In particular, this study looks at the importance of maintaining separate accounts between households and companies, achieving family balance, and realizing the importance of spousal commitment. The aim is to suggest ways to sponsor the healthy growth of family businesses by minimizing the intermingling of family and business finances and suggesting possible solutions to this problem.
The research questions of this paper are as follows:
How is the intermingling between family and start-up finances related to the entrepreneurial stress of the founder?
How does work–family balance mediate the relationship between the intermingling of family and start-up finances and entrepreneurial stress?
Does the relationship between the intermingling of family and start-up finances and entrepreneurial stress differ according to the level of spousal commitment?

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. COR (Conservation of Resources)

Conservation of Resources (COR) theory was introduced by Hobfoll [22] to elaborate on stress as a construct. COR theory defines stress as a threat of resource loss. As Hobfoll [22] explains, stress occurs in three situations: the threat of resource loss, the actual loss of resources, and a lack of resources gained after spending resources. According to COR theory, work–family balance includes time, money, and knowledge as a collection of resources and units of energy. The lower the return on investment an entrepreneur gains from starting a business, the more likely it is to induce stress. Start-ups run the risk of causing damage to both family and non-family areas [23]. COR theory also holds that stress can be relieved through work–family balance [23]. People measure the lack of time and energy to work in a non-business area through the concept of work–family balance. Work–family balance and imbalance can vary according to business prospects. However, not all changes cause stress, and there is insufficient evidence that a start-up alone creates a stressful environment [23]. When a close family member is stressed, such as a spouse or a child, the stress can easily spread to other family members due to the social contagion effect [24]. However, the support or dedication of a spouse can suppress negative social contagion effects and positively affect work–family balance, thus reducing stress [25].

2.2. Work–Family Balance Theory

Work–family balance theory (WFB theory) describes how work–family balance is achieved through low work–family conflict and high work–family enrichment. This bilateral balance is achieved when the time and roles assigned to work and family remain the same [26]. This theory argues that work–family balance includes both negative and positive inter-role experiences, and has been the most common conceptual definition used in related studies [27,28]. According to WFB theory, work–family balance is repeatedly associated with personal well-being [29,30,31,32,33]. Aryee et al. [33] found that different causes and consequences were associated with work–family balance as measured by both conflicts (work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict) and enrichment (work-to-family enrichment and family-to-work enrichment).
Start-up stress is unavoidable in the process of starting a business [9]. If this stress is not properly resolved through personal effort and/or family or spousal support, it inevitably has a negative impact on business performance and family life. When a family begins a new business, work overload due to high labor demand is the biggest obstacle to work–family balance [15,34,35,36]. Since entrepreneurs are often forced to spend more time on work than with family, it is difficult to maintain work–family balance [15,34]. The business start-up is, therefore, the primary cause of work–family conflict, rather than any intention of achieving work–family balance [17,34,35].
On the other hand, achieving work–family balance through entrepreneurs’ efforts and family support can reduce entrepreneurial stress and have a positive impact on start-up performance [37]. According to the WFB theory, a successful working life can promote positive family life through ‘work-to-family-facilitation’, and having the full support of the family promotes a positive working life through ‘family-to-work-facilitation’ [26]. At the beginning of a venture, the main task of an entrepreneur is to create financial resources for stable business operations. However, many entrepreneurs have limited financial capital for start-up and operational costs [18,38,39]. From the initial period and/or after a certain period of time, household and company funds are often intermingled. Entrepreneurs frequently underestimate the tension that results from using company and household funds interchangeably [18]. The US Small Business Administration [40] and the Internal Revenue Service [41] strongly advise separating household and business accounts. The commingling of personal and business finances impedes the entrepreneur’s ability to accurately assess the financial performance of the business and file accurate taxes. The interconnection of financial resources creates a potential legal issue as well, as it creates the risk of being subject to legal sanctions if the transactions are not accurately recorded. Moreover, commingling poses a risk to personal assets, as they may be vulnerable in the event of debt or legal issues faced by the business. This can also make it more difficult to secure funding from investors and lenders, as they may be hesitant to provide capital without assurance of a clear financial separation between the business and the family [18,42]. Failure to record the proper accounting of the financial records of households and companies causes confusion, leads to negative consequences, and can endanger the future of businesses in the long run [43]. Creating and managing separate financial accounts for households and companies is important for business sustainability [44]. Since financial institutions trust that loan funds will be used to run the company, intermingling family and business finances can have a negative impact on the ability to borrow money and manage debt repayment [43].

2.3. Hypotheses Development

Bootstrapping is a financial strategy that involves the use of personal resources to finance a business start-up or expansion. Companies that bootstrap often focus on increasing cash inflows, such as through sales or debt financing, rather than reducing cash outflows [45]. Winborg and Landstrom [10] have introduced 28 types of bootstrapping methods and found that family-to-business intermingling is a bootstrapping method similar to delaying payments to creditors.
According to previous studies, the utility level and direction of intermingling between family and business finances differ according to the characteristics of management, family, and the business [14,43,46]. The ability to raise funds is a function of firm size, with small and medium-sized enterprises relying more on individual or family funds than large corporations [47]. Family-to-business intermingling is a double-edged sword: it can be used to achieve goals, but it also has negative consequences. Even though an exchange of resources is sometimes necessary, the absence of clear records of such transactions can complicate tax audits and make obtaining loans from financial institutions more difficult. Moreover, research [43] shows that intermingling can cause great stress for all parties involved, leading to marital conflict [13,17,45,48], disregard for personal needs [17], unequal sharing of responsibilities [49], and time and financial pressures [43,45]. These factors can create new tensions between families and couples.
Some scholars have suggested that a family’s involvement in the business can lead to corruption and irrational behavior [50,51], resulting in operational difficulties, reduced profitability, and a shortened company lifespan [52]. Therefore, it is expected that intermingling between family and business finances is likely to increase the founder’s entrepreneurial stress. Accordingly, this study has the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1. 
Family-to-business intermingling affects entrepreneurial stress.
Hypothesis 2. 
Business-to-family intermingling affects entrepreneurial stress.
Prior studies have shown that excessive immersion in business is a major threat to work–family balance and the balanced lives of entrepreneurs [51], with inherent tensions, depression, frustrations, anger, and physiological symptoms indicating an unbalanced life [53]. Several scholars found that the quality of family relationships deteriorates after a business starts, as entrepreneurs have less time for their families and face increased financial pressures [13,15,16,17,34,54,55]. Moreover, financial pressures further solidify the family’s role as a funding provider for the business, and this blending of family and business affairs leads to consequences such as the postponement of payments to creditors [10].
Family business start-ups frequently result in a decline in the quality of family relationships, which often leads to severe stress and a disturbance of work–family balance [45]. In the early stages of a start-up, the founder prioritizes the company’s tasks and works longer hours, frequently neglecting their family [56]. Work time is associated with a decrease in work–family balance, while leisure time is associated with an increase in work–family balance [32]. Entrepreneurs and their spouses who share more work and leisure time have a better work–life balance [57]. Nonetheless, when work–life balance is disrupted, work and family life can become untenable, causing stress and conflict in both areas [58]. Accordingly, this study has the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3. 
Family-to-business intermingling affects entrepreneurial stress through a loss of work–family balance.
Hypothesis 4. 
Business-to-family intermingling affects entrepreneurial stress through a loss of work–family balance.
COR theory argues that developing a healthy work–family balance can help relieve stress. Conversely, through the logical implications of COR theory, it can be argued that any disruption of work–family balance will increase stress [23]. According to the WFB theory, work–family balance can be achieved by balancing time spent at home and at work [26]. Prior studies have shown that the intermingling of finances has a negative impact on business and is likely to cause stress within the family [14,43,59]. By maintaining separate household and business financial accounts, it may be possible to achieve a work–family balance by proactively removing potential stressors.
Based on the theoretical principles of this study and the results of previous studies, a research hypothesis was determined. A research model was constructed, as shown in Figure 1. In other words, intermingling family and business finances may increase entrepreneurial stress and negatively impact entrepreneurial success through work–family imbalance.

3. Methods

3.1. Sample Description

For this study, a survey was conducted of 300 small businesses in Seoul, Korea for 2 months in April and May 2022. A total of 264 surveys were collected, and 241 were analyzed after excluding 23 incomplete or inaccurate questionnaires. Specifically, the respondents to this study were those who had operated their businesses for under seven years and had visited a South Korean government financial institution to secure corporate loans. Given that the sample aligns with the traits of South Korean start-up small businesses, the research topic and analysis outcomes can be considered generalizable.
The sample of this study (n = 241) consisted of 140 male entrepreneurs (58.1%) and 101 female entrepreneurs (41.9%). According to age distribution, those in their 40s accounted for the most (n = 81, 33.6%), followed by those in their 30s (n = 72, 29.9%), those in their 50s (n = 69, 28.6%), those 60 or above (n = 13, 5.4%), and those under 20 (n = 6, 2.5%). The foodservice and manufacturing industries accounted for 90 (37.3%) and 72 (29.9%), respectively. There were 45 retailers (18.7%) and 31 service industry companies (12.9%). According to the number of years in business, 109 companies (45.2%) were 3 to 7 years old, 71 companies (29.5%) were 1 to 2 years old, and 61 companies (25.3%) were less than 1 year old. A total of 119 companies (49.4%) employed fewer than 3 employees, 70 companies (29.0%) hired 3 to 4 employees, 30 (12.4%) employed 5 to 6, 14 (5.8%) employed 7 to 9, and 8 companies (3.3%) employed 10 or more people. Regarding monthly income, 73 companies (30.3%) earned KRW 3 to 6 million, 70 companies (29.0%) earned KRW 6 to 10 million, 66 companies (27.4%) earned less than KRW 3 million, and 32 companies (13.3%) earned more than KRW 10 million. Of these entrepreneurs, 94 (39.0%) had spouses who worked in the company for more than 4 h a day, 39 (16.2%) had spouses who worked in the company for less than 4 h a day, and 108 (44.8%) had spouses who did not work in the company at all.

3.2. Measurements

Entrepreneurial Stress. Entrepreneurial stress was used as a key dependent variable in this study. Based on the items used in Werbel and Danes’ research [17], the measurement tool consisted of the following. Each query was measured on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and was modified as entrepreneurial stress for the purpose of this paper. The statements used were as follows: ‘I’ve felt anxiety because of entrepreneurial stress’, ‘I have felt my heart beating and running fast because of entrepreneurial stress’, ‘I have felt dizzy many times because of entrepreneurial stress’, and ‘I have been short of breath and found it hard to breathe because of entrepreneurial stress’. Some data were reverse-coded for statistical analysis.
Financial Intermingling. Financial intermingling was used as an independent variable in this study. It consists of two sub-factors: family-to-business intermingling and business-to-family intermingling. The measurement tool for family-to-business intermingling consisted of the following four statements: ‘I have raised family funds as company funds’, ‘I have used family income as company funds’, ‘I have borrowed money from family members and used it as company funds’, and ‘I have financed my company by collateralizing the assets of my family and relatives’. The measurement tool for business-to-family intermingling consisted of the following four questions: ‘I have used business income as family funds’, ‘I have used business income as family or company funds depending on the situation’, ‘I have loaned business income at the request of a family member’, and ‘I have used business property or assets for family finances’. Both variables were measured in the range of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). These statements were developed after referring to the studies of Haynes et al. [46] and Muske et al. [43], with modifications appropriate to the purposes of this paper. Some data were reverse-coded for statistical analysis.
Work–Family Balance. Work–family balance was used as a parameter in this study. Participants were asked to respond to the question of whether they had spent an excessive amount of time and effort on work. Items applied in the studies of Kopelman et al. [60] and Gudmunson et al. [48] were utilized. Participants were asked to respond to the following four statements: ‘Because of my business operations, I spend too much time at work every day’, ‘I spend less time with my family because of my business operations’, ‘I rarely do hobbies because of my business operations’, and ‘It’s hard to be the kind of spouse I want to be because of my business operations’. Each was measured in the range of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and modified according to the purpose of this paper.
Other Variables. In addition to the main research variables, the demographic characteristics of entrepreneurs and companies were examined. The characteristics of entrepreneurs consisted of five categories: gender, age, education, number of children, and working hours of the spouses. The company’s characteristics consisted of four categories: industry type, number of years in business, number of employees (including the president), and average monthly income.

3.3. Data Analytics

An empirical analysis was performed using SPSS 28.0 and AMOS statistical packages for a total of 241 data sets. Specifically, utilizing the method proposed by Anderson and Gerbing [61], which involves a two-phase process, the authors first carried out a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the measurement model. Subsequently, they used structural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation to validate the suggested research model and its hypotheses.

4. Results

4.1. Evaluating Measurement Model

Results of confirmatory factor analysis are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. In regard to the convergent validity of the measures, the factor loadings, ranging from 0.636 to 0.949, are all significant, and the lowest value of AVE (0.520 ≤ AVE ≤ 0.690) exceeds the criterion of 0.5, which implies the convergent validity is established. In addition, all the square roots of AVEs are greater than the corresponding correlation coefficients, which demonstrates that discriminant validity is established. Thus, the construct validity of the data, validated by convergent and discriminant measures, met the verification criteria [62].
As a result of analyzing the fitness of the research model to test the hypothesis, it was confirmed that most met the goodness-of-fit test criteria [63]. The chi-square statistic was 319.074. The degree of freedom was 98, and the p-value was less than 0.000. If the p-value is less than 0.000, it means that the research model is not suitable. In structural equations, chi-square is very sensitive to sample size and model complexity. Therefore, a complex model is usually represented by a goodness of fit that complements it [64]. Although it is not an absolute criterion, it is typically considered good if CFI is greater than 0.90. If it is greater than 0.95, it indicates high goodness of fit. If the RMSEA value is less than 0.1, it is usually considered an average model. If RMSEA is less than 0.08, it is considered a good model [65]. CFI estimate of this study was 0.912 and RMSEA was 0.097. Other goodness-of-fit indices were above or near the baseline. Therefore, the research model was confirmed to be suitable for data analysis for hypothesis verification.

4.2. Structural Model and Hypothesis Test

Impact of Intermingling Between Family and Business Finances on Entrepreneurial Stress. As shown in Table 3, hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 were supported, showing that intermingling between family and business finances had a significant positive effect on entrepreneurial stress. In testing hypothesis 1, the path coefficients and C.R. values were 0.156 and 2.404, respectively. The hypothesis was adopted at a significance level of p < 0.05. As a result of hypothesis 2, path coefficients and C.R. values were 0.149 and 2.873, respectively, supporting the hypothesis at a significance level of p < 0.01. This study further confirmed that business-to-family intermingling resulted in greater levels of stress than family-to-business intermingling. These results supported the research results of Muske et al. [43].
Mediation Effect of Work–Family Balance. This study supported Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4, indicating that intermingling between family and business finances affects entrepreneurial stress through work–family balance. There are two methods for determining complete and partial mediation: the method of judging through the statistical significance of the path coefficient and the method of judging through the difference of chi-square between two models by setting up an alternative model. This study judged partial and complete mediation based on statistical significance. If the direct path between the independent variable and the dependent variable is not statistically significant and only the indirect path between the independent variable and the parameter or between the parameter and the dependent variable is statistically significant, it is judged to have a complete mediation effect. If the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable, between the independent variable and the parameter, and between the parameter and the dependent variable are all significant, it is judged that there is a partial mediation effect.
To establish the mediation effect of work–family balance, it is necessary to confirm whether relationships between the independent variable and the dependent variable, between the independent variable and the parameter, and between the parameter and the dependent variable are significant. The relationship between independent and dependent variables was confirmed through Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2. The remaining conditions were found to be significant, as shown in Table 4.
As a result of testing Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4, as shown in Table 5, the intermingling of family and business finances was shown to influence entrepreneurial stress through the impairment of work–family balance. The indirect effect significances were 0.003 and 0.036, respectively. Significance was adopted at a level of p < 0.05.
Others. There was no moderating effect according to gender, age, type of business, company years, number of employees, or profit. This is because most of the companies in the sample share the majority of their characteristics as start-up companies.

5. Conclusions and Discussion

The results and implications of this paper are as follows: First, the intermingling of family and start-up finances in a family business has a significant positive effect on entrepreneurial stress. By separating personal and business finances, a company can increase the growth potential of family-owned businesses. By securing stability at an early stage, it is possible to cope with the demand for operating capital loans from a financial institution. This is a much better alternative than intermingling the financial accounts of households and companies. Often, financial sacrifices are made for the sake of the business, which divert resources away from family expenses [15]. The more frequent intermingling occurs, the higher the entrepreneurial stress, thus negatively affecting the company’s operations. However, according to the literature, resource exchanges between households and companies may be necessary on a case-by-case basis [42]. In certain situations, this strategy can contribute to the company’s stability and growth when the company is closely managed according to mid- to long-term strategies and plans [18,42]. However, if the principle of resource exchange is ignored and commingling frequently occurs over a long period of time, it can put too much stress on the parties involved, which in turn can negatively affect the sustainability of the family business [42].
Second, the intermingling of family and start-up finances in a family business affects entrepreneurial stress through disruption of the work–family balance. Entrepreneurs, who bear the responsibility for the overall success of their business, may find it particularly challenging to reconcile the various demands on their time and attention. This may include financial sacrifices made at home for the sake of the business. Due to the conflicts of time, energy, role behaviors, and finances, the business may be perceived as taking precedence over familial relationships, leading to resentment among family members [15]. The depletion of resources due to work–family conflict can lead to negative outcomes for an individual’s well-being [35]. In addition, the commitment to business operations after the start-up can damage the balance between work and family time and create conflicts in the home [13,15,16,17,34,35,55]. Depending on financing from the household instead of from financial institutions leads to instability in the company’s operations and the depletion of household funds. The instability of the company’s operations increases entrepreneurial stress by disrupting the work–family balance.
Research demonstrates that family members, spouses, and peers who support the working environment of small business owners have increased job satisfaction and overall well-being [55]. Moreover, Halbesleben et al. [13] pointed out that having a supportive and understanding partner is associated with a lower likelihood of conflict between work and family demands, as they are less likely to be upset when work demands encroach on family demands. A study by Zhu et al. [54] found that family support is a critical resource that can encourage or discourage individuals from entering entrepreneurial endeavors.
South Korea has recognized the importance of fostering a vibrant start-up ecosystem and has implemented various policies and initiatives to support entrepreneurship. Organizations such as the Korean Institute of Startup & Entrepreneurship Development (KISED) and the Korean Venture Investment Corporation (KVIC) have established incubators and accelerators across the country to provide start-ups with mentorship, networking opportunities, resources, and education to develop their business ideas into viable products and services [66,67]. These government organizations could potentially direct their attention towards fostering education and training initiatives within the domain of family entrepreneurship, particularly concerning family-run enterprises. This research and guidance could encompass a comprehensive exploration of entrepreneurial stress and the formulation of precise strategies to mitigate the convergence of familial and business financial domains.

6. Limitations and Future Studies

This paper focused on the importance of family start-ups in determining the quality of life in modern society. Self-employed start-ups in South Korea are a good area of study for family business research because most start with the expectation of some level of family involvement [4]. Nevertheless, it is difficult to approach a problem associated with a company’s life cycle by conducting research only on early-stage start-ups. In the future, it would be advantageous to conduct research on a sample of encompassing companies at various stages of development, thereby broadening the scope from start-ups to more established family enterprises and including companies in terminal decline. Moreover, it would be beneficial to conduct comparative research on foreign companies in countries with family dynamics similar to or different from those in South Korea to see how financial intermingling affects entrepreneurial success in other social and cultural contexts.
Is a start-up a positive/practical choice for families? According to family business research conducted thus far, it is uncertain whether start-ups have a positive impact on the quality of life of the family. However, in modern Korean society, entrepreneurial activities are one of the only options available for families to develop financial sustainability; therefore, more research is needed to help national and local governments develop policies that support start-up financing [4,68]. In this regard, the following research questions need to be explored further. First, what types of government policies and new funding methods would help support family business startups? Second, are government efforts to improve the education, welfare, and quality of life of families in the family business based on interdisciplinary research that takes into consideration a multitude of perspectives? Third, how specifically does the establishment of a family business affect the relationships among family members? Based on an academic approach to these questions, the breadth of family business research can be further expanded.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.C. and D.K.; Methodology, J.C.; Formal analysis, J.C.; Investigation, J.C.; Resources, D.K.; Writing—original draft, J.C. and D.K.; Writing—review & editing, D.K.; Supervision, D.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to using pre-surveyed data before funded.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurial Leadership and Competitive Strategy in Family Business; Saiz-Álvarez, J.M.; Palma-Ruiz, J.M. (Eds.) Advances in Business Strategy and Competitive Advantage Book Series; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019; ISBN 978-1-5225-8012-6. [Google Scholar]
  2. Tobak, J.; Nagy, A.; Pető, K.; Fenyves, V.; Nábrádi, A. The Main Factors Determining Effective Operation in Case of a Family Business. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2018, 24, 1065–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. OECD. OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2019; OECD: Paris, France, 2019; ISBN 978-92-64-37480-5. [Google Scholar]
  4. Jones, R.S.; Lee, J.W. Enhancing Dynamism in SMES and Entrepreneurship in Korea; Economics Department Working Papers No. 1510; OECD: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  5. KOSIS (Korean Statistical Information Service). Available online: https://kosis.kr/eng/ (accessed on 29 May 2023).
  6. OECD. Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators; OECD: Paris, France, 2021; ISBN 978-92-64-36077-8. [Google Scholar]
  7. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2022/2023 Global Report: Adapting to a “New Normal”; GEM: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  8. Yeh, Y.-H.; Liao, C.-C. The Impact of Market and Industry Risk on Family Succession. N. Am. J. Econ. Finance 2021, 55, 101021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Haase, A.; Eberl, P. The Challenges of Routinizing for Building Resilient Startups. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2019, 57, 579–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Winborg, J.; Landström, H. Financial Bootstrapping in Small Businesses. J. Bus. Ventur. 2001, 16, 235–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yilmazer, T.; Schrank, H. The Use of Owner Resources in Small and Family Owned Businesses: Literature Review and Future Research Directions. J. Fam. Econ. Issues 2010, 31, 399–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cooper, J.T.; Kidwell, R.E.; Eddleston, K.A. Boss and Parent, Employee and Child: Work-Family Roles and Deviant Behavior in the Family Firm: Work-Family Roles and Deviance in the Family Firm. Fam. Relat. 2013, 62, 457–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Halbesleben, J.R.B.; Wheeler, A.R.; Rossi, A.M. The Costs and Benefits of Working with One’s Spouse: A Two-Sample Examination of Spousal Support, Work-Family Conflict, and Emotional Exhaustion in Work-Linked Relationships. J. Organ. Behav. 2012, 33, 597–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jennings, J.E.; Breitkreuz, R.S.; James, A.E. When Family Members Are Also Business Owners: Is Entrepreneurship Good for Families: When Family Members Are Also Business Owners? Fam. Relat. 2013, 62, 472–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. McDowell, W.C.; Matthews, L.M.; Matthews, R.L.; Aaron, J.R.; Edmondson, D.R.; Ward, C.B. The Price of Success: Balancing the Effects of Entrepreneurial Commitment, Work-Family Conflict and Emotional Exhaustion on Job Satisfaction. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2019, 15, 1179–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Qiu, H.; Freel, M. Managing Family-Related Conflicts in Family Businesses: A Review and Research Agenda. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2020, 33, 90–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Werbel, J.D.; Danes, S.M. Work Family Conflict in New Business Ventures: The Moderating Effects of Spousal Commitment to the New Business Venture. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2010, 48, 421–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. McDonald, T.M.; Marshall, M.I. Family Business Responses to Household and Business Cash-Flow Problems. J. Fam. Econ. Issues 2018, 39, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yedder, M.B. Human Resource Management in Family Business Succession: Victim or Saviour? J. Enterp. Cult. 2018, 26, 401–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. OECD. The Dynamics of Employment Growth: New Evidence from 18 Countries; OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers: Paris, France, 2014; Volume 14. [Google Scholar]
  21. Marshall, M.I.; Schrank, H.L. Sink or Swim? Impacts of Management Strategies on Small Business Survival and Recovery. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hobfoll, S.E. Conservation of Resources: A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hobfoll, S.E. The Influence of Culture, Community, and the Nested-Self in the Stress Process: Advancing Conservation of Resources Theory. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 50, 337–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Schoenewolf, G. Emotional Contagion: Behavioral Induction in Individuals and Groups. Mod. Psychoanal. 1990, 15, 49–61. [Google Scholar]
  25. El Shoubaki, A.; Block, J.; Lasch, F. The Couple Business as a Unique Form of Business: A Review of the Empirical Evidence. Manag. Rev. Q. 2022, 72, 115–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Frone, M.R. Work-Family Balance. In Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology; Quick, J.C., Tetrick, L.E., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; pp. 143–162. ISBN 978-1-55798-927-7. [Google Scholar]
  27. Leung, Y.K.; Mukerjee, J.; Thurik, R. The Role of Family Support in Work-Family Balance and Subjective Well-Being of SME Owners. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2020, 58, 130–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wayne, J.H.; Butts, M.M.; Casper, W.J.; Allen, T.D. In Search of Balance: A Conceptual and Empirical Integration of Multiple Meanings of Work-Family Balance. Pers. Psychol. 2017, 70, 167–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Clark, S.C. Work/Family Border Theory: A New Theory of Work/Family Balance. Hum. Relat. 2000, 53, 747–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Guest, D.E. Perspectives on the Study of Work-Life Balance. Soc. Sci. Inf. 2002, 41, 255–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hirschi, A.; Shockley, K.M.; Zacher, H. Achieving Work-Family Balance: An Action Regulation Model. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2019, 44, 150–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Voydanoff, P. Toward a Conceptualization of Perceived Work-Family Fit and Balance: A Demands and Resources Approach. J. Marriage Fam. 2005, 67, 822–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Aryee, S.; Srinivas, E.S.; Tan, H.H. Rhythms of Life: Antecedents and Outcomes of Work-Family Balance in Employed Parents. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 132–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Boyar, S.L.; Mosley, D.C. The Relationship between Core Self-Evaluations and Work and Family Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Work–Family Conflict and Facilitation. J. Vocat. Behav. 2007, 71, 265–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nguyen, H.; Sawang, S. Juggling or Struggling? Work and Family Interface and Its Buffers among Small Business Owners. Entrep. Res. J. 2016, 6, 207–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ruderman, M.N.; Ohlott, P.J.; Panzer, K.; King, S.N. Benefits of multiple roles for managerial women. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 369–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Edelman, L.F.; Manolova, T.; Shirokova, G.; Tsukanova, T. The Impact of Family Support on Young Entrepreneurs’ Start-up Activities. J. Bus. Ventur. 2016, 31, 428–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ando, K. Grandparenthood: Crossroads between Gender and Aging. Int. J. Jpn. Sociol. 2005, 14, 32–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Remble, A.A.; Marshall, M.I.; Keeney, R. Household Saving Behavior and the Influence of Family-Owned Business. J. Fam. Econ. Issues 2014, 35, 411–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Carbajo, M. 5 Ways to Separate Your Personal and Business Finances. U.S. Small Business Administration. Available online: https://www.sba.gov/blog/5-ways-separate-your-personal-business-finances (accessed on 26 June 2023).
  41. Internal Revenue Service 5.15.1 Financial Analysis Handbook. Internal Revenue Service. Available online: https://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-015-001 (accessed on 26 June 2023).
  42. Haynes, G.; Marshall, M.; Lee, Y.; Zuiker, V.; Jasper, C.R.; Sydnor, S.; Valdivia, C.; Masuo, D.; Niehm, L.; Wiatt, R. Family Business Research: Reviewing the Past, Contemplating the Future. J. Fam. Econ. Issues 2021, 42, 70–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Muske, G.; Fitzgerald, M.A.; Haynes, G.; Black, M.; Chin, L.; MacClure, R.; Mashburn, A. The Intermingling of Family and Business Financial Resources: Understanding the Copreneurial Couple. J. Financ. Couns. Plan. 2009, 20, 27–47. [Google Scholar]
  44. Freudenreich, B.; Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Schaltegger, S. A Stakeholder Theory Perspective on Business Models: Value Creation for Sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 166, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Auken, H.V. Differences in the Usage of Bootstrap Financing among Technology-Based versus Nontechnology-Based Firms. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2005, 43, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Haynes, G.W.; Walker, R.; Rowe, B.R.; Hong, G.-S. The Intermingling of Business and Family Finances in Family-Owned Businesses. Fam. Bus. Rev. 1999, 12, 225–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Berger, N.A.; Udell, G.F. The Economics of Small Business Finance: The Roles of Private Equity and Debt Markets in the Financial Growth Cycle. J. Bank. Finance 1998, 22, 613–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gudmunson, C.G.; Danes, S.M.; Werbel, J.D.; Loy, J.T.-C. Spousal Support and Work—Family Balance in Launching a Family Business. J. Fam. Issues 2009, 30, 1098–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Goffee, R.; Scase, R. Business Ownership and Women’s Subordination: A Preliminary Study of Female Proprietors. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 31, 625–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Montiel Mendez, O.J.; Soto Maciel, A. Dark Side of the Family Business: An Exploratory Perspective. J. Fam. Bus. Manag. 2021, 11, 386–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kidwell, R.E.; Kellermanns, F.W.; Eddleston, K.A. Harmony, Justice, Confusion, and Conflict in Family Firms: Implications for Ethical Climate and the “Fredo Effect”. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 106, 503–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dyer, W.G. Potential Contributions of Organizational Behavior to the Study of Family-Owned Businesses. Fam. Bus. Rev. 1994, 7, 109–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mirowsky, J.; Ross, C.E. Social Causes of Psychological Distress, 1st ed.; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2017; ISBN 978-1-315-12946-4. [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhu, W.; Zhou, J.; Lau, W.K.; Welch, S. How Harmonious Family Encourages Individuals to Enter Entrepreneurship: A View from Conservation of Resource Theory. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 2020, 31, 333–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kossek, E.E.; Pichler, S.; Bodner, T.; Hammer, L.B. Workplace social support and work-family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work-family-specific supervisor and organizational support. Pers. Psychol. 2011, 64, 289–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Stoner, C.R.; Robin, J.; Russell-Chapin, L. On the Edge: Perceptions and Responses to Life Imbalance. Bus. Horiz. 2005, 48, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Marks, S.R.; Huston, T.L.; Johnson, E.M.; MacDermid, S.M. Role Balance among White Married Couples. J. Marriage Fam. 2001, 63, 1083–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Danes, S.M. Tensions Within Family Business-Owning Couples Over Time. Stress Trauma Crisis 2006, 9, 227–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Newlin, A.M.B. More Specific than “Small”: Identifying Key Factors to Account for the Heterogeneity in Stress Findings among Small Businesses. In Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being; Perrewé, P.L., Harms, P.D., Chang, C.-H., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2020; pp. 95–122. ISBN 978-1-83982-397-8. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kopelman, R.E.; Greenhaus, J.H.; Connolly, T.F. A Model of Work, Family, and Interrole Conflict: A Construct Validation Study. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1983, 32, 198–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Baumgartner, H.; Homburg, C. Applications of Structural Equation Modeling in Marketing and Consumer Research: A Review. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1996, 13, 139–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R. Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sociol. Methods Res. 1992, 21, 230–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. KISED. Korea Institute of Startup & Entrepreneurship Development (KISED). Available online: https://www.kised.or.kr/_eng/ (accessed on 26 June 2023).
  67. KVIC. Korea Venture Investment Corp (KVIC). Available online: https://www.kvic.or.kr/en/ (accessed on 26 June 2023).
  68. Schüler, D.; Suhalitca, M.; Pascha, W.; Oh, K. Government Policies for Start-Ups in Korea and Its Regions: Motives, Mechanisms and Major Obstacles; Working Papers on East Asian Studiess, No. 127/2020; University of Duisburg Essen, Institute of East Asian Studies (IN-EAST): Duisburg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 13944 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 15 13944 g001
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis results.
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis results.
VariableMeasurement ItemUnstandardized CoefficientsS.E.C.R.Standardized EstimatesError VarianceAVEC.R.
FtoB intermingling 0.5710.841
FtoB41.000 0.8110.536
FtoB31.2130.07216.8270.9160.293
FtoB21.0080.07413.6770.7840.660
FtoB11.0540.07314.3690.8120.592
BtoF intermingling 0.5200.808
BtoF41.000 0.8790.448
BtoF31.0100.04820.9280.9490.171
BtoF20.6310.05311.8280.6610.784
BtoF10.6380.05711.2080.6360.915
WFB 0.5220.813
WFB41.000 0.8080.505
WFB30.9560.07812.3120.7740.581
WFB10.9680.07712.5490.7880.543
WFB10.8380.07211.5670.7320.577
Entrepreneurial
stress		 0.6900.898
EntStress41.000 0.6950.451
EntStress31.1000.09511.5770.8330.225
EntStress21.1770.10211.5120.8280.269
EntStress11.0310.08911.5350.8300.203
Table 2. Discriminant validity test and correlation analysis.
Table 2. Discriminant validity test and correlation analysis.
VariableABCD
A. Entrepreneurial stress0.830
B. FtoB intermingling0.468 **0.756
C. BtoF intermingling0.470 **0.608 **0.721
D. WFB0.408 **0.404 **0.406 **0.722
** Significant at 0.01 significance level; bold is the square root of AVE.
Table 3. Impact of intermingling between family and business finances on entrepreneurial stress.
Table 3. Impact of intermingling between family and business finances on entrepreneurial stress.
HypothesisPathDirectionPath CoefficientS.E.C.R.Judgement
H1Family-to-business intermingling → entrepreneurial stress+0.1560.0652.404 **Adopted
H2Business-to-family intermingling → entrepreneurial stress+0.1490.0522.873 ***Adopted
*** Significant at 0.01 significance level; ** significant at 0.05 significance level.
Table 4. Additional conditions for analyzing mediation effect of work–family balance.
Table 4. Additional conditions for analyzing mediation effect of work–family balance.
ClassificationPathDirectionPath CoefficientS.E.C.R.Judgement
1Family-to-business intermingling → WFB+0.3000.1032.920 ***Adopted
Business-to-family intermingling → WFB+0.1650.0831.991 **Adopted
2Work–family balance → entrepreneurial stress+0.1600.0503.203 ***Adopted
*** Significant at 0.01 significance level; ** significant at 0.05 significance level.
Table 5. Testing mediation effect of work–family balance.
Table 5. Testing mediation effect of work–family balance.
HypothesisPathDirect EffectIndirect EffectTotal EffectType of MediationIndirect Effect SignificanceJudgement
H3Family-to-business intermingling → entrepreneurial stress0.2370.0490.286Partial mediation0.003Adopted
H4Business-to-family intermingling → entrepreneurial stress0.2750.0730.348Partial mediation0.036Adopted
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Choi, J.; Kessler, D. Influences of Start-Up’s Financial Intermingling on Entrepreneurial Stress in Sustainable Family Businesses: Mediation Effect of Work–Family Balance. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13944. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813944

AMA Style

Choi J, Kessler D. Influences of Start-Up’s Financial Intermingling on Entrepreneurial Stress in Sustainable Family Businesses: Mediation Effect of Work–Family Balance. Sustainability. 2023; 15(18):13944. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813944

Chicago/Turabian Style

Choi, Jucheol, and Daniel Kessler. 2023. "Influences of Start-Up’s Financial Intermingling on Entrepreneurial Stress in Sustainable Family Businesses: Mediation Effect of Work–Family Balance" Sustainability 15, no. 18: 13944. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813944

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop