Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Asia Pacific Journal of Management
Published in: Asia Pacific Journal of Management 3/2020

22-03-2019

Proactive government intervention, board gender balance, and stakeholder engagement in China and Europe

Authors: Paul B. McGuinness, João Paulo Vieito, Mingzhu Wang

Published in: Asia Pacific Journal of Management | Issue 3/2020

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This study assesses the management quality and corporate social performance of firms supervised according to three distinctly different governance regimes. The differences relate to protocols and interventions on board gender balance. Sweden and Norway serve as our strongly gender-inclusive (SGI) benchmarks, with the UK and China as our respective moderately (MGI) and weakly gender-inclusive (WGI) domains. Our evidence shows that corporate social performance ratings have risen appreciably between 2010 and 2015 in each of China, the UK, Sweden and Norway. Moreover, corporate social responsibility (CSR) ratings in Sweden, Norway and the UK appear broadly comparable. In extending Ahern and Dittmar’s (Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127, 137–197, 2012) evidence of a quota’s initial deleterious effect on managerial quality, we observe improvement in Norwegian firms’ directors’ educational profiles as quotas become more entrenched. Average director age (experience) also rose in such firms over the study period. Our results suggest some degree of adaptation in the application of board quotas. Additionally, variation in female board participation exerts minimal (strong) influence on CSR ratings for SGI- (MGI- & WGI-) domain entities. Findings on this issue for China and the UK strongly support a critical mass theory (CMT; Konrad, Kramer, & Erkut, Organizational Dynamics, 37(2), 145–164, 2008) conception of corporate social-engagement. Finally, results reveal a non-uniform relation between corporate social and financial returns. Overall, we add new context to institutional theory narratives on stakeholder-engagement (Campbell, Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967, 2007; Young & Makhija, Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 670–698, 2014).
previous article Good connections with rivals may weaken a firm’s competitive practices: The negative effect of competitor ties on market orientation practices and innovative performance
next article Coping with Commodification: Hybrid strategies in Asian law firms

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Footnotes
1
For instance, the Clearly Cultural website assigns Norway and Sweden the same total Hofstede Power Distance Index (PDI) score: http://​www.​clearlycultural.​com/​geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/​power-distance-index/​. Nonetheless, clear differences exist in relation to the two countries’ “micro-politics” (Seierstad, Warner-Søderholm, Torchia, & Huse, 2017: 292).
 
2
The OECD (http://​stats.​oecd.​org/​index.​aspx?​queryid=​54753) shows women occupied 26% (36%) of board slots in Sweden’s major listed companies in 2010 (2016). The UK figure was 13% (26%).
 
3
See Women on Boards (2011: 22–23).
 
4
The European Commission’s philosophy is broadly similar. Its Directive (European Commission, 2014) sets an “objective” for women to occupy at least 40% of non-executive positions in listed non-SMEs by 2020. The EWOB (2016) highlighted a sharp increase in female board presence in 12 major European countries between 2011 and 2015. The rate of increase is even higher on audit and remuneration committees.
 
5
A top-management CSR position is also more common in Scandinavia than in the US (Strand, 2013).
 
6
The Steering committee of Women on Boards (2011), led by Lord Davies, has pushed strongly for greater gender diversity on FTSE 100 boards. Between 02/2011 and 10/2015, female representation on FTSE 100 boards rose from 12.5 to 26.1% (Women on Boards, 2015: 8). Australia offers further example of a “target-based” approach. Klettner, Clarke, and Boersma (2016) suggested that such an approach can be effective in fostering organizational cultural change, and in promoting greater gender inclusivity at board and top-management levels.
 
7
Grant Thornton (2017: 23) defined such companies as having between 100 and 1,000 employees.
 
8
For US firms, Manner (2010) revealed weaker CSR ratings where an incumbent CEO has undergraduate training in economics. Roach and Slater (2016) reported higher CSR ratings for CEOs trained in humanities.
 
9
Ben-Amar et al. (2017) identified a U-shaped pattern of ROA performance in relation to age diversity. Age may also act as a barrier to board entry for women (Huang & Kisgen, 2013). Huang (2013) observed that CEO tenure promotes the consistency of CSR disclosure.
 
10
See Bhalla’s (2015) commentary on board gender quotas in India, where several boards met recent quota threshold requirements by elevating a family member of an incumbent executive director.
 
11
El Ghoul, Guedhami, Kwok, and Mishra (2011) and Goss and Roberts (2011) accounted for CSR in reducing funding costs.
 
12
Several studies in the social performance area control for firm size using total assets (Barnea & Rubin, 2010; Ben-Amar et al., 2017). Some others utilize board size (Hafsi & Turgut, 2013; Nekhili et al., 2017). Equations 1–3 include one or other of size measures LnBs and LnTA, but not both, given a correlation between them of +.62.
 
13
Clearly Cultural (see Note 1) assigns respective Hofstede PDI values to China, UK, Sweden and Norway of 80, 40, 31 and 31. Waldman et al.’s (2006) study includes China, but not the UK, Sweden and Norway. Of the 15 countries covered, China exhibits the greatest power distance (829).
 
14
For mainland PRC listed entities, Zhang and Qu (2016) reported a female chair rate of 4% for the period 1997–2010 inclusive. Du (2016) reported regional variation in board diversity, with rates lowest where Confucian norms predominate.
 
15
Results for such sub-periods are available on request.
 
16
Comments in Note 15 apply.
 
17
This result largely reflects the “Economic” dimension in the Asset4 Database CSR rating. Notes 15–16 apply.
 
18
An instrumental variable or 2SLS design potentially mitigates such bias. However, a meaningful instrument for financial performance must be one that is exogenous to the overall model but strongly correlated with ROA. Obvious difficulties exist in identifying such an instrument. Moreover, inclusion of a weak instrument inevitably adds noise to the regressions. Incorporating a lagged ROA variable potentially offers a cleaner way of minimizing endogeneity effects (between corporate financial and social performance) as well as in dissipating noise.
 
Literature
Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. 2009. Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2): 291–309.
Adams, R. B., & Funk, P. 2012. Beyond the glass ceiling: Does gender matter?. Management Science, 58(2): 219–235.
Ahern, K. R., & Dittmar, A. 2012. The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127: 137–197.
Ahlstrom, D. 2010. Innovation and growth: How business contributes to society. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3): 11–24.
Ahlstrom, D., Chen, S.-j., & Yeh, K. S. 2010. Managing in ethnic Chinese communities: Culture, institutions, and context. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(3): 341–354.
Ahlstrom, D., Levitas, E., Hitt, M. A., Dacin, M. T., & Zhu, H. 2014. The three faces of China: Strategic alliance partner selection in three ethnic Chinese economies. Journal of World Business, 49(4): 572–585.
Al-Shaer, H., & Zaman, M. 2016. Board gender diversity and sustainability reporting quality. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 12(3): 210–222.
Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. 2010. Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1): 71–86.
Barnett, M. 2007. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 794–816.
Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C. 2010. The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2): 207–221.
Ben-Amar, W., Chang, M., & McIlkenny, P. 2017. Board gender diversity and corporate response to sustainability initiatives: Evidence from the carbon disclosure project. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2): 369–383.
Bhagat, S., & Bolton, B. 2008. Corporate governance and firm performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14: 257–273.
Bhalla, N. 2015. Indian firms mock gender diversity as boardroom deadline passes—Analysts. Reuters: April 2, 2015.
Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. 2007. Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(4): 1351–1408.
Bøhren, Ø., & Staubo, S. 2014. Does mandatory gender balance work? Changing organizational form to avoid board upheaval. Journal of Corporate Finance, 28: 152–168.
Bøhren, Ø., & Staubo, S. 2016. Mandatory gender balance and board independence. European Financial Management, 22(1): 3–30.
Borghesi, R., Houston, J. F., & Naranjo, A. 2014. Corporate socially responsible investments: CEO altruism, reputation, and shareholder interests. Journal of Corporate Finance, 26: 164–181.
Boulouta, I. 2013. Hidden connections: The link between board gender diversity and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 113: 185–197.
Boulouta, I., & Pitelis, C. 2014. Who needs CSR? The impact of corporate social responsibility on national competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 119: 349–364.
Brammer, S., Jackson, G., & Matten, D. 2012. Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. Socio-Economic Review, 10: 3–28.
Brammer, S., & Millington, A. 2008. Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1325–1343.
Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Pavelin, S. 2009. Corporate reputation and women on the board. British Journal of Management, 20(1): 17–29.
Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Si, S. 2015. Entrepreneurship, poverty, and Asia: Moving beyond subsistence entrepreneurship. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(1): 1–22.
Bruton, G. D., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Stan, C., & Xu, K. 2015. State-owned enterprises around the world as hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1): 92–114.
Campbell, J. L. 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 946–967.
Campbell, K., & Mínguez-Vera, A. 2008. Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(3): 435–451.
Carter, A., D’Souza, F., Simkins, B., & Simpson, W. 2010. The gender and ethnic diversity of US boards and board committees and firm financial performance. Corporate governance: An International Review, 18: 96–414.
Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. 2003. Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Review, 38(1): 33–53.
Chapple, L., & Humphrey, J. 2014. Does board gender diversity have a financial impact? Evidence using stock portfolio performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(4): 709–723.
Chen, D., Jiang, D., & Yu, X. 2015. Corporate philanthropy and bank loans in China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 35: 402–424.
Claessens, S., & Fan, P. H. 2002. Corporate governance in Asia: A survey. International Review of Finance, 3(2): 71–103.
Conyon, M., & He, L. 2017. Firm performance and boardroom gender diversity: A quantile regression approach. Journal of Business Research, 79: 198–211.
Cornett, M., Erhemjamts, O., & Tehranian, H. 2016. Greed or good deeds: An examination of the relation between corporate social responsibility and the financial performance of US commercial banks around the financial crisis. Journal of Banking and Finance, 70: 137–159.
Cronqvist, H., & Yu, F. 2017. Shaped by their daughters: Executives, female socialization, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics, 126: 543–562.
CSRI. 2012. Gender diversity and corporate performance. Working paper, Credit Suisse Research Institute, Credit Suisse AG, Zurich, Switzerland.
Das, D. K. 2013. The role of China in Asia’s evolution to global economic prominence. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 1(1): 216–229.
Del Bosco, B., & Misani, N. 2016. The effect of cross-listing on the environmental, social, and governance performance of firms. Journal of World Business, 51: 977–990.
Deng, X., Kang, J. K., & Low, B. S. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder value maximization: Evidence from mergers. Journal of Financial Economics, 110: 87–109.
Diamantopolous, A., Schlegelmilch, B., Sinkovics, R., & Bohlen, G. 2003. Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56: 465–480.
Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. 2006. Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1): 47–73.
Donaldson, T., & Peston, L. E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65–91.
Du, X. 2016. Does Confucianism reduce board gender diversity? Firm-level evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(2): 399–436.
Duchin, R., Matsusaka, J., & Ozbas, O. 2010. When are outside directors effective?. Journal of Financial Economics, 96: 195–214.
El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., & Kim, Y. 2017. Country-level institutions, firm value, and the role of corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of International Business Studies, 48: 360–385.
El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C., & Mishra, D. 2011. Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital?. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35: 2388–2406.
Erhardt, N., Werbel, J., & Shrader, C. 2003. Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11: 102–111.
EWOB. 2016. European Women on Boards: Gender diversity of European boards. EWOB/ISS working paper, European Women on Boards (EWOB), Belgium and London.
Faccio, M., Marchica, T., & Mura, R. 2016. CEO gender, corporate risk-taking, and the efficiency of capital allocation. Journal of Corporate Finance, 39: 193–209.
Fan, P. H., Wong, T. J., & Zhang, T. 2007. Politically connected CEOs, corporate governance, and post-IPO performance of China’s newly partially privatized firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 84: 330–357.
Farag, H., & Mallin, C. 2016. The impact of the dual board structure and diversity: Evidence from Chinese initial public offerings (IPOs). Journal of Business Ethics, 139(2): 333–349.
Farrell, K., & Hersch, P. 2005. Additions to corporate boards: The effect of gender. Journal of Corporate Finance, 11: 85–106.
Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz-Blanco, S. 2014. Women on boards: Do they affect sustainability reporting?. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(6): 351–364.
Fernando, C., Sharfman, M., & Uysal, V. 2017. Corporate environmental policy and shareholder value: Following the smart money. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 52(5): 2023–2051.
Ferrari, G., Ferraro, V., Profeta, P., & Pronzato, C. 2016. Gender quotas: Challenging the boards, performance, and the stock market. IZA Discussion paper no. 10239, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn, Germany.
Ferrell, A., Liang, H., & Renneborg, L. 2016. Socially responsible firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 122: 585–606.
Finkelstein, S. 1992. Power in top-management teams: Dimensions, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 505–538.
Francis, B., Hasan, I., & Wu, Q. 2013. The impact of CFO gender on bank loan contracting. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 28(1): 53–78.
Francoeur, C., Labelle, R., & Sinclair-Desgagné, B. 2008. Gender diversity in corporate governance and top management. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1): 83–95.
FRC. 2012. The UK corporate governance code. London: Financial Reporting Council.
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Globerman, S., Peng, M., & Shapiro, D. 2011. Corporate governance and Asian companies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(1): 1–14.
Goss, A., & Roberts, G. 2011. The impact of corporate social responsibility on the cost of bank loans. Journal of Banking & Finance, 10: 1794–1810.
Grant Thornton. 2017. Women in business: New perspectives on risk and reward. London: Grant Thornton.
Gregorič, A., Oxelheim, L., & Randøy, T. 2017. Resistance to change in the corporate elite: Female directors’ appointments onto Nordic boards. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(2): 267–287.
Hafsi, T., & Turgut, G. 2013. Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance: Conceptualization and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 112: 463–479.
Hambrick, D., Cho, T., & Chen, M. 1996. The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4): 659–684.
Harjoto, M., Lakshmana, I., & Lee, R. 2015. Board diversity and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4): 641–660.
Harris, M., & Raviv, A. 2008. Theory of board control and size. Review of Financial Studies, 21: 1797–1832.
Haslam, S., Ryan, M., Kulich, C., Trojanowski, G., & Atkins, C. 2010. Investing with prejudice: The relationship between women’s presence on company boards and objective and subjective measures of company performance. British Journal of Management, 21: 484–497.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hoogendoorn, S., Oosterbeek, H., & van Praag, M. 2013. The impact of gender diversity on the performance of business teams: Evidence from a field experiment. Management Science, 59: 1514–1528.
Hu, H. W., Tam, O. K., & Tan, M. G.-S. 2010. Internal governance mechanisms and firm performance in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(4): 727–749.
Huang, J., & Kisgen, D. 2013. Gender and corporate finance: Are male executives overconfident relative to female executives?. Journal of Financial Economics, 108: 822–839.
Huang, S. 2013. The impact of CEO characteristics on corporate sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(4): 234–244.
Huang, Y., Chen, A., & Kao, L. 2012. Corporate governance in Taiwan: The nonmonotonic relationship between family ownership and dividend policy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(1): 39–58.
Huse, M., Nielsen, S., & Hagen, I. 2009. Women and employee-elected board members, and their contributions to board control tasks. Journal of Business Ethics, 89: 81–597.
Ibrahim, N., & Angelidis, J. 1994. Effect of board members’ gender on corporate social responsiveness orientation. Journal of Applied Business Research, 10(1): 35–41.
Ibrahim, N., Howard, D., & Angelidis, J. 2003. Board members in the service industry: An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility orientation and directorial type. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(4): 393–401.
Isidro, H., & Sobral, M. 2015. The effects of women on corporate boards on firm value, financial performance, and ethical and social compliance. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(1): 1–19.
Jensen, M. C. 2001. Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. European Financial Management, 7(3): 297–317.
Jiang, F., & Kim, K. A. 2015. Corporate governance in China: A modern perspective. Journal of Corporate Finance, 32: 190–216.
Klettner, A., Clarke, T., & Boersma, M. 2016. Strategic and regulatory approaches to increasing women in leadership: Multilevel targets and mandatory quotas as levers for cultural change. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(3): 395–419.
Kolk, A. 2016. The social responsibility of international business: From ethics and the environment to CSR and sustainable development. Journal of World Business, 51: 23–34.
Konrad, A., Kramer, V., & Erkut, S. 2008. Critical mass: The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics, 37(2): 145–164.
Labelle, R., Francoeur, C., & Lakhal, F. 2015. To regulate or not to regulate? Early evidence on the means used around the world to promote gender diversity in the boardroom. Gender, Work and Organization, 22(4): 339–363.
Lam, K., McGuinness, P., & Vieito, J. 2013. An empirical assessment of CEO gender, executive compensation and firm performance in Chinese listed enterprises. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 21: 1136–1159.
Landry, E., Bernardi, R., & Bosco, S. 2016. Recognition for sustained corporate social responsibility: Female directors make a difference. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(1): 27–36.
Lau, C. M., Lu, Y., & Liang, Q. 2016. Corporate social responsibility in China: A corporate governance approcah. Journal of Business Ethics, 136: 73–87.
Lending, C. C., & Vahamaa, E. 2017. European board structure and director expertise: The impact of quotas. Research in International Business and Finance, 39: 486–501.
Li, H., & Atuahene-Gima, K. 2011. Product innovation strategy and the performance of new technology ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6): 1123–1134.
Liao, L., Luo, L., & Tang, Q. 2014. Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. British Accounting Review, 47(4): 409–424.
Liao, L., Lin, T., & Zhang, Y. 2018. Corporate board and corporate social responsibility assurance: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 150: 211–225.
Lin, J. Y., & Wang, Y. 2012. China’s integration with the world: Development as process of learning and industrial upgrading. China Economic Policy Review, 1(1): 1250001–1250033.
Lins, K., Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. 2017. Social capital, trust, and firm performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. Journal of Finance, 72(4): 1785–1823.
Liu, P., & Zeng, R. 2017. Age diversity and corporate social responsibility—Evidence from Chinese listed firms. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5: 1–8.
Liu, Y., Wang, L. C., Zhao, L., & Ahlstrom, D. 2013. Board turnover in Taiwan’s public firms: An empirical study. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30(4): 1059–1086.
Liu, Y., Wei, Z., & Xie, F. 2014. Do women directors improve firm performance in China?. Journal of Corporate Finance, 28: 169–184.
Livesey, S. M., & Kearins, K. 2002. Transparent and caring corporations? A study of sustainability reports by the body shop and Royal Dutch/Shell. Organization & Environment, 15(3): 233–258.
Lopatta, K., & Kaspereit, T. 2013. The world capital markets perception of sustainability and the impact of the financial crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 122: 475–500.
Low, D., Roberts, H., & Whiting, R. 2015. Board gender diversity and firm performance: Empirical evidence from Hong Kong, South Korea, Malaysia and Singapore. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 35: 381–401.
Lückerath-Rovers, M. 2013. Women on boards and firm performance. Journal of Management & Governance, 17(2): 491–509.
Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. 2007. International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4): 481–498.
Manner, M. 2010. The impact of CEO characteristics on corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1): 53–72.
Masca, D. V., & Rossi, S. P. S. 2017. Is there a gender effect on the cost of bank financing?. Journal of Financial Stability, 31: 136–153.
Matsa, D., & Miller, A. 2013. A female style in corporate leadership? Evidence from quotas. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5: 136–169.
McGuinness, P. B., Lam, C. K., & Vieito, J. 2015. Gender and other major board characteristics in China: Explaining corporate dividend policy and governance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(4): 989–1038.
McGuinness, P. B., Vieito, J., & Wang, M. 2017. The role of board gender and foreign ownership in the CSR performance of Chinese listed firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 42: 75–99.
Moro, A., Wisniewski, T. P., & Mantovani, G. M. 2017. Does a manager’s gender matter when accessing credit? Evidence from European data. Journal of Banking and Finance, 80: 119–134.
Mutlu, C. C., Van Essen, M., Peng, M. W., Saleh, S. F., & Duran, P. 2018. Corporate governance in China: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 55(6): 943–979.
Nekhili, M., Nagati, H., Chtioui, T., & Nekhili, A. 2017. Gender-diverse board and the relevance of voluntary CSR reporting. International Review of Financial Analysis, 50: 81–100.
Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. 2010. The contribution of women on boards of directors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18: 136–148.
Nygaard, K. 2011. Forced board changes: Evidence from Norway. NHH Discussion paper no. SAM 5 2011, NHH: Institutt for Samfunnsøkonomi/Norges Handelshøyskole, Bergen, Norway.
Oxelheim, L., & Randøy, T. 2005. The Anglo-American financial influence on CEO compensation in non-Anglo-American firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4): 470–483.
Peng, M., Li, Y., Xie, E., & Su, Z. 2010. CEO duality, organizational slack, and firm performance in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(4): 611–624.
Perrault, E. 2015. Why does board gender diversity matter and how do we get there? The role of shareholder activism in deinstitutionalizing old boys’ networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1): 149–165.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Pisani, N., Kourala, A., & Meijer, R. 2017. How global is international CSR research? Insights and recommendations. Journal of World Business, 52: 591–614.
Post, C., & Byron, K. 2015. Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5): 1546–1571.
Post, C., Rahman, N., & McQuillen, C. 2015. From board composition to corporate environmental performance through sustainability-themed alliances. Journal of Business Ethics, 130: 423–435.
Post, C., Rahman, N., & Rubow, E. 2011. Green governance: Boards of directors’ composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business & Society, 50: 189–223.
Randøy, T., Thomsen, S., & Oxelheim, L. 2006. A Nordic perspective on corporate board diversity. Nordic Innovation Centre Project no. 05030, Oslo, Norway.
Rao, K., & Tilt, C. 2016. Board composition and corporate social responsibility: The role of diversity, gender, strategy and decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(2): 327–347.
Rathert, N. 2016. Strategies of legitimation: MNEs and the adoption of CSR in response to host-country institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 47: 858–879.
Roach, C., & Slater, D. 2016. To make us truly human: Humanities education and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Global Responsibility, 7(2): 181–195.
Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R. M., Janney, J. J., & Paul, K. 2001. An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(2): 143–156.
Ryan, M., & Haslam, S. 2005. The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16: 81–90.
Samy, M., Odemilin, G., & Bampton, R. 2010. Corporate social responsibility: A strategy for sustainable business success. An analysis of 20 selected British companies. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 10(2): 203–217.
Seierstad, C., Warner-Søderholm, G., Torchia, M., & Huse, M. 2017. Increasing the number of women on boards: The role of actors and processes. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(2): 289–315.
Setó-Pamies, D. 2013. The relationship between women directors and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(6): 334–345.
Shaukat, A., Qiu, Y., & Trojanowski, G. 2016. Board attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 135: 569–585.
Shrader, C., Blackburn, V., & Iles, P. 1997. Women in management and firm financial performance: An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9(3): 355–372.
Shropshire, S. 2010. The role of the interlocking director and board receptivity in the diffusion of practices. Academy of Management Review, 35(2): 246–264.
Singh, V., Terjesen, S., & Vinnicombe, S. 2008. Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: How do women and men differ?. European Management Journal, 26: 48–58.
Soares, R., Marquis, C., Lee, M. 2011. Gender and corporate social responsibility: It’s a matter of sustainability. Catalyst​: 1–4.
Solsvik, T., & Fouche, G. 2012. Norway’s gender quota law has made boards more professional: State fund boss. Reuters: February 29.
Srinidhi, B., Gul, F., & Tsui, J. 2011. Female directors and earnings quality. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(5): 1610–1644.
Strand, R. 2013. The chief officer of corporate social responsibility: A study of its presence in top management teams. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(4): 721–734.
Strøm, R. Ø., D’Espallier, B., & Mersland, R. 2014. Female leadership, performance, and governance in microfinance institutions. Journal of Banking & Finance, 42: 60–75.
Sun, S., Zhu, J., & Ye, K. 2015. Board openness during an economic crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(2): 363–377.
Terjesen, S., Aguilera, R. V., & Lorenz, R. 2015. Legislating a woman’s seat on the board: Institutional factors driving gender quotas for board directors. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(2): 233–251.
Terjesen, S., Couto, E., & Francisco, P. 2016. Does the presence of independent and female directors impact firm performance? A multi-country study of board diversity. Journal of Management Governance, 20: 447–483.
Terjesen, S., & Sealy, R. 2016. Board gender quotas: Exploring ethical tensions from a multi-theoretical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 26(1): 23–65.
Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. 2009. Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3): 320–337.
The Economist. 2011. Women in China: The sky’s the limit. The Economist: November 26.
Torchia, M., Calabro, A., & Huse, M. 2011. Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2): 299–317.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. 1997a. The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4): 303–319.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. 1997b. Quality of management and quality of stakeholder relations: Are they synonymous?. Business & Society, 36(3): 250–279.
Waldman, D. A., Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N., House, R. J., Adetoun, B., & Barrasa, A., et al. 2006. Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 823–837.
Wang, H., & Qian, C. 2011. Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: The roles of stakeholder response and political access. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6): 1159–1181.
Wang, J., & Coffey, B. 1992. Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(10): 771–778.
Wang, J., & Dewhirst, H. D. 1992. Boards of directors and stakeholder orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 11: 115–123.
Wang, L. C., Ahlstrom, D., Nair, A., & Hang, R. Z. 2008. Creating globally competitive and innovative products: China’s next Olympic challenge. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 73(3): 4–15.
Wang, M., & Kelan, E. 2013. The gender quota and female leadership: Effects of the Norwegian gender quota on board chairs and CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(3): 449–466.
WEF. 2016. The Global Gender Gap Report 2016. Geneva: World Economic Forum. 
Weisbach, M. 1988. Outside directors and CEO turnover. Journal of Financial Economics, 20: 431–460.
Williams, R. 2003. Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 42: 1–10.
Woolley, A., Chabris, C., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. 2010. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330: 686–688.
Young, M. N., Ahlstrom, D., Bruton, G. D., & Chan, E. S. 2001. The resource dependence, service and control functions of boards of directors in Hong Kong and Taiwanese firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 18(2): 223–244.
Young, M. N., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., & Bruton, G. D. 2003. Principal-principal agency. Web Journal of Chinese Management Review, 6(1): 18–45.
Young, M. N., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Bruton, G. D., & Jiang, Y. 2008. Corporate governance in emerging economies: A review of the principal–principal perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1): 196–220.
Young, M. N., Tsai, T., Wang, X., Liu, S., & Ahlstrom, D. 2014. Strategy in emerging economies and the theory of the firm. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(2): 331–354.
Young, S., & Makhija, M. 2014. Firms’ corporate social responsibility behaviour: An integration of institutional and profit maximization approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 45: 670–698.
Zhang, J., Zhu, H., & Ding, H. 2013. Board composition and corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation in the post Sarbanes-Oxley era. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3): 381–392.
Zhang, Y., & Qu, H. 2016. The impact of CEO succession with gender change on firm performance and successor early departure: Evidence from China’s publicly listed companies in 1997–2010. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5): 1845–1868.
Zheng, Q., Luo, Y., & Maksimov, V. 2015. Achieving legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: The case of emerging economy firms. Journal of World Business, 50: 389–403.
Metadata
Title
Proactive government intervention, board gender balance, and stakeholder engagement in China and Europe
Authors
Paul B. McGuinness
João Paulo Vieito
Mingzhu Wang
Publication date
22-03-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Asia Pacific Journal of Management / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0217-4561
Electronic ISSN: 1572-9958
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9611-y

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

Asia Pacific Journal of Management 3/2020 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Go green! Exploring the organizational factors that influence self-initiated green behavior in the United Arab Emirates

OriginalPaper

Coping with Commodification: Hybrid strategies in Asian law firms

OriginalPaper

Ambidexterity between low cost strategy and CSR strategy: contingencies of competition and regulation

OriginalPaper

Local responsiveness strategy of foreign subsidiaries of Chinese multinationals: The impacts of relational-assets, market-seeking FDI, and host country institutional environments

OriginalPaper

Evaluating the performance of employee assistance programs (EAP): a checklist developed from a large sample of public agencies

OriginalPaper

Why firms go green and how green impacts financial and innovation performance differently: An awareness-motivation-capability perspective

Premium Partner

    Image Credits