nach oben

Journal of Business Ethics

Erschienen in:

17.04.2017 | Original Paper

To What Extent Do Gender Diverse Boards Enhance Corporate Social Performance?

verfasst von: Claude Francoeur, Réal Labelle, Souha Balti, Saloua EL Bouzaidi

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 2/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The inconclusiveness of previous research on the association between gender diverse boards (GDB) and corporate social performance (CSP) has led us to revisit the question in light of stakeholder management and institutional theories. Given that corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a multidimensional concept, we test the influence of GDB on various groups of stakeholders. By considering the interaction between stakeholders’ power and directors’ personal motivations toward the prioritization of stakeholders’ claims, we find that GDB are positively related to CSR dimensions that are related to less powerful stakeholders such as the environment, contractors, and the community. However, GDB do not appear to have a significant impact on CSR dimensions that are associated with stakeholders who benefit from more institutionalized power, such as employees and customers.

Vorheriger Artikel CSR and Feminist Organization Studies: Towards an Integrated Theorization for the Analysis of Gender Issues

Nächster Artikel Do CSR Messages Resonate? Examining Public Reactions to Firms’ CSR Efforts on Social Media

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

According to Carroll (1979, 1991), the economic responsibility refers to the fact that firms should be profitable when producing goods and services. The legal responsibility implies that firms should operate within the law. Ethical responsibilities embrace those behaviors and activities that are not codified into law, but are expected or prohibited by societal members. Finally, philanthropic responsibilities are discretionary and voluntary actions that contribute to improving the quality of life of the community.

Sustainalytics serves investors and financial institutions across the world and maintains a network of offices in Toronto, Boston, New York, Washington D.C., Amsterdam, London, Brussels, Paris, Frankfurt, Timisoara, Bucharest, Sydney, and Singapore. Moreover, it has partnerships with research firms and global leading indexes such as STOXX, SUSTINVEST, Ceres, Channel NewsAsia, CSR Asia, Maclean’s Magazine, Publicaciones Semana, and the Tellus Institute.

Catalyst is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to accelerate progress for women through workplace inclusion.http://www.catalyst.org/.

Sustainalytics assesses corporate performance using a framework consisting of both core and sector-specific indicators. Core indicators are assessed for all companies, whereas sector-specific indicators are assigned based on their relevancy and materiality to a given industry. For each indicator assigned to a company, Sustainalytics analysts assign raw scores between 0 and 100 which correspond to a specific answer category. Raw scores are then weighted according to a proprietary weight matrix. Indicators that are more relevant to a given industry are weighted more heavily.

The GICS was developed by Standard & Poor’s (S&P) and Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI). It classifies companies on the basis of ten industrial sectors: consumer discretionary, consumer staples, energy, financials, health care, industrials, information technology, materials, telecommunication services, and utilities.

To avoid cluttering, lagged variables are not displayed in the tables.

Abdullah, S. N., Ismail, K. N. I. K., & Nachum, L. (2016). Does having women on boards create value? The impact of societal perceptions and corporate governance in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 37(3), 466–476.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.

Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.CrossRef

Aguinis, H. (2011). Organizational Responsibility: Doing Good and Doing Well. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 855–879). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ali, M. A. (2015). Stakeholder salience for stakeholder firms: An attempt to reframe an important heuristic device. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–16. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2819-6.

Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297.CrossRef

Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29–51.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Beck, T., Levine, R., & Loayza, N. (2000). Finance and the sources of growth. Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1), 261–300.CrossRef

Belbin, R. M. (1981). Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. London: Heinemann.

Berle, A. A., & Means, G. G. C. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York: Commerce Clearing House.

Berrone, P., Surroca, J., & Tribó, J. A. (2007). Corporate ethical identity as a determinant of firm performance: A test of the mediating role of stakeholder satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(1), 35–53.CrossRef

Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115–143.CrossRef

Boulouta, I. (2013). Hidden Connections: The Link Between Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2), 185–197.CrossRef

Byron, K., & Post, C. (2016). Women on boards of directors and corporate social performance: A meta-analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(4), 428–442.CrossRef

Campbell, J. L. (2006). Institutional analysis and the paradox of corporate social responsibility. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 925–938.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–506.CrossRef

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.CrossRef

Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Review, 38(1), 33–53.CrossRef

Chen, J., & Roberts, R. (2010). Toward a more coherent understanding of the organization-society relationship: A theoretical consideration for social and environmental accounting research. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(4), 651–665.CrossRef

Coffey, B. S., & Wang, J. (1998). Board diversity and managerial control as predictors of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(14), 1595–1603.CrossRef

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRef

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

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.CrossRef

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.CrossRef

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 685–710.CrossRef

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(3), 306–315.CrossRef

Eesley, C., & Lenox, M. J. (2006). Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal, 27(8), 765–781.CrossRef

Elm, D. R., Kennedy, E. J., & Lawton, L. (2001). Determinants of moral reasoning: Sex role orientation, gender, and academic factors. Business and Society, 40(3), 241–265.CrossRef

Eynon, G., Hill, N. T., & Stevens, K. T. (1997). Factors that influence the moral reasoning abilities of accountants: Implications for universities and the profession. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(12/13), 1297–1309.CrossRef

Fassin, Y. (2008). Imperfections and shortcomings of the stakeholder model’s graphical representation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4), 879–888.CrossRef

Fassin, Y. (2012). Stakeholder management, reciprocity and stakeholder responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(1), 83–96.CrossRef

Fich, E. M., & Shivdasani, A. (2006). Are busy boards effective monitors? The Journal of Finance, 61(2), 689–724.CrossRef

Forte, A. (2004). Antecedents of managers moral reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(4), 315–347.CrossRef

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard educational review, 47(4), 481–517.CrossRef

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Godfrey, P. C., & Hatch, N. W. (2007). Researching corporate social responsibility: An agenda for the 21st century. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(1), 87–98.CrossRef

Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, 36(5), 1–31.

Griliches, Z., & Hausman, J. A. (1986). Errors in variables in panel data. Journal of econometrics, 31(1), 93–118.CrossRef

Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 307–338.CrossRef

Hafsi, T., & Turgut, G. (2013). Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance: Conceptualization and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 463–479.CrossRef

Harjoto, M. A., & Jo, H. (2011). Corporate governance and CSR nexus. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 45–67.CrossRef

Harjoto, M. A., Laksmana, I., & Lee, R. (2015). Board diversity and corporate Social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4), 641–660.CrossRef

Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.CrossRef

Holtz-Eakin, D., Newey, W., & Rosen, H. S. (1988). Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data. Econometrica, 56(6), 1371–1395.CrossRef

Hussain, N., Rigoni, U., & Orij, R. P. (2016). Corporate governance and sustainability performance: Analysis of triple bottom line Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–22. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3099-5.

Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703–726.CrossRef

Jain, T., & Jamali, D. (2016). Looking inside the black box: The effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(3), 253–273.CrossRef

Jamali, D., Safieddine, A. M., & Rabbath, M. (2008). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: Synergies and interrelationships. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(5), 443–459.CrossRef

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.CrossRef

Jia, M., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Critical mass of women on BODs, multiple identities, and corporate philanthropic disaster response: Evidence from privately owned Chinese firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2), 303–317.CrossRef

Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2011). Corporate governance and firm value: The impact of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(3), 351–383.CrossRef

Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2012). The causal effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 53–72.CrossRef

Johnson, J. L., Ellstrand, A. E., & Daily, C. M. (1996). Boards of directors: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22(3), 409–438.CrossRef

Johnson, R., & Greening, D. W. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate Social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 564–576.

Johnson, S. G., Schnatterly, K., & Hill, A. D. (2013). Board composition beyond independence: Social capital, human capital, and demographics. Journal of Management, 39(1), 232–262.CrossRef

Kassinis, G., Panayiotou, A., Dimou, A., & Katsifaraki, G. (2016). Gender and environmental sustainability: A longitudinal analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(6), 399–412.CrossRef

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues (pp. 31–53). New York: Rinehart and Winston.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on Moral Development: Volume II the Psychology of Moral Development. New York: Harper and Row.

Lantos, G. P. (2001). The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 595–632.CrossRef

Lehn, K. M., Patro, S., & Zhao, M. (2009). Determinants of the size and composition of US corporate boards: 1935–2000. Financial Management, 38(4), 747–780.CrossRef

Linck, J. S., Netter, J. M., & Yang, T. (2008). The determinants of board structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 87(2), 308–328.CrossRef

Major, B., & Forcey, B. (1985). Social comparisons and pay evaluations: Preferences for same-sex and same-job wage comparisons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(4), 393–405.CrossRef

Mason, C., & Simmons, J. (2014). Embedding corporate social responsibility in corporate governance: A stakeholder systems approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 77–86.CrossRef

Mathisen, G. E., Ogaard, T., & Marnburg, E. (2013). Women in the boardroom: How do female directors of corporate boards perceive boardroom dynamics? Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 87–97.CrossRef

Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.CrossRef

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603–609.CrossRef

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.CrossRef

Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (1987). Ontology and Rationalization in the Western Cultural Account. In G. Thomas, J. V. Meyer, F. O. Ramirez, & J. Boli (Eds.), Institutional structure: Constituting state, society, and the individual (pp. 12–37). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRef

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.CrossRef

Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28.CrossRef

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource-dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

Post, C., & Byron, K. (2015). Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1546–1571.CrossRef

Post, C., Rahman, N., & Mcquillen, C. (2015). From board composition to corporate environmental performance through sustainability-themed alliances. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(2), 423–435.CrossRef

Post, C., Rahman, N., & Rubow, E. (2011). Green governance: Boards of directors’ composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 50(1), 189–223.CrossRef

Prior, D., Surroca, J., & Tribó, J. A. (2008). Are socially responsible managers really ethical? Exploring the relationship between earnings management and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(3), 160–177.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Roodman, D. (2009). A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 135–158.CrossRef

Rowley, T. J., & Berman, S. L. (2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business and Society, 39(4), 397–418.CrossRef

Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stiles, P., & Taylor, B. (2001). Boards at work: How directors view their roles and responsibilities: How directors view their roles and responsibilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.CrossRef

Surroca, J., & Tribó, J. A. (2008). Managerial entrenchment and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 35(5/6), 748–789.CrossRef

Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Waddock, S. A. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 463–490.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

van Buren, H. J. III. (2001). If fairness is the problem, is consent the solution? Integrating ISCT and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(3), 481–499.CrossRef

van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 515–541.CrossRef

Vos, J. F. (2003). Corporate social responsibility and the identification of stakeholders. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 10(3), 141–152.CrossRef

Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.CrossRef

Walls, J. L., Berrone, P., & Phan, P. H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link. Strategic Management Journal, 33(8), 885–913.CrossRef

Walton, A. (2002). Women, philanthropy, and civil society. Contemporary Sociology, 31(6), 743–745.CrossRef

Wang, J., & Coffey, B. S. (1992). Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(10), 771–778.CrossRef

Webb, E. (2004). An examination of socially responsible firms’ board structure. Journal of Management and Governance, 8(3), 255–277.CrossRef

Weitzner, D., & Deutsch, Y. (2015). understanding motivation and social influence in stakeholder prioritization. Organization Studies, 36(10), 1337–1360.CrossRef

Williams, R. J. (2003). Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(1), 1–10.CrossRef

Zhang, J. Q., 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.CrossRef

Zona, F., & Zattoni, A. (2007). Beyond the black box of demography: Board processes and task effectiveness within Italian firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(5), 852–864.CrossRef

Titel: To What Extent Do Gender Diverse Boards Enhance Corporate Social Performance?
verfasst von: Claude Francoeur
Réal Labelle
Souha Balti
Saloua EL Bouzaidi
Publikationsdatum: 17.04.2017
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 2/2019
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3529-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2019

Generational Shifts in Managerial Values and the Coming of a Unified Business Culture: A Cross-National Analysis Using European Social Survey Data

Financial Reports and Social Capital

Unearthing Sedimentation Dynamics in Political CSR: The Case of Colombia

Incivility’s Relationship with Workplace Outcomes: Enactment as a Boundary Condition in Two Samples

Won’t Get Fooled Again: The Effects of Internal and External CSR ECO-Labeling

Are Marketers Egoists? A Typological Explication