Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to understand what drives firms towards board gender diversity in emerging markets. The authors examine the effect of regulative, normative and cognitive pressures on board gender diversity and the moderating effect of national governance quality.
Design/methodology/approach
This study tested the hypotheses using unbalanced panel data for the period between 2014 and 2019, which includes 1,384 observations of 380 different firms located in emerging markets.
Findings
The results reveal that board gender diversity is directly conditioned by normative pressures (women’s economic and educational empowerment). This relationship becomes stronger if firms are located in countries with high governance capacity. Interestingly, this study finds that regulative and cognitive pressures do not enhance women’s presence on boards if they are not accompanied by strong national governance.
Originality/value
Although we have learned in recent years about how women’s presence on boards brings positive corporate outcomes, we know little about how country-level antecedents foster or hinder this gender diversity. This paper expands knowledge of the way gender-related institutions affect a firm’s board gender diversity, and these findings have policy implications for firms, policymakers, the government and other institutions.
Keywords
Citation
Ahmadova, G. and Valenzuela-Ortiz, A. (2023), "What determines the presence of women on corporate boards? Empirical evidence from emerging markets", Corporate Governance, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 977-994. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-05-2022-0218
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited
1. Introduction
In recent years, board gender diversity has become a topic of interest in corporate governance (Kanadlı et al., 2022; Gharbi and Othmani, 2022; Torchia et al., 2011). The literature has generally found a positive and statistically significant relationship between female representation on boards of directors and firm outcomes (Isidro and Sobral, 2015; Low et al., 2015). A relevant strand of the literature contends that women’s representation in hierarchical positions brings a wide range of benefits to the company’s economic results (Brahma et al., 2021). These studies point out that board gender diversity positively impacts firm performance, including accounting and market performance (Issa et al., 2021; Mastella et al., 2021), firm efficiency (Ali et al., 2021; Ullah et al., 2020), financial reporting quality (Dobija et al., 2021), financial distress (Guizani and Abdalkrim, 2022) and risk level (Khan and Vieito, 2013; Perryman et al., 2016). Interestingly, a recent study by Gharbi and Othmani (2022) concluded that there is a threshold effect in this relationship, suggesting that a minimum of one-third female presence on boards is required to achieve the desired effect of board gender diversity. It has also been put forward that board gender diversity contributes to nonfinancial performance by fostering shareholders’ trust in the firm (Perrault, 2015), increasing corporate innovation in the form of R&D expenditure (Miller and Del Carmen Triana, 2009) and leading to better reputation (Brammer et al., 2009). Furthermore, the literature suggests that female directors are more concerned about corporate social performance (Provasi and Harasheh, 2021). As such, they adopt stronger corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices (Issa and Fang, 2019) and show higher commitments to ethical issues before than opportunistic incentives, such as a decrease in the probability of incurring tax evasion (Jarboui et al., 2020), environmental (Cordeiro et al., 2020), ethical or social responsibilities (Pucheta‐Martínez and Gallego‐Álvarez, 2019).
Nevertheless, we still do not know what determines the presence of women on corporate boards. In this regard, several studies have focused on the firm- and industry-level determinants of gender diversity in boardrooms (Grosvold et al., 2016, Hillman et al., 2007; Saeed et al., 2016). However, few have linked female board representation to country gender-related institutions (Brieger et al., 2019; Lewellyn and Muller-Kahle, 2020; Thams et al., 2018). Despite this, little attention has been given to board gender diversity in emerging markets (Saeed et al., 2016). While disparities are common in every country (Gupta, 2021), women in emerging markets are clearly struggling even more in breaking the glass ceiling (Goyal et al., 2021; McKinsey, 2021). In particular, when looking at the proportion of women in corporate governance in emerging markets, the percentage remains low. At 8.6%, developing Asia has the highest female participation on their boards among emerging-market regions, while developing Europe has the lowest, with 1.1% (Bloomberg, 2014). Thus, our aim is to explore the effects of gender-related institutional pressures on board gender diversity using the institutional framework. Institutional theory has been key to explaining the behaviour of organizations that pursue a certain social agenda rather than economic performance or results (Vadasi et al., 2019). Corporate governance mechanisms such as the structure of the banking system and its strategies (Karbhari et al., 2020), the effectiveness of internal audit control (Vadasi et al., 2019) or initiatives towards sustainability are explained under institutional theory as a result of the influence of the regulations of public or private organizations, the norms of society or the behaviours of other organizations in the industry (Adedeji et al., 2020). These studies call for further research to investigate the impact of institutional context on corporate governance phenomena (Aluchna and Kuszewski, 2022; Rigolini and Huse, 2021). In this sense, we argue that women’s presence in boardrooms is directly conditioned by regulative, normative and cognitive pressures. Furthermore, we propose that this relationship becomes stronger if firms are located in countries with high governance capacity.
To test our hypotheses, we examine female participation on corporate boards by using a panel data for the period between 2014 and 2019 from a group of 380 firms located in emerging markets. Our findings contribute to the existing body of knowledge in two ways. First, the importance of our work lies in its contribution to the institutional literature, demonstrating the vitality of country-level factors in shaping women’s presence in boardrooms. Second, we show to what extent the moderating role of national governance capacity strengthens/weakens the effects of institutional pressures on board gender diversity.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Following the introduction, we present a theoretical review and our hypotheses. Next, we explain the research methodology. We discuss the results of the empirical analyses. Finally, we present our conclusions, implications and limitations of the study, along with future research lines.
2. Theory and hypothesis development
2.1 Institutional pressures and board gender diversity
Institutional theory has been used to analyse organizational practices within organizations (Correa-Mejía, 2022; Zaman et al., 2022). The crux of institutional theory is that firms seek not only to be efficient (Meyer and Rowan, 1977) but also to gain legitimacy through the fulfilment of institutional pressure and social expectations (Allemand et al., 2014; Saeed et al., 2022). Institutional pressure corresponds to the influence of norms, rules and culture on the behaviour of organizations (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) and has three dimensions: regulatory, normative and cognitive pressures (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Scott, 2001). These dimensions influence the organizational structure through the demands made by external entities, the social obligations related to the regulatory pillar of organizations and the adjustments taken from other organizations by imitation to improve their legitimacy (Qi et al., 2021; Silva, 2021). In this sense, it is necessary to understand the influence of these three dimensions of institutional pressure on organizations to form an idea of the resulting effect on board gender diversity.
2.1.1 Regulatory pressure and board gender diversity.
Regulatory pressure is defined as the power exercised by the government through the legislative and political regulations implemented (Berrone et al., 2013; Scott, 2001). Organizations tend to modify their structure and behaviours based on regulations and policies promulgated by the government (Cui and Wang, 2022; Dhanda et al., 2022) in part because organizations often rely on these external agents (Wang et al., 2021; Yi, 2021).
Therefore, regulatory pressures motivate organizations to manage greater gender equality (Kulik, 2022; Nguyen et al., 2020). In their study of labour laws, Winkler (2022) found that countries with greater family policies have higher rates of female labour participation. Attah-Boakye et al. (2020) conclude that legal institutions play a significant role in the gender diversity of boards. In this line, Lee and Thong (2022) state that countries with stronger regulation mandates have more equitable directives on gender. Therefore, the existence of governmental pressures can generate greater gender diversity in the administration of organizations as long as the regulatory framework promoted by this exerts the required pressure. Therefore, this paper proposes the following:
Firms located in a country characterized by stronger regulative pressures are more likely to have higher board gender equality.
2.1.2 Normative pressure and board gender diversity.
Normative pressure focuses on the obligatory, prescriptive and evaluative aspects of social life sustained by values, norms and beliefs (Scott, 2008). These values and norms are established by society, the consumers of some markets or the labour structure of an industry (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). In this sense, certain behaviours can gain normative legitimacy when they align with the values and norms of society (Bonet et al., 2020). Organizations respond to the demands of stakeholders in accordance with the values and norms they uphold, and this response is the one that defines their participation in society.
This dimension of institutional pressure is responsible for imposing restrictions on social behaviours or roles, dictating how a collective or certain groups of individuals are supposed to act (Scott, 2008), which establishes even economic behaviours of organizations such as entrepreneurship and innovation (Ojong et al., 2021) or gender diversity in administrations (Zhang, 2020). The recent research conducted by Tyrowicz et al. (2020) found that drivers for the presence of women on boards are the country’s level of gender equality, female labour force participation culture and institutions. Brieger et al. (2019) argue that educational, economic and political empowerment influence the representation of women on boards, leading to a positive effect on the companýs performance. Similarly, Lewellyn and Muller-Kahle (2020) found that female economic and political empowerment are positively related to the percentage of female directors on corporate boards. These factors are related to regulatory requirements to reach a managerial level (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).
This is relevant because normative pressures not only have an effect on what is expected of the behaviour of organizations but also on their perception of them. Therefore, normative pressures explain behaviours in favour of gender diversity in companies in countries where there is no specific regulation for it (Sjöberg and Drewniok, 2017). In fact, stakeholders value companies that have normatively accepted practices better than those that do not (Perrault and Shaver, 2021). Thus, in environments where gender diversity in organizations is normatively accepted, investors will be more likely to perceive this practice as beneficial for the future behaviour of the organization (Zhang, 2020), significantly influencing the labour participation of women on boards. Therefore, this paper proposes the following:
Firms located in a country characterized by stronger normative pressures are more likely to have higher board gender equality.
2.1.3 Cognitive pressure and board gender diversity.
Cognitive pressure, also known as “mimetic” pressure (Allemand et al., 2014; Rigolini and Huse, 2021), manifests itself when there is a habit that prevails in the country of the organization in question and a level of success associated with the organizations that participate in this behaviour (Haveman, 1993; Huang et al., 2022). Among the reasons behind this pressure is the uncertainty that organizations face, so managers give in to this pressure to minimize search and experimentation costs and avoid risks in the adoption of strategies and innovations (Lui et al., 2021; Samad et al., 2021; Teo et al., 2003). This pressure relies on imitating the relevant behaviours of other organizations to stabilize the structure the same and maintain their competitive advantages (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Jibril et al., 2022), especially those that represent a high level of success (Liu et al., 2010; Lui et al., 2021).
In this context, cultural factors are determinants of gender equality on boards (Cabeza-García et al., 2019). In particular, the beliefs, assumptions and values prevailing within a given country determine behavioural expectations based on biological sex (Quigley et al., 2005). Unlike the regulatory pressure that acts under the creation of laws, the pressure exerted through the cognitive dimension for women’s participation in the board may be weak due to the absence of penalties or sanctions (Rigolini and Huse, 2021) and is even defined as “voluntary” (Labelle et al., 2015). However, Latukha et al. (2022) mention that best practices for managing human talent must comply with the promotion of inclusion of female talent, as well as the reduction of discrimination and prejudice. On the cultural dimension, Cabeza-García et al. (2019) found that women’s representation on boards of directors will be greater in countries with a feminine culture, as well as with a low power distance. Moreover, Lewellyn and Muller-Kahle (2020) argue that culture-specific cognitive structures such as the levels of power distance and masculinity affect how individuals and organizations react to women achieving greater economic and political power similar to men. This supports the evidence in favour of cognitive pressure among industries that, through inertia, can move towards the institutionalization of gender and other social inequalities (Carvalho et al., 2019). Therefore, if progressive human talent policies are perceived to have a competitive advantage, other organizations will tend to copy these practices to reduce the competitive advantage gap (Everly and Schwarz, 2015). Therefore, this paper proposes the following:
Firms located in a country characterized by stronger cognitive pressures are more likely to have higher board gender equality.
2.2 Moderation role of national governance quality
The relationship between institutional pressure and gender diversity in boards is based on the presence of formal institutions that regulate the behaviour of organizations through laws, norms and values, as well as nonformal ones that influence good practices in the face of uncertainty. Under the first scheme, organizations adapt to an institutional framework and can be affected by their environment (Sarta et al., 2021). Thus, empirical evidence holds that national institutions have a role in the decisions and effectiveness of organizations’ governance practices (Filatotchev et al., 2013; Stathopoulos and Talaulicar, 2021; Zattoni et al., 2020), and the economic and investment decisions of firms are conditioned by the institutional environment in which they operate (Hernández et al., 2022; García-Sánchez et al., 2015).
Along this line, Uribe-Bohorquez et al. (2018) showed that national governance has mechanisms over the board of directors. Regarding gender, Nguyen et al. (2021) find a moderating effect of the quality of governance on the relationship between gender diversity on the board and the performance of companies, whose relationship is positive only in countries with an above-average quality of governance. Hoch and Seyberth (2021) find a similar effect of gender-related institutions, in which the relationship between gender diversity and company performance is positive only in institutional environments that promote gender equity. However, there is still a lack of evidence regarding the moderating role of the quality of governance in the relationship between institutional pressure and gender diversity on the board, whose effect given the premises raised can be significant. Taking into account the foregoing arguments, this paper proposes the following hypotheses:
National governance quality plays a positive moderating role between regulative pressure and the board gender diversity of firms.
National governance quality plays a positive moderating role between normative pressure and the board gender diversity of firms.
National governance quality plays a positive moderating role between cognitive pressure and the board gender diversity of firms.
Figure 1 summarizes the research model developed in this study.
3. Research design and methodology
3.1 Data collection and sample
To carry out the research, we selected a sample of firms from Thomson Reuters Eikon belonging to different emerging markets (Brazil, Thailand, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Poland, etc.) and diverse sectors of activity (energy, basic materials, technology, telecommunications and industrials, among others). The Thomson Reuters database offers a comprehensive platform for establishing customizable benchmarks for the assessment of firms’ operating behaviour, environmental management and financial performance (Ellimäki et al., 2021). It has been used by several empirical studies in corporate social responsibility performance (Hartmann and Vachon, 2018; Hawn and Ioannou, 2016). Our analysis uses an unbalanced panel data set including 1,384 observations from 380 firms for the period between 2014 and 2019. Table 1 shows the variety of 16 different firms’ countries that take part in the analysis.
In regard to the economic activity sectors in Table 2, it can be observed that most of the firms pertain to the consumer cyclicals, noncyclicals and financials sectors.
3.2 Variable measurement
3.2.1 Board gender diversity.
Following prior studies (Elmagrhi et al., 2019; Ghaleb et al., 2021), we measure board gender diversity as the percentage of female directors to the total number of board members. These data were collected from the Thomson Reuters Eikon database. This variable is expressed in percentages and varies between 0 and 100%.
3.2.2 Independent variables.
This study uses institutional pressures as independent variables. Institutional pressure consists of three dimensions: regulative pressure, normative pressure and cognitive pressure (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Ortiz-de-Mandojana et al., 2016; Scott, 2001). To measure regulative pressures, we use Women, Business and the Law (WBL) developed by the World Bank Group. This database analyses laws and regulations affecting women’s economic inclusion in 190 economies. It offers objective and measurable benchmarks for global progress towards gender equality. For normative pressures, we select different measurements from the World Economic Forum’s annual Global Gender Gap Reports, including women’s political, economic and educational empowerment (Lewellyn and Muller-Kahle, 2020). Finally, we use Global Leadership & Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Gender Egalitarianism Societal Practices for cognitive pressures (Emmerich, 2004). This variable reflects “societies’ beliefs about whether members’ biological sex should determine the roles that they play in their home, business organizations, and communities” (Quigley et al., 2005, p. 362).
3.2.3 Moderating variable.
We study the moderating role of the quality of the National Governance Index because differences in national governance systems can explain the strength of institutional pressures in board gender diversity across different countries. Consistent with prior studies (Ngobo and Fouda, 2012; Nguyen et al., 2015; Orazalin and Baydauletov, 2020), we measure national governance quality based on three indicators: government effectiveness, regulatory quality and rule of law. These index data were derived from the Worldwide Governance Indicators database.
3.2.4 Control variables.
We incorporated a list of control variables to account for the potential firm characteristics that can influence board gender diversity. In particular, we control board characteristics such as board independence and board size. We control board independence through the ratio of independent directors to the overall number of directors. For board size, we used the total number of board members. We also include other control variables such as firm size, measured through the natural logarithm of total assets (Lourenço and Branco, 2013); firm age, defined as the number of years since the firm was established; and firm leverage, measured as total debts over total assets (García Martín and Herrero, 2020). We also control for the possible effect of chief executive officer (CEO) duality defined as 1 if the CEO and the chairperson are the same person and 0 otherwise. In addition, we consider the existence of the CSR committee. Finally, we include dummy years and industries (e.g. Pucheta-Martínez and Gallego-Álvarez, 2018).
3.3 Data analysis
We used STATA 14 software, using a random effect (RE) model to test our hypotheses. Two well-established approaches exist to analyse panel structured data, random and fixed effects. While the time-constant variables can be estimated in a random effects model, fixed effects assume that these are correlated with the regressors (Wagner, 2005). In our study, we use the random effects model, as our empirical models include a full set of industry dummies to control for time-invariant sectoral effects. The advantage of using a random effect model is that it allows random sampling from large populations and accurately accounts for variance components for times and error, assuming the same intercepts and slopes. Moreover, robust standard errors are clustered at the firm level to account for the serial correlation and heteroscedasticity, and year dummies were included to manage for temporal effects. Finally, as a robustness test, we repeated the estimations using a fixed effects model (excluding industry dummies) instead of a random effects model, and the results were similar across both models.
4. Results
This section discusses the research findings, including descriptive statistics, the correlation matrix and regression analyses. Table 3 provides descriptive analysis, including means and standard deviations. In Table 4, we show the correlational matrix for the dependent, independent and control variables used in this study. With the analysis conditions established, we can describe the regression models that allowed us to interpret our principal results.
As shown in Table 5, we present the results of the random effects regression analyses for each institutional pressure, including the control variables and the moderator variable. First, Model 1 shows that the relationship between regulative pressures and board gender diversity is not statistically significant. Second, we unpack different aspects of normative pressures in Models 2, 3 and 4 by studying women’s political, economic and educational empowerment. The results show that women’s economic and educational empowerment are positively regulated to board gender diversity. However, we do not find significant results for women’s political empowerment. Furthermore, the results of Model 5 confirm that cognitive pressures do not have a statistically significant impact on board gender diversity. Interestingly, we find a positive and significant relationship between national governance quality and board gender diversity across all the models.
Finally, the results shown in Table 6 illustrate that national governance quality positively moderates the relationship between each institutional pressure and board gender diversity. Figures 2–6 graphically offer a better understanding of the moderating effect of national governance quality on the relationship between institutional pressures and board gender diversity.
These results suggest that institutional pressures such as regulative and cognitive pressures do not enhance women’s presence on boards if they are not accompanied by strong national governance.
5. Discussion and conclusions
This study aimed to examine the determinants of gender diversity in boards through institutional theory. Six hypotheses were proposed aimed at verifying the relationship between each of the institutional pressures (regulatory, normative and cognitive), the moderating effect of the quality of government and the gender diversity of the boards.
By using panel data for the period between 2014 and 2019 from a group of 380 firms, we found that the existence of normative pressures facilitates the presence of women in boardrooms in the context of emerging markets. However, our results show that board gender diversity will not be higher only with regulative and cognitive pressures. All the models proposed found a positive and significant effect of the quality of governance on board gender diversity. Similarly, it was found that all pressures will have a significant impact if the firm has a strong national governance system in its home country. Hence, firms from countries with effective government, high-quality regulation and rule of law will be more inclined to have gender diversity in their boardrooms.
These results constitute a new way of explaining the causes of gender diversity in directories based on the regulation of the behaviour of organizations and the quality of governments, in contrast to other theories that explain this phenomenon from the need to reduce conflicts of interest (Pucheta-Martínez and Gallego-Álvarez, 2019), ensure creativity and innovation for better decision-making (Torchia et al., 2011) or guarantee better board performance (Bear et al., 2010).
In summary, our findings contribute to the existing body of knowledge in two ways. First, the importance of our work lies in its contribution to the corporate governance literature, demonstrating the vitality of institutional pressures on board gender diversity. Second, this research contributes to institutional theory by showing that national governance quality can moderate the relationship between institutional pressures and board gender diversity.
Implications of the results found are useful for several actors in society, including academia, policymakers and the governments of the countries. In the academic sphere, the findings of this work strengthen the relevance of institutional theory in corporate governance and changes in the structure of its boards. Heterogeneous directories are better than homogeneous ones (Issa et al., 2021), so finding institutional determinants and mediators as significant highlights the importance of these factors as possible explanatory variables in other types of diversity in directories that are also important, such as ethnicity, nationality or age (Harrison and Klein, 2007). With regard to policymakers, validating the relationship of normative pressure on the diversity of boards becomes key to promoting legislation that encourages female participation in senior management so that society can benefit from the effects of board gender diversity, such as stronger CSR practices (Issa and Fang, 2019), environment-oriented practices (Cordeiro et al., 2020) or harmful behaviour such as tax evasion (Jarboui et al., 2020). Finally, the mediating role of government in the relationship between institutional pressures and board gender diversity generates the need to foster a solid national governance system with different institutional pressures, which, in turn, encourages firms to accelerate gender diversity in their boardrooms in different organizations, as well as other relevant causes of the social agenda, such as the environment and fair work.
We are aware that our research may have some limitations that will serve as a base for further studies. First, future research can focus on realizing a comparative study to illustrate the differences in the board gender diversity of firms from developed and emerging markets. Second, researchers can use longer time periods to complement the current study. Third, for moderating effect, further research can investigate other aspects of the home country such as mandatory gender diversity laws. Moreover, it may be interesting to study the moderating impact of firm characteristics, such as industry, ownership or firm size. Finally, future studies can collect newer data to verify the original findings of this study.
Figures
Figure 1
Theoretical framework
Figure 2
Moderation of national governance index in the relationship between regulative pressures and board gender diversity
Figure 3
Moderation of national governance index in the relationship between normative pressures (women’s political empowerment) and board gender diversity
Figure 4
Moderation of national governance index in the relationship between normative pressures (women’s economic empowerment) and board gender diversity
Figure 5
Moderation of national governance index in the relationship between normative pressures (women’s educational empowerment) and board gender diversity
Figure 6
Moderation of national governance index in the relationship between cognitive pressures and board gender diversity
Number of firms by country and board gender diversity’s mean for each country
| Country | Firms | Percentage | Mean of board gender diversity (2014–2019) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 27 | 7.11 | 7.05 |
| Brazil | 107 | 28.16 | 8.78 |
| Colombia | 16 | 4.21 | 15.59 |
| Egypt | 7 | 1.84 | 6.90 |
| Hungary | 5 | 1.32 | 13.87 |
| Indonesia | 9 | 2.37 | 4.90 |
| Israel | 14 | 3.68 | 22.03 |
| Malaysia | 43 | 11.32 | 19.54 |
| Mexico | 26 | 6.84 | 8.98 |
| Morocco | 1 | 0.26 | 0.00 |
| Nigeria | 1 | 0.26 | 28.11 |
| Philippines | 21 | 5.53 | 11.70 |
| Poland | 7 | 1.84 | 27.24 |
| Slovenia | 1 | 0.26 | 31.11 |
| Thailand | 55 | 14.47 | 14.67 |
| Turkey | 40 | 10.53 | 12.14 |
| Total | 380 | 100.00 | 12.38 |
Number of firms by industry and board gender diversity’s mean for each industry
| Industry | Firms | Percentage | Mean of board gender diversity (2014–2019) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Academic and educational services | 3 | 0.79 | 11.98 |
| Basic materials | 30 | 7.89 | 11.34 |
| Consumer cyclicals | 46 | 12.11 | 12.98 |
| Consumer non-cyclicals | 48 | 12.63 | 11.87 |
| Energy | 28 | 7.37 | 14.33 |
| Financials | 72 | 18.95 | 16.14 |
| Health care | 17 | 4.47 | 15.18 |
| Industrials | 35 | 9.21 | 9.22 |
| Real estate | 34 | 8.95 | 9.85 |
| Technology | 33 | 8.68 | 14.18 |
| Utilities | 34 | 8.95 | 8.80 |
| Total | 380 | 100.00 | 12.38 |
Descriptive statistics
| Variable | Obs | Mean | Std.Dev. | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Board gender diversity | 1384 | 12.382 | 12.089 | 0 | 85.71 |
| Board size | 1384 | 10.538 | 3.722 | 1 | 25 |
| Independent board | 1384 | 38.624 | 19.688 | 0 | 100 |
| Leverage | 1384 | 147.122 | 468.783 | 0 | 13516.3 |
| CEO duality | 1384 | 0.602 | 0.49 | 0 | 1 |
| Firm size | 1384 | 15.496 | 1.439 | 10.327 | 19.84 |
| Firm age | 1384 | 36.026 | 24.904 | 1 | 209 |
| CSR committee | 1384 | 0.566 | 0.496 | 0 | 1 |
| Regulative pressures | 1384 | 75.779 | 12.385 | 38.8 | 96.9 |
| Normative pressures (political) | 1384 | 0.173 | 0.112 | 0.035 | 0.416 |
| Normative pressures (economic) | 1384 | 0.649 | 0.084 | 0.378 | 0.801 |
| Normative pressures (educational) | 1384 | 0.992 | 0.018 | 0.778 | 1 |
| Cognitive pressures | 1384 | 3.402 | 0.238 | 2.81 | 4.08 |
| National governance quality (NGQ) | 1384 | 0.263 | 1.354 | −3.06 | 3.82 |
Pearson correlations
| Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | (11) | (12) | (13) | (14) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Board gender diversity | 1.000 | |||||||||||||
| (2) Board size | −0.007 (0.801) |
1.000 | ||||||||||||
| (3) Board independence | 0.117 (0.000) |
−0.101 (0.000) |
1.000 | |||||||||||
| (4) Leverage | −0.063 (0.019) |
0.022 (0.422) |
−0.036 (0.186) |
1.000 | ||||||||||
| (5) CEO duality | 0.024 (0.366) |
0.143 (0.000) |
−0.046 (0.087) |
−0.077 (0.004) |
1.000 | |||||||||
| (6) Firm size | 0.133 (0.000) |
0.205 (0.000) |
0.080 (0.003) |
0.019 (0.469) |
0.075 (0.005) |
1.000 | ||||||||
| (7) Firm age | 0.092 (0.001) |
0.095 (0.000) |
−0.074 (0.006) |
−0.007 (0.787) |
0.068 (0.012) |
0.300 (0.000) |
1.000 | |||||||
| (8) CSR committee | 0.039 (0.148) |
0.155 (0.000) |
0.113 (0.000) |
−0.024 (0.366) |
0.042 (0.118) |
0.182 (0.000) |
0.088 (0.001) |
1.000 | ||||||
| (9) Regulative pressures | −0.166 (0.000) |
0.127 (0.000) |
−0.092 (0.001) |
0.027 (0.309) |
−0.219 (0.000) |
−0.043 (0.111) |
0.038 (0.153) |
−0.023 (0.390) |
1.000 | |||||
| (10) Normative pressures (political) | −0.096 (0.000) |
0.196 (0.000) |
−0.090 (0.001) |
0.000 (0.998) |
−0.047 (0.080) |
0.008 (0.769) |
0.139 (0.000) |
−0.105 (0.000) |
0.361 (0.000) |
1.000 | ||||
| (11) Normative pressures (economic) | 0.136 (0.000) |
−0.019 (0.481) |
0.046 (0.090) |
−0.018 (0.493) |
0.113 (0.000) |
0.068 (0.012) |
0.061 (0.024) |
−0.022 (0.418) |
0.041 (0.123) |
0.184 (0.000) |
1.000 | |||
| (12) Normative pressures (educational) | −0.030 (0.271) |
−0.045 (0.095) |
0.085 (0.002) |
0.025 (0.353) |
−0.131 (0.000) |
−0.008 (0.769) |
0.062 (0.022) |
0.073 (0.007) |
0.327 (0.000) |
0.270 (0.000) |
0.396 (0.000) |
1.000 | ||
| (13) Cognitive pressures | 0.082 (0.002) |
0.214 (0.000) |
0.170 (0.000) |
−0.064 (0.018) |
0.092 (0.001) |
0.086 (0.001) |
−0.027 (0.322) |
0.028 (0.296) |
0.094 (0.000) |
0.413 (0.000) |
0.506 (0.000) |
0.409 (0.000) |
1.000 | |
| (14) NGQ | 0.355 (0.000) |
−0.005 (0.841) |
0.221 (0.000) |
−0.028 (0.300) |
−0.006 (0.822) |
0.200 (0.000) |
0.035 (0.199) |
0.040 (0.140) |
−0.370 (0.000) |
−0.225 (0.000) |
0.164 (0.000) |
0.060 (0.025) |
0.172 (0.000) |
1.000 |
Significance levels are reported in parentheses
Statistical results of random effects model
| Dependent variable: board gender diversity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Model_I | Model_II | Model_III | Model_IV | Model_V |
| Board size | 0.173 | −0.088 | 0.163 | 0.159 | 0.161 |
| Board independence | 0.003 | 0.599 | 0.003 | −0.000 | 0.002 |
| Leverage | −0.000 | −0.000 | −0.000 | −0.000 | −0.000 |
| CEO duality | −0.190 | −0.338 | −0.252 | 0.092 | −0.127 |
| Firm size | −0.625 | −0.312 | −0.599 | −0.556 | −0.649 |
| Firm age | −0.005 | 0.057*** | −0.005 | −0.011 | −0.004 |
| CSR committee | 0.158 | 1.393 | 0.212 | −0.006 | 0.185 |
| Industry | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Year | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| NGQ | 3.203*** | 2.074*** | 3.081*** | 3.071*** | 3.227*** |
| Regulative pressures | −0.037 | ||||
| Normative pressures (political) | −0.506 | ||||
| Normative pressures (economic) | 15.718** | ||||
| Normative pressures (educational) | 125.777** | ||||
| Cognitive pressures | 1.983 | ||||
| Cons | 17.734** | 13.276** | 4.474 | −111.285** | 8.631 |
*p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01
Statistical results of random effects model for moderation
| Dependent variable: board gender diversity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Model_VI | Model_VII | Model_VIII | Model_IX | Model_X |
| Board size | 0.159 | 0.204* | 0.155 | 0.122 | 0.177 |
| Board independence | 0.008 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Leverage | −0.000 | −0.000 | −0.000 | −0.000 | −0.000 |
| CEO duality | −0.124 | 0.074 | −0.247 | 0.120 | −0.202 |
| Firm size | −0.618 | −0.691* | −0.530 | −0.587 | −0.640 |
| Firm age | −0.005 | −0.002 | −0.002 | −0.004 | 0.006 |
| CSR committee | 0.216 | 0.215 | 0.121 | −0.271 | 0.152 |
| Industry | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Year | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| NGQ | −0.089* | 1.651** | −9.651*** | −75.518*** | −12.597** |
| Regulative pressures | −0.080 | ||||
| Regulative pressures X NGQ | 0.064*** | ||||
| Normative pressures (political) | -4.133 | ||||
| Normative pressures (political) X NGQ | 9.782*** | ||||
| Normative pressures (economic) | 15.319** | ||||
| Normative pressures (economic) X NGQ | 19.852*** | ||||
| Normative pressures (educational) | 103.286*** | ||||
| Normative pressures (educational) X NGQ | 79.411*** | ||||
| Cognitive pressures | 0.451 | ||||
| Cognitive pressures X NGQ | 4.704*** | ||||
| Cons | 22.072*** | 15.582** | 4.369 | −87.542*** | 13.066 |
*p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01
References
Adedeji, B.S., San Ong, T., Uzir, M.U.H. and Hamid, A.B.A. (2020), “Corporate governance and performance of medium-sized firms in Nigeria: does sustainability initiative matter”,? Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 401-427.
Ali, F., Wang, M., Jebran, K. and Ali, S.T. (2021), “Board diversity and firm efficiency: evidence from China”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 587-607.
Allemand, I., Barbe, O. and Brullebaut, B. (2014), “Institutional theory and gender diversity on European boards”, Vie Sciences De L'entreprise, Vol. 2 No. 198, pp. 73-92.
Aluchna, M. and Kuszewski, T. (2022), “Responses to corporate governance code: evidence from a longitudinal study”, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 1945-1978.
Attah-Boakye, R., Adams, K., Kimani, D. and Ullah, S. (2020), “The impact of board gender diversity and national culture on corporate innovation: a multi-country analysis of multinational corporations operating in emerging economies”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 161, p. 120247.
Bear, S., Rahman, N. and Post, C. (2010), “The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 207-221.
Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L. and Gomez‐Mejia, L.R. (2013), “Necessity as the mother of ‘green’ inventions: institutional pressures and environmental innovations”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 891-909.
Bloomberg (2014), “From one woman board member in emerging markets to 1,500”, available at: www.livemint.com/Companies/v8LySFBSkPzynmZkj4WsgO/From-one-woman-board-member-in-emerging-markets-to-.html
Bonet, R., Cappelli, P. and Hamori, M. (2020), “Gender differences in speed of advancement: an empirical examination of top executives in the Fortune 100 firms”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 708-737.
Brahma, S., Nwafor, C. and Boateng, A. (2021), “Board gender diversity and firm performance: the UK evidence”, International Journal of Finance & Economics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 5704-5719.
Brammer, S., Millington, A. and Pavelin, S. (2009), “Corporate reputation and women on the board”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 17-29.
Brieger, S.A., Francoeur, C., Welzel, C. and Ben-Amar, W. (2019), “Empowering women: the role of emancipative forces in board gender diversity”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 155 No. 2, pp. 495-511.
Cabeza-García, L., Del Brio, E.B. and Rueda, C. (2019), “Legal and cultural factors as catalysts for promoting women in the boardroom”, BRQ Business Research Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 56-67.
Carvalho, I., Costa, C. and Torres, A. (2019), “Gender awareness and women managers in tourism: perceptions of inequality and what could be done”, Handbook of Research on Women in Management and the Global Labor Market, IGI Global, pp. 218-238.
Cordeiro, J.J., Profumo, G. and Tutore, I. (2020), “Board gender diversity and corporate environmental performance: the moderating role of family and dual‐class majority ownership structures”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 1127-1144.
Correa-Mejía, D.A. (2022), “Impact of corporate governance and institutional context on multilatinas’ reporting quality”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 1259-1274.
Cui, R. and Wang, J. (2022), “Shaping sustainable development: external environmental pressure, exploratory green learning, and radical green innovation”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 481-495.
Dhanda, K.K., Sarkis, J. and Dhavale, D.G. (2022), “Institutional and stakeholder effects on carbon mitigation strategies”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 782-795.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 147-160.
Dobija, D., Hryckiewicz, A., Zaman, M. and Puławska, K. (2021), “Critical mass and voice: board gender diversity and financial reporting quality”, European Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 29-44.
Ellimäki, P., Gómez-Bolaños, E., Hurtado-Torres, N. and Aragón-Correa, J.A. (2021), “Do global firms increase their environmental disclosure and performance? Symbolic versus effective operations and the moderating role of liability of origin. Legitimation implications”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 92, pp. 354-363.
Elmagrhi, M.H., Ntim, C.G., Elamer, A.A. and Zhang, Q. (2019), “A study of environmental policies and regulations, governance structures, and environmental performance: the role of female directors”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 206-220.
Emmerich, G.E. (2004), “Transparencia, rendición de cuentas, responsabilidad gubernamental y participación ciudadana”, Polis: Investigación y Análisis Sociopolítico y Psicosocial, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 67-90.
Everly, B.A. and Schwarz, J.L. (2015), “Predictors of the adoption of LGBT‐friendly HR policies”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 367-384.
Filatotchev, I., Jackson, G. and Nakajima, C. (2013), “Corporate governance and national institutions: a review and emerging research agenda”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 965-986.
García Martín, C.J. and Herrero, B. (2020), “Do board characteristics affect environmental performance? A study of EU firms”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
García-Sánchez, I.M., Rodríguez-Domínguez, L. and Frías-Aceituno, J.V. (2015), “Board of directors and ethics codes in different corporate governance systems”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 131 No. 3, pp. 681-698.
Ghaleb, B.A.A., Qaderi, S.A., Almashaqbeh, A. and Qasem, A. (2021), “Corporate social responsibility, board gender diversity and real earnings management: the case of Jordan”, Cogent Business & Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 1883222.
Gharbi, S. and Othmani, H. (2022), “Threshold effects of board gender diversity on firm performance: panel smooth transition regression model”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, doi: 10.1108/CG-10-2021-0373.
Goyal, P., Bhattacharya, S. and Gandhi, A. (2021), “Grounded theory in management research: through the lens of gender-based pay disparity”, Journal of Advances in Management Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 12-30.
Grosvold, J., Rayton, B. and Brammer, S. (2016), “Women on corporate boards: a comparative institutional analysis”, Business and Society, Vol. 55 No. 8, pp. 1157-1196.
Guizani, M. and Abdalkrim, G. (2022), “Does gender diversity on boards reduce the likelihood of financial distress? Evidence from Malaysia”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, doi: 10.1108/APJBA-06-2021-0277.
Gupta (2021), “Surprise: women and minorities are still underrepresented in corporate boardrooms”, available at: www.nytimes.com/2021/06/07/us/women-minorities-underrepresented-corporate-boardrooms.html
Harrison, D.A. and Klein, K.J. (2007), “What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1199-1228.
Hartmann, J. and Vachon, S. (2018), “Linking environmental management to environmental performance: the interactive role of industry context”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 359-374.
Haveman, H.A. (1993), “Follow the leader: mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 593-627.
Hawn, O. and Ioannou, I. (2016), “Mind the gap: the interplay between external and internal actions in the case of corporate social responsibility”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 13, pp. 2569-2588.
Hernández, V., Nieto, M.J. and Rodríguez, A. (2022), “Home country institutions and exports of firms in transition economies: does innovation matter”,? Long Range Planning, Vol. 55 No. 1, p. 102087.
Hillman, A.J., Shropshire, C. and Cannella, A.A. Jr, (2007), “Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 941-952.
Hoch, F. and Seyberth, L. (2021), How Institutions Moderate the Effect of Gender Diversity on Firm Performance (No. 11/2021), Diskussionspapier des Instituts für Organisationsökonomik.
Huang, L., Wang, C., Chin, T., Huang, J. and Cheng, X. (2022), “Technological knowledge coupling and green innovation in manufacturing firms: moderating roles of mimetic pressure and environmental identity”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 248, p. 108482.
Isidro, H. and Sobral, M. (2015), “The effects of women on corporate boards on firm value, financial performance, and ethical and social compliance”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 132 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Issa, A. and Fang, H.X. (2019), “The impact of board gender diversity on corporate social responsibility in the Arab Gulf states”, Gender in Management: An International Journal, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 577-605.
Issa, A., Yousef, H., Bakry, A., Hanaysha, J.R. and Sahyouni, A. (2021), “Does the board diversity impact bank performance in the MENA countries? A multilevel study”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 865-891.
Jarboui, A., Saad, M.K.B. and Riguen, R. (2020), “Tax avoidance: do board gender diversity and sustainability performance make a difference?”, Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 1389-1408.
Jibril, R.S., Isa, M.A. and Maigoshi, Z.S. (2022), “Corporate board gender, institutional strength and energy disclosure in Nigeria”, Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies, Vol. 15 No. 3, doi: 10.1108/JCEFTS-09-2021-0057.
Kanadlı, S.B., Alawadi, A., Kakabadse, N. and Zhang, P. (2022), “Do independent boards pay attention to corporate sustainability? Gender diversity can make a difference”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 22 No. 7, doi: 10.1108/CG-09-2021-0352.
Karbhari, Y., Alam, M.K. and Rahman, M.M. (2020), Relevance of the Application of Institutional Theory in Shariah Governance of Islamic Banks, PSU Research Review.
Khan, W.A. and Vieito, J.P. (2013), “CEO gender and firm performance”, Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 67, pp. 55-66.
Kulik, C.T. (2022), “Gender (in) equality in Australia: good intentions and unintended consequences”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 97-115.
Labelle, R., Francoeur, C. and 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 & Organization, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 339-363.
Latukha, M., Michailova, S., Ott, D.L., Khasieva, D. and Kostyuk, D. (2022), “Gender, talent management and firm performance: MNCs' female-focused talent management practices in Russia”, Employee Relations: The International Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 850-869.
Lee, K.W. and Thong, T.Y. (2022), “Board gender diversity, firm performance and corporate financial distress risk: international evidence from tourism industry”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, doi: 10.1108/EDI-11-2021-0283.
Lewellyn, K.B. and Muller-Kahle, M.I. (2020), “The corporate board glass ceiling: the role of empowerment and culture in shaping board gender diversity”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 165 No. 2, pp. 329-346.
Liu, H., Ke, W., Wei, K.K., Gu, J. and Chen, H. (2010), “The role of institutional pressures and organizational culture in the firm's intention to adopt internet-enabled supply chain management systems”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 372-384.
Lourenço, I.C. and Branco, M.C. (2013), “Determinants of corporate sustainability performance in emerging markets: the Brazilian case”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 57, pp. 134-141.
Low, D.C., Roberts, H. and Whiting, R.H. (2015), “Board gender diversity and firm performance: empirical evidence from Hong Kong”, South Korea, Malaysia and Singapore. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Vol. 35, pp. 381-401.
Lui, A.K., Lo, C.K., Ngai, E.W. and Yeung, A.C. (2021), “Forced to be green? The performance impact of energy-efficient systems under institutional pressures”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 239, p. 108213.
McKinsey (2021), “Seven charts that show COVID-19’s impact on women’s employment”, available at: www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/seven-charts-that-show-covid-19s-impact-on-womens-employment
Mastella, M., Vancin, D., Perlin, M. and Kirch, G. (2021), “Board gender diversity: performance and risk of Brazilian firms”, Gender in Management: An International Journal, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 498-518.
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 340-363.
Miller, T. and del Carmen Triana, M. (2009), “Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity–firm performance relationship”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 755-786.
Ngobo, P.V. and Fouda, M. (2012), “Is ‘good’ governance good for business? A cross-national analysis of firms in African countries”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 435-449.
Nguyen, T., Locke, S. and Reddy, K. (2015), “Does boardroom gender diversity matter? Evidence from a transitional economy”, International Review of Economics & Finance, Vol. 37, pp. 184-202.
Nguyen, T., Ntim, C. and Malagila, J.K. (2020), “Women on corporate boards and corporate financial and non-financial performance: a systematic literature review and future research agenda”, International Review of Financial Analysis, Vol. 71, p. 101554.
Nguyen, T., Nguyen, A., Nguyen, M. and Truong, T. (2021), “Is national governance quality a key moderator of the boardroom gender diversity–firm performance relationship? International evidence from a multi-hierarchical analysis”, International Review of Economics & Finance, Vol. 73, pp. 370-390.
Ojong, N., Simba, A. and Dana, L.P. (2021), “Female entrepreneurship in Africa: a review, trends, and future research directions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 132, pp. 233-248.
Orazalin, N. and Baydauletov, M. (2020), “Corporate social responsibility strategy and corporate environmental and social performance: the moderating role of board gender diversity”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 1664-1676.
Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., Aguilera‐Caracuel, J. and Morales‐Raya, M. (2016), “Corporate governance and environmental sustainability: the moderating role of the national institutional context”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 150-164.
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, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 149-165.
Perrault, E. and Shaver, K. (2021), “A stakeholders' attributions approach to integrating normative, descriptive, and instrumental corporate social responsibility”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 126 No. 3, pp. 239-261.
Perryman, A.A., Fernando, G.D. and Tripathy, A. (2016), “Do gender differences persist? An examination of gender diversity on firm performance, risk, and executive compensation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 579-586.
Provasi, R. and Harasheh, M. (2021), “Gender diversity and corporate performance: emphasis on sustainability performance”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 127-137.
Pucheta-Martínez, M.C. and Gallego-Álvarez, I. (2018), “Environmental reporting policy and corporate structures: an international analysis”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 788-798.
Pucheta-Martínez, M.C. and Gallego-Álvarez, I. (2019), “An international approach of the relationship between board attributes and the disclosure of corporate social responsibility issues”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 612-627.
Qi, G., Jia, Y. and Zou, H. (2021), “Is institutional pressure the mother of green innovation? Examining the moderating effect of absorptive capacity”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 278, p. 123957.
Quigley, N.R., de Luque, M.S. and House, R.J. (2005), “18 Responsible leadership and governance in a global context: insights from the GLOBE study”, Handbook on Responsible Leadership and Governance in Global Business, p. 352.
Rigolini, A. and Huse, M. (2021), “Women and multiple board memberships: social capital and institutional pressure”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 169 No. 3, pp. 443-459.
Saeed, A., Baloch, M.S. and Riaz, H. (2022), “Global insights on TMT gender diversity in controversial industries: a legitimacy perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 179 No. 3, pp. 711-731.
Saeed, A., Belghitar, Y. and Yousaf, A. (2016), “Firm-level determinants of gender diversity in the boardrooms: evidence from some emerging markets”, International Business Review, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 1076-1088.
Samad, S., Nilashi, M., Almulihi, A., Alrizq, M., Alghamdi, A., Mohd, S., … Azhar, S.N.F.S. (2021), “Green supply chain management practices and impact on firm performance: the moderating effect of collaborative capability”, Technology in Society, Vol. 67, p. 101766.
Sarta, A., Durand, R. and Vergne, J.P. (2021), “Organizational adaptation”, Journal of Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 43-75.
Scott, W.R. (2001), Institutions and Organizations, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Scott, W.R. (2008), Crafting an Analytic Framework, I: Three Pillars of Institutions, Institutions and organizations: ideas and interests.
Silva, S. (2021), “Corporate contributions to the sustainable development goals: an empirical analysis informed by legitimacy theory”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 292, p. 125962.
Sjöberg, K. and Drewniok, S. (2017), “Female presence within executive positions in European companies: the development in the European union”.
Stathopoulos, K. and Talaulicar, T. (2021), “Publishing corporate governance research during a pandemic”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 216-221.
Teo, H.H., Wei, K.K. and Benbasat, I. (2003), “Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: an institutional perspective”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 19-49.
Thams, Y., Bendell, B.L. and Terjesen, S. (2018), “Explaining women's presence on corporate boards: the institutionalization of progressive gender-related policies”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 86, pp. 130-140.
Torchia, M., Calabrò, A. and Huse, M. (2011), “Women directors on corporate boards: from tokenism to critical mass”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102 No. 2, pp. 299-317.
Tyrowicz, J., Terjesen, S. and Mazurek, J. (2020), “All on board? New evidence on board gender diversity from a large panel of European firms”, European Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 634-645.
Ullah, I., Zeb, A., Khan, M.A. and Xiao, W. (2020), “Board diversity and investment efficiency: evidence from China”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 1105-1134.
Uribe-Bohorquez, M.V., Martínez-Ferrero, J. and García-Sánchez, I.M. (2018), “Board independence and firm performance: the moderating effect of institutional context”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 88, pp. 28-43.
Vadasi, C., Bekiaris, M. and Andrikopoulos, A. (2019), “Corporate governance and internal audit: an institutional theory perspective”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 175-190.
Wang, Y., Ma, J. and Wang, T. (2021), “Do all female directors have the same impact on corporate social responsibility? The role of their political connection”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, pp. 1-28.
Winkler, A.E. (2022), Women’s Labor Force Participation, IZA World of Labor.
Yi, G. (2021), “From green entrepreneurial intentions to green entrepreneurial behaviors: the role of university entrepreneurial support and external institutional support”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 963-979.
Zaman, R., Jain, T., Samara, G. and Jamali, D. (2022), “Corporate governance meets corporate social responsibility: Mapping the interface”, Business & Society, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 690-752.
Zattoni, A., Dedoulis, E., Leventis, S. and Van Ees, H. (2020), “Corporate governance and institutions – a review and research agenda”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 465-487.
Zhang, L. (2020), “An institutional approach to gender diversity and firm performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 439-457.
Further reading
Atif, M., Hossain, M., Alam, M.S. and Goergen, M. (2021), “Does board gender diversity affect renewable energy consumption?”, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 66, p. 101665.
Bradford, B., Jackson, J. and Milani, J. (2021), “Police legitimacy”, The Encyclopedia of Research Methods in Criminology and Criminal Justice, Vol. 2, pp. 642-650.
Grosvold, J. and Brammer, S. (2011), “National institutional systems as antecedents of female board representation: an empirical study”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 116-135.
Zajac, E.J. and Westphal, J.D. (2004), “The social construction of market value: institutionalization and learning perspectives on stock market reactions”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 433-457.
Acknowledgements
The authors like to express their gratitude to the reviewers for their careful and insightful review of their manuscript. They also would like to thank Alexander Silva for his help with the literature review.
Corresponding author
About the authors
Gozal Ahmadova is based at the School of Economics and Business, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
Andrea Valenzuela-Ortiz is based at the School of Economics and Business, University of Granada, Granada, Spain and School of Psychology, University of Guayaquil, Guayaquil, Ecuador