Search results

Corporate diversity encompasses the different talents, knowledge, cultures, experiences and values of its employees. This diversity is reflected in multiple characteristics, such as race, age, gender, social class, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, culture and disability. The objective of this study is to identify if diversity is a value driver.

We take the diversity score from the Diversity Leaders Index 2023 published by Financial Times (FT) and Statista; this will be our independent variable in linear regression models whose objective variables are relevant fundamental indicators of the Euro Stoxx 50 companies. It is, therefore, a cross-sectional sample with financial data taken as of the current date. We have 37 Euro Stoxx 50 components included in the diversity ranking.

The results indicate that diversity is not a value driver for trading volume, for its revenue, or for systematic risk measured by the beta parameter. However, it is observed, in a confidence interval of 90%, that the most diverse companies are larger (according to their market capitalization). In addition, the most diverse companies are more profitable [return on assets (ROA)] and valued by the market [price to earnings ratio (PER)] in a confidence interval of 95%.

These results indicate that companies should promote corporate diversity as a management strategy, as it is observed that more diverse companies are more profitable and valued by the market. This study provides a quantitative vision in the context of homogeneous companies such as the Euro Stoxx 50 Index on the aspects in which diversity is a value driver.

This paper aims to explore the interplay between methods and methodologies in the field of international relations (IR) over the 100 years of its lifetime reflecting on the relationship between the rise of new research methods and the rise of new methodologies.

This paper looks in retrospect into the field’s great debates using a historiography approach. It maps chronologically the interplay of methods and methodology throughout the stages of the development of the study of IR.

This paper argues that inspite of narratives of triumph being common in the field, the coexistence of competing research methods and methodologies is the defining feature of the field. All theories, all methods and all methodologies have undergone a process of criticism, self-criticism and change. New methodologies have not necessarily accompanied the rise of new research methods in the field.

Drawing a map of the field’s methodologies and methods reveals necessarily its dynamism and its plurality. An honest map of the field is one that highlights not only theoretical differences but also ontological, epistemological and methodological differences embedded in the field’s debates.