Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Board Composition and Corporate Social Respomsibility
Board Composition and Corporate Social Respomsibility
DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2613-5
Received: 18 August 2014 / Accepted: 11 March 2015 / Published online: 17 March 2015
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
123
328 K. Rao, C. Tilt
Research on board composition so far has mainly fo- composition, to date. It includes a review of the empirical
cused on its effect on corporate financial performance, and and commentary literature on board composition and di-
much less attention has been given to how specific board versity, and the literature on the relationship of CG issues
attributes influence CSR and CSRR. Within the literature to CSR and CSRR. Finally, it identifies the gaps where
on board composition, one of the recent and emerging is- more research is needed to improve our understanding of
sues, which has been rapidly gaining attention from both the CSR–CG link, noting in particular, the lack of many
academics and practitioners, is board diversity (Catanzariti qualitative studies.
and Lo 2011). It is well argued in the literature that di- The next sections review the literature on the links be-
versity among board members has the potential to influence tween Governance, Boards, CSR and CSRR. The final
financial performance and reporting (Carter et al. 2003; sections discuss the role of decision making and conclude
Rose 2007); however, a very limited number of studies by providing an overview of the major gaps in the literature
have been undertaken to examine whether this also applies and suggestions for future research.
to non-financial performance and reporting (in this case,
CSR and CSRR). In addition, a limited number of studies
that link corporations’ responsibility (i.e. CSR), and board
Corporate Governance, Board Composition
diversity (Bear et al. 2010; Post et al. 2011; Wang and
and CSR
Coffey 1992; Williams 2003) indicate that diversity can
have a positive effect on some aspects of CSR.
Nowadays, boards are increasingly seen as responsible for
Assuming that both CSR and CSRR are outcomes of
matters relating to CSR and sustainability (Ingley 2008;
boards’ decisions, consideration of boards’ decision
CR-INDEX 2014) which is reflected quite often in many
making processes with regard to CSR is important to
studies (Elkington 2006; Jamali et al. 2008; Kakabadse
understand if and how board diversity relates to CSR.
2007; Mackenzie 2007; Mahoney and Thorne 2005). These
Diversity of board members is assumed to bring broad
studies indicate that CSR is a critical item on boards’
and heterogeneous perspectives to the decision making
agendas (Kakabadse 2007), and boards have major re-
process which is critical to voluntary and complex deci-
sponsibility in achieving these objectives (Elkington 2006).
sions like those regarding CSR. Further, one of the par-
In fact, a recent study by Jamali et al. (2008) found that
ticular board diversity characteristics, gender, is much
corporate governance is what drives managers and ex-
debated and there is a growing amount of literature
ecutives to set goals and objectives in relation to CSR, and
highlighting the importance of gender diversity in
the board is key in meeting and promoting these CSR
boardroom decisions. Notwithstanding this, there has been
objectives. A considerable amount of evidence also exists
no research linking board diversity, including gender di-
suggesting that various board attributes can have sig-
versity, with the CSR decision making process, with most
nificant influence on CSR (Dunn and Sainty 2009; Huang
research only considering the board–CSR relationship
2010; Johnson and Greening 1999; McKendall et al. 1999;
using quantitative analysis of diversity variables. This
Webb 2004; Ayuso and Argandoña 2007). Table 1 con-
paper therefore explores the relationships between cor-
tains a summary of various conceptual/theoretical/review
porate governance, in particular board diversity and de-
studies that examine the link between overall CG structure
cision making processes, and their subsequent influence
and CSR. As can be seen from the table, while results are
on CSR/CSRR. This is undertaken by critically reviewing
mixed, there appears to predominantly be a positive rela-
the existing literature, and suggesting where gaps exist,
tionship between governance and CSR, suggesting that CG
and what further research could contribute to under-
and boards play a major role in CSR. Table 1 also shows
standing how boards make decisions about CSR and
that both quantitative and qualitative studies have been
whether that is reflected in CSR reporting. Moreover, the
used to examine this link. However, it is worth noting that
paper suggests that in order to understand the effect of
these studies did not focus on board attributes or diversity,
boards’ decisions on CSR/CSRR, more rigorous qualita-
the attribute of particular interest in this paper.
tive studies (such as interviews and case studies) are
essential as this type of research enables the researcher to
investigate the real world which in turn helps in gaining a Board Diversity
deeper understanding of the relationships among key
subjects (investors, directors, regulators and managers), Diversity in general is heterogeneity among board mem-
and of the decision making processes that take place bers, and has an infinite number of dimensions ranging
(McNulty et al. 2013). This paper adds to the literature from age to nationality, from religious background to
by providing a critical and comprehensive review of functional background, from task skills to relational skills
the literature linking CSR and CG, specifically board and from political preference to sexual preference (Van
123
Board Diversity and CSR... 329
Table 1 Studies on the link between Corporate Governance (CG)/boards of directors and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Author Aim Method CG variables Findings
The major aim of the study was to Indicates whether the study The various CG/ Indicates whether the relationship
investigate is quantitative or board attributes is positive (?ve), negative (-ve)
qualitative included in the or not significant (Not sig)
study
Jamali et al. Interrelationships between CG and Qualitative (interviews) CG ?ve (CG—necessary pillar for
(2008) CSR (Lebanon) CSR)
Ingley (2008) Board’s attitude towards CSR (New Qualitative ? quantitative Board’s attitude to -ve
Zealand) (focus groups, discussion CSR
sessions and survey)
Rose (2007) Personal ethics and CSR at board level Experimental study Directors’
(US) decisions:
Shareholder value/ ?ve
law
Personal ethics/ -ve
CSR
Wise and Link between CG and ethical business Qualitative (case studies) Overall corporate ?ve
Mahboob processes (CSR) (Bangladesh) governance
Ali (2008)
Shahin and Role of CG in CSR Theoretical study CG ?ve (CG drive excellence in CSR)
Zairi (2007)
Hung (2011) Directors’ roles in CSR (Hong Kong) Quantitative (regression) Directors’ concern ?ve
for stakeholders
Kemp (2011) Boards’ role in CSR (Australia) Qualitative (interviews) Board ?ve (Board is major player in
CSR)
Ayuso and Whether diverse stakeholders on Review paper Diverse stakeholder ?ve
Argandoña board will promote CSR activities on board
(2007) within the firm
De Graaf and How CSP (Corporate Social Theoretical paper CG ?ve (CG influences CSP)
Herkströter Performance) institutionalised
(2007) within the governance structure
(Netherlands)
Ricart et al. How CG integrates sustainable Qualitative (case study) CG ?ve CG plays major role in
(2005) development thinking into them sustainable development
(DJSI)
Kakabadse How boards around the world view Theoretical paper Board’s view ? ve CSR is becoming board’s
(2007) CSR agenda
Wang and Examined boards of directors’ Quantitative (mail Board’s ?ve
Dewhirst stakeholder orientation (US: South- survey—questionnaire) stakeholder
(1992) West States) orientation
Hemingway Whether personal values drive CSR Theoretical paper Personal values ? ve (managers personal values
and drive CSR)
Maclagan
(2004)
Jo and Causal effect of CG on CSR Quantitative (regression) CG ?ve (CG causes CSR)
Harjoto
(2012)
Knippenberg et al. 2004). It can be either visible/observ- (diversity) is common in the diversity literature where
able (race/ethnic background, nationality, gender, age, etc.) several arguments have been put forward both in favour
or less visible (educational, functional and occupational and against diversity. The basic argument in favour of di-
background, industry experience and organisational mem- versity is that heterogeneity results in a broader perspective
bership) (Kang et al. 2007). Diversity is largely considered which allows groups to be involved in in-depth conversa-
as a ‘‘double-edged sword’’ (Hambrick et al. 1996, p. 668), tions and generate different alternatives (Watson et al.
and hence, debate on homogeneity vs. heterogeneity 1998). This is possible because diverse team members
123
330 K. Rao, C. Tilt
perceive problems from a variety of perspectives, such detrimental to the group’s functioning’’ (van Dick et al.
views are discussed, which results in a wide range of so- 2008, p. 8). Further, these diversity beliefs are not general
lutions and a wide range of consequences for each option beliefs about overall diversity, rather they are specific to
(Robinson and Dechant 1997). Further, in order to recon- dimensions of diversity and task contexts (van Dick et al.
cile, different/conflicting opinions groups are forced to 2008). For instance, an individual who perceives gender
thoroughly process task relevant information and may diversity as beneficial may perceive ethnic diversity to be
prevent the group from opting too easily for a course of detrimental to group functioning (van Dick et al. 2008).
action on which there seems to be consensus (Van Knip- Differences in individual beliefs about diversity as such
penberg et al. 2004). can make them to respond more favourably or less
Diversity, however, may have a negative or null effect favourably towards their diverse work group which ulti-
on group processes or decision making processes. It di- mately can have a positive or negative effect on group
vides the group into two sub categories, i.e. the in-group processes or performance (Van Knippenberg et al. 2004;
(majority) and out-group (minority) (Westphal and Milton Homan et al. 2007).
2000). The in-group members may tend to favour those In this respect, several studies have recently demon-
who are similar to them and oppose the dissimilar ones and strated that diversity beliefs can moderate the relationship
as such dismiss or devalue the contributions of out-group between diversity and group performance. For example,
members (Nielsen 2010). Group members who differ from van Knippenberg and Haslam (2003) indicated that when
the majority further tend to have lower group loyalty differences are seen as valuable to group functioning,
(Randøy et al. 2006), lower levels of psychological com- group members may respond more positively to diverse
mitment and higher levels of turnover intent and absen- groups than to more homogeneous groups. In a similar
teeism (Marimuthu and Kolandaisamy 2009). In addition, vein, using a survey and a laboratory experiment, van
scholars in diversity research recently suggest that diver- Knippenberg et al. (2007) demonstrated that the relation-
sity can have a negative effect if the individuals do not ship between diversity and group members’ identification
value/believe in their diverse work groups (van Knippen- with their work group was moderated by their diversity
berg and Schippers 2007; van Knippenberg and Haslam beliefs. The study particularly indicated that diversity tends
2003). Finally, in order to come to any kind of consensus, to be positively related to group identification when team
these two groups inevitably experience challenges, con- members believe in the value of diversity, whereas it is
flicts and dissatisfaction which further slows down the negatively related when they believe in the value of simi-
group process. larity (van Knippenberg et al. 2007). Homan et al. (2007)
Despite these drawbacks, the majority of studies indi- on the other hand showed that groups are more likely to
cate that diversity has the potential to outperform homo- effectively use their informational resources when group
geneity. For Instance, Hambrick et al.’s (1996) study members hold pro-diversity beliefs rather than pro-simi-
indicates that the benefits of diversity (broad gathering of larity beliefs. van Dick et al. (2008) further confirmed that
information, decision creativity and boldness) are more individuals’ diversity beliefs moderate the relationship
than enough to compensate for some of the major draw- between diversity and team performance. Using the di-
backs of diversity (in-group/out-group bias, conflicts, versity beliefs perspective, they found that the value placed
slowness in decision making and action). In summary, even on ethnic diversity moderates the extent to which ethnic
though it brings conflicts and misunderstanding within diversity leads to positive or negative responses to diversity
groups, and various perspectives and alternative solutions, (van Dick et al. 2008). This evidence clearly indicates that
diversity leads to higher quality problem-solving and ulti- diversity has the potential to result in positive as well as
mately outperforms homogeneous groups. negative team performance and that diversity beliefs can
Although there appears little doubt that diversity can play a moderating role in these effects.
have both positive and negative effects on various group Although various benefits of diversity have been iden-
processes and performances, more recently, scholars in tified, progress towards board room diversity is very slow.
diversity research have noted that various other factors may Due to its broad nature, researchers still cannot come up
play a moderating role on the effects of diversity on group with an agreed upon definition (Rose 2007). However, it
processes. One promising and recurrent theme is that of has been broadly defined as ‘‘…variety in the composition
diversity beliefs (van Knippenberg and Haslam 2003; Ely of the BOD (Board of Directors)’’ (Kang et al. 2007,
and Thomas 2001; van Knippenberg et al. 2007; Homan p. 195), which can be either visible or non-visible. More
et al. 2007). Diversity beliefs is defined as individual be- specifically, with regard to corporate governance, diversity
liefs about the value of diversity to work group functioning is concerned with ‘‘board composition and the varied
(van Knippenberg and Haslam 2003), that is, ‘‘the extent to combination of attributes, characteristics and expertise
which individuals perceive diversity to be beneficial for or contributed by individual board members in relation to
123
Board Diversity and CSR... 331
board process and decision making’’ (Walt and Ingley innovation and quality decision making at both individual
2003, p. 219). Walt and Ingley’s definition of board di- and group levels, they found a significant positive rela-
versity seems to be more applicable because board diver- tionship between board diversity and accounting profit
sity is not just variation among its members but rather how measured by return on invested capital and return on assets
those differences in individual board members’ attributes, (Erhardt et al. 2003). Contrary to this positive evidence,
values and perceptions contribute towards various board diversity has also been found to have a negative effect on
process and outcomes. Board diversity is becoming an performance. For example, Bøhren and Strøm (2010) ex-
important factor in the modern world. Modern society is amined the relationship between firm value and various
multicultural, gender sensitive, and exhibits diverse back- board diversity attributes including use of employee di-
grounds, and in order to deal with such a challenge, rectors, board independence, directors with multiple seats
‘‘…boards need to examine how they can build the links and gender diversity. Their evidence shows that the firm
that reflect democracy and civil society in its diversity, creates more value for its owners when the board has no
within their governance role as this relates to the or- employee directors, when its directors have strong links to
ganisations they serve and the wider community within other boards and when gender diversity is low. They con-
which they exist’’ (Walt and Ingley 2003, p. 219). In ad- cluded that value-creating board characteristics support
dition, boards generally work in a group and ‘‘… variation neither popular opinion nor the current politics of corporate
in group composition leads to an increase in the skills, governance (Bøhren and Strøm 2010). Evidence also exists
abilities, knowledge and information of the team as a suggesting that diversity may well not have any effect on
whole’’ (Nielsen and Huse 2010b, p. 17) which enhances board-level outcome or performance. For example, Carter
group performance and discussion (Van Knippenberg et al. et al. (2010), while investigating the relationship between
2004; Watson et al. 1993). Moreover, homogeneity at the the board diversity and financial performance, found no
senior level results in ‘‘… a more myopic perspective’’ significant relationship between the gender or ethnic di-
(Robinson and Dechant 1997, p. 27). Homogeneous boards versity of the board or important board committees, and
usually think alike and are more likely to have a similar financial performance for a sample of major US corpora-
perspectives/opinions, and such a high level of cohesion/ tions. They concluded that the valuable resources provided
unity among them tends to increase pressure towards by the women and ethnic minority directors may have been
conformity (Miller and del Carmen Triana 2009). Due to offset by socio-psychological dynamics of the board such
their lack of diverse perspectives, such boards may not be as exclusion or conflict. They further speculate that effects
able to challenge the thinking of management which ulti- of having women and ethnic minority directors may be
mately weakens the quality and variety of boardroom de- different under different circumstances at different times.
bate (Grady 1999). Similarly, Randøy et al. (2006), while investigating the 500
Based on the above positive arguments favouring board largest companies from Denmark, Norway and Sweden,
diversity, recently a growing amount of contemporary re- found no significant diversity effect of gender, age and
search on boards suggests that diversity among board nationality on stock market performance or on return on
members has the potential to increase board effectiveness assets. They conclude that increasing diversity may be at-
and thereby performance (Bonn et al. 2004; Carter et al. tractive or may be political preference but does not affect
2003; Erhardt et al. 2003). These studies focus on tradi- performance (Randøy et al. 2006).
tional financial performance, however, not CSR perfor-
mance. For example, Carter et al. (2003) examined how the Board Diversity and CSR
proportion of women and those of different ethnic origin
influences performance. They argue that board diversity With regard to board diversity and CSR, even though
enhances independence, and that the difference in cultural limited, research still suggests that board diversity to a
background, gender and ethnicity may induce the diverse certain extent can also influence social and environmental
board to ask questions and it is less likely that such ques- aspects of the business (i.e. CSR) (Bear et al. 2010; Coffey
tions would be raised from directors with traditional and Wang 1998; Ibrahim and Angelidis 2011; Krüger
backgrounds (Carter et al. 2003). Based on data from the 2009; Post et al. 2011; Ibrahim and Angelidis 1995; Hafsi
fortune 1000, they find that there is a significant positive and Turgut 2013). While some of these studies have fo-
relationship between board diversity (women and minori- cused on examining the board diversity effect on overall
ties on the board) and firm value. Similarly, Erhardt et al. CSR, others have focused on specific component(s) of CSR
(2003) conducted a study based on US data and found that (for example, environment, philanthropy or donations).
a higher degree of board diversity is associated with su- However, most of the research linking board diversity and
perior performance. While suggesting that board diversity CSR provides similar justifications as discussed above for
(women and minorities on board) enhances creativity, the link. One of the most widely used diversity
123
332 K. Rao, C. Tilt
characteristics in the literature is board independence. With experience of older managers and energy and alertness of
regard to the link between board independence and CSR, younger managers are considered as important in the de-
two major arguments were provided. First that outside di- cision making process as well as impacting on perfor-
rectors tend to be more sensitive to society’s needs (Ibra- mance. Linking director’s age with corporate social
him and Angelidis 1995) and are more concerned with the performance, Hafsi and Turgut (2013) argued that older
ethical aspects of the corporation than inside directors directors are more likely to be sensitive to welfare of the
(Ibrahim et al. 2003). The second argument is that inde- society (due to their increased generational behaviour) and
pendent board members are more interested in compliance younger directors tend to be more sensitive to environ-
with regulations and responsible behaviour by the entity mental and ethical issues (as a matter of logic and
(Zahra and Stanton 1988). Further, complying with principle).
regulation and acting in a responsible way will enhance Similar to age, a very limited number of studies also
reputation, and such reputation and image of the company examined the influence of directors’ occupational back-
is important to independent directors as it provides them ground on CSR (Ibrahim et al. 2003; Siciliano 1996). Re-
with more chance of being selected for other boards cently, Ibrahim et al. (2003) found that directors’
(Lorenzo et al. 2009). The majority of these studies linking occupational background has the potential to influence
board independence and CSR seem to confirm the positive corporate social performance. Their study highlighted that
relationship between them. government officials and physicians on a board have dif-
In addition to independence, the other widely used board ferent values, perspectives and backgrounds towards social
diversity characteristic is board tenure. The studies linking performance, and those values and perspectives again vary
directors’ tenure with CSR issues mainly argue in favour of in for-profit and not-for-profit organisations. Similarly,
having a balanced board in terms of tenure; however, re- Siciliano (1996) found that the greater the occupational
sults are mixed and inconclusive. For example, Hafsi and diversity at board level, the greater the level of fundraising
Turgut (2013) argue that as the tenure increases directors and social performance. Their interview results further
become familiar with company strategy/management suggested that a variety of viewpoints from different oc-
practice, but at the same time can become the captive of cupational background compel the board to consider all
management. Their results showed no effect, suggesting aspects of the decision.
that longer tenured directors may be too close to managers Other diversity characteristics such as educational
and avoid any controversy in decision making process, qualifications, race/ethnicity and functional background
whereas shorter tenured board members are too shy to have been identified to have some influence on various
speak up. Such a situation may lead board members to group processes and performances, but studies linking it
follow rather than lead when it comes to dealing with social with CSR are very rare. Finally, gender diversity is one of
responsiveness and responsibility issues (Hafsi and Turgut the most widely used diversity characteristics in the CSR
2013). Similarly, Krüger (2009) examined the issue from literature recently. Since one of the major aims of the paper
both a management friendliness hypothesis (echoing and is to identify the gaps within the literature of gender di-
supporting CEO/management, support short term rather versity and CSR decisions, a detailed review of gender
than long-term outcome) and an experience hypothesis diversity is provided in the next section.
(enhances experience, skills and expertise, more willing to Due to the importance of board diversity characteristics
confront CEO). His results supported the experience hy- in CSR, recently, studies have begun to examine the
pothesis where he found that companies with substantial combination of various diversity characteristics in a single
tenure of board members show lower incidence of negative study linking it with CSR, including specific components
social outcomes. He further concluded that neglecting CSR of CSR. Most recently, Post et al. (2011) examined the
issues is risky, and hence, experienced directors, whether relationship between various board diversity characteristics
due to commitment to the company or due to self-protec- and environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR).
tion of their career, are more likely to support decisions They particularly argued for the value of differences
which are consistent with long-term outcomes. among directors in their access to information about, and
As well as independence and tenure, another emerging values regarding, environmental issues. Drawing on evi-
diversity characteristic which is gaining attention in the dence of demographic differences in ethical and environ-
CSR literature is age diversity. Particularly with regard to mental attitudes, they found that a higher proportion of
age and CSR, even though limited, research still indicates outside board directors, firms with boards composed of
that age diversity among board members tends to influence three or more female directors, boards whose director’s
CSR (Post et al. 2011; Hafsi and Turgut 2013). However, average closer to 56 years in age, and those with a higher
there seems to be no solid argument favouring one age proportion of Western European directors, are positively
group when it comes to board processes. Both the associated with favourable ECSR. Similarly, Kabongo
123
Board Diversity and CSR... 333
et al. (2013), while examining board diversity influence on teams achieve better performance, whereas less heteroge-
corporate giving (one of the aspects of CSR), found that the neous teams will be more successful in stable contexts
significant presence of women, minorities and/or people (Hambrick et al. 1996; Nielsen 2010).
who are disabled encourages more corporate giving. They
suggest that the presence of diverse board members who Gender Diversity
bring and control unique resources results in the or-
ganisational behaviour of corporate giving (Kabongo et al. Among the various board diversity characteristics, gender
2013). diversity is one of the most significant issues faced by
While board diversity has the potential to influence modern corporations (Carter et al. 2003). It has been re-
CSR, it may also reflect the company’s commitment to cently perceived as an issue of interest not only in the
CSR. The firms who are committed to CSR issues in order diversity literature but also in politics and in other general
to achieve their goals may want to appoint directors with societal situations (Kang et al. 2007). Even though there
diverse values, background and experience. Recently, are a number of female directors occupying top-level po-
Webb (2004), while investigating the board structure of sitions, particularly on corporate boards (Vinnicombe
socially responsible firms and non-socially responsible 2009), the pressure to enhance the presence of female di-
firms, found that the boards of socially responsible firms rectors seems to be an ongoing global issue. Several
tend to have fewer insiders (23 %) and more outsiders countries have started adopting either legislative or vol-
(71 %) compared to non-socially responsible firms (31 and untary initiatives to promote female representation on
61 %, respectively). Further, demographically diverse corporate boards. This includes, for example, Norway
board can send signals to the public about firms’ commit- (40 % gender quota for female directors or face dissolu-
ment to social justice (Bilimoria 2000; Miller and del tion), Sweden (25 % voluntary reserve for female directors
Carmen Triana 2009); firms’ norm adherence and positive or threat to make it a legal requirement), Spain (comply-or-
working conditions (Miller and del Carmen Triana 2009); explain type law requiring companies to reach up to 40 %
firms’ particular strategy for improving the oversight of female directors by 2015), France (law which requires
corporations (Galbreath 2011) and an indication of com- 50 % gender parity on the board of every public firm by
panies’ attention to women and minorities, and thus be 2015) (Bøhren and Strøm 2010) and more recently Italy
considered to be socially responsible (Bear et al. 2010). (law requiring listed and state-owned companies to ensure
It is also highlighted in previous literature that the effect one-third of their board members is female by 2015) (Ar-
of diverse boards on various types of performance, in- guden 2012). In addition to European countries, many
cluding CSR, is more likely to be positive with the exis- developing countries such as India, China and Middle
tence of a sufficiently diverse board. Consistent with this Eastern countries are also recognising the importance of
view, previous research has identified that unless there is a female board members’ talent (Singh et al. 2008). Finally,
‘critical mass’ (three or more) of women on a board, in- in Australia, the Stock Exchange (ASX) in its recent
dividual influence will be minimal (Konrad et al. 2008). changes to corporate governance principles now requires
Consistent with this, Williams (2003) found that boards listed companies to specifically report on gender diversity
with a higher number of women engage in charitable giv- at board and senior management levels (Kulik 2011). Most
ing to a larger extent than boards with fewer women. of these initiatives, whether voluntary or legislative, clearly
Similarly, Bear et al. (2010) found that firms’ CSR ratings indicate that the presence of women on boards could affect
increase with the increase in the number of female directors the governance of companies in significant ways (Adams
and that the contributions women bring to the board are and Ferreira 2009).
more likely to be considered by the board when the group The presence of female directors in top-level positions
diversity dynamics move away from tokenism to normality has been linked to various outcomes resulting in mixed
(Erkut et al. 2008). evidence. For example, some find a positive relationship
Even though a limited number of studies examine board between gender and financial performance (Carter et al.
diversity and CSR aspects of the firm, a majority of studies 2003; Erhardt et al. 2003), while others find no significant
still find a positive association between various board di- or even negative relationships (Adams and Ferreira 2009;
versity characteristics and CSR. In addition, due to its Rose 2007; Shrader et al. 1997; Smith et al. 2006).
voluntary nature, decisions with regard to CSR become Although still relatively small in number, a number of
complex and consideration of various alternatives, and in- studies also suggest that having women on boards does
depth discussion and debate facilitated by diversity will exert some influence on non-financial performance and in
definitely result in high-quality decisions at board level. particular CSR (Stanwick and Stanwick 1998; Wang and
Moreover, empirical results show that, under high envi- Coffey 1992; Williams 2003; Ibrahim and Angelidis 1991;
ronmental uncertainty, heterogeneous top management Bernardi and Threadgill 2010; Smith et al. 2001; Siciliano
123
334 K. Rao, C. Tilt
1996). For example, a recent study by Bear et al. (2010) outcomes. In addition to the stereotype barrier, it is also
found a positive relationship between CSR and the number often questioned in the literature whether gender differ-
of female directors on the board. They identified that two ences actually apply to leadership/managerial positions.
major strengths, increased sensitivity (Williams 2003) and Women who pursue management careers usually reject
participative decision making styles (Konrad et al. 2008), feminine stereotypes and may be more likely to have
brought by the women to the board are found to be the key needs, values and leadership styles similar to men (Powell
reasons for corporate responsibility strength ratings (Bear 1990) hence tend to behave in a masculine manner.
et al. 2010). The study further suggests that by contributing Consistent with this, Eagly et al. (1995) found no overall
to a firm’s CSR, women play a role in enhancing corporate differences in the effectiveness of male and female
reputation, and hence, female representation should move managers and concluded that gender per se is unlikely to
away from tokenism to normality (Bear et al. 2010). be a predictor of leadership effectiveness. However, the
Similarly, Krüger (2009) found that companies with higher majority of the literature on gender differences argues that
female board representation have higher incidence of there are significant differences in values, perceptions and
positive social responsibility. More specifically, the study beliefs between men and women in general (Eagly et al.
indicates that companies with a higher fraction of female 1995; Powell 1990). Such differences are likely to be
directors tend to be more generous towards communities reflected in their various leadership roles including their
and pay more attention to the welfare of a firm’s natural board role. While differentiating leadership qualities of
stakeholders (e.g. communities, employees or the envi- men and women, Eagly et al. (2003) suggest that agentic
ronment), indicating that stronger presence of board (i.e. related to agency) characteristics such as being
members with altruistic preferences does indeed translate assertive, ambitious, aggressive, independent, self-confi-
into more pro-social corporate behaviour (Krüger 2009). dent, daring and competitive are usually recognised in
Another recent study by Braun (2010) concentrated on one men, whereas communal characteristics such as a concern
aspect of CSR (Environmental commitment) and found with the welfare of other people and being affectionate,
that women had stronger environmental attitudes and helpful, kind, sympathetic, interpersonally sensitive, nur-
commitment to a green entrepreneurship programme than turing, and gentle are identified in women. Their research
males, suggesting that women entrepreneurs may be more has further established that female leaders, compared to
engaged in green issues than male entrepreneurs. In Aus- male leaders, are less hierarchical, more cooperative and
tralia, a recent study by Galbreath (2011) confirmed that collaborative, and more oriented towards enhancing oth-
due to their relational abilities, women are more able to ers’ self-worth (Eagly et al. 2003). Moreover, evidence
engage with multiple stakeholders and to respond to their exists suggesting that women directors are more likely to
needs, indicating CSR achievement. Various other evi- influence issues related to stakeholders/CSR. While
dences also exist, which indicate that female directors in- assessing the effect of board members’ gender on cor-
fluence different aspects of CSR, such as charitable giving porate social responsiveness orientation, Ibrahim and
(Wang and Coffey 1992; Williams 2003), and higher levels Angelidis (1991) found that, unlike men, women directors
of environmental CSR (Post et al. 2011). are less concerned about economic performance and
While evidence and arguments discussed so far indi- rather more concerned about discretionary aspects of
cate that female directors are more likely to have a corporate responsibility. Further, women usually hold
positive influence on CSR outcomes, their influence might positions in ‘soft’ managerial areas such as human re-
be limited or even none. One major barrier which has sources, CSR, marketing, advertising, etc., (Zelechowski
been widely identified in the literature is that women in and Bilimoria 2006) indicating that female representatives
top-level positions often face discrimination or a stereo- on boards are more likely to have in-depth knowledge of
typing challenge which restricts their ability to fully soft managerial issues. This evidence further indicates
contribute to corporate strategy and oversight (Arfken that female directors may perceive community or stake-
et al. 2004; EOWA 2008; Galbreath 2011). For example, holders’ interests, particularly CSR issues, differently than
in interviews with Australian board members, male di- male directors. Table 2 provides a summary of the rele-
rectors stated that they tend to welcome women directors’ vant studies on board diversity and CSR. The table
input on so-called ‘soft issues’ (such as human resources, specifically highlights the various empirical studies ex-
occupational health and safety, corporate donations and amining the effects of board attributes and board diversity
ethics), but usually discount input on technical issues (including gender diversity) on CSR. It is important to
(such as engineering) (EOWA 2008). Recently, Galbreath note that the studies, however, are predominantly quan-
(2011) further indicated that sex-based biases or stereo- titative, and the results are mixed and inconclusive, sug-
typing by male directors can limit women directors’ in- gesting a need for more in-depth analysis of these
fluence on decision making and thereby sustainable attributes.
123
Board Diversity and CSR... 335
Table 2 Empirical studies on the effects of board attributes and board diversity (including gender diversity) on corporate social responsibility
(CSR)
Author Aim Method Board variables Findings
The major aim of the study was to Indicates whether the The various board Indicates whether the relationship is
investigate: study is quantitative attributes included positive (?ve), negative (-ve) or
or qualitative in the study not significant (Not sig)
(Post et al. Relationship between environmental CSR Quantitative Outside directors ?ve
2011) and Board composition(US) (regression) Gender diversity ?ve
(disclosure—
Age Not sig
proxy)
Cultural ?ve
background
Educational Not sig
attainment
(Krüger 2009) Relationship between CSR and board Quantitative Women director ?ve
characteristics (US) (regression) Inside director ?ve
Director ?ve
experience
Director tenure ?ve
(Bear et al. How diversity of board resources and Quantitative Gender diversity ?ve
2010) female directors affect CSR ratings (regression) Resource diversity Not sig
(Fortune companies)
(Webb 2004) Structure of the board in socially Quantitative Outside director ?ve
responsible firms (US) (regression) Women director ?ve
CEO duality -ve
Arora and Association between CG mechanisms and Quantitative Concentrated Both ?ve and -ve depending on
Dharwadkar CSR (US) (regression) ownership slack and attainment discrepancy
(2011) Managerial
ownership
Independence
(Huang 2010) Whether CG model impacts on Corporate Quantitative Independence ?ve
Social Performance (CSP) (Taiwan) (regression) (CSRR Ownership ?ve
proxy) structure
(Jo and The CG effect on choice of CSR (US) Quantitative Board leadership ?ve
Harjoto (regression) Independence ?ve
2011)
(De Villiers The relationship between environmental Quantitative Board diversity ?ve
et al. 2009) performance and board characteristics (regression) Board size ?ve
(US)
Independence ?ve
Legal experts ?ve
Active CEO ?ve
CEO duality -ve
(Sahin et al. Role of board independence in CSR Quantitative Independence ?ve
2011) performance (Turkey) (regression)
(Ibrahim and Inside and outside board members’ Quantitative Outside directors ?ve
Angelidis, attitude towards Philanthropy (survey—
1995) questionnaire)
(Johnson and Effects of outside directors on CSP (KLD Quantitative Outside directors ?ve
Greening, database)
1999)
(Dunn and Relationship between board independence Quantitative Board ?ve
Sainty 2009) and CSP (Canada) (regression) independence
(McGuire Relationship between CEO incentives and Quantitative CEO incentives Not sig
et al. 2003) CSP (KLD database) (regression)
(Melo 2012) Influence of board tenure on CSP (KLD Quantitative Board tenure ?ve
database) (US) (regression)
123
336 K. Rao, C. Tilt
Table 2 continued
Author Aim Method Board variables Findings
The major aim of the study was to Indicates whether the The various board Indicates whether the relationship is
investigate: study is quantitative attributes included positive (?ve), negative (-ve) or
or qualitative in the study not significant (Not sig)
Corporate Governance, Board Composition of corporate governance (Donnelly and Mulcahy 2008),
and CSRR boards of directors become responsible for CSRR. Thus,
the relationship between board composition and CSRR is
CSR, as mentioned earlier, extends firms’ accountability to explored in this section.
wider stakeholders through reporting on their CSR ac- The link between corporate governance and reporting
tivities, i.e. CSRR. Since accountability is an essential part emerges from Jensen and Meckling’s (1976) agency theory
123
Board Diversity and CSR... 337
framework under which it is assumed that management can members as a determinant of CSD in Malaysia. In addition
exploit information asymmetry to act in a manner that is to the government’s favoured ethnic group, boards had
contrary to the interests of shareholders. One way of feminine cultural values of the Malays which is considered
mitigating such an agency problem is to reduce that in- to be partly the reason for such a positive relationship
formation asymmetry (Donnelly and Mulcahy 2008), and (Haniffa and Cooke 2005).
this is possible through one of the important qualities of Table 3 presents a summary of relevant empirical
governance, i.e. transparency/accountability (Hermalin and studies which examined the effects of board attributes on
Weisbach 2007). Htay et al. (2012) suggest that disclosure various types of disclosure, including CSRR. One of the
of information, or transparency, is an integral part of cor- drawbacks in these studies linking board diversity and
porate governance as higher disclosure could reduce in- CSRR is that the majority of them examine the potential
formation asymmetry which not only clarifies the conflicts direct relationship between the two. However, the rela-
of interests between shareholders and management but also tionship between board diversity and CSRR is more com-
makes corporate insiders accountable. A good governance plex than such an examination implies. CSRR is widely
structure as such goes hand in hand with increased trans- considered as a strategy (Haniffa and Cooke 2005), and the
parency/disclosure (Mallin 2002). Given that boards of reporting is usually the outcome of strategic decision
directors are major players in corporate governance, board making processes. The diversity effect on the CSR decision
composition is likely to have some influence on CSRR. making process is therefore likely to be reflected in CSRR.
Based on the view that corporate governance enhances In summary, board diversity, through decision making
transparency/accountability, researchers have linked board processes, has the potential to influence CSRR but this has
composition to various disclosures such as mandatory re- been neglected in the studies reviewed in this paper, which
porting (financial reporting) as well as non-mandatory generally imply a more direct relationship. This is reflected
voluntary disclosure including CSR disclosures. The evi- in the predominance of studies that use quantitative mod-
dence indicating the link between board composition and elling to consider the relationship, rather than a more nu-
disclosure is mixed. For instance, Chen and Jaggi (2001) anced, qualitative investigation.
found a positive association between a firm’s mandatory
financial disclosures and the proportion of independent
non-executive directors. Eng and Mak’s (2003) result on The board’s Role in Strategy/Decision Making
the other hand indicated that non-mandatory disclosure in Processes and CSR
Singapore is significantly and negatively associated with
percentage of independent directors. Ho and Wong (2001), Evidence on board diversity and performance (whether fi-
using a direct measure of voluntary disclosure based on nancial or CSR) discussed throughout this paper shows
analyst perception, were unable to confirm a significant mixed results suggesting that board diversity attributes can
relationship between the level of voluntary disclosure and influence performance positively or negatively (or may
board independence. With regard to board diversity (in- have no effect at all). In response to this mixed evidence,
cluding gender), the research is rare linking it with CSR many papers have suggested that it is important to examine
disclosure (Barako and Brown 2008; Haniffa and Cooke intermediate variables rather than examining direct rela-
2005; Khan 2010; Fernandez-Feijoo et al. 2012), but results tionships (Nielsen and Huse 2010b; Nielsen 2010). Given
seem to confirm a positive relationship. The arguments that CSR is a part of a firm’s strategy (McElhaney 2009;
advanced by these researchers are the same arguments McWilliams et al. 2006) and boards of directors are re-
discussed in the earlier section linking board diversity and sponsible for formulating those strategies (Judge and Zei-
CSR, which suggests that diversity among the board thaml 1992; Ruigrok et al. 2006), examining boards of
members has the potential to influence CSR (diverse directors’ strategic decision making processes would pro-
background, different values, perceptions about CSR, ac- vide more insight into the relationship between board di-
cess to information, experience, expertise etc.). For ex- versity and CSR/CSRR.
ample, Fernandez-Feijoo et al. (2012) argue that the values Both the corporate governance and strategic manage-
women assign to social issues are different and that they ment literature indicate that a director’s role in strategy is
are highly committed to CSR. They found that boards with the most complex and crucial one which requires thorough
three or more women are determinants for CSR disclosure, investigation. Strategy is regarded as ‘‘… a set of decisions
produce less integrated reports, inform more on CSR that a) guide the organisation according to the environ-
strategy and include Assurance statements. Similarly, ment, b) affect the internal structure and processes and c)
Haniffa and Cooke (2005) found that Malay dominated consequently, its performance’’ (Balta et al. 2010, p. 58).
boards are positively related to CSD where a majority of Directors’ role in strategy in this sense is their involvement
respondents identified ethnicity background of board in the decision process and their ultimate effect on
123
338 K. Rao, C. Tilt
Table 3 Empirical studies on the effects of board attributes on various types of disclosure, including Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
(CSRR)
Author Aim Method Board variables Findings
The major aim of the study was to Indicates whether the The various board Indicates whether the relationship is
investigate: study is quantitative attributes included positive (?ve), negative (-ve) or not
or qualitative in the study significant (Not sig)
123
Board Diversity and CSR... 339
Table 3 continued
Author Aim Method Board variables Findings
The major aim of the study was to Indicates whether the The various board Indicates whether the relationship is
investigate: study is quantitative or attributes included positive (?ve), negative (-ve) or not
qualitative in the study significant (Not sig)
(Kent and Explanation for companies adopting Quantitative Audit committee ?ve
Monem TBL (Triple Bottom Line)reporting (regression) meeting
2008) (Australia) Environmental and ?ve
sustainability
committee
(Donnelly Relationship between CG and Quantitative Non-executive ?ve
and voluntary disclosure (Ireland) Non-exec chairman ?ve
Mulcahy
Ownership Not Sig
2008)
(Eng and Impact of board composition on Quantitative Board Independence -ve
Mak 2003) voluntary disclosure (Singapore) (regression) Board share -ve
ownership
(Ho and Relationship between CG structure Quantitative Independence Not sig
Wong and the extent of voluntary (regression) Audit committee ?ve
2001) disclosure (Hong Kong)
CEO dualit Not sig
Family board -ve
member
(Chau and Relationship between CG and the Quantitative Family ownership ?ve
Gray extent of voluntary disclosure (regression) Independent ?ve
2010) (Hong Kong) chairman
(Cheng and Association between board attributes Quantitative Board size Not sig
Courtenay and level of voluntary disclosure (regression) CEO duality Not sig
2006) (Singapore)
Independence ?ve
(Huafang Effect of board composition on Quantitative Ownership ?ve
and voluntary disclosure (China) (regression) Independence ?ve
Jianguo
CEO duality -ve
2007)
(Amran Role of the board in sustainability Quantitative Board size Not sig
et al. 2013) reporting quality (Asia Pacific (regression) Independence Not sig
Region)
Women directors Not sig
(Jizi et al. Role of the board on the quality of Quantitative Board size ?ve
2013) CSR disclosure (US) (regression) Independence ?ve
CEO duality ?ve
(Liao et al. Impact of board’s characteristics on Quantitative Women directors ?ve
2014) voluntary disclosure of greenhouse (regression) Independence ?ve
gas emission (UK)
performance. The board’s role in strategy and decision of society’’ (Hung 2011). However, such board-level de-
making processes has been highlighted in many previous cisions related to CSR are an understudied area of research
studies (Adams and Ferreira 2007; Deegan 1999; Elkington in the CSR literature.
1999; Kent and Monem 2008; Ricart et al. 2005; Walt and The relationship between board diversity and decisions with
Ingley 2003; Wiersema and Bantel 1992; Zahra and Pearce regard to CSR, even though evidence is limited, is still well
II 1989; Pugliese et al. 2009; Deloitte 2011) suggesting that supported. For example, Krüger (2009, p. 7) states that the
boards are significantly involved in the decision making
‘‘… board of directors will have a substantial influ-
process. With regard to CSR, the board’s role is considered
ence on the decision to support local communities or
as ‘‘a stream of board-level decisions that induce an inte-
the extent to which a firm chooses to provide non-
grated set of activities intended to produce social outcomes
monetary and/or monetary benefits to its workforce
favourable to the firm’s alignment of its interest with that
123
340 K. Rao, C. Tilt
(e.g. child-care, elder care, fitness canters and other strategic control. In addition, they also find women direc-
work/life benefits). Likewise, it seems plausible that tors reduce the level of conflict, which is detrimental to
director characteristics such as experience or exper- board strategic control. They concluded that ‘‘… it is not
tise will impact the ability of a company to manage the gender per se, but the different values and professional
its (social) risks effectively (e.g. avoiding environ- experiences that women may possess that enable them to
mental contamination and workforce safety viola- make a difference to actual board work and influence board
tions, managing its pension and retirement liabilities decision-making’’ (Nielsen and Huse 2010b, p. 17). De-
responsibly, etc.)’’. spite the evidence suggesting gender composition is likely
to influence various decisions including decisions related to
According to Rose (2007), diversity ensures that corporate
stakeholders, research linking gender with CSR-related
decisions are taken with a broader view, e.g. including a
decision making is rare and in need of more in-depth
higher degree of stakeholder orientation than merely
consideration.
following the notion of maximising shareholder value. In
Table 4 provides a summary of relevant studies under-
addition, due to its voluntary nature, decisions with regard
taken on the effect of board attributes on strategy/decision
to CSR become complex and various alternatives, and in-
making processes. The majority of the studies in the table
depth discussion and debate facilitated by diversity will
indicate that board attributes/diversity have the potential to
likely result in high-quality decisions related to CSR issues
influence various strategic outcomes. However, the board
at board level. Moreover, evidence from previous empirical
diversity effect on CSR strategy/decision is an understud-
results shows that, under high environmental uncertainty,
ied area, particularly in more recent times.
heterogeneous teams achieve better performance, although
less heterogeneous teams may be more successful in stable
contexts (Hambrick et al. 1996; Nielsen 2010). Conclusion
Within the literature on board diversity, gender com-
position is considered to be an important aspect when Due to globalisation and technology, the nature of or-
considering boards’ decisions (Bear et al. 2010; Bilimoria ganisations and their relationship with stakeholders has
2000; Fielden and Davidson 2005; Hillman et al. 2002; been evolving and now requires boards of directors to ‘‘…
Johnson and Greening 1999; Peterson and Philpot 2007; move forward from the traditional role of controlling the
Singh et al. 2008; Terjesen et al. 2009; Wang and Coffey management, towards a much more proactive role’’ (Hung
1992; Williams 2003). Female directors tend to bring dif- 2011, p. 397). In other words, boards’ roles and responsi-
ferent perspectives to the board and can influence various bilities have been extended from the traditional share-
board-level outcomes including the decision making pro- holder-centric one to encompass various stakeholders, and
cess. Such unique perspectives could be due to their dif- this has been clearly highlighted as being part of the
ferent experiences of the workplace, marketplace, public broader perspective of corporate governance.
services and community, which are likely to add different Within this broader view, board composition seems to
perspectives to the decision making process (Daily and be a major factor which can be assumed to have some
Dalton 2003; Zelechowski and Bilimoria 2004). Support- influence on both CSR and CSR reporting. One of the
ing female presence on boards, Walt and Ingley (2003) emerging and rapidly growing areas of research is board
suggest that quality decision making requires a balance diversity. Greater diversity among board member charac-
between skills and attributes among the board members teristics has been advocated as ‘‘a means of improving
which could be achieved by appointing more female di- organisational performance by providing boards with new
rectors. Some authors even argue that female directors are insights and perspectives’’ (Siciliano 1996, p. 1313). Even
more likely to be objective and independent (Fondas 2000) though a reasonable consensus exists in the literature
and as such tend to ask questions more freely than male suggesting that corporate governance, in particular, boards
directors (Bilimoria and Wheeler 2000). Their presence of directors, plays an important role in ensuring companies
therefore enhances board information, perspectives, debate meet CSR objectives (Mackenzie 2007), limited research
and decision making (Burke 2000). Nielson and Huse actually examined whether diversity among board mem-
(2010b), based on survey data from multiple respondents in bers has any influence on CSR and even less has consid-
120 Norwegian firms, found that women directors con- ered CSR reporting.
tribute towards board decision making processes and The review conducted in this paper has, in fact, identi-
thereby influence board strategy. They examined the effect fied a number of gaps and deficiencies in the literature on
female board members have on board operational control board composition to date.
and board strategic control. They find the ratio of women First, the majority of empirical papers focus on exam-
directors to have a positive direct relationship with board ining the effect of board diversity on corporate financial
123
Board Diversity and CSR... 341
Table 4 Studies on the effect of various board attributes (including Top Management Team—TMT) on strategy/decision making processes
Author Aim Method Board variables Findings
The major aim of the study was to Indicates The various board attributes Indicates whether the
investigate: whether the included in the study relationship is positive
study is (?ve), negative (-ve) or
quantitative or not significant (Not sig)
qualitative
123
342 K. Rao, C. Tilt
Table 4 continued
Author Aim Method Board variables Findings
The major aim of the study was to Indicates The various board attributes Indicates whether the
investigate: whether the included in the study relationship is positive
study is (?ve), negative (-ve) or
quantitative or not significant (Not sig)
qualitative
(Westphal and Boards’ effect on strategic change (US) Quantitative Board experience/CEO ?ve
Fredrickson (event history experience
2001) analysis)
(Wiersema Relationship between the TMT Quantitative Top management team (TMT):
and Bantel demography and corporate strategic (regression) Age -ve
1992) change (US)
Organisational tenure -ve
Team tenure ?ve
Educational level ?ve
Education-specialisation ?ve
Training ?ve
(Talke et al. How TMT characteristics affect firm’s Quantitative Top Management team (TMT): ?ve
2011) innovation strategy (Europe and North (structural educational
America) equation Functional ?ve
model)
Industry background ?ve
(Terjesen How gender diversity on boards Review paper Women directors ?ve
et al. 2009) influences CG outcomes (board-level
decisions)
(Nielsen and Contribution of women directors to board Quantitative Women directors ?ve
Huse 2010a) strategic control (Norway) (regression)
(Triana et al. How board gender diversity, firm Quantitative Women directors ?ve/-ve (depending on
2013) performance and the power of women (regression) firm performance and
directors interact to influence the power of women
amount of strategic change (Fortune directors)
500 firms)
(Adams et al. How values may affect Directors’ Quantitative Directors’ personal values and ?ve/-ve (depending on
2011) strategic decisions in shareholder/ (regression) roles personal values)
stakeholder dilemmas (Sweden)
(Rindova Directors’ contribution to strategic Theoretical Directors’ problem-solving ?ve
1999) decisions paper expertise and cognitive
contribution
(O’Shannassy Interplay of board and CEO in strategy- Qualitative Board and CEO’s personal Significant
2010) making (Australia) (interviews) power, specialist knowledge,
personality attributes and
political and influencing skills
performance. In addition, most of the prior studies are cross reporting such CSR issues (e.g. whether to report or not to
sectional and hence restricted from identifying causality report certain positive or negative CSR issues to wider
between the diversity and organisational performance. stakeholders). Very little research, however, has directly
Second, since CSR is widely perceived as a strategy, examined decision making by directors facing social re-
research should also explore how board processes, in par- sponsibility decisions. Most of the board research studies
ticular decision making processes, with regard to CSR or are quantitative, examining the direct association between
CSRR is taking place in an organisation. This is an im- board diversity and CSR/CSRR resulting in contradictory
portant gap in the literature, and would provide more in- findings. Qualitative methods such as case studies, obser-
sight into whether and how boards are involved in decision vation and interviews should be adopted to gain in-depth
making processes with regard to CSR and whether CSR understanding of boards’ decision making processes with
and CSRR are outcomes of these decisions. Moreover, the regard to both CSR and CSRR. This lack of qualitative
decision making process is the one where boards collec- methods in the field of corporate governance has been
tively decide upon various CSR initiatives (e.g. whether to highlighted by a recent review paper by McNulty et al.
invest or not to invest in CSR activities) as well as (2013). While providing an overview of published
123
Board Diversity and CSR... 343
qualitative research between 1986 and 2011, they suggest Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and
that more qualitative methods are essential in order to their impact on governance and performance. Journal of
Financial Economics, 94, 291–309.
explore the array of interactions and processes involved in Adams, R. B., Licht, A. N., & Sagiv, L. (2011). Shareholders and
corporate governance. stakeholders: How do directors decide? Strategic Management
Third, with regard to board diversity, there has been Journal, 32, 1331–1355.
limited research linking various board diversity character- Amran, A., Lee, S. P., & Devi, S. S. (2013). The influence of
governance structure and strategic corporate social responsibility
istics to CSR or CSRR decisions by the board. Further, toward sustainability reporting quality. Business Strategy and the
while diversity beliefs seem to play a moderating role in Environment, 23, 217–235.
the effects of diversity on group performance generally Arfken, D. E., Bellar, S. L., & Helms, M. M. (2004). The ultimate
(van Knippenberg and Haslam 2003; van Knippenberg glass ceiling revisited: The presence of women on corporate
boards. Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 177–186.
et al. 2007; Homan et al. 2007), far less attention has been Arguden, Y. (2012). Why boards need more women. Harvard
given to the potential influence of the board members’ Business Review.
beliefs on board-level outcomes. So far, there seems to be Arora, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (2011). Corporate governance and
no research focussing on examining the possible effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR): The moderating roles of
attainment discrepancy and organization slack. Corporate
board members’ beliefs on CSR decisions made by the Governance: An International Review, 19(2), 136–152.
board. Further work is clearly needed to develop under- Ayuso, S., & Argandoña, A. (2007). Responsible corporate gover-
standing of the diversity beliefs of board members and its nance: Towards a stakeholder board of directors. Working Paper.
impact on CSR decisions. Navarra: University of Navarra.
Balta, M. E., Woods, A., & Dickson, K. (2010). The influence of
Fourth, within the board diversity characteristics, gender boards of directors’ characteristics on strategic decision-making:
is one of the most debated and significant issues faced by Evidence from Greek companies. Journal of Applied Business
modern corporations. Yet, even though there is growing Research (JABR), 26(3), 57–68.
amount of literature suggesting that female directors can Barako, D. G., & Brown, A. M. (2008). Corporate social reporting
and board representation: Evidence from the Kenyan banking
influence various board decisions, the research examining sector. Journal of Management and Governance, 12, 309–324.
gender and CSR decision making processes is rare. Given Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C. (2010). The impact of board
such importance placed on gender diversity by academics, diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsi-
policy makers and firms, it is crucial to examine whether bility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97,
207–221.
gender diversity really matters in CSR or CSRR decisions Bernardi, R. A., & Threadgill, V. H. (2010). Women directors and
through both qualitative and quantitative means. corporate social responsibility. Electronic Journal of Business
Finally, many of the studies previously conducted focus Ethics and Organizational Studies, 15, 15–21.
on a ‘black box’ approach to considering the various board Bilimoria, D. (2000). Building the business case for women corporate
directors. In Women on corporate boards of directors: Interna-
characteristics. That is, they identify potential influences tional challenges and opportunities (pp. 25–40). New York:
and relationships, which they study using statistical tests Springer.
and models, but do not include an in-depth examination. Bilimoria, D., & Wheeler, J. V. (2000). Women corporate directors:
This paper proposes that further research linking gender Current research and future directions. Women in Management:
Current Research Issues, 2, 138–163.
composition with CSR, in particular the CSR decision Bøhren, Ø. Y., & Strøm, R. Ø. (2010). Governance and politics:
making process, is required in order to gain thorough un- Regulating independence and diversity in the board room.
derstanding of gender influence on CSR. This should in- Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 37, 1281–1308.
clude interviews, case studies and longitudinal studies to Bonn, I., Yoshikawa, T., & Phan, P. H. (2004). Effects of board
structure on firm performance: A comparison between Japan and
enrich our knowledge of the complex interactions that take Australia. Asian Business & Management, 3, 105–125.
place on boards and in organisations. Boulouta, I. (2013). Hidden connections: The link between board
More specifically, the paper proposes that examination gender diversity and corporate social performance. Journal of
of boards’ decision making processes with regard to CSR Business Ethics, 113, 185–197.
Braun, P. (2010). Going green: Women entrepreneurs and the
would provide more insight into the relationship between environment. International Journal of Gender and En-
board diversity and CSR. trepreneurship, 2, 245–259.
Brennan, N. M., & Solomon, J. (2008). Corporate governance,
Acknowledgments The author thanks reviewers, discussant and accountability and mechanisms of accountability: An overview.
participants for their helpful comments. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21, 885–906.
Burke, R. J. (2000). Women on corporate boards of directors:
Understanding the context. Women on Corporate Boards of
Directors: International Challenges and Opportunities, 14,
179–196.
References Carpenter, M. A., & Westphal, J. D. (2001). The strategic context of
external network ties: Examining the impact of director
Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2007). A theory of friendly boards. The appointments on board involvement in strategic decision mak-
Journal of Finance, 62, 217–250. ing. The Academy of Management Journal, 44, 639–660.
123
344 K. Rao, C. Tilt
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L.
corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire lead-
497–505. ership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men.
Carter, D. A., D’souza, F., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569.
The gender and ethnic diversity of US boards and board Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the
committees and firm financial performance. Corporate Gover- effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bullet-
nance: An International Review, 18, 396–414. in, 117, 125.
Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate Elkington, J. (1999). Triple bottom line revolution: reporting for the
governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Review, third millennium. Australian CPA, 69, 75–76.
38, 33–53. Elkington, J. (2006). Governance for sustainability. Corporate
Catanzariti, J., & Lo, M. (2011). Corporate governance changes focus Governance: An International Review, 14, 522–529.
on diversity. Retrieved May 11, 2005, from http://www.clay Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The
tonutz.com/publications/newsletters/discriminationand_diversity effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and
insights/20110511/corporate_governance_changes_focus_on_ outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229–273.
diversity.page. Eng, L. L., & Mak, Y. T. (2003). Corporate governance and voluntary
Chau, G., & Gray, S. J. (2010). Family ownership, board indepen- disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22,
dence and voluntary disclosure: Evidence from Hong Kong. 325–345.
Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 19, EOWA. (2008). A gender in the boardroom. Equal Opportunity for
93–109. Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA): Canberra.
Chen, S., & Bouvain, P. (2009). Is corporate responsibility converg- Erhardt, N. L., Werbel, J. D., & Shrader, C. B. (2003). Board of
ing? A comparison of corporate responsibility reporting in the director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate
USA, UK, Australia, and Germany. Journal of Business Ethics, Governance: An International Review, 11, 102–111.
87, 299–317. Erkut, S., Kramer, V. W., & Konrad, A. M. (2008). Critical mass:
Chen, C. J. P., & Jaggi, B. (2001). Association between independent Does the number of women on a corporate board make a
non-executive directors, family control and financial disclosures difference? In S. Vinnicombe & M. Singh (Eds.), Women on
in Hong Kong. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 19, corporate boards of directors: International research and
285–310. Practice (pp. 222–232). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Chen, X., & Van Staden, C. (2010). Stakeholder pressure, social Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz, S. (2012). Does board gender
trust, governance and the disclosure quality of environmental composition affect corporate social responsibility reporting? Inter-
information. Sydney: APIRA. national Journal of Business and Social Science, 3, 31–38.
Cheng, E., & Courtenay, S. M. (2006). Board composition, regulatory Fielden, S. L., & Davidson, M. (2005). International handbook of
regime and voluntary disclosure. The International Journal of women and small business entrepreneurship. Cheltenham:
Accounting, 41, 262–289. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Chin, M., Hambrick, D. C., & Treviño, L. K. (2013). Political Fondas, N. (2000). Women on boards of directors: Gender bias or
ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives’ values on power threat (pp. 171–177). Women on Corporate Boards of
corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarter- Directors: International Challenges and Opportunities.
ly, 58, 197–232. Galbreath, J. (2011). Are there gender-related influences on corporate
Coffey, B. S., & Wang, J. (1998). Board diversity and managerial sustainability? A study of women on boards of directors. Journal
control as predictors of corporate social performance. Journal of of Management & Organization, 17, 17–38.
Business Ethics, 17, 1595–1603. Ghazali, N. A. M. (2007). Ownership structure and corporate social
CPA Australia. (2005). The power of three. Available: http://www. responsibility disclosure: Some Malaysian evidence. Corporate
cpaaustralia.com.au. Accessed 20 July 2012. Governance, 7, 251–266.
Cr-Index. (2014). Insight report: Integrating, measuring and manag- Goodstein, J., Gautam, K., & Boeker, W. (1994). The effects of board
ing responsible business practice. London: Business in the size and diversity on strategic change. Strategic Management
Community. Journal, 15, 241–250.
Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (2003). Women in the boardroom: A Golob, U., & Bartlett, J. L. (2007). Communicating about corporate
business imperative. Journal of Business Strategy, 24(5), 8–9. social responsibility: A comparative study of CSR reporting in
De Graaf, F. J., & Herkströter, C. A. (2007). How corporate social Australia and Slovenia. Public Relations Review, 33, 1–9.
performance is institutionalised within the governance structure. Grady, D. (1999). No more board games!. The McKinsey Quarterly, 3
Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 177–189. 17–25.
De Villiers, C., Van Staden, C., & Naiker, V. (2009). Good corporate Hafsi, T., & Turgut, G. (2013). Boardroom diversity and its effect on
governance makes for good environmental performance. In social performance: Conceptualization and empirical evidence.
AFAANZ conference (pp. 5–7). Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 463–479.
Deegan, C. (1999). Triple Bottom Line Reporting: It’s the new Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M. J. (1996). The influence of
reporting approach for the organisation of the future. Charter- top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive
Sydney, 70, 38–41. moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 659–684.
Deloitte. (2011). Deloitte releases second edition of ‘‘Women in the Haniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. (2005). The impact of culture and
boardroom: A global perspective’’. Marketwire. governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting
Donnelly, R., & Mulcahy, M. (2008). Board structure, ownership, and and Public Policy, 24, 391–430.
voluntary disclosure in Ireland. Corporate Governance: An Haynes, K. T., & Hillman, A. (2010). The effect of board capital and
International Review, 16, 416–429. CEO power on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal,
Dunn, P., & Sainty, B. (2009). The relationship among board of 31, 1145–1163.
director characteristics, corporate social performance and cor- Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers’ personal
porate financial performance. International Journal of Manage- values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of
rial Finance, 5, 407–423. Business Ethics, 50, 33–44.
123
Board Diversity and CSR... 345
Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (2007). Transparency and Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2012). The causal effect of corporate
corporate governance. Working Paper, National Bureau of governance on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Busi-
Economic Research, January 2007. ness Ethics, 106, 53–72.
Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A., & Harris, I. C. (2002). Women and Johnson, R. A., & Greening, D. W. (1999). The effects of corporate
racial minorities in the boardroom: How do directors differ? governance and institutional ownership types of corporate social
Journal of Management, 28, 747. performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 564–576.
Ho, S. S. M., & Wong, K. S. (2001). A study of the relationship Judge, W. Q., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1992). Institutional and strategic
between corporate governance structures and the extent of choice perspectives on board involvement in the strategic
voluntary disclosure. Journal of International Accounting, decision process. The Academy of Management Journal, 35,
Auditing and Taxation, 10, 139–156. 766–794.
Homan, A. C., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, Kabongo, J. D., Chang, K., & Li, Y. (2013). The impact of
C. K. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity operational diversity on corporate philanthropy: An empirical
beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse study of US companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 49–65.
work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1189. Kakabadse, A. P. (2007). Being responsible: Boards are reexamining
Htay, S. N. N., Rashid, H. M. A., Adnan, M. A., & Meera, A. K. M. the bottom line. Leadership in Action, 27, 3–6.
(2012). Impact of corporate governance on social and environ- Kang, H., Cheng, M., & Gray, S. J. (2007). Corporate governance and
mental information disclosure of Malaysian listed banks: board composition: Diversity and independence of Australian
Panel data analysis. Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, boards. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15,
4, 1–24. 194–207.
Huafang, X., & Jianguo, Y. (2007). Ownership structure, board Kemp, S. (2011). Corporate governance and corporate social respon-
composition and corporate voluntary disclosure: Evidence from sibility: Lessons from the land of OZ. Journal of Management
listed companies in China. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22, and Governance, 15, 539–556.
604–619. Kent, P., & Monem, R. (2008). What drives TBL reporting: Good
Huang, C. J. (2010). Corporate governance, corporate social respon- governance or threat to legitimacy? Australian Accounting
sibility and corporate performance. Journal of Management & Review, 18, 297–309.
Organization, 16, 641–655. Khan, M. H. U. Z. (2010). The effect of corporate governance
Hung, H. (2011). Directors’ roles in corporate social responsibility: A elements on corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting:
stakeholder perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, Empirical evidence from private commercial banks of Bangla-
383–402. desh. International Journal of Law and Management, 52,
Ibrahim, N., & Angelidis, J. (1991). Effects of board members’ 82–109.
gender on level of involvement in strategic management and Knudsen, J. S., Geisler, K., & Ege, M. (2013). Corporate social
corporate social responsiveness orientation. In Proceedings of responsibility in the board room—When do directors pay
the Northeast Decision Sciences Institute (pp. 208–210). attention? Human Resource Development International, 16,
Ibrahim, N. A., & Angelidis, J. P. (1995). The corporate social 238–246.
responsiveness orientation of board members: Are there differ- Konrad, A. M., Kramer, V., & Erkut, S. (2008). Critical mass: The
ences between inside and outside directors? Journal of Business impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organi-
Ethics, 14, 405–410. zational Dynamics, 37, 145–164.
Ibrahim, N. A., & Angelidis, J. P. (2011). Effect of board members’ Krüger, P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and the board of
gender on corporate social responsiveness orientation. Journal of directors. Working Paper (Job Market Paper). Toulouse School
Applied Business Research (JABR), 10, 35–40. of Economics, Toulouse, 31 May 2010.
Ibrahim, N. A., Howard, D. P., & Angelidis, J. P. (2003). Board Kulik, C. (2011). Women on boards: Glass ceiling or glass cliff?
members in the service industry: An empirical examination of Unisabusiness.
the relationship between corporate social responsibility orienta- Liao, L., Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2014). Gender diversity, board
tion and directorial type. Journal of Business Ethics, 47, independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas
393–401. disclosure. The British Accounting Review,. doi:10.1016/j.bar.
Ingley, C. B. (2008). Company growth and Board attitudes to 2014.01.002.
corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Business Lorenzo, J. M. P., Sánchez, I. M. G., & Gallego-Álvarez, I. (2009).
Governance and Ethics, 4, 17–39. Caracterı́sticas del consejo de administración e información en
Jamali, D., Safieddine, A. M., & Rabbath, M. (2008). Corporate materia de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa*/Characteristics
governance and corporate social responsibility synergies and of the board of directors and information in matters of corporate
interrelationships. Corporate Governance: An International social responsability. Revista Española de Financiación y
Review, 16, 443–459. Contabilidad, 38, 107–135.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Machold, S., Huse, M., Minichilli, A., & Nordqvist, M. (2011). Board
Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. leadership and strategy involvement in small firms: A team
Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360. production approach. Corporate Governance: An International
Jensen, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2004). Corporate elites and corporate Review, 19, 368–383.
strategy: How demographic preferences and structural position Mackenzie, C. (2007). Boards, Incentives and Corporate Social
shape the scope of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 25, Responsibility: The case for a change of emphasis. Corporate
507–524. Governance: An International Review, 15, 935–943.
Jizi, M. I., Salama, A., Dixon, R., & Stratling, R. (2013). Corporate Maharaj, R. (2009). Corporate governance decision-making model:
governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: How to nominate skilled board members, by addressing the
Evidence from the US Banking Sector. Journal of Business formal and informal systems. International Journal of Disclo-
Ethics, 125(4), 601–615. sure and Governance, 6, 106–126.
Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2011). Corporate governance and firm Mahoney, L., & Thorne, L. (2005). Corporate social responsibility
value: The impact of corporate social responsibility. Journal of and long-term compensation: Evidence from Canada. Journal of
Business Ethics, 103, 351–383. Business Ethics, 57, 241–253.
123
346 K. Rao, C. Tilt
Mallin, C. (2002). The relationship between corporate governance, Pugliese, A., & Wenstøp, P. Z. (2007). Board members’ contribution
transparency and financial disclosure. Corporate Governance: to strategic decision-making in small firms. Journal of Manage-
An International Review, 10, 253–255. ment and Governance, 11, 383–404.
Marimuthu, M., & Kolandaisamy, I. (2009). Ethnic and gender Randøy, T., Thomsen, S., & Oxelheim, L. (2006). A Nordic
diversity in boards of directors and their relevance to financial perspective on corporate board diversity. In Age. Oslo: Nordic
performance of Malaysian companies. Journal of Sustainable Innovation Centre.
Development, 2, P139. Rao, K. K., Tilt, C. A., & Lester, L. H. (2012). Corporate governance
McElhaney, K. (2009). A strategic approach to corporate social and environmental reporting: An Australian study. Corporate
responsibility. Leader to Leader, 52, 30–36. Governance, 12, 143–163.
McGuire, J., Dow, S., & Argheyd, K. (2003). CEO incentives and Ricart, J. E., Rodrı́guez, M. Á., & Sanchez, P. (2005). Sustainability
corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 45, in the boardroom: An empirical examination of Dow Jones
341–359. Sustainability World Index leaders. Corporate Governance, 5,
McKendall, M., Sánchez, C., & Sicilian, P. (1999). Corporate 24–41.
governance and corporate illegality: The effects of board Rindova, V. P. (1999). What corporate boards have to do with
structure on environmental violations. International Journal of strategy: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Management
Organizational Analysis, 7, 201–223. Studies, 36, 953–975.
McNulty, T., Zattoni, A., & Douglas, T. (2013). Developing corporate Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for
governance research through qualitative methods: A review of diversity. The Academy of Management Executive (1993–2005),
previous studies. Corporate Governance: An International 11, 21–31.
Review, 21, 183–198. Rose, C. (2007). Does female board representation influence firm
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate performance? The Danish evidence. Corporate Governance: An
social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Manage- International Review, 15, 404–413.
ment Studies, 43, 1–18. Ruigrok, W., Peck, S. I., & Keller, H. (2006). Board characteristics
Melo, T. (2012). Determinants of corporate social performance: The and involvement in strategic decision making: Evidence from
influence of organizational culture, management tenure and Swiss companies. Journal of Management Studies, 43,
financial performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 8, 33–47. 1201–1226.
Miller, T., & Del Carmen Triana, M. (2009). Demographic diversity Sahin, K., Basfirinci, C. S., & Ozsalih, A. (2011). The impact of board
in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity–firm composition on corporate financial and social responsibility
performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 46, performance: Evidence from public-listed companies in Turkey.
755–786. African Journal of Business Management, 5, 2959–2978.
Nielsen, S. (2010). Top management team diversity: A review of Said, R., Zainuddin, Y. H., & Haron, H. (2009). The relationship
theories and methodologies. International Journal of Manage- between corporate social responsibility disclosure and corporate
ment Reviews, 12, 301–316. governance characteristics in Malaysian public listed companies.
Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010a). The contribution of women on Social Responsibility Journal, 5, 212–226.
boards of directors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate Setó-Pamies, D. (2013). The relationship between women directors
Governance: An International Review, 18, 136–148. and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsi-
Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010b). Women directors’ contribution to bility and Environmental Management.
board decision-making and strategic involvement: The role of Shahin, A., & Zairi, M. (2007). Corporate governance as a critical
equality perception. European Management Review, 7, 16–29. element for driving excellence in corporate social responsibility.
Ogbechie, C., Koufopoulos, D. N., & Argyropoulou, M. (2009). International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 24,
Board characteristics and involvement in strategic decision 753–770.
making: The Nigerian perspective. Management Research News, Shrader, C. B., Blackburn, V. B., & Iles, P. (1997). Women in
32, 169–184. management and firm financial performance: An exploratory
Oh, W. Y., Chang, Y. K., & Martynov, A. (2011). The effect of study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9, 355–372.
ownership structure on corporate social responsibility: Empirical Siciliano, J. I. (1996). The relationship of board member diversity to
evidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 283–297. organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 15,
O’shannassy, T. (2010). Board and CEO practice in modern strategy- 1313–1320.
making: How is strategy developed, who is the boss and in what Singh, V., Terjesen, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2008). Newly appointed
circumstances? Journal of Management and Organization, 16, directors in the boardroom: How do women and men differ.
280–298. European Management Journal, 26, 48–58.
Peterson, C. A., & Philpot, J. (2007). Women’s roles on US Fortune Smith, N., Smith, V., & Verner, M. (2006). Do women in top
500 boards: Director expertise and committee memberships. management affect firm performance? A panel study of 2,500
Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 177–196. Danish firms. International Journal of Productivity and Perfor-
Post, C., Rahman, N., & Rubow, E. (2011). Green governance: mance Management, 55, 569–593.
Boards of directors’ composition and environmental corporate Smith, W. J., Wokutch, R. E., Harrington, K. V., & Dennis, B. S.
social responsibility. Business and Society, 50, 189–223. (2001). An examination of the influence of diversity and
Powell, G. N. (1990). One more time: Do female and male managers stakeholder role on corporate social orientation. Business and
differ? The Executive, 4, 68–75. Society, 40, 266–294.
Prado-Lorenzo, J. M., & Garcia-Sanchez, I. M. (2010). The role of the Stanwick, P. A., & Stanwick, S. D. (1998). The relationship between
board of directors in disseminating relevant information on corporate social performance and organizational size, financial
greenhouse gases. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 391–424. performance, and environmental performance: An empirical
Pugliese, A., Bezemer, P.-J., Zattoni, A., Huse, M., Van Den Bosch, examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 195–204.
F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Boards of directors’ Talke, K., Salomo, S., & Kock, A. (2011). Top management team
contribution to strategy: A literature review and research diversity and strategic innovation orientation: the relationship
agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17, and consequences for innovativeness and performance. Journal
292–306. of Product Innovation Management.
123
Board Diversity and CSR... 347
Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2009). Women directors on team performance over time. Group and Organization Manage-
corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate ment, 23, 161–188.
Governance: An International Review, 17, 320–337. Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural
Triana, M. D. C., Miller, T. L., & Trzebiatowski, T. M. (2013). The diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance:
double-edged nature of board gender diversity: Diversity, firm Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of
performance, and the power of women directors as predictors of Management Journal, 36, 590–602.
strategic change. Organization Science, 25, 609–632. Webb, E. (2004). An examination of socially responsible firms’ board
van Dick, R., van Knippenberg, D., Hägele, S., Guillaume, Y. R. F., & structure. Journal of Management and Governance, 8, 255–277.
Brodbeck, F. C. (2008). Group diversity and group identification: Westphal, J. D., & Fredrickson, J. W. (2001). Who directs strategic
The moderating role of diversity beliefs. Human Relations, 61, change? Director experience, the selection of new CEOs, and
1463–1492. change in corporate strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 22,
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). 1113–1137.
Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative Westphal, J. D., & Milton, L. P. (2000). How experience and network
model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate
1008. boards. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 366–398.
van Knippenberg, D., & Haslam, S. (2003). Realizing the diversity Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top management team
dividend: Exploring the subtle interplay between identity, demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Man-
ideology and reality. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. agement Journal, 35, 91–121.
Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Devel- Williams, R. J. (2003). Women on corporate boards of directors and
oping theory for organizational practice (pp. 61–77). New York: their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business
Psychology Press. Ethics, 42, 1–10.
van Knippenberg, D., Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2007). Unity Wise, V., & Mahboob Ali, M. (2008). Case studies on corporate
through diversity: Value-in-diversity beliefs, work group diver- governance and corporate social responsibility. South Asian
sity, and group identification. Group Dynamics: Theory, Re- Journal of Management, 15, 136–149.
search, and Practice, 11, 207–222. Zahra, S. A., & Pearce Ii, J. A. (1989). Boards of directors and
van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group corporate financial performance: A review and integrative
diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541. model. Journal of Management, 15, 291–334.
Vinnicombe, S. (2009). Women on corporate boards of directors: Zahra, S. A., & Stanton, W. W. (1988). The implications of board of
International research and practice. London: Edward Elgar directors composition for corporate strategy and performance.
Publishing. International Journal of Management, 5, 229–236.
Walt, N., & Ingley, C. (2003). Board dynamics and the influence of Zelechowski, D. D., & Bilimoria, D. (2004). Characteristics of
professional background, gender and ethnic diversity of direc- women and men corporate inside directors in the US. Corporate
tors. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11, Governance: An International Review, 12, 337–342.
218–234. Zelechowski, S., & Bilimoria, D. (2006). Characteristics of CEOs and
Wang, J., & Coffey, B. S. (1992). Board composition and corporate boards with women inside directors. Corporate Board: Roles,
philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 771–778. Duties and Composition, 2, 14–21.
Wang, J., & Dewhirst, H. D. (1992). Boards of directors and Zhang, L. (2012). Board demographic diversity, independence, and
stakeholder orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 115–123. corporate social performance. Corporate Governance, 12,
Watson, W. E., Johnson, L., & Merritt, D. (1998). Team orientation, 686–700.
self-orientation, and diversity in task groups their connection to
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.