Board Composition and Corporate Social R

Board Composition and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Diversity, Gender,
Strategy and Decision Making

Author(s): Kathyayini Rao and Carol Tilt
Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 138, No. 2 (October 2016), pp. 327-347
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24755872
Accessed: 24-03-2020 21:21 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Business Ethics
This content downloaded from 92.242.59.41 on Tue, 24 Mar 2020 21:21:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Ethics (2016) 138:327-347 | J CrossMark
DOI 10.1007/sl0551-015-2613-5
Board Composition and Corporate Social Responsibility: The

Role of Diversity, Gender, Strategy and Decision Making
Kathyayini Rao1 • Carol Tilt2
Received: 18 August 2014/Accepted: 11 March 2015/Published online: 17 March 2015

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Introduction
Abstract This paper aims to critically review the existing
literature on the relationship between corporate gover
nance, in particular board diversity, and both corporate
During recent years, there has been a growing interest in
social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social responsi
corporate social responsibility (CSR) across a range of dis
bility reporting (CSRR) and to suggest some important
ciplines. CSR in its simplest form is corporations' broader
avenues for future research in this field. Assuming that both
responsibility towards society. Researchers and practitioners
CSR and CSRR are outcomes of boards' decisions, this
strongly believe that corporations should not be judged just
paper proposes that examining boards' decision making
on their economic success (Carroll 1979; Jamali et al. 2008;
processes with regard to CSR would provide more insight
Shahin and Zairi 2007) as they are "... no longer expected to
into the link between board diversity and CSR. Par
be mere contributors to the global economy, but rather to
ticularly, the paper stresses the importance of studies
reconcile and skill-fully balance multiple bottom lines and
linking gender diversity and CSR decision making promanage the interests of multiple stakeholders" (Jamali et al.
cesses, which is quite rare in the existing literature. It also
2008, p. 443). Even though CSR is becoming increasingly
highlights the importance of more qualitative methods and
significant, research still shows that CSR performance and
longitudinal studies for the development of understanding
CSR reporting (CSRR) by some countries are still limited
of the diversity-CSR relationship. compared to others (Chen and Bouvain 2009; Golob and
Bartlett 2007; CPA Australia 2005). Among the possible
Keywords Corporate governance ■ Corporate social reasons for this is that there could be a lack of ability within
responsibility ■ Corporate social responsibility reportingthe major decision makers, in particular, boards of directors
Board diversity • Gender diversity • Decision making who are considered to be key players in firms' CSR
process achievements (Krüger 2009) to make proper decisions with
regard to CSR and CSRR. This is due to the fact that under
the concept of CSR, boards of directors, being major decision
makers, are collectively both responsible and accountable to
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Asia Pacific
Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting (APIRA) Conference, a wider range of stakeholders. Therefore, examining cor
Kobe, Japan, in July 2013. porate governance (CG) mechanisms, in particular board
composition, and their influence on both CSR and CSRR is
EJ Kathyayini Rao
important.
kath0005@flinders.edu.au
In 2008, Brennan and Solomon, in a special issue on
Carol Tilt
carol.tilt@unisa.edu.au
corporate governance, provided an overview of corporate
governance research within the accounting and finance
l
Flinders Business School, Flinders University, discipline and identified social and environmental reporting
GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia as being among the broader range of accountability
2
University of South Australia Business School, mechanisms being studied and which needs additional re
GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia search (Brennan and Solomon 2008).
Springer
328 K. Rao, C. Tilt
Research on board
cused on its effect
much less attention
attributes influenc
on board compositi
sues, which has bee
academics and prac
and Lo 2011). It is
versity among boa
financial performa
Rose 2007); however
have been undertak
to non-financial per
CSR and CSRR). In a
that link corporatio
Corporate Governance, Board Composition
diversity (Bear et
and CSR
Coffey 1992; Willi
have a positive effe
Nowadays, boards are increasingly seen as responsible for
Assuming that bo
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 bnng broad ,. ... , . . . . . , , ,
, , . studies indicate that CSR is a critical item on boards
and heterogeneous perspectives to the decision making
agendas (Kakabadse 2007), and bo
process which is critical to voluntary and complex deci
sponsibility in achieving these object
sions like those regarding CSR. Further, one of the par
In fact, a recent study by Jamali et
ticular board diversity characteristics, gender, is much
corporate governance is what driv
debated and there is a growing amount of literature
ecutives to set goals and objectives in
highlighting the importance of gender diversity in
the board is key in meeting and pr
boardroom decisions. Notwithstanding this, there has been
objectives. A considerable amount o
no research linking board diversity, including gender di
suggesting that various board attr
versity, with the CSR decision making process, with most
nificant influence on CSR (Dunn and
research only considering the board-CSR relationship
2010; Johnson and Greening 1999; Mc
using quantitative analysis of diversity variables. This
Webb 2004; Ayuso and Argandona
paper therefore explores the relationships between cor
. , , , . , , tains a summary of various conceptual/theoretical/review
porate governance, in particular board diversity and de- ,. , __ t
. . ° ,. , , . , . „ 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 r
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, ,. , x . . . „„
6,. . , , tionship between governance and CSR, suggesting that CG
and what further research could contribute to under- , , , , . , . „ori ~ , ,
,. , , . . , , and boards play a major role in CSR. Table 1 also shows
standing how boards make decisions about CSR and , ... x. _ , ,
, , , „ , . . , that both quantitative and qualitative studies have been
whether that is reflected in CSR reporting. Moreover, the , . .. .. . TI . . . . .. .
, , , „„ . used to examine this link. However, it is worth noting that
paper suggests that in order to understand the effect of , .. ... _ , , . . ,.
f ., j.. . 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 heterogenei
and of the decision making processes that take place bers, and has an infinite number of
(McNulty et al. 2013). This paper adds to the literature from age to nationality, from rel
by providing a critical and comprehensive review of functional background, from task ski
the literature linking CSR and CG, specifically board and from political preference to sex
£) Springer
Board Diversity and CSR... 329
Table
Table
1 Studies on the link
1 between
Studies
Corporate Governance (CG)/boards
onof directors
the and Corporate
link Social Responsibility
between (CSR) Corpo
Author Aim Method CG variables Findings

The major aim of the study was to Indicates whether th
investigate is
is quantitative
quantitative or
or board
board attributes
attributes is
is positive
positive(+ve),
(+ve),negative
negative(—ve)
(-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 C
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
Personal ethics/
ethics/—ve
-ve
CSR
CSR
Wise
Wise and
and Link
Linkbetween
betweenCG
CGand
andethical business
ethical Qualitative
business (case
Qualitative studies)
(case Overall
studies) corporate
Overall +ve -t-ve
corporate
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
Ayuso andand Whether diverse
Whether stakeholders
diverse on
stakeholders on Review
paper
Review paper Diverse
Diverse stakeholder +ve
stakeholder +ve
Argandoiia
Argandoiia board
board will CSR
will promote promote
activities CSR activities on board
on board
(2007) within
(2007) the the
within firm
firm
DeGraaf
De Graaf
and and How
How CSP CSP Social
(Corporate (Corporate Social Theoretical
Theoretical paper CG CG +ve (CG+ve
paper influences
(CG influencesCSP)
CSP)
Herkstroter
Herkströter Performance)
Performance) institutionalised
institutionalised
(2007)
(2007) within within
the governance
the governance structure
structure
(Netherlands)
Ricart
Ricart et al.et
al.How
How CG integrates
CG integrates sustainable sustainable Qualitative
Qualitative (case study) CG
(case study) CG +ve CG+ve
plays major
CG plays majorrole
role inin
(2005) development
(2005) thinking into them sustainable development
development thinking into them sustainable development
(DJSI)
Kakabadse
Kakabadse How boards
How boards around the the
around worldworld
view view Theoretical
Theoretical paper paper Board's view + ve CSR
Board's view + ve is becoming
CSR board's
is becoming board's
(2007) CSR
(2007) CSR agenda agenda
Wang
Wang and and Examined
Examined boardsboards
of directors'
of directors' Quantitative
Quantitative (mail (mail
Board'sBoard's -Fve
+ve
Dewhirst stakeholder
Dewhirst orientation
stakeholder orientation (US: South(US: South- survey—questionnaire)
survey—questionnaire) stakeholder stakeholder
(1992)
(1992) WestWest
States) States) orientation orientation
Hemingway
Hemingway Whether personal values driveWhether
CSR Theoretical paper personal
Personal values values drive
4- ve (managers personal values CSR
and and drive CSR) drive CSR)
Maclagan
(2004)
Jo
Jo andand Causal effect
Causal effect of of
CG on
CGCSRon CSR Quantitative (regression)
Quantitative (regression) CG CG +ve (CG
+ve causes CSR)
(CG causes CSR)
Haijoto
(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
Springer
330 K. Rao, C. Tilt
perceive problems f
views are discussed,
lutions and a wide ra
(Robinson and Decha
eile, different/conf
thoroughly process
prevent the group f
action on which the
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 grou
on group processes or decision making processes. It di- mately can have a positive or negative effec
vides the group into two sub categories, i.e. the in-group processes or performance (Van Knippenberg
(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 recent
who are similar to them and oppose the dissimilar ones and strated that diversity beliefs can moderate the r
as such dismiss or devalue the contributions of out-group between diversity and group performance. F
members (Nielsen 2010). Group members who differ from van Knippenberg and Haslam (2003) indicate
the majority further tend to have lower group loyalty differences are seen as valuable to group fu
(Randpy et al. 2006), lower levels of psychological com- group members may respond more positively
mitment and higher levels of turnover intent and absen- groups than to more homogeneous groups.
teeism (Marimuthu and Kolandaisamy 2009). In addition, vein, using a survey and a laboratory expe
scholars in diversity research recently suggest that diver- Knippenberg et al. (2007) demonstrated that
sity can have a negative effect if the individuals do not ship between diversity and group members' id
value/believe in their diverse work groups (van Knippen- with their work group was moderated by th
berg and Schippers 2007; van Knippenberg and Haslam beliefs. The study particularly indicated that div
2003). Finally, in order to come to any kind of consensus, to be positively related to group identification wh
these two groups inevitably experience challenges, con- members believe in the value of diversity, w
diets and dissatisfaction which further slows down the negatively related when they believe in the v
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 tha
cate that diversity has the potential to outperform homo- effectively use their informatio
geneity. For Instance, Hambrick et al.'s (1996) study members hold pro-diversity be
indicates that the benefits of diversity (broad gathering of larity beliefs, van Dick et al. (2
information, decision creativity and boldness) are more individuals' diversity belief
than enough to compensate for some of the major draw- between diversity and team
backs of diversity (in-group/out-group bias, conflicts, versity beliefs perspective, they
slowness in decision making and action). In summary, even on ethnic diversity moderates th
though it brings conflicts and misunderstanding within diversity leads to positive or negat
groups, and various perspectives and alternative solutions, (van Dick et al. 2008). This ev
diversity leads to higher quality problem-solving and ulti- diversity has the potential t
mately outperforms homogeneous groups. negative team performance and th
Although there appears little doubt that diversity can play a moderating role in thes
have both positive and negative effects on various group Although various benefits of
processes and performances, more recently, scholars in tified, progress towards board
diversity research have noted that various other factors may Due to its broad nature, resear
play a moderating role on the effects of diversity on group with an agreed upon defin
processes. One promising and recurrent theme is that of has been broadly defined as "
diversity beliefs (van Knippenberg and Haslam 2003; Ely of the BOD (Board of Direc
and Thomas 2001; van Knippenberg et al. 2007; Homan p. 195), which can be either v
et al. 2007). Diversity beliefs is defined as individual be- specifically, with regard to corpora
liefs about the value of diversity to work group functioning is concerned with "board
(van Knippenberg and Haslam 2003), that is, "the extent to combination of attributes,
which individuals perceive diversity to be beneficial for or contributed by individual b
â Springer
board process and decision making" (Wal

2003, p. 219). Walt and Ingley's definitio
versity seems to be more applicable becau
sity is not just variation among its members
those differences in individual board mem
values and perceptions contribute toward
process and outcomes. Board diversity is
important factor in the modern world. M
multicultural, gender sensitive, and exhib
grounds, and in order to deal with such
"...boards need to examine how they can b
that reflect democracy and civil society i
within their governance role as this relat
ganisations they serve and the wider com
which they exist" (Walt and Ingley 2003,
dition, boards generally work in a group an
in group composition leads to an increase
abilities, knowledge and information of
whole" (Nielsen and Huse 2010b, p. 17) wh
group performance and discussion (Van K
2004; Watson et al. 1993). Moreover, homo
senior level results in "... a more myopi
(Robinson and Dechant 1997, p. 27). Homo
usually think alike and are more likely t
perspectives/opinions, and such a high lev
unity among them tends to increase pres
conformity (Miller and del Carmen Trian
their lack of diverse perspectives, such boar
able to challenge the thinking of managem
mately weakens the quality and variety of b
bate (Grady 1999). Similarly, Randpy et al. (2006), while investigating the 500
Based on the above positive arguments favouring board largest companies from Denmark, Norway and Sw
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 retur
members has the potential to increase board effectiveness assets. They conclude that increasing diversity may
and thereby performance (Bonn et al. 2004; Carter et al. tractive or may be political preference but does not a
2003; Erhardt et al. 2003). These studies focus on tradi- performance (Randpy 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 thou
enhances independence, and that the difference in cultural limited, research still suggests that board diversity
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; C
tions would be raised from directors with traditional and Wang 1998; Ibrahim and Angelidis 2011; Kr
backgrounds (Carter et al. 2003). Based on data from the 2009; Post et al. 2011; Ibrahim and Angelidis 1995; H
fortune 1000, they find that there is a significant positive and Turgut 2013). While some of these studies hav
relationship between board diversity (women and minori- cused on examining the board diversity effect on o
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 donati
a higher degree of board diversity is associated with su- However, most of the research linking board diversit
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 dive
£) Springer
332 K. Rao, C. Tilt
characteristics in the
regard to the link b
two major argument
rectors tend to be m
him and Angelidis 1
ethical aspects of th
(Ibrahim et al. 2003).
pendent board memb
with regulations an
(Zahra and Stanton
regulation and actin
reputation, and such
is important to inde
with more chance
(Lorenzo et al. 2009).
board independence an
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 toward
diversity characteristic is board tenure. The studies linking performance, and those values and perspectives agai
directors' tenure with CSR issues mainly argue in favour of in for-profit and not-for-profit organisations. Sim
having a balanced board in terms of tenure; however, re- Siciliano (1996) found that the greater the occ
suits are mixed and inconclusive. For example, Hafsi and diversity at board level, the greater the level of fundr
Turgut (2013) argue that as the tenure increases directors and social performance. Their interview results
become familiar with company strategy/management suggested that a variety of viewpoints from diff
practice, but at the same time can become the captive of cupational background compel the board to con
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 edu
and avoid any controversy in decision making process, qualifications, race/ethnicity and functional back
whereas shorter tenured board members are too shy to have been identified to have some influence o
speak up. Such a situation may lead board members to group processes and performances, but studies lin
follow rather than lead when it comes to dealing with social with CSR are very rare. Finally, gender diversity i
responsiveness and responsibility issues (Hafsi and Turgut the most widely used diversity characteristics in
2013). Similarly, Krüger (2009) examined the issue from literature recently. Since one of the major aims of the
both a management friendliness hypothesis (echoing and is to identify the gaps within the literature of
supporting CEO/management, support short term rather versity and CSR decisions, a detailed review of
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 chara
confront CEO). His results supported the experience hy- in CSR, recently, studies have begun to exam
pothesis where he found that companies with substantial combination of various diversity characteristics in a s
tenure of board members show lower incidence of negative study linking it with CSR, including specific compo
social outcomes. He further concluded that neglecting CSR of CSR. Most recently, Post et al. (2011) exam
issues is risky, and hence, experienced directors, whether relationship between various board diversity characte
due to commitment to the company or due to self-protec- and environmental corporate social responsibilit
tion of their career, are more likely to support decisions They particularly argued for the value of diff
which are consistent with long-term outcomes. among directors in their access to information ab
As well as independence and tenure, another emerging values regarding, environmental issues. Drawin
diversity characteristic which is gaining attention in the dence of demographic differences in ethical and
CSR literature is age diversity. Particularly with regard to mental attitudes, they found that a higher proporti
age and CSR, even though limited, research still indicates outside board directors, firms with boards com
that age diversity among board members tends to influence three or more female directors, boards whose direc
CSR (Post et al. 2011; Hafsi and Turgut 2013). However, average closer to 56 years in age, and those with
there seems to be no solid argument favouring one age proportion of Western European directors, are p
group when it comes to board processes. Both the associated with favourable ECSR. Similarly,
<£] Springer
et al. (2013), while examining b

corporate giving (one of the asp
significant presence of women
who are disabled encourages more
suggest that the presence of d
bring and control unique resou
ganisational behaviour of corpora
2013). diversity is one of the most significant issues faced by
While board diversity has the potential to influence modern corporations
CSR, it may also reflect the company's commitment to cently perceived as
CSR. The firms who are committed to CSR issues in order diversity literature but
to achieve their goals may want to appoint directors with societal situations (
diverse values, background and experience. Recently, are a number of fema
Webb (2004), while investigating the board structure of sitions, particularl
socially responsible firms and non-socially responsible 2009), the pressure to
firms, found that the boards of socially responsible firms rectors seems t
tend to have fewer insiders (23 %) and more outsiders countries have start
(71 %) compared to non-socially responsible firms (31 and untary initiatives
61 %, respectively). Further, demographically diverse corporate boards. Th
board can send signals to the public about firms' commit- (40 % gender quota
ment to social justice (Bilimoria 2000; Miller and del tion), Sweden (25 % volu
Carmen Triana 2009); firms' norm adherence and positive or threat to make it a le
working conditions (Miller and del Carmen Triana 2009); explain type law req
firms' particular strategy for improving the oversight of female directors
corporations (Galbreath 2011) and an indication of com- 50 % gender parity o
panies' attention to women and minorities, and thus be 2015) (Bphren and St
considered to be socially responsible (Bear et al. 2010). (law requiring listed an
It is also highlighted in previous literature that the effect one-third of their bo
of diverse boards on various types of performance, in- guden 2012). In add
eluding CSR, is more likely to be positive with the exis- developing countr
tence of a sufficiently diverse board. Consistent with this Eastern countries a
view, previous research has identified that unless there is a female board member
'critical mass' (three or more) of women on a board, inin Australia, the S
dividual influence will be minimal (Konrad et al. 2008). changes to corporate
Consistent with this, Williams (2003) found that boards listed companies to sp
with a higher number of women engage in charitable giv- at board and senior
ing to a larger extent than boards with fewer women. of these initiatives, wh
Similarly, Bear et al. (2010) found that firms' CSR ratings indicate that the presen
increase with the increase in the number of female directors the governance of c
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 f
diversity dynamics move away from tokenism to normality has been linked t
(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 (Cart
diversity and CSR aspects of the firm, a majority of studies 2003; Erhardt et al. 2003), while others find no sign
still find a positive association between various board di- or even negative relationships (Adams and Ferrei
versity characteristics and CSR. In addition, due to its Rose 2007; Shrader et al. 1997; Smith et al
voluntary nature, decisions with regard to CSR become Although still relatively small in number, a num
complex and consideration of various alternatives, and in- studies also suggest that having women on boa
depth discussion and debate facilitated by diversity will exert some influence on non-financial performanc
definitely result in high-quality decisions at board level. particular CSR (Stanwick and Stanwick 1998; Wa
Moreover, empirical results show that, under high envi- Coffey 1992; Williams 2003; Ibrahim and Angeli
ronmental uncertainty, heterogeneous top management Bemardi and Threadgill 2010; Smith et al. 2001; S
â Springer
334 K. Rao, C. Tilt
1996). For example,

found a positive rela
of female directors
major strengths, in
participative decisi
brought by the wom
reasons for corpor
et al. 2010). The stud
to a firm's CSR, w
reputation, and hen
away from tokenis
Similarly, Krüger (2
female board repre
positive respo social
indicates that com
directors tend to be
and pay more atten
stakeholders (e.g. c
ronment), indicat
members with altru
into more pro-soci
Another recent stud
aspect of CSR (Envi
that women had st
commitment to a gr
males, suggesting t
engaged in green is
tralia, a recent stud
due to their relatio
engage with multipl
needs, indicating
dences also exist, w
fluence different a
(Wang and Coffey 1
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 asp
cate that female directors are more likely to have a corporate responsibility. Further, women usu
positive influence on CSR outcomes, their influence might positions in 'soft' managerial areas such as hu
be limited or even none. One major barrier which has sources, CSR, marketing, advertising, etc., (Zele
been widely identified in the literature is that women in and Bilimoria 2006) indicating that female repre
top-level positions often face discrimination or a stereo- on boards are more likely to have in-depth know
typing challenge which restricts their ability to fully soft managerial issues. This evidence further in
contribute to corporate strategy and oversight (Arfken that female directors may perceive community
et al. 2004; EOWA 2008; Galbreath 2011). For example, holders' interests, particularly CSR issues, differe
in interviews with Australian board members, male di- male directors. Table 2 provides a summary of
rectors stated that they tend to welcome women directors' vant studies on board diversity and CSR. T
input on so-called 'soft issues' (such as human resources, specifically highlights the various empirical s
occupational health and safety, corporate donations and amining the effects of board attributes and board
ethics), but usually discount input on technical issues (including gender diversity) on CSR. It is impor
(such as engineering) (EOWA 2008). Recently, Galbreath note that the studies, however, are predominant
(2011) further indicated that sex-based biases or stereo- titative, and the results are mixed and inconclu
typing by male directors can limit women directors' in- gesting a need for more in-depth analysis of
fluence on decision making and thereby sustainable attributes.
£) Springer
Table 2 Empirical studies on the effects

(CSR)
Author
AuthorAim 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)
(Kriiger 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 -fve
Social Performance (CSP) (Taiwan) (regression) (CSRR Ownership +ve
proxy) structure
(Jo and The CG effect on choice of CSR (US) Quantitative Board leadership +ve
Haijoto (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)
<£) Springe:
336 K. Rao, C. Tilt
Table 2 continued
Author Aim Method Board variables Findings

investigate: study is quantitative attributes included positive (+ve), negative (-ve) or
or qualitative in the study not significant (Not sig)
(Siciliano, Influence of board member's gender and Survey Board +ve

1996) occupational diversity on social (questionnaire) Occupational
performance (YMCA organisations) diversity
Gender diversity +ve
(Bernardi and Whether companies with a higher Quantitative Women directors +ve
Threadgill proportion of women on boards are (regression)
2010) more socially responsible?
(Ibrahim and Effects of board gender diversity on Quantitative Female directors +ve
Angelidis, Philanthropy (questionnaire)
1991)
(Coffey and Link between board diversity and Quantitative Independence Not sig
Wang, 1998) corporate Philanthropy (98 fortune (regression) Women directors Not sig
companies)
(Williams Women directors' influence on corporate Quantitative Women directors +ve
2003) Philanthropy (Fortune 500 firms) (regression)
(Hafsi and Effect of boardroom diversity on CSP Quantitative Director Age +ve
Turgut (S&P500 firms) Women directors +ve
2013)
Director ethnicity Not sig
Director Not sig
experience
Director tenure Not sig
Director Not sig
independence
CEO duality Not sig
Director Not sig
ownership
(Oh et al. Effect of board ownership structure on Quantitative Outside director— Not sig
2011) CSR (Korea) (regression) share ownership
(Chin et al. Influence of executives' values on CSR Quantitative (GEE CEOs values/ +ve
2013) (KLD database) (Standard & Poor's analysis) power

1500 firms)
(Boulouta Whether and how female directors may Quantitative Female directors +ve
2013) affect CSP (KLD database) (S&P 500) (regression)
(Zhang 2012) Link between board demographic Quantitative Women directors +ve
diversity and CSP (KLD database) (regression) Race +ve

(Fortune 500)
Outside directors —ve
(Knudsen Boards' mindset, competencies and Quantitative and Board mindset -ve
et al. 2013) compensation effect on CSR (Denmark) qualitative Board -ve
(interviews) competencies
Compensation -ve
structure
(Seto-Pamies Relationship between women directors Quantitative Women directors +ve
2013) and CSR (Global 100)
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
CSR, as mentioned earlier, extends firms' accountability to explored in this section.
wider stakeholders through reporting on their CSR ac- The link between corporate
tivities, i.e. CSRR. Since accountability is an essential part emerges from Jensen and Meckli
*£) Springer
framework under which it is assumed t

exploit information asymmetry to ac
contrary to the interests of sharehol
mitigating such an agency problem i
formation asymmetry (Donnelly and
this is possible through one of the i
governance, i.e. transparency/accountab
Weisbach 2007). Htay et al. (2012) sug
of information, or transparency, isa
porate governance as higher disclosur
formation asymmetry which not only
of interests between shareholders and m
makes corporate insiders accountable
structure as such goes hand in hand wit
parency/disclosure (Mallin 2002). Giv
directors are major players in corporate
composition is likely to have some in
Based on the view that corporate go
transparency/accountability, researcher
composition to various disclosures such
porting (financial reporting) as well a
voluntary disclosure including CSR di
dence indicating the link between boa
disclosure is mixed. For instance, Che
found a positive association between a f
financial disclosures and the proporti
non-executive directors. Eng and M
the other hand indicated that non-m
Singapore is significantly and negativel
percentage of independent directors. Ho
using a direct measure of voluntary
analyst perception, were unable to conf
relationship between the level of volu
board independence. With regard to b
eluding gender), the research is rare lin
disclosure (Barako and Brown 2008; H
2005; Khan 2010; Fernandez-Feijoo et
seem to confirm a positive relationsh
advanced by these researchers are th
discussed in the earlier section linking
CSR, which suggests that diversity
members has the potential to influe
background, different values, percep
cess to information, experience, exp
ample, Fernandez-Feijoo et al. (2012)
women assign to social issues are differ
are highly committed to CSR. They fou
three or more women are determinants
produce less integrated reports, inf
strategy and include Assurance statem
Haniffa and Cooke (2005) found that
boards are positively related to CSD wh
respondents identified ethnicity b
<£) Springer
338 K. Rao. C. Tilt
Table 3 Empirical stu

(CSRR)
Author Aim
Author Method Board variables Findings
investigate: study is quantitative attributes included (+ve), negative
positive (Ave), negative (—ve) or not
or qualitative in the study significant (Not sig)
(Haniffa and Impact of culture and governance on Quantitative Non-executive -ve
Cooke 2005)corporate social disclosure

(regression) Chair with multiple -l-ve
(Malaysia) directorships
Foreign ownership -Fve
Ave
(Barako and Influence of board representation on Quantitative Women directors +ve

Brown 2008) CSR reporting (Kenya) (regression) Independence -Fve
Ave
Foreign
Foreign nationals
nationals Not sig
(Htay et al. Governance effect on Social and Quantitative Board size -ve
2012) environmental disclosure (regression) Independence -Fve

Ave
(Malaysia)
Board ownership -Fve
Ave
Institutional
Institutional -ve
ownership
(Lorenzo et al. Link between characteristics of the Quantitative Independence +ve
2009) board and CSR reporting (regression) Diversity -Fve
Ave
Board
Boardactivity
activity Not sig
Chairman Not sig
reputation
(Said et al. Relationship between CG Quantitative Board size Not sig

2009) characteristics and CSR disclosure (regression) Audit committee -f-ve
(Malaysia)
Board Not sig
independence
Government -Fve
Ave
ownership
CEO duality Not sig
(Khan 2010) Potential effects of CG elements on Quantitative Women directors Not sig
CSR disclosure (Bangladesh) (regression) Non-executives -Fve
Ave
Foreign
Foreign nationals
nationals +ve
-Fve
(Ghazali 2007) Influence of ownership structure on Quantitative Director share -ve
CSR reporting (Malaysia) ownership

(Fernandez Effect of board gender composition Quantitative Gender -Fve
+ve
Feijoo et al. on CSR reporting (22 countries composition

2012) included in KPMG report)
(Chen and Van Relationship between CG and the Quantitative Frequency of -l-ve
-Fve
Staden
Staden 2010)
2010) environmental
environmentalinformation
information (regression) director meeting
disclosure quality (China) Board -Fve
+ve
independence
(Rao et al. 2012) Relationship between CG attributes Quantitative Independent Ave
-Fve
andenvironmental
and environmental reporting
reporting (regression) director
(Australia) Institutional +ve
ownership
Women directors -Fve
Ave
Board size -Fve

Ave
(Prado-Lorenzo Role of the board in disseminating Quantitative Board Not sig

and Garcia greenhouse gas information independence
Sanchez 2010) disclosure (Global) Board diversity Not sig
£) Springer
Table 3 continued

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 -l-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
2007) CEO duality -ve
(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 -l-ve
2013) CSR disclosure (US) (regression) Independence +ve
CEO duality +ve
(Liao et al. Impact of board's characteristics on Quantitative Women directors -fve

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-lev
making processes has been highlighted in many previous cisions related to CSR are an understudied area of
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 w
Ingley 2003; Wiersema and Bantel 1992; Zahra and Pearce regard to CSR, even though evidence is limited, is still w
II1989; Pugliese et al. 2009; Deloitte 2011) suggesting that supported. For example, Krüger (2009, p. 7) states that t
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 , , . . ,
„„ u f, ,, , . . . , . . , . ence on the decision to support local communities or
as a stream of board-level decisions that induce an inte- , ,. , „ ,
, . .. • , j ., . . . the extent to which a firm chooses to provide non
grated set of activities intended to produce social outcomes ,,
fn ,, , ., n , ,. . o.. . . „ ., . monetary and/or monetary benefits to its workforce
favourable to the firm s alignment of its interest with that 3
£) Springer
340 K. Rao, C. Tilt
(e.g. child-care, e
work/life benefi
director characte
tise will impact t
its (social) risks
mental contamin
tions, managing
responsibly, etc.)". spite the evidence suggesting gender composition is likely
to influence various decisions including decisions related
According to Rose (2007), diversity ensures that corporate
stakeholders, research linking gender with CSR-relat
decisions are taken with a broader view, e.g. including a
decision making is rare and in need of more in-dep
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/decis
to CSR become complex and various alternatives, and in
making processes. The majority of the studies in the ta
depth discussion and debate facilitated by diversity will
indicate that board attributes/diversity have the potentia
likely result in high-quality decisions related to CSR issues
influence various strategic outcomes. However, the boar
at board level. Moreover, evidence from previous empirical
diversity effect on CSR strategy/decision is an underst
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 h
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
Singh et al. 2008; Teijesen et al. 2009; Wang and Coffey management, towards a much more proactive role" (H
1992; Williams 2003). Female directors tend to bring dif- 2011, p. 397). In other words, boards' roles and respo
ferent perspectives to the board and can influence various bilities have been extended from the traditional sh
board-level outcomes including the decision making pro- holder-centric one to encompass various stakeholders,
cess. Such unique perspectives could be due to their dif- this has been clearly highlighted as being part of t
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
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 th
ing female presence on boards, Walt and Ingley (2003) emerging and rapidly growing areas of research is bo
suggest that quality decision making requires a balance diversity. Greater diversity among board member cha
between skills and attributes among the board members teristics has been advocated as "a means of improv
which could be achieved by appointing more female di- organisational performance by providing boards with n
rectors. Some authors even argue that female directors are insights and perspectives" (Siciliano 1996, p. 1313). E
more likely to be objective and independent (Fondas 2000) though a reasonable consensus exists in the literatu
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 compa
therefore enhances board information, perspectives, debate meet CSR objectives (Mackenzie 2007), limited resea
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 co
120 Norwegian firms, found that women directors con- ered CSR repotting.
tribute towards board decision making processes and The review conducted in this paper has, in fact, ident
thereby influence board strategy. They examined the effect fied a number of gaps and deficiencies in the literature
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 e
directors to have a positive direct relationship with board ining the effect of board diversity on corporate financial
£) Springer
Table 4 Studies on the effect of variou

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
(Balta et al. Influence of board characteristics on Quantitative Educational level +ve

2010) strategic decision making process (general linear Educational background Not sig
(Greece) model) , , ,
Functional background +ve
(Machold Association
Association between
between board
board leadership
leadership and
and Quantitative
Quantitative Board
Boardleadership
leadership4-ve
+ve
et al. 2011) strategy
strategy involvement
involvement in
in small
small firms
firms (regression)
(regression)
(Norway)
(Carpenter Impact of board external network ties in Quantitative Board network ties Ave
+ve
and strategic decision making process (US) (regression)
Westphal
2001)
(Nielsen and Influence of women directors on decision Quantitative Women directors +ve
Huse 2010b) making/strategic involvement (Norway) (least square
analysis)
(Ruigrok et al. Relationship between board Quantitative Board size Not sig
2006) characteristics and strategic decision (regression) Outside director Not s
making (Switzerland)
CEO duality -ve
Interlock ties -ve
(Goodstein Effect of diversity on strategic change Quantitative Board diversity —ve

et al. 1994) (US) (pooled time
series
Outside director Not sig
analysis)
(Rose 2007) Whether directors' personal values affect Quantitative/ Personal values -ve
board decisions (US) qualitative
(survey and
interview)
(Ogbechie Relationship between board Quantitative Board size Not sig

et al. 2009) characteristics and strategic decision (survey) Independence Not
making (Nigeria) .
CEO duality Not sig
(Judge and Boards' involvement in strategic Quantitative/ Board size —ve
Zeithaml decisions (US) qualitative Insider representation -ve
1992) (interviews) ^ ...
Organisational age +ve
(Pugliese and Board members' contribution to strategic Quantitative Board working
Wenstpp decision making (Norway) (regression) (establishment of board
2007) evaluation, number and length
of board meetings)
Board quality attributes +ve
(knowledge, diversity and
motivation)
(Maharaj Objectives that are required for board Quantitative/ Values +ve
2009) decision making (Canada) qualitative Groupthink +ve
(interviews) , ,
Knowledge +ve
(Jensen and How characteristics of corporate elites Quantit
Zajac 2004) affect corporate strategy (US) (regressi
(Haynes and Effect of board capital on strategic Qu
Hillman change (S & P 500) (regression) (occupational, functional,
2010) interlock heterogeneity)
Board capital depth (indust
occupation and industry
interlocks)
(Ö Springe
342 K. Rao, C. Tilt
Table 4 continued

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 (4-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 -Fve
Educational level -Fve
Education-specialisation +ve
Training -Fve
(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 -fve
model)
Industry background +ve
(Teijesen How gender diversity on boards Review paper Women directors -fve
et al. 2009) influences CG outcomes (board-level
decisions)
(Nielsen and Contribution of women directors to board Quantitative Women directors -fve
Huse 2010a) strategic control (Norway) (regression)

(Triana et al. How board gender diversity, firm Quantitative Women directors -fve/-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 -fve/—ve (depending on
2011) strategic decisions in shareholder/ (regression) roles personal values)
stakeholder dilemmas (Sweden)
(Rindova Directors' contribution to strategic Theoretical Directors' problem-solving -fve
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
<£) Springer
qualitative Adams,
research R. B.,1986
between & Ferre
an
that more their methods
qualitative impact onarego
Financial Economics
explore the array of interactions an
Adams, R. B., Licht,
corporate governance.
stakeholders: How do
Third, with regardJournal, 32, diversi
to board 1331-13
limited Amran, A., Lee,

research linking various boaS.
governance structure
istics to CSR or CSRR decisions by
toward sustainability
while diversity beliefs seem to 23,
Environment, play
21
the effects E.,
ofBellar
group pe Arfken, on
diversity D.
(van glass ceiling revisite
Knippenberg and Haslam 200
boards. Journal of B
et al. 2007; Homan et al. 2007), far le
Arguden, Y. (2012).
given to the potential influence
Business Review. of
beliefs on board-level
Arora,outcomes. So f
P., & Dharwa
no research corporate
focussing social resp
on examining
attainment discrep
board members' beliefs on CSR d
Governance: An Inte
board. Further work isS.,
Ayuso, clearly nee
& Argando
standing of the diversity beliefs
nance: Towards a of
stakb
impact on CSR Navarra: University
decisions. o
Balta, M. E., Woods,
Fourth, within the board diversity c
boards of directors' ch
is one of the mostEvidence
debatedfrom
and signi
Greek
modern Research
corporations. Yet, (JABR), 26
even thou
amount of Barako,
literature D. G., & Brow
suggesting tha
and board representa
influence various board decisions, th
sector. Journal of M
gender and CSR decision
Bear, S.,making
Rahman, pro
N
such importance placed on and
diversity gender di
gender
policy makers and bility
firms,and
it firm rep
is crucia
207-221.
gender diversity really matters in C
Bernardi, R. A., & Threadgill, V. H. (2010). Women directors and
through both qualitative and
corporate social responsibility. quantit
Electronic Journal of Business
Finally, many of Ethics
the and Organizational
studies Studies, 15, 15-21. previou
on a 'black box' Bilimoria, D. (2000). Building the business
approach tocase consider
for women corporate
directors. In Women on corporate boards of directors: Interna
characteristics. That is, they identif
tional challenges and opportunities (pp. 25-40). New York:
and relationships, Springer.
which they study
and models, but doD., &not
Bilimoria, include
Wheeler, J. V. (2000). Women corporate directors: an in
This paper Current research
proposes that and future directions. Women in Management:
further res
Current Research Issues, 2, 138-163.
composition with CSR, in particu
Bphren, 0. Y., & Strpm, R. 0. (2010). Governance and politics:
making process, is required
Regulating independence and diversity in thein
board room.order
derstanding of gender influence
Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 37, 1281-1308. o
clude Bonn,case
interviews, I., Yoshikawa, T., studies
& Phan, P. H. (2004). Effects of and
board lon
structure on firm performance: A comparison between Japan and
enrich our knowledge of the complex
Australia. Asian Business tê Management, 3, 105-125.
place on boards and in
Boulouta, I. (2013). organisations.
Hidden connections: The link between board
More specifically, gender the paper
diversity and corporate propose
social performance. Journal of
Business Ethics, 113, 185-197.
of boards'
decision making processes
Braun, P. (2010). Going green: Women entrepreneurs and the
would provide more insight into the
environment. International Journal of Gender and En
board diversity and CSR.
trepreneurship, 2, 245-259.
Brennan, N. M., & Solomon, J. (2008). Corporate governance,
Acknowledgments Theaccountability andauthor
mechanisms of accountability:thanks
An overview. r
participants for theirAccounting,
helpful comments.
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,
appointments onD. (2007).
board involvement in strategicA theory
decision mak
Journal of Finance, 62,
ing. The Academy 217-250.
of Management Journal, 44, 639-660.
Springer
344 K. Rao, C. Tilt
Carroll, A.
Eagly, B. (1979).
A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. A
corporate (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire lead
performance
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, socialFernandez-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., & Trevino, 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, 463-419.
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.
Springe
Hermalin, B. E., Jo,& Weisbach,

H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2012). The causal effect of M.corporate S.
corporate governance. Working
governance on corporate Pap
social responsibility. Journal of Busi
Economic Research, ness Ethics, 106, 53-72.
January 2007.
Hillman, A. J., Cannella,
Johnson, R. A., & Greening, D.A.
W. (1999). A.,
The effects of& Har
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 relationshipJudge, W. Q., & Zeithami, 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, ML, & 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
383^102. 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., Sanchez, I. M. G., & Gallego-Âlvarez, I. (2009).
Governance and Ethics, 4, 17-39. Caracteristicas del consejo de administracion e informaciôn 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 Espanola de Financiaciôn 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., & Thome, 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.
Springe:
346 K. Rao. C. Tilt
Mailin, Pugliese, A., & Wenst0p,

C. (2002). P. Z. (2007). Board members' contribution T
transparency and
to strategic decision-making in small firms. Journal of Manage
An ment and Governance, 11, 383-404.
International R
Randdy, T., Thomsen, S., & Oxelheim,
Marimuthu, M,,L. (2006). A Nordic
diversityperspective
in on corporate board diversity. In Age. Oslo: Nordic
boards
performanceInnovation Centre. of M
Rao, K. K., Tilt, C. A., & Lester, L. H. (2012). Corporate
Development, 2, governanceP
McElhaney, and environmental reporting: An K. (20
Australian study. Corporate
Governance, 12, 143-163.
responsibility. Lea
McGuire, J.,
Ricart, J. E., Rodriguez, M. À., & Sanchez,Dow,
P. (2005). Sustainability
corporate in the boardroom:
social An empirical examination of Dow Jones pe
341-359. Sustainability World Index leaders. Corporate Governance, 5,
McKendall, M., Sanchez, 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.
Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for
McNulty, T., Zattoni, A., & Douglas, T. (2013). Developing corporate
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 ofSaid, 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. CorporateSeto-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 ofShahin, 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 A 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., & lies, 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.
Smith, N., Smith, V., & Verner, M. (2006). Do women in top
Peterson, C. A., & Philpot, J. (2007). Women's roles on US Fortune
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.
Smith, W. J„ Wokutch, R. E., Harrington, K. V., & Dennis, B. S.
Boards of directors' composition and environmental corporate
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 Stanwick,
of the 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.
Talke, K., Salomo, S„ & Kock, A. (2011). Top management team
F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Boards of directors'
diversity and strategic innovation orientation: the relationship
contribution to strategy: A literature review and research
and consequences for innovativeness and performance. Journal
agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17,
292-306. of Product Innovation Management.
â Springer
Terjesen, S., Sealy, team

R., &overSingh,
performance V.
time. Group and Organization (200
Manage
corporate boards: ment,A23, review
161-188. and resear
Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L.Review,
Governance: An International K. (1993). Cultural 1
Triana, M. D. C., Miller, T.
diversity's impact on L.,
interaction process& Trzebi
and performance:
double-edged
nature Comparing
of homogeneous
board and diverse task groups. Academy of div
gender
performance,
and theManagement Journal, 36, 590-602.
power of women d
strategic change. Webb, E. (2004). An examination of socially responsible
Organization firms' board
Science,
structure. Journal of Management and Governance,
van Dick, R„ van Knippenberg, D., 8, 255-277.
Hagele
Brodbeck, Westphal, J. D.,Group
F. C. (2008). & Fredrickson, J. W. diversity
(2001). Who directs strategic an
The moderating role change? of
Director experience,
diversity the selection of new CEOs,
beliefand
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
Springer

Board Composition and Corporate Social R

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Board Composition and Corporate Social R

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Board Composition and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Diversity, Gender,

Strategy and Decision Making

Board Composition and Corporate Social Responsibility: The

Kathyayini Rao1 • Carol Tilt2

Received: 18 August 2014/Accepted: 11 March 2015/Published online: 17 March 2015

Author Aim Method CG variables Findings

board process and decision making" (Wal

et al. (2013), while examining b

1996). For example,

Table 2 Empirical studies on the effects

CEO duality -ve

Legal experts +ve

Active CEO +ve

CEO duality —ve

(Sahin et al. Role of board independence in CSR

Author Aim Method Board variables Findings

(Siciliano, Influence of board member's gender and Survey Board +ve

Gender diversity +ve

2013) (KLD database) (Standard & Poor's analysis) power

diversity and CSP (KLD database) (regression) Race +ve

et al. 2013) compensation effect on CSR (Denmark) qualitative Board -ve

(Seto-Pamies Relationship between women directors Quantitative Women directors +ve

2013) and CSR (Global 100)

framework under which it is assumed t

Table 3 Empirical stu

(Haniffa and Impact of culture and governance on Quantitative Non-executive -ve

Cooke 2005)corporate social disclosure

(Barako and Influence of board representation on Quantitative Women directors +ve

2012) environmental disclosure (regression) Independence -Fve

(Said et al. Relationship between CG Quantitative Board size Not sig

(Ghazali 2007) Influence of ownership structure on Quantitative Director share -ve

CSR reporting (Malaysia) ownership

Feijoo et al. on CSR reporting (22 countries composition

Board size -Fve

(Prado-Lorenzo Role of the board in disseminating Quantitative Board Not sig

Author Aim Method Board variables Findings

(Donnelly Relationship between CG and Quantitative Non-executive +ve

Mak 2003) voluntary disclosure (Singapore) (regression) Board share -ve

(Huafang Effect of board composition on Quantitative Ownership +ve

CEO duality +ve

(Liao et al. Impact of board's characteristics on Quantitative Women directors -fve

Table 4 Studies on the effect of variou

Author Aim Method Board variables Findings

(Balta et al. Influence of board characteristics on Quantitative Educational level +ve

(Goodstein Effect of diversity on strategic change Quantitative Board diversity —ve

(Ogbechie Relationship between board Quantitative Board size Not sig

Author Aim Method Board variables Findings

1992) change (US)

Team tenure -Fve

Educational level -Fve

Huse 2010a) strategic control (Norway) (regression)

1999) decisions paper expertise and cognitive

limited Amran, A., Lee,

Hermalin, B. E., Jo,& Weisbach,

Mailin, Pugliese, A., & Wenst0p,

Terjesen, S., Sealy, team

You might also like