Board gender diversity and family firms’ corporate environmental responsibility: does "critical mass" matter?

Titolo Rivista CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Autori/Curatori Maria Coscia
Anno di pubblicazione 2023 Fascicolo 2022/2
Lingua Inglese Numero pagine 20 P. 137-156 Dimensione file 0 KB
DOI 10.3280/cgrds2-2022oa15066
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Vedi l'articolo Scarica l'articolo open access

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

The current study investigates the impact of board gender diversity (BGD) on family firms’ (FFs) engagement in corporate environmental responsibility (CER) practices. The role of BGD in CER policies has been explored in light of critical mass theory by identifying the threshold of women share on board that can influence the environmental commitment of FFs. By employing a fixed-effect (FE) regression analysis on a global sample of 171 FFs, over the 2015-2020 study period, our findings show that when BGD reaches a certain threshold, i.e. critical mass, the CER engagement of FFs increases. These evidences advance prior literature on the link between BGD and CER while providing additional indications for managers, policy makers and FFs seeking the best CER performance.

The current study investigates the impact of board gender diversity (BGD) on family firms’ (FFs) engagement in corporate environmental responsibility (CER) practices. The role of BGD in CER policies has been explored in light of critical mass theory by identifying the threshold of women share on board that can influence the environmental commitment of FFs. By employing a fixed-effect (FE) regression analysis on a global sample of 171 FFs, over the 2015-2020 study period, our findings show that when BGD reaches a certain threshold, i.e. critical mass, the CER engagement of FFs increases. These evidences advance prior literature on the link between BGD and CER while providing additional indications for managers, policy makers and FFs seeking the best CER performance.

Parole chiave:; critical mass; board gender diversity; corporate environmental responsibility; SEW; family firms; SDGs

  1. Agostino, M., Ruberto, S. (2021). Environment-friendly practices: Family versus non-family firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 329: 129689. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129689
  2. Amorelli M.F., García‐Sánchez I.M. (2020). Critical mass of female directors, human capital, and stakeholder engagement by corporate social reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1): 204-221. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1793
  3. Bär M., Kempf A., Ruenzi S. (2011). Is a team different from the sum of its parts? Evidence from mutual fund managers. Review of Finance, 15: 359-396. DOI: 10.1093/rof/rfq014
  4. Berrone P., Cruz C., Gomez-Mejia L.R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family business review, 25(3): 258-279. DOI: 10.1177/0894486511435355
  5. Bjuggren P.O., Nordström L., Palmberg J. (2018). Are female leaders more efficient in family firms than in non-family firms? Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 18(2): 185-205. DOI: 10.1108/CG-01-2017-0017
  6. Birindelli G., Iannuzzi A.P., Savioli M. (2019). The impact of women leaders on environmental performance: Evidence on gender diversity in banks. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6): 1485-1499. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1762
  7. Burkhardt, K., Nguyen, P., Poincelot, E. (2020). Agents of change: Women in top management and corporate environmental performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(4):1591-1604. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1907
  8. Campopiano G., Massis A.D., Kotlar J. (2019). Environmental jolts, family-centered non-economic goals, and innovation: a framework of family firm resilience. In: Memili E., Dibrell C. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Heterogeneity among Family Firms. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-77676-7_28
  9. Cordeiro J.J., Profumo G., Tutore I. (2020). Board gender diversity and corporate environmental performance: The moderating role of family and dual‐class majority ownership structures. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3): 1127-1144. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2421
  10. Delmas M.A., Gergaud O. (2014). Sustainable certification for future generations: The case of family business. Family Business Review, 27(3): 228-243. DOI: 10.1177/0894486514538651
  11. Deloitte (2022). Family firm focus: How family businesses are demonstrating sustainable leadership.
  12. EWOB (2020). European Women on Boards Gender Diversity Index 2020.
  13. Eagly A. (1987). Sex differences in social behaviour: A social role interpretation, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  14. Gangi F., D’Angelo E., Daniele L.M., Varrone N. (2020). The impact of corporate governance on social and environmental engagement: what effect on firm performance in the food industry?. British Food Journal, 123(2): 610-626. DOI: 10.1108/BFJ-02-2020-0140
  15. Gangi, F., Daniele, L. M., D’Angelo, E., Varrone, N., Coscia, M. (2022). The impact of board gender diversity on banks’ environmental policy: The moderating role of gender inequality in national culture. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 1-19. DOI: 10.1002/csr.2418
  16. García-Meca E., Santana-Martín D.J. (2022). Board gender diversity and perfor-mance in family firms: exploring the faultline of family ties. Review of Managerial Science, 1-36. DOI: 10.1007/s11846-022-00563-3
  17. Glass C., Cook A., Ingersoll A.R. (2016). Do women leaders promote sustainability? Analyzing the effect of corporate governance composition on environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(7): 495-511. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1879
  18. Gomez-Mejia L.R., Patel P.C., Zellweger T.M. (2018). In the horns of the dilemma: Socioemotional wealth, financial wealth, and acquisitions in family firms. Journal of Management, 44(4): 1369-1397. DOI: 10.1177/0149206315614375
  19. Graafland J. (2020). Women in management and sustainable development of SMEs: Do relational environmental management instruments matter?. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 27(5): 2320-2328. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1966
  20. He X., Jiang S. (2019). Does gender diversity matter for green innovation?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(7): 1341-1356. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2319
  21. Hogg M.A., Turner J.C., Davidson B. (1990). Polarized norms and social frames of reference: A test of the self-categorization theory of group polarization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11(1): 77-100. DOI: 10.1207/s15324834basp1101_6
  22. Jo H., Harjoto M.A. (2012). The causal effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Journal of business ethics, 106(1): 53-72. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-1052-1
  23. Joecks J., Pull K., Vetter K. (2013). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance: What exactly constitutes a “critical mass?”. Journal of business ethics, 118(1): 61-72. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1553-6
  24. Kanter R. (1977). Men and women of the organization, New York, NY: Basic Books.
  25. Kassinis G., Panayiotou A., Dimou A., Katsifaraki G. (2016). Gender and environmental sustainability: A longitudinal analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(6): 399-412. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1386
  26. Kerr N.L. (1992). Group decision making at a multialternative task: Extremity, interfaction distance, pluralities and issue importance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52: 64-95. DOI: 10.1016/0749-5978(92)90046-A
  27. Konrad A.M., Kramer V., Erkut S. (2008). Critical mass: The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics, 37(2): 145-164. DOI: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.02.005
  28. KPMG (2020). The power of women in family business.
  29. Kramer V.W., Konrad A.M., Erkut S., Hooper M.J. (2006). Critical mass on corporate boards: Why three or more women enhance governance, Wellesley, MA: Wellesley Centers for Women.
  30. Lu J., Herremans I.M. (2019). Board gender diversity and environmental performance: An industries perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(7): 1449-1464. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2326
  31. Marques P., Presas P., Simon A. (2014). The heterogeneity of family firms in CSR engagement: The role of values. Family Business Review, 27(3): 206-227. DOI: 10.1177/0894486514539004
  32. Mäs M., Flache A., Kitts J.A. (2014). Cultural integration and differentiation in groups and organizations. In: Dignum V., Dignum F. (eds). Perspectives on Culture and Agent-based Simulations. Studies in the Philosophy of Sociality, vol 3. Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-01952-9_5
  33. McDonald J.F., Moffitt R.A. (1980). The uses of Tobit analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 62(2): 318-321. DOI: 10.2307/1924766
  34. Melo T., Garrido-Morgado A. (2012). Corporate reputation: a combination of social responsibility and industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19: 11-31. DOI: 10.1002/csr.260
  35. Moscovici S., Lage E. (1976). Studies in social influence III: Majority versus minority influence in a group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6(2): 149-174. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2420060202
  36. Naciti V. (2019). Corporate governance and board of directors: The effect of a board composition on firm sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 237: 117727. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117727
  37. Nadeem M., Bahadar S., Gull A.A., Iqbal U. (2020). Are women ecofriendly? Board gender diversity and environmental innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8): 3146–3161. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2563
  38. Nuber C., Velte P. (2021). Board gender diversity and carbon emissions: European evidence on curvilinear relationships and critical mass. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(4): 1958-1992. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2727
  39. Orazalin N., Baydauletov M. (2020). Corporate social responsibility strategy and corporate environmental and social performance: The moderating role of board gender diversity. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27: 1664-1676. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1915
  40. Ratner B. (2009). The correlation coefficient: Its values range between+ 1/− 1, or do they? Journal of targeting, measurement and analysis for marketing, 17(2): 139-142. DOI: 10.1057/jt.2009.5
  41. Reguera-Alvarado N., Bravo F. (2017). The effect of independent directors’ characteristics on firm performance: Tenure and multiple directorships. Research in International Business and Finance, 41. 590-599. DOI: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.04.045
  42. Sah R., Stiglitz J. (1988). Committees, hierarchies and polyarchies. The Economic Journal, 98: 451-470. DOI: 10.2307/2233377
  43. Sánchez-Medina P.S., Díaz-Pichardo R. (2017). Environmental pressure and quality practices in artisanal family businesses: The mediator role of environmental values. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143: 145-158. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.137
  44. Surroca J., Tribó J.A., Waddock S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic management journal, 31(5): 463-490. DOI: 10.1002/smj.820
  45. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1-39. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245
  46. Torchia M., Calabrò A., Huse M. (2011). Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of business ethics, 102(2): 299-317. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-0815-z
  47. UNEP (2021). Emissions Gap Report 2021. Available at: https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-re-port2021?gclid=CjwKCAiAy_CcBhBeEiwAcoMRHBY2J0fUGwo5Y8wxCbqfyd3uVysWoWW2OHzU16sZtTuGnRU0g6EH_BoClKAQAvD_BwE.
  48. Zellweger T.M., Kellermanns F.W., Eddleston K., Memili E. (2012). Building a family firm image: How family firms capitalize on their family ties. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3(4): 239-250. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2012.10.001

  • Workplace Inclusivity: A Literature Review From a Strategy-As-Practice Perspective Sibongile Amy Katarina Mukupa, Matteo Cristofaro, Pier Luigi Giardino, in CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT STUDIES 1/2023 pp.61
    DOI: 10.3280/cgrds1-2023oa15792

Maria Coscia, Board gender diversity and family firms’ corporate environmental responsibility: does "critical mass" matter? in "CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT STUDIES" 2/2022, pp 137-156, DOI: 10.3280/cgrds2-2022oa15066