In recent years, diversity advocates have organized a national campaign to get environmental organizations to reveal data on their institutions’ demographic characteristics publicly. Environmental organizations are urged to be more transparent and put their data on GuideStar (renamed Candid). Past research indicates that as of 2018, less than 4% of the organizations have done so. Still, diversity and transparency campaigns focus on disclosing data on Candid. Despite the push to get environmental nonprofits to disclose their demographic data, scholars and diversity advocates have not investigated if and how organizations collect and reveal demographic and other types of diversity data. This article addresses this gap in our knowledge about environmental institutions’ collection and disclosure of diversity data. The article reports the findings of a national study of 516 environmental organizations that analyze the following questions: (a) To what extent do environmental nonprofits collect diversity data? (b) What kinds of diversity data do organizations collect? (c) Why do organizations collect or refrain from collecting diversity data? (d) Where do organizations disclose their diversity data if they collect any? I collected the data reported here in 2018. The study assessed if organizations collected data on 12 different diversity metrics. The study found that 31.4% of the nonprofits collected or tracked data on at least one metric. Nonprofits are also more likely to collect data than to divulge them. Almost 26% of the organizations said they shared data on at least one diversity metric. The results show that a much higher percentage of organizations collect and reveal data than are currently disclosing such data on Candid. The research also found that organizations are more likely to collect data on their boards than on their staff. The nonprofits are more likely to share diversity data with funders and their boards than any other kinds of external or internal sources. The findings suggest that in crafting diversity and transparency campaigns, diversity advocates should pay more attention to the kinds of data organizations collect and how they reveal such data.
CampbellK.Minguez-VeraA. (2008). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(3), 435-451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9630-y
CletusH. E.MahmoodN. A.AbubakarU.IbrahimA. D. (2018). Prospects and challenges of workplace diversity in modern day organizations: A critical review. Holistica: Journal of Business and Public Administration, 9(2), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.2478/hjbpa-2018-0011
GlassC.CookA.IngersollA. R. (2015). Do women leaders promote sustainability? Analyzing the effect of corporate governance composition on environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(7), 495-511. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1879
GreenK. A.LópezM.WysockiA.KepnerK. (2012). Diversity in the workplace: Benefits, challenges, and required managerial tools. University of Florida, Institute for Food and Agricultural Services. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/hr022
JoecksJ.PullK.VetterK. (2013). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance: What exactly constitutes a “critical mass?”Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1553-6
LiuC. (2018). Are women greener? Corporate gender diversity and environmental violations. Journal of Corporate Finance, 52(October), 118-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2018.08.004
38.
LockwoodM.DavidsonJ.HockingsM.HawardM.KriwokenL. (2012). Marine biodiversity conservation governance and management: Regime requirements for global environmental change. Ocean & Coastal Management, 69(December), 160-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.07.015
PetersonM. T. (2020). Transparency in global fisheries governance: The role of non-governmental organizations. Marine Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104128
ShabanA. (2016). Managing and leading a diverse workforce: One of the main challenges in management. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 230, 76-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.09.010
TaylorD. E. (1989). Blacks and the environment: Toward and explanation of the concern and action gap between Blacks and Whites. Environment and Behavior, 21(2), 175-205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916589212003
58.
TaylorD. E. (2007). Diversity and the environment: Myth-making and the status of minorities in the field. In WilkinsonR. C.FreudenburgW. R. (Ed.), Equity and the environment (Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, Vol. 15, pp. 89-147). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-1152(07)15003-1
59.
TaylorD. E. (2014). The state of diversity in environmental organizations: Mainstream NGOs foundations government agencies. University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34512.40962
60.
TaylorD. E. (2015). Gender and racial diversity in environmental organizations: Uneven accomplishments and cause for concern. Environmental Justice, 8(5), 165-180. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2015.0018
TaylorD. E. (2018). Racial and ethnic differences in the students’ readiness, identity, perceptions of institutional diversity, and desire to join the environmental workforce. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 8(2), 152-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-017-0447-4
TaylorD. E.PaulS. K.McCoyE. D. (2019). Diversity, equity, and inclusion and the salience of publicly disclosing demographic data in environmental nonprofits. Sustainability, 11(19), Article 5491. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195491
65.
TaylorD. E.PriceK.McCoyE. (2018). Diversity pathways: Broadening participation in environmental organizations. School for the Environment and Natural Resources. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19473.68963/1
WestermannO.AshbyJ.PrettyJ. (2005). Gender and social capital: The importance of gender differences for the maturity and effectiveness of natural resource management groups. World Development, 33(11), 1783-1799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.04.018
