This study examines the influence of women in business using a sample of firms on Fortune's “100 Best Companies to Work For” list and is an extension of Bernardi et al.'s work. We use the data from Bernardi et al. to determine whether a higher representation of women on a board signals an increased commitment of a firm to a quality environment and employment characteristics necessary to establish the firm on Fortune's “100 Best Companies to Work For” list. Our findings include a significant increase in the number of female directors on Fortune 500 companies between 1977 and 2001. The initial analysis of the 27 firms appearing on both Fortune's “100 Best Companies to Work For” list and the Fortune 500 in 2001 indicates a positive correlation between the number of female directors and a company's appearance on the “100 Best Companies to Work For” list.
Akaah, I. P. (1989). Differences in research ethics judgments between male and female.Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 375-381.
2.
Bell, M. P., McLaughlin, M. E., & Sequeira, J. M. (2002). Discrimination, harassment, and the glass ceiling: Women executives as change agents.Journal of Business Ethics, 37, 65-76.
3.
Bernardi, R. A., Bean, D. F., & Weippert, K. M. (2002). Signaling gender diversity through annual report pictures: A research note on image management.Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15, 609-616.
4.
Burgess, Z., & Tharenou, P. (2002). Women board directors: Characteristics of the few.Journal of Business Ethics, 37, 39-49.
5.
Burke, R. (1997). Women on corporate boards of directors: A needed resource.Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 909-915.
6.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.Academy of Management Review, 4, 17-26.
7.
Catalyst. (2001).2001 Catalyst census of women board directors. New York: Author.
8.
Coffey, B. S., & Fryxell, G. E. (1991). Institutional ownership of stock and dimensions of corporate social performance:An empirical examination.Journalof Business Ethics, 10, 437-444.
9.
Everett, L., Thorne, D., & Danehower, C. (1996). Cognitive moral development and attitudes toward women executives.Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1227-1235.
10.
Eyring, A., & Stead, B. A. (1998). Shattering the glass ceiling: Some successful corporate practices.Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 245-251.
11.
Felo, A. J. (2001). Ethics programs, board involvement, and potential conflicts of interest in corporate governance.Journal of Business Ethics, 32, 205-218.
12.
Fortune. (2001). Fortune 500. New York: Arnold Bernhard.
13.
Fryxell, G. E., & Lerner, L. D. (1989). Contrasting corporate profiles: women and minority representation.Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 341-352.
14.
Ghiloni, B. W. (1984). The corporate scramble for women directors.Business and Society Review, 51, 86-96.
15.
Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce.Business & Society, 39, 254-280.
16.
Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate.Business & Society, 36, 5-31.
17.
Husted, B. W. (2000). A contingency theory of corporate social performance.Business & Society, 39, 24-48.
18.
Ibrahim, N. A., Howard, D. P., & Angelidis, J. P. (2003). Board members in the service industry: An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility orientation and directorial type.Journal of Business Ethics, 47, 393-401.
19.
Lamsa, A., & Sintone, T. (2001). A discursive approach to understanding women leaders in working life.Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 255-267.
20.
Levering, R., Moskowitz, M., Harrington, A., & Tkaczyk, C. (2003). 100 best companies to work for.Fortune, 147, 127-138.
21.
Luthar, H. K., Battista, R. A., & Gautschi, T. (1997).Perception of what the ethical climate is and what it should be: The role of gender, academic status, and ethical education.Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 205-217.
22.
McDaniel, C., Schoeps, N., & Lincourt, G. (2001). Organizational ethics: Perceptions of employees by gender.Journal of Business Ethics, 33, 245-256.
23.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000).Corporatesocial responsibilityand financial performance: Correlation or misspecification.Strategic Management Journal, 21, 603-609.
24.
Singh, V., Kumra, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2002). Gender and impression management: Playing the promotion game.Journal of Business Ethics, 37, 77-89.
25.
Special report: Out of the typingpool and onto the board:A list of womendirectors.(1977).Business and Society Review, 22, 27-34.
26.
Special report: The women who serve on boards. (1980/1981).Business and Society Review, 37, 25-31.
27.
Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees.Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658-672.
28.
U.S. Congress. (2002).Sarbanes-Oxley Act (HR 3763). Retrieved on May 10, 2005, from http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush
29.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link.Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303-319.
30.
Wang, J., & Coffey, B. S. (1992). Board composition and corporate philanthropy.Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 771-778.
31.
Weber, G. (2004). A higher calling.Workforce Management, 83, 47-50.
32.
Weisul, K. (2003). Make way for madame director.Business Week, 3863, 57-58.
33.
Zyglidopoulos, S. C. (2003). The issue life-cycle: Implications for reputation for social performance and organizational legitimacy.Corporate Reputation Review, 6, 70-81.
