This study examines the role of board gender and generational diversity in regard to firms’ sustainability performance. Although the academic literature on this topic is expanding, empirical findings, particularly regarding the relationship between gender diversity and sustainability performance, remain inconsistent. Moreover, the influence of societal generations (i.e., Baby Boomers, GenX, Millennials and GenZ) on sustainability outcomes has not yet been thoroughly investigated. Using a quantile regression approach, this article examines medium-sized unlisted firms in the Italian agri-food sector to assess heterogeneous associations between gender and generational diversity and sustainability performance, measured by a score based on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The results indicate that board gender diversity is not statistically significantly associated with sustainability performance, whereas board generational diversity shows a positive and heterogeneous association across the sustainability performance distribution. Overall, the findings provide valuable insights for firms seeking to strengthen their sustainability orientation by considering board composition, particularly regarding generational diversity.
AbdelkaderM. G., GaoY., & ElamerA. A. (2024). Board gender diversity and ESG performance: The mediating role of temporal orientation in South Africa context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 440, 140728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140728
2.
ÅbergC., CalabròA., ValentinoA., & TorchiaM. (2024). Socioemotional wealth and family firm performance: The moderating role of CEO tenure and millennial CEO. British Journal of Management, 35(4), 2103–2121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12818
3.
AdamsR. B., & FerreiraD. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.10.007
4.
AlodatA. Y., & HaoY. (2025). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure and firm performance: Moderating role of board gender diversity and sustainability committee. Sustainable Development, 33(1), 636–651. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3126
5.
AmeerR., & OthmanR. (2012). Sustainability practices and corporate financial performance: A study based on the top global corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1063-y
6.
ArenaC., Garcia-ToreaN., & MichelonG. (2024). The lines that divide: Board demographic faultlines and proactive environmental strategy. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 32(5), 833–855. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12570
7.
BannòM., FilippiE., & TrentoS. (2023). Women in top echelon positions and their effects on sustainability: A review, synthesis and future research agenda. Journal of Management and Governance, 27(1), 181–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-021-09604-7
8.
BearS., RahmanN., & PostC. (2010). The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0505-2
9.
Ben-AmarW., ChangM., & McIlkennyP. (2017). Board gender diversity and corporate response to sustainability initiatives: Evidence from the carbon disclosure project. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2759-1
10.
BenlemlihM., & CaiL. (2020). Corporate environmental performance and financing decisions. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 29(2), 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12257
11.
BirindelliG., IannuzziA. P., & SavioliM. (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. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1762
12.
BlauP. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. Free Press.
13.
ByronK., & PostC. (2016). Women on boards of directors and corporate social performance: A meta-analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(4), 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12165
14.
CambreaD. R., PaoloneF., & CucariN. (2023). Advisory or monitoring role in ESG scenario: Which women directors are more influential in the Italian context?Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(7), 4299–4314. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3366
15.
CampbellK., & Mínguez-VeraA. (2008). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9630-y
16.
Chamochumbi DiazG. D., PalazziF., & SoriniL. (2026). Creditworthiness of small and medium enterprises: A fuzzy decision-making approach. Computational Management Science, 23(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10287-025-00546-1
17.
CiambottiM., & PalazziF. (2015). Medie imprese italiane: Un’indagine sui valori d’impresa. Piccola Impresa/Small Business, 1, 10–30. https://doi.org/10.14596/pisb.174
18.
CollevecchioF., TemperiniV., Barba-SanchezV., & Meseguer-MartinezA. (2025). Sustainable governance: Board sustainability experience and the interplay with board age for firm sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 197(2), 371–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05739-3
19.
ColtortiF., RescinitiR., TunisiniA., & VaraldoR.(Eds.). (2013). Mid-sized manufacturing companies: The new driver of Italian competitiveness. Springer.
20.
ConyonM. J., & HeL. (2017). Firm performance and boardroom gender diversity: A quantile regression approach. Journal of Business Research, 79, 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.02.006
21.
CucariN., Esposito De FalcoS., & OrlandoB. (2018). Diversity of board of directors and environmental social governance: Evidence from Italian listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(3), 250–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1452
22.
D’AmatoA., & FalivenaC. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and firm value: Do firm size and age matter? Empirical evidence from European listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 909–924. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1855
23.
DonkorA., TrireksaniT., & DjajadikertaH. G. (2023). Board diversity and corporate sustainability performance: Do CEO power and firm environmental sensitivity matter?Sustainability, 15(23), 16142. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316142
24.
European Recommendation (2023). European Commission 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, O. J. L 124.
25.
Fernández-TempranoM. A., & Tejerina-GaiteF. (2020). Types of director, board diversity and firm performance. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 20(2), 324–342. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-03-2019-0096
26.
Ferrero-FerreroI., Fernández-IzquierdoM. Á., & Muñoz-TorresM. J. (2015). Integrating sustainability into corporate governance: An empirical study on board diversity. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(4), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1333
27.
FreemanR. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
28.
GallettaS., MazzùS., NacitiV., & VermiglioC. (2022). Gender diversity and sustainability performance in the banking industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(1), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2191
29.
GardinerE. (2024). What’s age got to do with it? The effect of board member age diversity: A systematic review. Management Review Quarterly, 74(1), 65–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00294-5
30.
HerfindahlO. C. (1950). Concentration in the U.S. steel industry(Doctoral Dissertation). Columbia University.
31.
HillmanA. J., & DalzielT. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.10196729
32.
HirschmanA. O. (1964). The paternity of an index. American Economic Review, 54, 761–762.
33.
HoF. N., WangH. M. D., Ho-DacN., & VitellS. J. (2019). Nature and relationship between corporate social performance and firm size: A cross-national study. Social Responsibility Journal, 15(2), 258–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-02-2017-0025
34.
HussainN., RigoniU., & CavezzaliE. (2018). Does it pay to be sustainable? Looking inside the black box of the relationship between sustainability performance and financial performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(6), 1198–1211. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1631
35.
IssaA., & FangH. X. (2019). The impact of board gender diversity on corporate social responsibility in the Arab Gulf states. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 34(7), 577–605. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-07-2018-0087
36.
Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. (2018). Rapporto internet@Italia: Infografica—generazioni in rete. https://www.istat.it/it/files/2018/06/Generazioni-in-Rete_ITA_pdf.pdf
37.
Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. (2025). L’andamento dell’economia agricola, anno 2024, Roma. https://www.istat.it/comunicato-stampa/landamento-delleconomia-agricola-anno-2024/
38.
JohnstonJ., & Di NardoJ. (2007). Econometric methods. University of California.
39.
KagziM., & GuhaM. (2018). Board demographic diversity: A review of literature. Journal of Strategy and Management, 11(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-01-2017-0002
40.
KhatriI. (2023). Board gender diversity and sustainability performance: Nordic evidence. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(3), 1495–1507. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2432
41.
KoenkerR. (2005). Quantile regression. Cambridge University Press.
KoenkerR., & HallockK. F. (2001). Quantile regression. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(4), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.4.143
44.
LiuY., WeiZ., & XieF. (2014). Do women directors improve firm performance in China?Journal of Corporate Finance, 28, 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2013.11.016
45.
Lopez-ValeirasE., Gomez-CondeJ., & Fernandez-RodriguezT. (2016). Firm size and financial performance: Intermediate effects of indebtedness. Agribusiness, 32(4), 454–465. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21458
46.
LozanoR. (2013). A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1325
47.
LuJ., & HerremansI. M. (2019). Board gender diversity and environmental performance: An industries perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(7), 1449–1464. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2326
48.
LuuE., & RubioS. (2024). Millennial managers. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 32(4), 732–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12564
49.
MacchioniR., PriscoM., & ZagariaC. (2025). Board gender diversity and environmental material topics: Evidence from GRI-based reports in the Italian context. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 26(1), 28–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-08-2023-0255
50.
ManitaR., BrunaM. G., DangR., & HouantiL. H. (2018). Board gender diversity and ESG disclosure: Evidence from the USA. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 19(2), 206–224. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-01-2017-0024
51.
MannheimK. (1970). The problem of generations. Psychoanalytic Review, 57, 378–404.
52.
MarchiniP. L., TibilettiV., MazzaT., & GabrielliG. (2022). Gender quotas and the environment: Environmental performance and enforcement. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(1), 256–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2200
53.
Martínez-ConesaI., Soto-AcostaP., & Palacios-ManzanoM. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and its effect on innovation and firm performance: An empirical research in SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2374–2383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.038
54.
Mediobanca & Unioncamere. (2024). Le medie imprese industriali italiane 2013–2022. Mediobanca Ufficio Studi. https://www.areastudimediobanca.com/it/product/le-medie-imprese-industriali-italiane-2013-2022
55.
MuhammadH., & MiglioriS. (2023). Effects of board gender diversity and sustainability committees on environmental performance: A quantile regression approach. Journal of Management & Organization, 29(6), 1051–1076. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.8
56.
NacitiV. (2019). Corporate governance and board of directors: The effect of a board composition on firm sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 237, 117727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117727
57.
NacitiV., CesaroniF., & PulejoL. (2022). Corporate governance and sustainability: A review of the existing literature. Journal of Management and Governance, 26, 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-020-09554-6
58.
NicolauJ. L., & Santa-MaríaM. J. (2013). Communicating excellence in innovation. Economics Letters, 118(1), 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.09.025
59.
NielsenS., & HuseM. (2010). The contribution of women on boards of directors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(2), 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2010.00784.x
60.
O’BrienR. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41, 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
61.
OrlitzkyM. (2001). Does firm size comfound the relationship between corporate social performance and firm financial performance?Journal of Business Ethics, 33(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017516826427
62.
ParryE., & UrwinP. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00285.x
63.
PfefferJ., & SalancikG. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.
64.
ProvasiR., & HarashehM. (2021). Gender diversity and corporate performance: Emphasis on sustainability performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(1), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2037
65.
RavidD. M., CostanzaD. P., & RomeroM. R. (2024). Generational differences at work? A meta-analysis and qualitative investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 46(1), 43–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2827
66.
RicciF., VincenzoS., & CorteD. (2022). Board gender diversity and corporate environmental sustainability: A research agenda. In Corporate governance: Theory and practice (pp. 22–29). Virtus Interpress.
67.
RomanoM., CirilloA., FavinoC., & NettiA. (2020). ESG (environmental, social and governance) performance and board gender diversity: The moderating role of CEO duality. Sustainability, 12(21), 9298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219298
68.
SgròF., CiambottiM., PalazziF., & Chamochumbi DiazG. D. (2025). The effect of corporate governance on SDG performance of Italian listed companies. Management Control, 1, 111–135. https://doi.org/10.3280/MACO2025-001006
69.
SimpsonE. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163, 688. https://doi.org/10.1038/163688a0
70.
TrianiN., & TarmidiD. (2019). Firm value: Impact of investment decisions, funding decisions and dividend policies. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 9(2), 158–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARAFMS/v9-i2/6107
71.
WangZ., & SarkisJ. (2017). Corporate social responsibility governance, outcomes, and financial performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 1607–1616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.142
72.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press.
73.
ZamponeG., NicolòG., SanninoG., & De IorioS. (2024). Gender diversity and SDG disclosure: The mediating role of the sustainability committee. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 25(1), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-06-2022-0151
