The study examines the moderating and mediating effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure and CSR expenditure on the association between listed firms’ financial performance and gender diversity. There are 80 listed firms with 800 firm-year observations from 2010 to 2019 that qualified for the study using the Indian stock market. The first finding shows a negative association between financial leverage and gender diversity. The second finding shows that the implementation of CSR disclosure hurts the improvement of gender diversity. The third finding shows that CSR expenditure improves gender diversity of listed firms in an emerging market. The fouth finding shows that CSR expenditure positively mediates the negative association between financial leverage and gender diversity. The fifth finding shows that CSR disclosure does not mediate the association between financial performance (return on assets, price to book ratio and financial leverage). The sixth finding shows that CSR expenditure negatively moderates the negative association between return on assets and gender diversity.
AdamsC. A., PotterB., SinghP. J., & YorkJ. (2016). Exploring the implications of integrated reporting for social investment (disclosures). British Accounting Review, 48(3), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2016.05.002
2.
AmorelliM. F., & García-SánchezI. 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.
3.
AnnetteD. (2018, December10). Women in India’s economic growth. The World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/speech/2018/03/17/women-indias-economic-growth
4.
BaltagiB. H. (2005). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data (3rd ed.). John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
5.
BaronR. M., & KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research. Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
6.
BRR and Sustainability Report Tracker for Listed Companies (2017, October10). Sustainability Outlook. http://www.sustainabilityoutlook.in/data-feeds%0D%0A%0D%0A
7.
ChadwickI. C., & DawsonA. (2018). Women leaders and firm performance in family businesses: An examination of financial and non-financial outcomes. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 9(4), 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2018.10.002
8.
ClarksonP. M., LiY., RichardsonG. D., & VasvariF. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003
9.
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
10.
CormierD., LedouxM. J., & MagnanM. (2011). The informational contribution of social and environmental disclosures for investors. Management Decisions, 49(8), 1276–1303.
11.
D’AmatoA. (2017). Do women perform better in family firms?: Exploring the moderating role of family firm status. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 29(3), 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-12-2016-0039
12.
DarmadiS. (2013). Do women in top management affect firm performance?Corporate Governance, 13(3), 288–304. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-12-2010-0096
13.
DoughertyC. (2017). Introduction to econometrics (5th ed.). Great Clarendon Street. Oxford University Press.
14.
EaglyA. H. (1978). Sex differences in influenceability. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 86–116.
15.
EaglyA. H., & WoodW. (2012, January). Social role theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 458–476. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n49
16.
EaglyH. A., & WoodW. (2016). Social role theory of sex differences. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663219
17.
ElsharkawyM., PatersonA. S., & SherifM. (2018). Now you see me: Diversity, CEO education, and bank performance in the UK. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 15(1), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.21511/imfi.15(1).2018.23
18.
FoyeJ., & MramorD. (2016). A new perspective on the international evidence concerning the book-price effect. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2782441
19.
FrankeG. R., CrownD. F., & SpakeD. F. (1997). Gender differences in ethical perceptions of business practices: A social role theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 920–934. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25121311
20.
GeetikaA. & ShuklaA. (2017). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance of Indian banks. IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, 16(2), 39–53. http://ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=125155991&site=ehost-live&scope=site
21.
GravesS. B., & WaddockS. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1034–1046.
22.
Green Clean Guide (2011). GRI based sustainability reporting in India. http://greencleanguide.com/gri-based-sustainability-reporting-in-india
23.
GrosserK., & MoonJ. (2005). Mainstreaming issues and corporate social responsibility: Workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(4), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s l0551-005-5334-3
24.
HarrisonL. A., & LynchA. (2005). Social role theory and the perceived gender role orientation of athletes. Sex Roles, 52(3–4), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1297-1
25.
HausmanJ. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251–1271.
26.
HsuC., & LawlerJ. J. (2019). An investigation of the relationship between gender composition and organizational performance in Taiwan: The role of task complexity. Asia Pac J Management, 36, 275–304. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9570-3 An
27.
HsuChih-shun, KuoL., & ChangB. (2016). Non-linear relationship between gender diversity in the partnership and profit performance in accounting firms. Pacific Accounting Review, 28(3), 306–336. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-07-2014-0029
28.
InoueY., & LeeS. (2011). Effects of different dimensions of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial performance in tourism-related industries. Tourism Management, 32(4), 790–804.
29.
JadiyappaN., IyerS. R., & JyothiP. (2019). Does social responsibility improve firm value? Evidence from mandatory corporate social responsibility regulations in India. International Review of Finance Early (Early view). https://doi.org/10.1111/irfi.12282
30.
JyothiP., & MangalagiriJ. (2019). Would firm performance be better with women directors? Evidence from India. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0972262919840217
31.
KamelH., & ShahwanT. (2014). The association between disclosure level and cost of capital in an emerging market: evidence from Egypt. Afro-Asian Journal of Finance and Accounting, 4(3), 203–225.
32.
KravitzD. A. (2003). More women in the workplace: Is there a payoff in firm performance ?The Academy of Management Executive, 17(3), 148–149.
33.
LauwoS. (2018). Challenging masculinity in CSR disclosures: Silencing of women’s voices in Tanzania’s mining industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(3), 689–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551- 016-3047-4
34.
LuoX., & BhattacharyaC. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer and satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/30162111
35.
MachdarN. M. (2019). Corporate social responsibility disclosure mediates the relationship between corporate governance and corporate financial performance in Indonesia. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 23(3).
36.
MalikM., Al MamunM., & AminA. (2019). Peer pressure, CSR spending, and long-term financial performance. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Economics, 26(3), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/16081625.2018.1493933
37.
Mínguez-VeraA., & CampbellK. (2007). 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
38.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs (2013). Companies Act, 2013. Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/CompaniesAct2013.pdf
39.
MishraS., & SuarD. (2010). Does corporate social responsibility influence firm performance of Indian companies?Source Journal of Business Ethics Journal of Business Ethics, 95(95), 571–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0551-010-0441-l
40.
MunE., & JungJ. (2018). Change above the glass ceiling: Corporate social responsibility and gender diversity in Japanese firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(2), 409–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217712920
41.
NakamuraE. (2015). The bidirectional CSR investment – economic performance relationship. Journal of Global Responsibility, 6(1), 128–144. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-05-2014-0021
42.
PedriniM. (2018). Exploring the effect of gender diversity in MFIs during turbulent periods. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(16), 2455–2481. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1246460
43.
QuiY., ShaukatA., & TharyanR. (2016). Environmental and social disclosures: Link with corporate financial performance. The British Accounting Review, 48, 102–116.
44.
RakotomavoM. T. J. (2012). Corporate investment in social responsibility versus dividends?Social Responsibility Journal, 8(2), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111211234833
45.
SahooD. K., & LenkaU. (2016). Breaking the glass ceiling: Opportunity for the organization. Industrial and Commercial Training, 48(6), 311–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-02-2015-0017
46.
SananN. K. (2016). Board gender diversity, financial and social performance of Indian firms. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 20(4), 361–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972262916673006
47.
Setó-PamiesD. (2015). The relationship between women directors and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(6), 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1349
48.
ShahwanT. M. (2015). The effects of corporate governance on financial performance and financial distress: evidence from Egypt. Corporate Governance, 15(5), 641–662. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEAS-03-2016-0005
49.
ShahwanT. M., & HassanY. (2013). Efficiency analysis of UAE banks using data envelopment analysis. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 29(1), 4–20.
50.
SialM. S., ZhengC., CherianJ., GulzarM. A., ThuP. A., KhanT., & KhuongN. V. (2018). Does corporate social responsibility mediate the relation between boardroom gender diversity and firm performance of Chinese listed companies?Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(10), Art no. 3591. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103591
51.
SolakogluM. N., & DemirN. (2016). The role of firm characteristics on the relationship between gender diversity and firm performance. Management Decision, 54(6), 1407–1419. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2015-0075
52.
Sustainable Development Goals (2019). Sustainable development report. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28036-8_101577
53.
TsouM. W., & YangC. H. (2019). Does gender structure affect firm productivity? Evidence from China. China Economic Review, 55(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2019.03.005
54.
UniteA. A., SullivanM. J., & ShiA. A. (2019). Board diversity and performance of Philippine firms: Do women matter?International Advances in Economic Research, 25(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-018-09718-z
55.
UsmanA. B., & AmranN. A. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility practice and corporate financial performance: Evidence from Nigeria companies. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(4), 749–763. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-04-2014-0050
56.
XieX., HuoJ., & ZouH. (2019, January). Green process innovation, green product innovation, and corporate financial performance: A content analysis method. Journal of Business Research, 101, 697–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.010
57.
XieX., JiaY., MengX., & LiC. (2017). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and financial performance: The moderating effect of the institutional environment in two transition economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 150, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.192
58.
YasserQ. R., Al MamunA., & AhmedI. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and gender diversity: Insights from Asia Pacific. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(3), 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1400
