This study aims to empirically examine the moderating effect of board gender diversity (BGD) on environmental performance and firm value. Following a longitudinal research design, it collects data by accessing the Bloomberg database for the National Stock Exchange (NSE)-listed Nifty-50 indexed firms covering 2018–2021. The study employs the Hausman test to identify a suitable model between fixed and random effects. The results have revealed that BGD is unlikely to moderate the relationship between environmental performance and firm value. However, the study reveals that BGD positively and significantly impacts environmental performance. On the other hand, the results report an insignificant relationship between BGD and firm value, proxying both accounting and market-based firm value measures. The study has acknowledged a few limitations and provided policy implications, such as introducing stringent measures for ensuring the independence of women directors (WDs) in boardroom discussions and a new provision to increase women’s participation on the board. Moreover, the study also paved the way for future research.
AdamsR. B., & FerreiraD. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291–309.
2.
AjazA., ShenbeiZ., & SarfrazM. (2020). Delineating the influence of boardroom gender diversity on corporate social responsibility, financial performance, and reputation. Logforum, 16(1), 61–74.
3.
AkhterF., HossainM. R., ElrehailH., RehmanS. U., & AlmansourB. (2023). Environmental disclosures and corporate attributes, from the lens of legitimacy theory: A longitudinal analysis on a developing country. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 32(3), 342–369.
4.
Al FadliA., SandsJ., JonesG., BeattieC., & PensieroD. (2019). Board gender diversity and CSR reporting: Evidence from Jordan. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 13(3), 29–52.
5.
AlmarayehT. (2023). Board gender diversity, board compensation and firm performance. Evidence from Jordan. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 21(3), 673–694.
6.
AlmeidaM. F. L. D., & MeloM. A. C. D. (2017). Sociotechnical regimes, technological innovation and corporate sustainability: From principles to action. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29(4), 395–413.
7.
AtanR., AlamM. M., SaidJ., & ZamriM. (2018). The impacts of environmental, social, and governance factors on firm performance: Panel study of Malaysian companies. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 29(2), 182–194.
8.
AtifM., HossainM., AlamM. S., & GoergenM. (2021). Does board gender diversity affect renewable energy consumption?Journal of Corporate Finance, 66, 101665.
9.
BalsamS., PuthenpurackalJ., & UpadhyayA. (2021). Corporate opacity and effectiveness of independent female directors. Journal of Corporate Finance, 69, 102007.
Bazel-ShohamO., LeeS. M., MunjalS., & ShohamA. (2024). Board gender diversity, feminine culture, and innovation for environmental sustainability. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 41(2), 293–322.
12.
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.
13.
BekturÇ., & ArzovaS. B. (2022). The effect of women managers in the board of directors of companies on the integrated reporting: Example of Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) Sustainability Index. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 12(2), 638–654.
14.
BhattacharyaS. (1979). Imperfect information, dividend policy, and “the bird in the hand” fallacy. The Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 259–270.
15.
BoydD. E., SpekmanR. E., KamauffJ. W., & WerhaneP. (2007). Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains: A procedural justice perspective. Long Range Planning, 40(3), 341–356.
16.
BrinetteS., SonmezF. D., & TournusP. S. (2023). ESG controversies and firm value: Moderating role of board gender diversity and board independence. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 4298–4307.
17.
BristyH. J., HowJ., & VerhoevenP. (2020). Gender diversity: The corporate social responsibility and financial performance nexus. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 17(5), 665–686.
18.
BrunningeO., NordqvistM., & WiklundJ. (2007). Corporate governance and strategic change in SMEs: The effects of ownership, board composition and top management teams. Small Business Economics, 14(3), 295–308.
19.
CampanellaF., SerinoL., CrisciA., & D’AmbraA. (2021). The role of corporate governance in environmental policy disclosure and sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(1), 474–484.
20.
CarterD. A., SimkinsB. J., & SimpsonW. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Review, 38(1), 33–53.
21.
CataltepeV., KamasakR., BulutlarF., & AlkanD. P. (2022). Dynamic and marketing capabilities as determinants of firm performance: Evidence from automotive industry. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 17(3), 617–638.
22.
Deloitte. (2018). Women in the board room, a global perspective (6th ed.). Deloitte Global Center for Corporate Governance.
23.
DienesD., & VelteP. (2016). The impact of supervisory board composition on CSR reporting. Evidence from the German two-tier system. Sustainability, 8(1), 63.
24.
DyduchJ., & KrasodomskaJ. (2017). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An empirical study of Polish listed companies. Sustainability, 9(11), 1934.
25.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.
26.
EleftheriadisI. M., & AnagnostopoulouE. G. (2015). Relationship between corporate climate change disclosures and firm factors. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(8), 780–789.
27.
ElmagrhiM. H., NtimC. G., ElamerA. A., & ZhangQ. (2019). A study of environmental policies and regulations, governance structures, and environmental performance: The role of female directors. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 206–220.
28.
FarooqueO. A., DahawyK., ShehataN., & SolimanM. (2022). ESG disclosure, board diversity and ownership: Did the revolution make a difference in Egypt?Corporate Ownership & Control, 19(2), 67–80.
29.
FerramoscaS., & VeronaR. (2020). Framing the evolution of corporate social responsibility as a discipline (1973–2018): A large-scale scientometric analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 178–203.
30.
FreemanR. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman Publishing.
31.
FuadahL. L., DewiK., & ArismanA. (2018). Determinant factors effect environmental disclosure and firm value at mining companies listed Indonesia Stock Exchange. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 68, p. 03015). EDP Sciences.
32.
Garcia-ToreaN., Fernandez-FeijooB., & de la Cuesta-GonzálezM. (2017). The influence of ownership structure on the transparency of CSR reporting: Empirical evidence from Spain. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting, 46(3), 249–271.
33.
GlassC., CookA., & IngersollA. 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.
34.
GodboleM., & ManognaR. L. (2024). Does internationalization and board diversity affect family firms’ sustainable performance? Empirical evidence from an emerging economy. Business Strategy & Development, 7(2), e365.
35.
GullA. A., SaeedA., SulemanM. T., & MushtaqR. (2022). Revisiting the association between environmental performance and financial performance: Does the level of environmental orientation matter?Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(5), 1647–1662.
36.
GulzarM. A., CherianJ., HwangJ., JiangY., & SialM. S. (2019). The impact of board gender diversity and foreign institutional investors on the corporate social responsibility (CSR) engagement of Chinese listed companies. Sustainability, 11(2), 307.
37.
HafsiT., & TurgutG. (2013). Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance: Conceptualization and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 463–479.
38.
HambrickD. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343.
39.
HeubeckT. (2023). Walking on the gender tightrope: Unlocking ESG potential through CEOs’ dynamic capabilities and strategic board composition. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(3), 2020–2039.
40.
HillmanA. J., WithersM. C., & CollinsB. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427.
41.
IslamM., SlofJ., & AlbitarK. (2023). The mediation effect of audit committee quality and internal audit function quality on the firm size–financial reporting quality nexus. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 24(5), 839–858.
42.
IssaA., & In’airatM. (2023). From words to action: Unpacking the real impact of sustainability initiatives on carbon emissions reduction. Social Responsibility Journal, 20(3), 585–604.
43.
JensenM. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.
44.
JensenM. C., & MecklingW. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
45.
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.
46.
JohnsenT. E., MiemczykJ., & HowardM. (2017). A systematic literature review of sustainable purchasing and supply research: Theoretical perspectives and opportunities for IMP-based research. Industrial Marketing Management, 61, 130–143.
47.
KhanH. U. Z. (2010). The effect of corporate governance elements on corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: Empirical evidence from private commercial banks of Bangladesh. International Journal of Law and Management, 52(2), 82–109.
48.
KhatibS. F., AbdullahD. F., ElamerA. A., & AbueidR. (2021). Nudging toward diversity in the boardroom: A systematic literature review of board diversity of financial institutions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(2), 985–1002.
49.
KılıçM., & KuzeyC. (2016). The effect of board gender diversity on firm performance: Evidence from Turkey. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 31(7), 434–455.
50.
LeA. T., TranT. P., & ChengT. C. F. (2022). Do female directors mitigate asymmetric cost behavior? Evidence from international data. Finance Research Letters, 49, 103121.
51.
LiY., de VilliersC., LiL. Z., & LiL. (2022). The moderating effect of board gender diversity on the relation between corporate social responsibility and firm value. Journal of Management Control, 33(1), 109–143.
52.
LoukilN., YousfiO., & YerbangaR. (2019). Does gender diversity on boards influence stock market liquidity? Empirical evidence from the French market. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 19(4), 669–703.
53.
MaggiB., GjergjiR., VenaL., SciasciaS., & CortesiA. (2023). Family firm status and environmental disclosure: The moderating effect of board gender diversity. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 32(4), 1334–1351.
54.
MatsaD. A., & MillerA. R. (2013). A female style in corporate leadership? Evidence from quotas. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(3), 136–169.
55.
MousaG. A., DesokyA. M., & KhanG. U. (2018). The association between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure-evidence from gulf cooperation council countries. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 22(4), 1–19.
56.
NguyenT. H., ElmagrhiM. H., NtimC. G., & WuY. (2021). Environmental performance, sustainability, governance and financial performance: Evidence from heavily polluting industries in China. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(5), 2313–2331.
57.
PaelemanI., GuensterN., VanackerT., & SiqueiraA. C. O. (2024). The consequences of financial leverage: Certified B Corporations’ advantages compared to common commercial firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 189(3), 507–523.
58.
PfefferJ., & SalancikG. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.
59.
PostC., RahmanN., & RubowE. (2011). Green governance: Boards of directors’ composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business & Society, 50(1), 189–223.
60.
ProvasiR., & HarashehM. (2021). Gender diversity and corporate performance: Emphasis on sustainability performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(1), 127–137.
61.
QureshiM. A., KirkerudS., TheresaK., & AhsanT. (2020). The impact of sustainability (environmental, social, and governance) disclosure and board diversity on firm value: The moderating role of industry sensitivity. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 1199–1214.
62.
RaoK., & TiltC. (2016). Board diversity and CSR reporting: An Australian study. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 11(2), 146–166.
63.
Reyes-BastidasC., & Briano-TurrentG. D. C. (2018). Women in leadership positions and corporate sustainability: Evidence on listed companies from Colombia and Chile. Estudios Gerenciales, 34(149), 385–399.
64.
SaunilaM., NasiriM., UkkoJ., & RantalaT. (2019). Smart technologies and corporate sustainability: The mediation effect of corporate sustainability strategy. Computers in Industry, 108, 178–185.
65.
SpenceM. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374.
66.
TerjesenS., CoutoE. B., & FranciscoP. M. (2016). Does the presence of independent and female directors impact firm performance? A multi-country study of board diversity. Journal of Management & Governance, 20, 447–483.
67.
TshetshemaC. T., & ChanK. Y. (2020). A systematic literature review of the relationship between demographic diversity and innovation performance at team-level. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 32(8), 955–967.
68.
UllahI., FangH., & JebranK. (2020). Do gender diversity and CEO gender enhance firm’s value? Evidence from an emerging economy. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 20(1), 44–66.
69.
WalkerP. H., SeuringP. S., SarkisP. J., & KlassenP. R. (2014). Sustainable operations management: Recent trends and future directions. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 34(5). https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ijopm-12-2013-0557/full/html
70.
WangG., ZengS., XiaB., WuG., & XiaD. (2022). Influence of financial conditions on the environmental information disclosure of construction firms. Journal of Management in Engineering, 38(1), 04021078.
71.
YadavI. S., PahiD., & GoyariP. (2020). The size and growth of firms: New evidence on law of proportionate effect from Asia. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 14(1), 91–108.
