This study builds on and extends the literature on corporate governance and environmental sustainability by investigating the moderating roles of green innovation and corporate social responsibility (CSR) engagement in the relationship between board gender diversity and environmental performance (EP). Using a panel data set of 439 manufacturing firms across the Latin American and Caribbean region from 2010 to 2023, we employ the generalised method of moments and the instrumental variable two-stage least square to address endogeneity concerns and ensure robust estimation. The findings reveal that greater gender diversity on corporate boards significantly enhances firms’ EP. Moreover, green innovation not only directly improves EP but also amplifies the positive influence of gender-diverse boards. Higher CSR participation strengthens the association between board gender diversity and EP, demonstrating that proactive CSR activities enable diverse boards to affect environmental outcomes. The data also show regional and industry variability, suggesting contextual variables shape these processes. These results show the synergy between governance structures and strategic sustainability efforts, adding to the conversation on board composition, sustainable innovation and CSR. Policymakers, practitioners and stakeholders seeking inclusive governance and ecologically responsible business behaviour may learn from the research.
AgyemangA. O., YushengK., & OseiA. (2025). Addressing sustainability footprint disclosure for high pollutant firms in China and the US: The roles of firms governance structure, financing decisions, and eco-technology. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 32(2), 2835–2858.
2.
AlodatA. Y., HaoY., & NobaneeH. (2025). How sustainability committees moderate the link between ESG performance and environmental innovation in European firms?Business Process Management Journal.
3.
Al-RahmiW. M., YahayaN., AldraiweeshA. A., AlamriM. M., AljarboaN. A., AlturkiU., & AljeraiwiA. A. (2019). Integrating technology acceptance model with innovation diffusion theory: An empirical investigation on students’ intention to use e-learning systems. IEEE Access, 7, 26797–26809.
4.
ArellanoM., & BondS. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297.
5.
ArellanoM., & BoverO. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29–51.
6.
AshrafS., AlodatA. Y., & ZeitunR. M. A. (2025). The impact of board gender diversity on environmental innovation and the mediating role of the CSR committee. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 32(3), 3590–3601.
7.
AyadiI., HussainN., & MwambuliE. (2025). Economic policy uncertainty and ecological performance of European companies: Does the role of the board matter?Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 32(3), 3138–3149.
8.
BakkabulindiF. E. K. (2014). A call for return to Rogers’ innovation diffusion theory. Makerere Journal of Higher Education, 6(1), 55–85.
9.
BayongD., BawuahB., & AmoahE. (2024). Advancing environmental, social, and governance disclosure in emerging economies: Does regulatory environment and ownership structure matter?SN Business & Economics, 5(1), 11.
10.
BlomquistJ., & WesterlundJ. (2013). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels with serial correlation. Economics Letters, 121(3), 374–378.
11.
BlundellR., & BondS. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115–143.
12.
BoakyeP. B., BawuahB., & BayondD. (2025). Leveraging firm governance mechanisms for integrated reporting in sub-Saharan Africa: does earnings management matter?SN Business & Economics, 5(3), 1–34.
13.
BondS. R. (2002). Dynamic panel data models: a guide to micro data methods and practice. Portuguese Economic Journal, 1(2), 141–162.
14.
BoutmaghzouteH., JebliF., AboramadanM., & CabralC. (2025). Effect of green inclusive leadership on employees’ CSR performance: A serial mediation analysis. Journal of Global Responsibility.
15.
CantonH. (2021). United Nations Environment Programme—UNEP. In The Europa directory of international organizations 2021 (pp. 188–214). Routledge.
16.
ChernozhukovV., HansenC., KallusN., SpindlerM., & SyrgkanisV. (2024). Applied causal inference powered by ML and AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02467.
17.
EmadEldeenR., ElbayuomiA. F., ElmoursyH., BouaddiM., & BasuonyM. A. (2025). Does board diversity drive sustainability? Evidence from UK-listed companies. Sustainability, 17(3), 1177.
18.
GangiF., DanieleL. M., D’AngeloE., VarroneN., & CosciaM. (2023). The impact of board gender diversity on banks’ environmental policy: The moderating role of gender inequality in national culture. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(3), 1273–1291.
19.
GiannarakisG., AndronikidisA., & SariannidisN. (2020). Determinants of environmental disclosure: Investigating new and conventional corporate governance characteristics. Annals of Operations Research, 294(1), 87–105.
20.
Grau-GrauA., BrancoM., & Bel-OmsI. (2025). Board characteristics and stakeholder engagement and ESG performance: The relevance of European gender parity. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 32(3), 3193–3209.
21.
GroupW. B. (2022). Global economic prospects, January 2022. World Bank Publications.
22.
HambrickD. C., & MasonP. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of management review, 9(2), 193-206.
23.
HesniatiH., VerandiR., & YulfiswandiY. (2025). The impact of gender diversity on firm performance: Intellectual capital as a moderator. At-Tadbir: jurnal ilmiah manajemen, 9(1).
KhanP. A., JohlS. K., & AkhtarS. (2022). Vinculum of sustainable development goal practices and firms’ financial performance: A moderation role of green innovation. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 15(3), 96.
26.
KhanS., RehmanS., & NasirA. (2025). Investigating the factors affecting green innovation of service sector: A moderated mediation model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 28(2), 141–165.
27.
KianiA., Bullini OrlandiL., & ChenQ. (2024). Greening the path to disruptive innovation: The roles of CEOs characteristics, green organizational identity, and green product competitiveness. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(7), 6139–6155.
28.
LestariK. C., & SoewarnoN. (2024). Do female directors influence firm value? The mediating role of green innovation. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 39(2), 255–273.
29.
LuF., DuS., MehmoodK., & HakeemM. M. (2025). Steering sustainability: The interplay of CEO imprints, organizational performance, and government policies in green innovation. Sustainability, 17(3), 1234.
30.
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.
31.
ManfaA., TriyonoT., & BawonoA. (2024). Financial performance, gender diversity and corporate environmental performance: The moderating role of firm size. Jurnal AKSI (Akuntansi dan Sistem Informasi), 9(1).
32.
MansourM., ShubitaM. F., LutfiA., SalehM. W., & SaadM. (2024). Female leadership and green innovation: Evidence from Asian Firms. SSRN 4991690.
33.
MonteroJ. M., Valls MartínezM. d. C., & Santos-JaénJ. M. (2024). The impact of board gender diversity on green building practices: Moving beyond traditional linear and logistic specifications. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 32(2), 1779–1830.
34.
MousaH., KhalifaW., & AlzubiA. (2024). Green supply chain practices and environmental performance: A moderated role of adaptive green culture and mediated role of competitive pressure. Sustainability, 17(1), 12.
35.
NepalM., DasP., & SahuR. (2025). Environmental performance and firm value: The moderating effect of board gender diversity. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 5, 318.
36.
NugrohoD. S. (2023). Gender diversity and sustainability performance: The role of financial technology adoption as moderator. Ilomata International Journal of Tax and Accounting, 4(4), 799–812.
37.
OrrG. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, by Everett Rogers (1995).
38.
OyewoB., MosesO., & OrazalinN. (2025). Board gender diversity and carbon trade finance: Evidence from multinational corporations on the role of institutional quality and cultural environment. Business Strategy and the Environment, 34(4), 4165–4190.
39.
PesaranM. H., & YamagataT. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50–93.
40.
PesaranM. H., UllahA., & YamagataT. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105–127.
41.
RoodmanD. (2009). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. The Stata Journal, 9(1), 86–136.
42.
SaeedU. F., KamilR., & WireduI. (2024). The moderating role of technological innovation on ownership structure, financing decisions and environmental accounting disclosure. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2396543.
43.
SaeedU. F., NingW., & AgyemangA. O. (2024). Advancing Sustainable Development Goal 15: The role of corporate governance structures and environmental regulations in emerging economies. Sustainable Development, 33(3), 3403–3426.
44.
ShaheenR., & LuoQ. (2023). Green innovation and political embeddedness in China’s heavily polluted industry: Role of environmental disclosure, gender diversity, and enterprise growth. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(43), 97498–97517.
45.
ShakilM. H. (2021). Environmental, social and governance performance and financial risk: Moderating role of ESG controversies and board gender diversity. Resources Policy, 72, 102144.
46.
ShaoY., & XuK. (2025). Corporate board network and green technological innovation: A view of guanxi culture in China. Industry and Innovation, 32(1), 53–83.
47.
SkareM., GavurovaB., & KovacV. (2025). Female entrepreneurship involvement in digital transformation process through perspective of gender employment and pay gaps. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 21(1), 1–21.
48.
TariqW., TariqA., & NemilentsevaM. (2024). Advancing gender equality in banking: The role of female directors and board monitoring in driving financial performance. Journal of Economic Sciences, 3(2), 227–244.
Thanh Thuy NgocT. (2025). Unlocking environmental management accounting and environmental performance: A mediated moderation model through green technology innovation and environmental strategy. Meditari Accountancy Research, 33(2), 733–758.
51.
TohaM. A., JohlS. K., KhanP. A., & SalimM. (2025). Why diverse boards are market game-changers: Driving the sustainable future from the lens of proactive eco-innovation for firm market performance. Quality & Quantity, 59(2), 1253–1282.
52.
UyarA., KuzeyC., & KaramanA. S. (2023). Does aggressive environmental, social, and governance engagement trigger firm risk? The moderating role of executive compensation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 398, 136542.
53.
van LieshoutJ. W., NijhofA. H., NaardingG. J., & BlommeR. J. (2021). Connecting strategic orientation, innovation strategy, and corporate sustainability: A model for sustainable development through stakeholder engagement. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(8), 4068–4080.
54.
WangC., TangF., ZhangQ., & ZhangW. (2025). How does corporate social responsibility contribute to innovation performance? The moderating role of social media strategic capability and big data analytics capability. European Journal of Innovation Management, 28(2), 631–655.
55.
WasanP., LuthraS., MulchandaniK., & VishnaniS. (2025). Interplay between financial markets, environmental stewardship, gender diversity, and firm size in emission-intensive sectors of emerging Asian economies: A board-level perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 34(2), 2139–2166.
56.
WesterlundJ., & BlomquistJ. (2013). A modified LLC panel unit root test of the PPP hypothesis. Empirical Economics, 44, 833–860.
57.
YazıcıA. M., & ÇiçeklioğluH. (2025). The moderating role of environmental ethics in the effect of green innovation awareness on corporate social responsibility. Social Responsibility Journal, 21(4), 826–854.
58.
ZahirS., ZainF., AslamM., & ShaheerS. A. (2025). Unpacking the mediation of innovation, environmental accounting, and strategy on the green culture-environmental performance relationship, moderated by managerial environmental knowledge. Indus Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 01–22.
59.
ZhangY., & FangM. (2025). Impact of the experience of the CEO and the board on CSR performance. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 1–35.
60.
ZhangD., LiB., FuQ., TangW., & FatimaT. (2025). Impact of CEOs’ environmental experience on corporate green innovation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 32(3), 3290–3312.
61.
ZhouD., SaeedU. F., & AgyemangA. O. (2024). Assessing the role of sustainability disclosure on firms’ financial performance: Evidence from the energy sector of Belt and Road Initiative countries. Sustainability, 16(2), 930.
