Arguments based on ethical sensitivity differences, gender-based functional differences, and gender discrimination suggest that having more women on the board of directors improves corporate environmental actions (CEA). However, empirical evidence of this relationship has provided inconsistent results. To explore this inconsistency, we draw on critical mass theory to examine how women on boards influence CEA. Using a sample of Chinese listed firms during 2010–2016, we find that firms with a critical mass of at least three female directors on their boards engage in both higher quality and faster speed of environmental actions. In addition, we find that government monitoring (as a formal institution) positively moderates this relationship. We also find that local religious ideology (as an informal institution) positively moderates the relationship between critical mass of women on the boards and CEA speed. Our findings provide insights about gender diversity on boards to corporations and policymakers.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regressions: Testing and interpreting interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
2.
Ben-AmarW.ChangM.McIlkennyP. (2015). Board gender diversity and corporate response to sustainability initiatives: Evidence from the carbon disclosure project. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2), 369-383.
3.
ChambersA. E.PenmanS. H. (1984). Timeliness of reporting and the stock price reaction to earnings announcements. Journal of Accounting Research, 22(1), 21.
4.
ChangE. H.MilkmanK. L.ChughD.AkinolaM. (2018). Diversity thresholds: How social norms, visibility, and scrutiny relate to group composition. Academy of Management Journal, 62(1), 144-171.
ChiuS.WallsJ. L. (2019). Leadership change and corporate social performance: The context of financial distress makes all the difference. Leadership Quarterly, 30(5), 101307.
7.
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.
8.
CookA.GlassC. (2018). Women on corporate boards: Do they advance corporate social responsibility?Human Relations, 71(7), 897-924.
9.
CrosslandC.HambrickD. C. (2011). Differences in managerial discretion across countries: How nation-level institutions affect the degree to which CEOs matter. Strategic Management Journal, 32(8), 797-819.
10.
CummingD. J.LeungT. Y.RuiO. M. (2015). Gender diversity and securities fraud. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1572-1593.
11.
DawsonL. M. (1997). Ethical differences between men and women in the sales profession. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1143-1152.
DuX.DuY.ZengQ.PeiH.ChangY. (2016). Religious atmosphere, law enforcement, and corporate social responsibility: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(1), 229-265.
14.
EaglyA. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter?The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 459-474.
15.
ElyR.J. (1994). The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 203-238.
GilliganC. (1982). In. A different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
GlassC.CookA.IngersollA. R. (2015). Do women leaders promote sustainability? Analyzing the effect of corporate governance composition on environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(7), 495-511.
19.
GuptaV. K.HanS.NandaV.Silveri (Dino)S. (2018). When crisis knocks, call a powerful CEO (or Not). Group & Organization Management,43(6), 971-998.
20.
HeckmanJ. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153.
21.
HelmkeG.LevitskyS. (eds). (2006). Informal institutions and democracy: Lessons from Latin America. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press.
22.
HilaryG.HuiK. W. (2009). Does religion matter in corporate decision making in America?Journal of Financial Economics, 93(3), 455-473.
23.
JiaM.RuanH.ZhangZ. (2017). How rumors fly?Journal of Business Research, 72, 33-45.
24.
JiaM.XiangY.ZhangZ. (2019). Indirect reciprocity and corporate philanthropic giving: How visiting officials influence investment in privately owned Chinese firms. Journal of Management Studies, 56(2), 372-407.
25.
JiaM.ZhangZ. (2013). Critical mass of women on BODs, multiple identities, and corporate philanthropic disaster response: Evidence from privately owned Chinese firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2), 303-317.
26.
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.
27.
KanterR. M. (1977a). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
28.
KanterR. M. (1977b). Some effects of proportions on group life. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965-990.
29.
KassinisG.VafeasN. (2006). Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 145-159.
30.
KimE.LyonT. P. (2015). Greenwash vs. brownwash: Exaggeration and undue modesty in corporate sustainability disclosure. Organization Science, 26(3), 705-723.
31.
KonradA. M.KramerV.ErkutS.. (2008). Critical mass: The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics, 37(2), 145-164.
32.
LewisB. W.WallsJ. L.DowellG. W. (2014). Difference in degrees: CEO characteristics and firm environmental disclosure. Strategic Management Journal, 35(5), 712-722.
33.
LiaoL.LuoL.TangQ. (2015). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, 47(4), 409-424.
34.
LuoJ. H.XiangY.ZhuR.. (2017). Military top executives and corporate philanthropy: Evidence from china. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34(3), 725-755.
35.
LuoX. R.ZhangJ.MarquisC. (2016). Mobilization in the internet age: Internet activism and corporate response. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 2045-2068.
36.
MarquisC.GlynnM. A.DavisG.F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925-945.
37.
MarquisC.QianC. (2013). Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance?Organization Science, 25(1), 127-148.
38.
McguireS. T.OmerT. C.SharpN. Y. (2011). The impact of religion on financial reporting irregularities. Accounting Review, 87(2), 645-673.
39.
NemethC. J (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23.
40.
NorthD. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41.
NorthD. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97-112.
42.
PetersenM. A. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparingapproaches. The Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435-480.
PostC.RahmanN.RubowE. (2011). Green governance: Boards of directors’ composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business & Society, 50, 189-223.
45.
Prado-LorenzoJ. M.Garcia-SanchezI. M.. (2010). The role of the board of directors in disseminating relevant information on greenhouse gases. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(3), 391-424.
46.
RichardO.TrianaM CLiM.. (2020). The effects of racial diversity congruence between upper management and lower management on firm productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 2020(1), 17275.
47.
RichardO. C.WuJ.MarkoczyL.ChungY. (2019). Top management team demographic‐faultline strength and strategic change: What role does environmental dynamism play?Strategic Management Journal, 40(6), 987-1009.
48.
RyanT. Y. (1997). Modern regression analysis.New York: Wiley.
49.
RyanL. V. (2016). Sex differences through a neuroscience lens: Implications for business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(4), 771-782.
50.
SchachterS (1959). The psychology of affiliation.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
51.
Schwartz-ZivM. (2017). Gender and board activeness: The role of a critical mass. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 52(2), 751-780.
52.
ScottW. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Oaks, CA: Thousande Oakes: Sage.
53.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin.
54.
SinghV.TerjesenS.VinnicombeS. (2008). Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: How do women and men differ?. European Management Journal, 26(1), 48-58.
55.
SouleS. A.KingB. G. (2006). The stages of the policy process and the equal rights amendment, 1972–1982. American Journal of Sociology, 111(6), 1871-1909.
56.
TangY.QianC.ChenG.ShenR. (2015) How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir) responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9), 1338-1357.
57.
TaylorS. E.KleinL. C.LewisB. P.GruenewaldT. L.GurungR. A.UpdegraffJ. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107(3), 411.
58.
TorchiaM.CalabroA.HuseM. (2011). Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2), 299-317.
59.
TraceyP. (2012). Religion and organization: A critical review of current trends and future directions. Academy of Management Annals6(1), 87-134.
60.
Vicente-MolinaM. A.Fernandez-SainzA.Izagirre-OlaizolaJ. (2018). Does gender make a difference in pro-environmental behavior? the case of the basque country university students. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 89-98.
61.
WallsJ. L.BerroneP. (2017). The power of one to make a difference: How informal and formal CEO power affect environmental sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 145, 293-308.
62.
WallsJ. L.BerroneP.PhanP. H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link?Strategic Management Journal, 33(8), 885-913.
63.
WallsJ. L.HoffmanA. J. (2013). Exceptional boards: Environmental experience and positive deviance from institutional norms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 253-271.
64.
WallsJ. L.SalaizA.ChiuS.C. (2020). Wanted: Heroic leaders to drive the transition to ‘business beyond usual’. Strategic Organization. Forthcoming.
65.
WangH.QianC. (2011). Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: The roles of stakeholder response and political access. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1159-1181.
66.
WangR.WijenF.HeugensP. P. (2018). Government's green grip: Multifaceted state influence on corporate environmental actions in China. Strategic Management Journal, 39(2), 403-428.
67.
WiernikB. M.DilchertS.OnesD. S. (2016). Age and employee green behaviors: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 194.
68.
WiernikB. M.OnesD. S.DilchertS. (2013). Age and environmental sustainability: A meta-analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(7-8), 826-856.
69.
XuX.LiY.LiuX.GanW. (2017). Does religion matter to corruption? Evidence from China. China Economic Review, 42, 34-49.
70.
XuJ.WeiJ.LuL. (2019). Strategic stakeholder management, environmental corporate social responsibility engagement, and financial performance of stigmatized firms derived from Chinese special environmental policy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(6), 1027-1044.
71.
YouJ. (2019). Beyond “twokenism”: Organizational factors enabling female directors to affect the appointment of a female CEO. Strategic Organization. Forthcoming. doi:10.1177/1476127019893929
72.
ZhangJ.MarquisC.QiaoK. (2016). Do political connections buffer firms from or bind firms to the government? A study of corporate charitable donations of Chinese firms. Organization Science, 27(5), 1307-1324.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
