India has mandated at least one woman to be on company boards, starting in October 2014. This study aims to investigate the impact of female board members on market-based firm performance, using data from a sample of S&P Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) 500-listed firms from 2015 to 2022. By incorporating social theory and stakeholder theory, the study examines the circumstances under which female board members influence firm performance. Additionally, the study explores how their positive influence on sustainable practices affects market performance. The role of firm innovation intensity in moderating this connection is also explored. The study utilizes structural equation modeling (SEM) and PROCESS macro for quantitative empirical analysis. The results indicate that having female board representation is a strategic choice that significantly impacts a company’s performance in the market. The findings also reveal that when companies prioritize innovation, the presence of female board members has a positive influence. Overall, this research supports the “business case” argument, suggesting that female board representation through sustainability mechanisms can enhance market performance. The study’s outcomes provide valuable insights for investors, practitioners, and policymakers.
AbdullahS. N., IsmailK. N. I. K., & NachumL. (2016). Does having women on boards create value? The impact of societal perceptions and corporate governance in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 66–476.
2.
AdamsR. (2016). Women on boards: The superheroes of tomorrow?The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 371–386.
3.
AdamsR. B., & FerreiraD. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291–309.
4.
AdamsR. B., & FunkP. (2012). Beyond the glass ceiling: Does gender matter?Management Science, 58(2), 219–235.
5.
AmranA., LeeS. P., & DeviS. (2014). The influence of governance structure and strategic corporate social responsibility towards sustainability reporting quality. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(4), 217–235.
6.
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
7.
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.
8.
BouloutaI. (2013). Hidden connections: The link between board gender diversity and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2), 185–197.
9.
ByronK., & PostC. (2016). Women on boards of directors and corporate social performance: A meta-analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(4), 428–442.
10.
ConyonM. J. (2017). Firm performance and boardroom gender diversity: A quantile regression approach. Journal of Business Ethics Research, 79, 198–211.
11.
DuppatiG., RaoN. V., MatlaniN., ScrimgeourF., & PatnaikD. (2020). Gender diversity and firm performance: Evidence from India and Singapore. Applied Economics, 52, 1553–1565.
EaglyA. H. (2016). When passionate advocates meet research on diversity, does the honest broker stand a chance?Journal of Social Issues, 72(1), 199–222.
14.
ElsesserK. M., & LeverJ. (2011). Does gender bias against female leaders persist? Quantitative and qualitative data from a large-scale survey. Human Relations, 64(12), 1555–1578.
15.
Fernandez-FeijooB., RomeroS., & RuizS. (2012). Transparent information system for sustainability. A sectoral analysis. Procedia Technology, 5, 31–39.
16.
GalbreathJ. (2018). Is board gender diversity linked to financial performance? The mediating mechanism of CSR. Business and Society, 57, 863–889.
17.
GlassC., CookA., & IngersollA. R. (2016). Do female leaders promote sustainability? Analysing the effect of corporate governance composition on environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(7), 495–511.
18.
HaslamS. A., RyanM. K., KulichC., TrojanowskiG., & AtkinsC. (2009). Investing with prejudice: The relationship between women’s presence on company boards and objective and subjective measures of company performance. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 484–497.
19.
HayesA. F., & PreacherK. J. (2013). Conditional process modelling: Using structural equation modelling to examine contingent casual processes. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course(2nd ed., pp. 219–266). IAP Information Age Publishing.
20.
HayesA. F., & RockwoodN. J. (2020). Conditional process analysis: Concepts, computation, and advances in the modeling of the contingencies of mechanisms. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(1), 19–54.
21.
HillmanA. J., CannellaA. A.Jr, & HarrisI. C. (2002). Women and racial minorities in the boardroom: How do directors differ?Journal of Management, 28(6), 747–763.
22.
KirschA. (2018). The gender composition of corporate boards: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 346–364.
23.
LiuY., LeiL., & ButtnerE. H. (2020). Establishing the boundary conditions for female board directors’ influence on firm performance through CSR. Journal of Business Research, 121, 112–120.
24.
LuoX., & BhattacharyaC. B. (2009), The debate over doing good: Corporate social performance, strategic marketing levers, and firm-idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 198–213.
25.
McWilliamsA., & SiegelD. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.
26.
PandeyN., AndresC., & KumarS. (2022). Mapping the corporate governance scholarship: Current state and future directions. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 31(1), 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12444
27.
PathanS., & FaffR. (2013). Does board structure in banks really affect their performance?Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(5), 1573–1589.
28.
PostC., & ByronK. (2015). Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. The Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1546–1571.
29.
ReedA. M. (2002). Corporate governance reforms in India. Journal of Business Ethics, 37, 249–268.
30.
RichardO. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A resource-based approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 164–177.
31.
RichardO., McMillanA., ChadwickK., & DwyerS. (2003). Employing an innovation strategy in racially diverse workforces: Effects on firm performance. Group & Organisation Management, 28(1), 107–126.
32.
RobinsonG., & DechantK. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. Academy of Management Perspectives, 11(3), 21–31.
33.
RosetteA. S., & TostL. P. (2010). Agentic women and communal leadership: How role prescriptions confer advantage to top women leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 221.
34.
SahaR. (2023). The impact of board-level female directors on firm performance: Evidence from India. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 42(8), 945–967.
35.
SchwartzS. H., & RubelT. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 1010.
36.
ShahA., & PaliwalU. L. (2022). Corporate governance and financial performance: A study of the Indian drug and pharmaceutical industry. International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 24(3), 357–373.
37.
ShahA., ShomeS., & BhayaniS. (2024). Firms characteristics and board composition impact on dividend policy: A study on the role of the crisis (pandemic) period in the Indian context. Journal of Commerce and Accounting Research, 13(2), 50–64.
38.
TerjesenS., AguileraR. V., & LorenzR. (2015). Legislating a woman’s seat on the board: Institutional factors driving gender quotas for boards of directors. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(2), 233–251.
39.
TerjesenS., & SealyR. (2016). Board gender quotas: Exploring ethical tensions from a multi-theoretical perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(1), 23–65.
40.
WilliamsR. J. (2003). Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(1), 1–10.
41.
YangP., RiepeJ., MoserK., PullK., & TerjesenS. (2019). Women directors, firm performance, and firm risk: A causal perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(5), 1–15.
42.
YoshikawaT., ShimJ. W., KimC. H., & TuschkeA. (2020). How do board ties affect the adoption of new practices? The effects of managerial interest and hierarchical power. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 28, 2–22.
