Women on Boards of Directors and Corporate Social Performance: A Meta‐Analysis

• Author: Corinne Post,Kris Byron
• Date: 01 July 2016
• Published date: 01 July 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12165

Women on Boards of Directors and Corporate

Social Performance: A Meta-Analysis

Kris Byron and Corinne Post*

ABSTRACT

Research Question: Whether and how women directors inf‌luence f‌irms’engagement in sociallyresponsible business practices

and social reputation among diverse stakeholders is unclear due to conf‌licting empirical evidence,the lack of a coherent theory

linking these variables, and inattention to the national contexts in which these relationships occurs.

Research Findings: Results from our meta-analysis of 87 independent samples suggest that, while generally positive, the

female board representation–social performance relationship is even more positive in national contexts when boards may be

more motivated to draw on the resources that women directors bring to a board (i.e., among f‌irms operatingin countries with

stronger shareholder protections)and in contexts where intra-board power distributionmay be more balanced (i.e.,in countries

with higher gender parity).

TheoreticalImplications: Future studiesshould more attentively examinehow f‌irms’institutionalcontexts enhance or mitigate

the relationshipbetween women’s representation on boards and corporate social performance. Our f‌indings also highlight the

need for a comprehensiveunderstanding of the social performance-related knowledge, perspectives, and values that men and

women bring to boards.

Practitioner/Pol icy Implications: Our results suggestthat, to enhance any benef‌its of diversityfor corporate social performance,

efforts be directed at holding boards more accountable toward diverse stakeholders and improving the status of women in

society and in the workforce.

Keywords: Corporate Governance, Board of Directors, Corporate Social Responsibility, Diversity, Women

INTRODUCTION

Social issues, suchas climate change, natural resource chal-

lenges, social inclusion, and gender parity, are among the

most pressing global challenges facing twenty-f‌irst-century

economic actors (World Economic Forum, 2014). Corporate

governancemay considerably inf‌luence f‌irms’impact on such

social issues, for example, when boards of directors weigh in

on decisions directly or indirectly affecting corporate social

performance (Maon, Lindgreen, & Swaen, 2009).

In addition to addressing social issues, corporate social

performanceis increasingly perceivedas a competitive advan-

tage for f‌irms (McWilliams, Siegel, & Wright, 2006; Porter &

Kramer, 2006). Corporate social performance is positively

associated with organizational commitment (Brammer,

Millington, & Rayton, 2007), employee satisfaction (Bauman

& Skitka, 2012), costand risk reduction, perceived legitimacy,

and stakeholder satisfaction (Carroll, 1999) –all of which

likely indirectly contribute to the bottom line. This may

explain why meta-analytic evidence f‌inds that corporate

social performancecontributes to f‌irms’f‌inancialperformance

(Lu, Chau, Wang, & Pan, 2014; Orlitzky, Schmidt, & Rynes,

2003; Wood, 2010).

Not surprisingly then, boards of directors –and corporate

governance scholars –have increasingly directed their attention

to f‌inding ways to increase corporate social performance

(Kakabadse, 2007; Rahim, 2012). One oft-recommended

solution is to increase the number of women on boards

(Catalyst, 2011; Credit Suisse, 2012; Ernst & Young, 2013),

based on the idea that the experience and values of female

directors may positively impact corporate social responsibil-

ity and reputation (Adams, Haan, Terjesen, & Ees, 2015;

Terjesen, Sealy, & Singh, 2009). Yet, the results from empirical

studies examining a possible link between board gender

diversity and corporate social performance are mixed: some

studies have found a positive relationship (e.g., Post,

Rahman, & Rubow, 2011; Skaggs, Stainback, & Duncan,

2012); others have found a negative or null relationship

(e.g., Rao, Tilt, & Lester, 2012; Rodriguez-Dominguez,

Gallego-Alvarez, & Garcia-Sanchez, 2009).

One of the reasons t hat f‌indings across studies may vary is

that studies tend to focus on f‌irms from a single country.

And, as the institution-based view suggests (Aguilera &

*Address forcorrespondence: Corinne Post,Lehigh University,College of Business and

Economics,621 Taylor Street, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA. Tel: +1-610.758-5882;Fax: +1-

610-758-6941;E-mail: cgp208@lehigh.edu

© 2016 JohnWiley & Sons Ltd

doi:10.1111/corg.12165

428

Corporate Governance: An International Review, 2016, 24(4): 428–442