Skip to main content
Log in

Board Composition and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Diversity, Gender, Strategy and Decision Making

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper aims to critically review the existing literature on the relationship between corporate governance, in particular board diversity, and both corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social responsibility reporting (CSRR) and to suggest some important avenues for future research in this field. Assuming that both CSR and CSRR are outcomes of boards’ decisions, this paper proposes that examining boards’ decision making processes with regard to CSR would provide more insight into the link between board diversity and CSR. Particularly, the paper stresses the importance of studies linking gender diversity and CSR decision making processes, which is quite rare in the existing literature. It also highlights the importance of more qualitative methods and longitudinal studies for the development of understanding of the diversity–CSR relationship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2007). A theory of friendly boards. The Journal of Finance, 62, 217–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94, 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, R. B., Licht, A. N., & Sagiv, L. (2011). Shareholders and stakeholders: How do directors decide? Strategic Management Journal, 32, 1331–1355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amran, A., Lee, S. P., & Devi, S. S. (2013). The influence of governance structure and strategic corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23, 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arfken, D. E., Bellar, S. L., & Helms, M. M. (2004). The ultimate glass ceiling revisited: The presence of women on corporate boards. Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 177–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arguden, Y. (2012). Why boards need more women. Harvard Business Review.

  • Arora, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (2011). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR): The moderating roles of attainment discrepancy and organization slack. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(2), 136–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayuso, S., & Argandoña, A. (2007). Responsible corporate governance: Towards a stakeholder board of directors. Working Paper. Navarra: University of Navarra.

  • Balta, M. E., Woods, A., & Dickson, K. (2010). The influence of boards of directors’ characteristics on strategic decision-making: Evidence from Greek companies. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 26(3), 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barako, D. G., & Brown, A. M. (2008). Corporate social reporting and board representation: Evidence from the Kenyan banking sector. Journal of Management and Governance, 12, 309–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C. (2010). The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 207–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi, R. A., & Threadgill, V. H. (2010). Women directors and corporate social responsibility. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organizational Studies, 15, 15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilimoria, D. (2000). Building the business case for women corporate directors. In Women on corporate boards of directors: International challenges and opportunities (pp. 25–40). New York: Springer.

  • Bilimoria, D., & Wheeler, J. V. (2000). Women corporate directors: Current research and future directions. Women in Management: Current Research Issues, 2, 138–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bøhren, Ø. Y., & Strøm, R. Ø. (2010). Governance and politics: Regulating independence and diversity in the board room. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 37, 1281–1308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonn, I., Yoshikawa, T., & Phan, P. H. (2004). Effects of board structure on firm performance: A comparison between Japan and Australia. Asian Business & Management, 3, 105–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulouta, I. (2013). Hidden connections: The link between board gender diversity and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, P. (2010). Going green: Women entrepreneurs and the environment. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 2, 245–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, N. M., & Solomon, J. (2008). Corporate governance, accountability and mechanisms of accountability: An overview. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21, 885–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, R. J. (2000). Women on corporate boards of directors: Understanding the context. Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Challenges and Opportunities, 14, 179–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, M. A., & Westphal, J. D. (2001). The strategic context of external network ties: Examining the impact of director appointments on board involvement in strategic decision making. The Academy of Management Journal, 44, 639–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, D. A., D’souza, F., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2010). The gender and ethnic diversity of US boards and board committees and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18, 396–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Review, 38, 33–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catanzariti, J., & Lo, M. (2011). Corporate governance changes focus on diversity. Retrieved May 11, 2005, from http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/newsletters/discriminationand_diversityinsights/20110511/corporate_governance_changes_focus_on_diversity.page.

  • Chau, G., & Gray, S. J. (2010). Family ownership, board independence and voluntary disclosure: Evidence from Hong Kong. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 19, 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., & Bouvain, P. (2009). Is corporate responsibility converging? A comparison of corporate responsibility reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 299–317.

  • Chen, C. J. P., & Jaggi, B. (2001). Association between independent non-executive directors, family control and financial disclosures in Hong Kong. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 19, 285–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., & Van Staden, C. (2010). Stakeholder pressure, social trust, governance and the disclosure quality of environmental information. Sydney: APIRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, E., & Courtenay, S. M. (2006). Board composition, regulatory regime and voluntary disclosure. The International Journal of Accounting, 41, 262–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, M., Hambrick, D. C., & Treviño, L. K. (2013). Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58, 197–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coffey, B. S., & Wang, J. (1998). Board diversity and managerial control as predictors of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1595–1603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CPA Australia. (2005). The power of three. Available: http://www.cpaaustralia.com.au. Accessed 20 July 2012.

  • Cr-Index. (2014). Insight report: Integrating, measuring and managing responsible business practice. London: Business in the Community.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (2003). Women in the boardroom: A business imperative. Journal of Business Strategy, 24(5), 8–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Graaf, F. J., & Herkströter, C. A. (2007). How corporate social performance is institutionalised within the governance structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 177–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Villiers, C., Van Staden, C., & Naiker, V. (2009). Good corporate governance makes for good environmental performance. In AFAANZ conference (pp. 5–7).

  • Deegan, C. (1999). Triple Bottom Line Reporting: It’s the new reporting approach for the organisation of the future. Charter-Sydney, 70, 38–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte. (2011). Deloitte releases second edition of “Women in the boardroom: A global perspective”. Marketwire.

  • Donnelly, R., & Mulcahy, M. (2008). Board structure, ownership, and voluntary disclosure in Ireland. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16, 416–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, P., & Sainty, B. (2009). The relationship among board of director characteristics, corporate social performance and corporate financial performance. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 5, 407–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1999). Triple bottom line revolution: reporting for the third millennium. Australian CPA, 69, 75–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (2006). Governance for sustainability. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14, 522–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eng, L. L., & Mak, Y. T. (2003). Corporate governance and voluntary disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22, 325–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EOWA. (2008). A gender in the boardroom. Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA): Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erhardt, N. L., Werbel, J. D., & Shrader, C. B. (2003). Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11, 102–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erkut, S., Kramer, V. W., & Konrad, A. M. (2008). Critical mass: Does the number of women on a corporate board make a difference? In S. Vinnicombe & M. Singh (Eds.), Women on corporate boards of directors: International research and Practice (pp. 222–232). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz, S. (2012). Does board gender composition affect corporate social responsibility reporting? International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3, 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielden, S. L., & Davidson, M. (2005). International handbook of women and small business entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fondas, N. (2000). Women on boards of directors: Gender bias or power threat (pp. 171–177). Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Challenges and Opportunities.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. (2011). Are there gender-related influences on corporate sustainability? A study of women on boards of directors. Journal of Management & Organization, 17, 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghazali, N. A. M. (2007). Ownership structure and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Some Malaysian evidence. Corporate Governance, 7, 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, J., Gautam, K., & Boeker, W. (1994). The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 241–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golob, U., & Bartlett, J. L. (2007). Communicating about corporate social responsibility: A comparative study of CSR reporting in Australia and Slovenia. Public Relations Review, 33, 1–9.

  • Grady, D. (1999). No more board games!. The McKinsey Quarterly, 3 17–25.

  • Hafsi, T., & Turgut, G. (2013). Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance: Conceptualization and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 463–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M. J. (1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 659–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. (2005). The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24, 391–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, K. T., & Hillman, A. (2010). The effect of board capital and CEO power on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1145–1163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (2007). Transparency and corporate governance. Working Paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, January 2007.

  • Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A., & Harris, I. C. (2002). Women and racial minorities in the boardroom: How do directors differ? Journal of Management, 28, 747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, S. S. M., & Wong, K. S. (2001). A study of the relationship between corporate governance structures and the extent of voluntary disclosure. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 10, 139–156.

  • Homan, A. C., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Htay, S. N. N., Rashid, H. M. A., Adnan, M. A., & Meera, A. K. M. (2012). Impact of corporate governance on social and environmental information disclosure of Malaysian listed banks: Panel data analysis. Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, 4, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huafang, X., & Jianguo, Y. (2007). Ownership structure, board composition and corporate voluntary disclosure: Evidence from listed companies in China. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22, 604–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C. J. (2010). Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility and corporate performance. Journal of Management & Organization, 16, 641–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, H. (2011). Directors’ roles in corporate social responsibility: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 383–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, N., & Angelidis, J. (1991). Effects of board members’ gender on level of involvement in strategic management and corporate social responsiveness orientation. In Proceedings of the Northeast Decision Sciences Institute (pp. 208–210).

  • Ibrahim, N. A., & Angelidis, J. P. (1995). The corporate social responsiveness orientation of board members: Are there differences between inside and outside directors? Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 405–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, N. A., & Angelidis, J. P. (2011). Effect of board members’ gender on corporate social responsiveness orientation. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 10, 35–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, N. A., Howard, D. P., & Angelidis, J. P. (2003). Board members in the service industry: An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility orientation and directorial type. Journal of Business Ethics, 47, 393–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingley, C. B. (2008). Company growth and Board attitudes to corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 4, 17–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., Safieddine, A. M., & Rabbath, M. (2008). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies and interrelationships. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16, 443–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2004). Corporate elites and corporate strategy: How demographic preferences and structural position shape the scope of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 507–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jizi, M. I., Salama, A., Dixon, R., & Stratling, R. (2013). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from the US Banking Sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 601–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2011). Corporate governance and firm value: The impact of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 351–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2012). The causal effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 53–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. A., & Greening, D. W. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 564–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, W. Q., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1992). Institutional and strategic choice perspectives on board involvement in the strategic decision process. The Academy of Management Journal, 35, 766–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabongo, J. D., Chang, K., & Li, Y. (2013). The impact of operational diversity on corporate philanthropy: An empirical study of US companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kakabadse, A. P. (2007). Being responsible: Boards are reexamining the bottom line. Leadership in Action, 27, 3–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, H., Cheng, M., & Gray, S. J. (2007). Corporate governance and board composition: Diversity and independence of Australian boards. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 194–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, S. (2011). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: Lessons from the land of OZ. Journal of Management and Governance, 15, 539–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent, P., & Monem, R. (2008). What drives TBL reporting: Good governance or threat to legitimacy? Australian Accounting Review, 18, 297–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, M. H. 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, 82–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knudsen, J. S., Geisler, K., & Ege, M. (2013). Corporate social responsibility in the board room—When do directors pay attention? Human Resource Development International, 16, 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konrad, A. M., Kramer, V., & Erkut, S. (2008). Critical mass: The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics, 37, 145–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krüger, P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and the board of directors. Working Paper (Job Market Paper). Toulouse School of Economics, Toulouse, 31 May 2010.

  • Kulik, C. (2011). Women on boards: Glass ceiling or glass cliff? Unisabusiness.

  • Liao, L., Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2014). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review,. doi:10.1016/j.bar.2014.01.002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzo, J. M. P., Sánchez, I. M. G., & Gallego-Álvarez, I. (2009). Características del consejo de administración e información en materia de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa*/Characteristics of the board of directors and information in matters of corporate social responsability. Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 38, 107–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machold, S., Huse, M., Minichilli, A., & Nordqvist, M. (2011). Board leadership and strategy involvement in small firms: A team production approach. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19, 368–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, C. (2007). Boards, Incentives and Corporate Social Responsibility: The case for a change of emphasis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 935–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maharaj, R. (2009). Corporate governance decision-making model: How to nominate skilled board members, by addressing the formal and informal systems. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 6, 106–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, L., & Thorne, L. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and long-term compensation: Evidence from Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 241–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallin, C. (2002). The relationship between corporate governance, transparency and financial disclosure. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 10, 253–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marimuthu, M., & Kolandaisamy, I. (2009). Ethnic and gender diversity in boards of directors and their relevance to financial performance of Malaysian companies. Journal of Sustainable Development, 2, P139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElhaney, K. (2009). A strategic approach to corporate social responsibility. Leader to Leader, 52, 30–36.

  • McGuire, J., Dow, S., & Argheyd, K. (2003). CEO incentives and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 341–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKendall, M., Sánchez, C., & Sicilian, P. (1999). Corporate governance and corporate illegality: The effects of board structure on environmental violations. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 7, 201–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNulty, T., Zattoni, A., & Douglas, T. (2013). Developing corporate governance research through qualitative methods: A review of previous studies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21, 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1–18.

  • Melo, T. (2012). Determinants of corporate social performance: The influence of organizational culture, management tenure and financial performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 8, 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T., & Del Carmen Triana, M. (2009). Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity–firm performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 755–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, S. (2010). Top management team diversity: A review of theories and methodologies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 301–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010a). The contribution of women on boards of directors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18, 136–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010b). Women directors’ contribution to board decision-making and strategic involvement: The role of equality perception. European Management Review, 7, 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogbechie, C., Koufopoulos, D. N., & Argyropoulou, M. (2009). Board characteristics and involvement in strategic decision making: The Nigerian perspective. Management Research News, 32, 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, W. Y., Chang, Y. K., & Martynov, A. (2011). The effect of ownership structure on corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’shannassy, T. (2010). Board and CEO practice in modern strategy-making: How is strategy developed, who is the boss and in what circumstances? Journal of Management and Organization, 16, 280–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C. A., & Philpot, J. (2007). Women’s roles on US Fortune 500 boards: Director expertise and committee memberships. Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 177–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, C., Rahman, N., & Rubow, E. (2011). Green governance: Boards of directors’ composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 50, 189–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. N. (1990). One more time: Do female and male managers differ? The Executive, 4, 68–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prado-Lorenzo, J. M., & Garcia-Sanchez, I. M. (2010). The role of the board of directors in disseminating relevant information on greenhouse gases. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 391–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugliese, A., Bezemer, P.-J., Zattoni, A., Huse, M., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Boards of directors’ contribution to strategy: A literature review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17, 292–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugliese, A., & Wenstøp, P. Z. (2007). Board members’ contribution to strategic decision-making in small firms. Journal of Management and Governance, 11, 383–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randøy, T., Thomsen, S., & Oxelheim, L. (2006). A Nordic perspective on corporate board diversity. In Age. Oslo: Nordic Innovation Centre.

  • Rao, K. K., Tilt, C. A., & Lester, L. H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental reporting: An Australian study. Corporate Governance, 12, 143–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricart, J. E., Rodríguez, M. Á., & Sanchez, P. (2005). Sustainability in the boardroom: An empirical examination of Dow Jones Sustainability World Index leaders. Corporate Governance, 5, 24–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, V. P. (1999). What corporate boards have to do with strategy: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 953–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. The Academy of Management Executive (1993–2005), 11, 21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, C. (2007). Does female board representation influence firm performance? The Danish evidence. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 404–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruigrok, W., Peck, S. I., & Keller, H. (2006). Board characteristics and involvement in strategic decision making: Evidence from Swiss companies. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1201–1226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahin, K., Basfirinci, C. S., & Ozsalih, A. (2011). The impact of board composition on corporate financial and social responsibility performance: Evidence from public-listed companies in Turkey. African Journal of Business Management, 5, 2959–2978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Said, R., Zainuddin, Y. H., & Haron, H. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility disclosure and corporate governance characteristics in Malaysian public listed companies. Social Responsibility Journal, 5, 212–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Setó‐Pamies, D. (2013). The relationship between women directors and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.

  • Shahin, A., & Zairi, M. (2007). Corporate governance as a critical element for driving excellence in corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 24, 753–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader, C. B., Blackburn, V. B., & Iles, P. (1997). Women in management and firm financial performance: An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9, 355–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siciliano, J. I. (1996). The relationship of board member diversity to organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1313–1320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, V., Terjesen, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2008). Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: How do women and men differ. European Management Journal, 26, 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N., Smith, V., & Verner, M. (2006). Do women in top management affect firm performance? A panel study of 2,500 Danish firms. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 55, 569–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. J., Wokutch, R. E., Harrington, K. V., & Dennis, B. S. (2001). An examination of the influence of diversity and stakeholder role on corporate social orientation. Business and Society, 40, 266–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanwick, P. A., & Stanwick, S. D. (1998). The relationship between corporate social performance and organizational size, financial performance, and environmental performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talke, K., Salomo, S., & Kock, A. (2011). Top management team diversity and strategic innovation orientation: the relationship and consequences for innovativeness and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management.

  • Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2009). Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17, 320–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triana, M. D. C., Miller, T. L., & Trzebiatowski, T. M. (2013). The double-edged nature of board gender diversity: Diversity, firm performance, and the power of women directors as predictors of strategic change. Organization Science, 25, 609–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dick, R., van Knippenberg, D., Hägele, S., Guillaume, Y. R. F., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2008). Group diversity and group identification: The moderating role of diversity beliefs. Human Relations, 61, 1463–1492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., & Haslam, S. (2003). Realizing the diversity dividend: Exploring the subtle interplay between identity, ideology and reality. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 61–77). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2007). Unity through diversity: Value-in-diversity beliefs, work group diversity, and group identification. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541.

  • Vinnicombe, S. (2009). Women on corporate boards of directors: International research and practice. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walt, N., & Ingley, C. (2003). Board dynamics and the influence of professional background, gender and ethnic diversity of directors. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11, 218–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Coffey, B. S. (1992). Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 771–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Dewhirst, H. D. (1992). Boards of directors and stakeholder orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 115–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, W. E., Johnson, L., & Merritt, D. (1998). Team orientation, self-orientation, and diversity in task groups their connection to team performance over time. Group and Organization Management, 23, 161–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, E. (2004). An examination of socially responsible firms’ board structure. Journal of Management and Governance, 8, 255–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, J. D., & Fredrickson, J. W. (2001). Who directs strategic change? Director experience, the selection of new CEOs, and change in corporate strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 1113–1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, J. D., & Milton, L. P. (2000). How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 366–398.

  • Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 91–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. J. (2003). Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 42, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wise, V., & Mahboob Ali, M. (2008). Case studies on corporate governance and corporate social responsibility. South Asian Journal of Management, 15, 136–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Pearce Ii, J. A. (1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of Management, 15, 291–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Stanton, W. W. (1988). The implications of board of directors composition for corporate strategy and performance. International Journal of Management, 5, 229–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelechowski, D. D., & Bilimoria, D. (2004). Characteristics of women and men corporate inside directors in the US. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12, 337–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zelechowski, S., & Bilimoria, D. (2006). Characteristics of CEOs and boards with women inside directors. Corporate Board: Roles, Duties and Composition, 2, 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. (2012). Board demographic diversity, independence, and corporate social performance. Corporate Governance, 12, 686–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author thanks reviewers, discussant and participants for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathyayini Rao.

Additional information

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting (APIRA) Conference, Kobe, Japan, in July 2013.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rao, K., Tilt, C. Board Composition and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Diversity, Gender, Strategy and Decision Making. J Bus Ethics 138, 327–347 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2613-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2613-5

Keywords

Navigation