Abstract
In this paper, we seek to answer two questions: (1) what does boardroom diversity stand for in the strategic management literature? And, (2) is there a significant relationship between boardroom diversity and corporate social performance. We first clarify the boardroom diversity concept, distinguishing between a structural diversity of boards and a demographic diversity in boards, and then we investigate its possible linkage to social performance in a sample of S&P500 firms. We find a significant relationship between diversity in boards and social performance. This relationship is moderated by diversity of boards. Our results also reveal the effects of the specific variables that make up the diversity of boards and diversity in boards constructs. In particular, gender, and age have a significant effect on corporate social performance. Some important measurement issues are raised and discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291–309.
Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. (2010). Comparative and international corporate governance. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 485–556.
Alexander, J. A., Fennell, M. L., & Halpern, M. T. (1993). Leadership instability in hospitals: The influence of board-CEO relations and organizational growth and decline. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(1), 74–99.
Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 71–86.
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(2), 207–221.
Bebchuk, L., Cohen, A., & Ferrell, A. (2009). What matters in corporate governance? Review of Financial Studies, 22(2), 783.
Bekiroglu, C., Erdil, O., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Variables perceived by managers as antecedents to environmental management: An empirical study in the Turkish construction sector. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 9, 157–175.
BenAmar, W., Francoeur, C., Hafsi, T., & Labelle, R. (2011). What makes better boards: A closer look at diversity and ownership. British Journal of Management. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00789.x.
Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.
Bhagat, S., & Black, B. (2001). The non-correlation between board independence and long-term firm performance. Journal of Corporation Law, 27, 231–273.
Bilimoria, D., & Piderit, S. K. (1994). Qualifications of corporate board committee members. Group & Organization Management, 19(3), 334.
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper and Row.
Brown, B., & Perry, S. (1994). Removing the financial performance halo from fortune’s “most admired” companies. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1347–1359.
Burgess, Z., & Tharenou, P. (2002). Women board directors: Characteristics of the few. Journal of Business Ethics, 37(1), 39–49.
Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30(6), 749.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 44, 497–505.
Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2005). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm performance. The Financial Review, 38, 33–53.
Chatterjee, S., Hadi, A., & Price, B. (2000). The use of regression analysis by example. New York: Wiley.
Chatterji, A. K., Levine, D. I., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility? Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(1), 125–169.
Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corpora. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92.
Coffey, B. S., & Fryxell, G. E. (1991). Institutional ownership of stock and dimensions of corporate social performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(6), 437–444.
Coffey, B. S., & Wang, J. (1998). Board diversity and managerial control as predictors of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(14), 1595–1603.
Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 827–847.
Daily, C. M., Certo, S. T., & Dalton, D. R. (1999). A decade of corporate women: Some progress in the boardroom, none in the executive suite. Strategic Management Journal, 20(1), 93–99.
Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (2003). Women in the boardroom: A business imperative. Journal of Business Strategy, 24(5), 8–10.
Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., Albert, A., & Cannella, J. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 371.
Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Ellstrand, A. E., & Johnson, J. L. (1998). Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 269–290.
Dalton, D. R., Hitt, M. A., Certo, S. T., & Dalton, C. M. (2007). The fundamental agency problem and its mitigation: Independence, equity, and the market for corporate control. In J. P. Walsh & A. P. Brief (Eds.), The academy of management annals (pp. 1–64). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Davis, G. F., & Cobb, J. A. (2010). Resource dependence theory: Past and future. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 28, 21–42.
Deza, M. M., & Deza, E. (2009). Encyclopedia of distances. Heidelberg: Springer.
Dittmar, A., & Mahrt-Smith, J. (2007). Corporate governance and the value of cash holdings. Journal of Financial Economics, 83(3), 599–634.
Ellstrand, A. E., Tihanyi, L., & Johnson, J. L. (2002). Board structure and international political risk. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 769–777.
Erhardt, N. L., Werbel, J. D., & Shrader, C. B. (2003). Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(2), 102–111.
Fama, E., & Jensen, M. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301.
Finkelstein, S., Cannella, B., & Hambrick, D. C. (2008). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1988). Chief executive compensation: A synthesis and reconciliation. Strategic Management Journal, 9(6), 543–558.
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. New York: Oxford University Press.
Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 489–505.
Francoeur, C., Labelle, R., & Sinclair-desgagné, B. (2008). Gender diversity in corporate governance and top management. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 83.
Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. D. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Geletkanycz, M. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). The external ties of top executives: Implications for strategic choice and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 654–681.
Gompers, P., Ishii, J., & Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate governance and equity prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 107–155.
Gond, J. P., & Crane, A. (2010). Corporate social performance disoriented: Saving the lost paradigm? Business & Society, 49(4), 677–703.
Goodstein, J., Gautam, K., & Boeker, W. (1994). The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 15(3), 241–250.
Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 1034–1046.
Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate. Business & Society, 36(1), 5–31.
Guthrie, J. P., & Datta, D. K. (1997). Contextual influences on executive selection: Firm characteristics and CEO experience. Journal of Management Studies, 34(4), 537–560.
Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Upper echelons theory: Origins, twists and turns, and lessons learned. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development (pp. 109–127). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.
Hambrick, D. C., Werder, A., & Zajac, E. J. (2008). New directions in corporate governance research. Organization Science, 19(3), 381–385.
Han, J., Kamber, M., & Pei, J. (2011). Data mining concepts and techniques. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228.
Haslam, S. A., Ryan, M. K., Kulich, C., Trojanowski, G., & Atkins, C. (2010). 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.
Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383–396.
Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.
Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Luce, R. A. (2001). Board composition and stakeholder performance: Do stakeholder directors make a difference? Business and Society, 40(3), 295.
Hillman, A. J., Shropshire, C., & Cannella, A. A. (2007). Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 941–952.
Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427.
Hitt, M. A., & Tyler, B. B. (1991). Strategic decision models: Integrating different perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 327–351.
Hoskisson, R. E., Johnson, R. A., & Moesel, D. D. (1994). Corporate divestiture intensity in restructuring firms: Effects of governance, strategy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1207–1251.
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(4), 393–401.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
Johnson, R. A., & Greening, D. W. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 564–576.
Johnson, R. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Hitt, M. A. (1993). Board of director involvement in restructuring: The effects of board versus managerial controls and characteristics. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 33–50.
Judge, W. Q., Jr., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1992). Institutional and strategic choice perspectives on board involvement in the strategic decision process. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 766–794.
Kesner, I. F. (1988). Directors’ characteristics and committee membership: An investigation of type, occupation, tenure, and gender. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 66–84.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1984). The neurotic organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kosnik, R. D. (1990). Effects of board demography and directors incentives on corporate greenmail decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 129–150.
Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., Neter, J., & Li, W. (2004). Applied linear statistical models (5th ed.). Irwin: McGraw-Hill.
Leblanc, R., & Gillies, J. M. (2005). Inside the boardroom: How boards really work and the coming revolution in corporate governance. Mississauga: Wiley Canada.
Lorsch, J. W., & MacIver, E. (1989). Pawns or potentates: The reality of America’s corporate boards. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Luoma, P., & Goodstein, J. (1999). Stakeholders and corporate boards: Institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 553–563.
Luthar, H. K., DiBattista, R. A., & Gautschi, T. (1997). Perception of what the ethical climate is and what it should be: The role of gender, academic status, and ethical education. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(2), 205–217.
Manzoni, J. F., Strebel, P., & Barsoux, J. L. (2010, January and 25). Why Diversity Can Backfire On Company Boards. Wall Street Journal.
Mattingly, J. E., & Berman, S. L. (2006). Measurement of corporate social action. Business & Society, 45(1), 20–46.
McDonald, M. L., & Westphal, J. D. (2003). Getting by with the advice of their friends: CEOs’ advice networks and firms’ strategic responses to poor performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 1–32.
McDonald, M. L., & Westphal, J. D. (2010). A little help here? Board control, CEO identification with the corporate elite, and strategic help provided to CEOs at other firms. The Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), 53(2), 343–370.
McGuire, J., Dow, S., & Argheyd, K. (2003). CEO incentives and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(4), 341–359.
McLeod, P., & Lobel, S. (1992). The effects of ethnic diversity on idea generation in small groups. Academy of management best paper proceedings, 22, 227–231.
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402–433.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Molz, R. (1995). The theory of pluralism in corporate governance: A conceptual framework and empirical test. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(10), 789.
Pearce, J. A., & Zahra, S. A. (1992). Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 29(4), 411–438.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28.
Peterson, C. A., Philpot, J., & O’Shaughnessy, K. (2007). African American diversity in the boardrooms of the US fortune 500: Director presence, expertise and committee membership. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(4), 558–575.
Pfeffer, J. (1972). Size and composition of corporate boards of directors: The organization and its environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 218–228.
Pfeffer, J. (1973). Size, composition, and function of hospital boards of directors: A study of organization-environment linkage. Administrative Science Quarterly., 18, 349–364.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper&Row.
Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61–78.
Post, C., Rahman, N., & Rubow, E. (2011). Green governance: Boards of directors’ composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business & Society, 50(1), 189–223.
Powell, G. N. (1999). Handbook of gender & work. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Provan, K. G. (1980). Board power and organizational effectiveness among human service agencies. Academy of Management Journal, 23(2), 221–236.
Raatikainen, P. (2002). Contributions of multiculturalism to the competitive advantage of an organisation. Singapore Management Review, 24(1), 81–85.
Rahman, N., & Post, C. (2012). Measurement issues in environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR): Toward a transparent, reliable, and construct valid instrument. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(3), 307–319.
Rhodes, S. R. (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: A review and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 93(2), 328–367.
Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. The Academy of Management Executive, 11(3), 21–31.
Roth, K., & O’Donnell, S. (1996). Foreign subsidiary compensation strategy: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 678–703.
Rowley, T., & Berman, S. (2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39(4), 397–419.
Sharfman, M. (1996). The construct validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg & Domini social performance ratings data. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(3), 287–296.
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737–783.
Shrader, C. B., Blackburn, V. L., & Iles, P. (1997). Women in management and firm financial performance: An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9, 355–372.
Siciliano, J. I. (1996). The relationship of board member diversity to organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(12), 1313.
Simpson, W. G., & Kohers, T. (2002). The link between corporate social and financial performance: Evidence from the banking industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 97–109.
Sutcliffe, K. M., & Huber, G. P. (1998). Firm and industry as determinants of executive perceptions of the environment. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 793–807.
Thatcher, S. M. B., Jehn, K. A., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in diversity research: The effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(3), 217–241.
Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter. Harvard business review, 74(5), 79–90.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A., I. I. I. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549–579.
Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organizations: Current research and future directions. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Useem, M. (1986). The inner circle: Large corporations and the rise of business political activity in the US and UK. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vafeas, N. (2003). Length of board tenure and outside director independence. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 30(7 8), 1043–1064.
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(3), 207–222.
Waddock, S. (2003). Myths and realities of social investing. Organization & environment, 16(3), 369–380.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.
Walls, J. L., Berrone, P., & Phan, P. H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link? Strategic Management Journal. doi:10.1002/smj.1952.
Wang, J., & Coffey, B. S. (1992). Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(10), 771–778.
Wang, J., & Dewhirst, H. D. (1992). Boards of directors and stakeholder orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(2), 115–123.
Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758–769.
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(12), 1113–1137.
Westphal, J., & Milton, L. (2000). How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2), 366–398.
Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1995). Who shall govern? CEO/board power, demographic similarity, and new director selection. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 60–83.
Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1997). Defections from the inner circle: Social exchange, reciprocity, and the diffusion of board independence in US corporations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 161–183.
White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 48, 817–838.
Williams, R. (2003). Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(1), 1–10.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In B. Staw & R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 77–140). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718.
Zahra, S., & Pearce, J. (1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of Management, 15(2), 291–334.
Zajac, E., & Westphal, J. (1996a). Director reputation, CEO-board power, and the dynamics of board interlocks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 507–529.
Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. (1996b). Who shall succeed? How CEO/board preferences and power affect the choice of new CEOs. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 64–90.
Zelechowski, D. D., & Bilimoria, D. (2004). Characteristics of women and men corporate inside directors in the US. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(3), 337–342.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge helpful comments from Albert A. Cannella of Tulane University. We are also indebted to the Institute for Governance of Private and Public Organizations and to the Direction de la Recherche of HEC Montréal for their partial financial support of this research. Finally, we acknowledge a very helpful review process. In particular, we are grateful to two anonymous referees for insights that have made this paper more valuable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The author names are given in alphabetical order. Each author has contributed equally to this study.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Procedure for Diversity of Boards Index (I DoB)
Recall that, in our data set, each data point (i.e., company board), is represented with four variables, or features, in terms of diversity of boards . We discussed our operationalization of variables in detail in the measures section. Our calculation is, in short, as follows: the first variable is the number of directors sitting in a given board; the second and third variables are the percentage of outside directors of a given board and the percentage of company shares owned by all directors of a given board, respectively; the fourth variable represents whether CEO also acts as chairman or not. As such, our data set is composed of heterogeneous variables, in which the first variable is discrete, the second and third variables are continuous, and the fourth variable is of a dichotomous nature.
Physically, distance is a numerical description of how far apart objects are. In mathematics, distance is a reflection of physical distance. Using a dissimilarity matrix, a collection of proximities that are available for all pairs of n objects can be stored. In measuring inter-sample distances, the distance-measurement tool compares data samples in a matrix and provides a metric to assess how (dis)similar they are. Measured difference, or dissimilarity between two objects, or d(i, j), is a non-negative number that is close to 0 when objects i and j are highly similar or “near” each other, and becomes larger as they differ more. Several measures of inter-sample distances are formulated depending on the types of variables (i.e., binary, nominal, interval-scaled, and ratio-scaled). For instance, the Euclidean distance metric previously used in management studies (e.g., Roth and O’Donnell 1996; Thatcher et al. 2003) measures paired distances only in interval-scaled variables.
However, as discussed earlier, since our data set is made of different types of variables, we use an aggregated distance function that enables us to combine all types of variables in a single dissimilarity matrix, and, hence, assess them together (Han et al. 2011). That is, the dissimilarity between data points can be computed even when the variables describing these data points are of different types. This function is defined by Han et al. as:
where i and j are two p-dimensional data points represented as (x i1, x i2,…, x ip ) and (x j1, x j2,…, x jp ) respectively, and d(i, j) is a distance function (metric) used to express the (dis)similarity between two data points (i.e., i and j in this case). Then, the contribution of variable f to the dissimilarity between i and j (i.e., d (f) ij ) is computed dependent on its type:
-
1.
If f is binary or nominal: d (f) ij = 0 if x if = x if , or otherwise d (f) ij = 1
-
2.
If f is interval-scaled: \( d_{ij}^{\left( f \right)} = \frac{{\left| {\mathop x\nolimits_{if} - \mathop x\nolimits_{jf} } \right|}}{{\max_{h} x_{hf} - \min_{h} x_{hf} }} \)
-
3.
If f is ordinal or ratio-scaled: compute ranks r if and \( z_{if} = \frac{{r_{if} - 1}}{{M_{f} - 1}} \), and treat z if as interval-scaled (r if ∈ {1,…, M f })
In this function, the contribution of all different types of variables to the dissimilarity (i.e., d (f) ij ) are normalized, and hence expressed on a common scale of (0, 1).
In our analysis, we individually compute the distance of each data point (i.e., company board) to all other data points in our data set using the above mentioned metric. Here, we have given equal weights to the relative contributions of each variable to the distance function (i.e., δ (f) ij = 1). Then, we average the computed distances of each data point to all other data points using the formula below:
And for the average distance to all the other boards we use:
where, x i1, the number of directors sitting in company board i; x i2, the percentage of outside (non executive) directors of company board i; x i3, the percentage of company shares owned by all directors of company board i; x i4, the fact that whether CEO of company board i also acts as chairman or not; s, the number of features representing diversity of boards (i.e., board size, outsiders, ownership and duality); k, the number of company boards; d (f) ij , the distance of company board i to company board j with respect to the variable f; δ (f) ij , the relative contribution of the variable f to the distance between the company board i and the company board j; d(i, j), the distance of company board i to company board j; D(i), the average distance of company board i to all other boards.
The output of this distance-measurement metric provides information on how (dis)similar a given board, taken into consideration four variables at the same time, from all other boards in our sample. This information represents the nature of diversity of boards.
Appendix 2
Calculation of Director Experience
Since we did not have a direct measure that represent director experience, we used committee experience as a proxy and calculated whether, or not, a given director served continuously through three consecutive years in one or more of the four common board committees (nomination, compensation, audit, and governance). We calculated experience using the following formula:
where, n jk , number of directors in company board k in year j; x jik , nomination committee membership of director i in company board k in year j (0: No, 1: Yes); y jik , compensation committee membership of director i in company board k in year j (0: No, 1: Yes); z jik , audit committee membership of director i in company board k in year j (0: No, 1: Yes); t jik , governance committee membership of director i in company board k in year j (0: No, 1: Yes); j, a given year (i.e., 2005, 2004 and 2003); i, a given director (i.e., of all 1,028 directors in our sample); k, a given company board (i.e., of all 95 company boards in our sample); ε k , overall director experience of company board k.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hafsi, T., Turgut, G. Boardroom Diversity and its Effect on Social Performance: Conceptualization and Empirical Evidence. J Bus Ethics 112, 463–479 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1272-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1272-z