Board gender diversity and ESG disclosure: evidence from the USA

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between corporate debt-like compensation and the value of excess cash holdings.Design/methodology/approachThe environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure score provided by Bloomberg is used as a proxy for the extent of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The empirical analysis is based on a sample of 379 firms that made up the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index over the period 2010-2015. In order to take into account the endogeneity problem between board gender diversity and ESG disclosure, a fixed effect model with lagged board variables is used.FindingsTwo main results arise from this study. First, no significant relationship is found between board gender diversity and ESG disclosure. Second, the evidence also partially confirms critical mass theory, as below three female directors the relationship between board gender diversity and ESG disclosure is not statistically significant. However, beyond that, no significant relationship was found.Research limitations/implicationsReasonable theoretical arguments drawn from stakeholder theory suggest that board gender diversity may have a positive effect on ESG disclosure. The empirical evidence presented neither supports, nor denies stakeholder theory. However, the results may be improved by enlarging the frontiers of this research in time and space, increasing the perimeter of qualitative data integrated in this investigation.Practical implicationsThis paper offers theoretical and empirical arguments for the feminization of corporate boards, not only in the name of equality between women and men and organizational justice, but also in the light of organizational performance (examined through the prism of governance). Transparency, analyzed using the proxy of ESG disclosure, is strongly and positively correlated with a feminization of boards, if the proportion of women is significant and sufficient to be able to prevent and surpass the “invisibilization” phenomenon, which is based on the marginalization of passive ultra-minorities, reduction to silence, marginalization (disqualification of women voice or exit strategy), assimilation or the endorsement of stigma.Originality/valueFirst, this makes a theoretical contribution to the diversity and governance literature by examining the effect of WOCB on ESG disclosure through the stakeholder theory (Freeman, 2010). Second, the authors contribute to the CSR literature (cf. Byron and Post, 2016) by documenting specifically the effect of board gender diversity on CSR disclosures through ESG. Indeed, ESG research mainly concentrates on firm financial performance (Galbreath, 2013). No study has examined the relationship between WOCB and ESG disclosure. Finally, from an empirical standpoint, an FE model with lagged board variables (Liu et al., 2014) is used to fully address the endogeneity problems in the relationship between WOCB and ESG disclosure that may occur because of differences in unobservable characteristics across firms or reverse causality (Boulouta, 2013).