Board gender diversity, firm risk, and the intermediate mechanisms: A meta-analysis

IF 4.6 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Sylvia Maxfield, Liu Wang
{"title":"Board gender diversity, firm risk, and the intermediate mechanisms: A meta-analysis","authors":"Sylvia Maxfield,&nbsp;Liu Wang","doi":"10.1111/corg.12572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Research question</h3>\n \n <p>The primary focus of this meta-analysis is to synthesize previously discordant findings on the relationship between board gender diversity (BGD) and different types of firm risk and to explore potential moderating and mediating mechanisms underlying these relationships.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Research findings</h3>\n \n <p>We statistically combine the results from 193 studies and find a negative association between BGD and firm risk. Further investigation indicates that different measures of risk lead to systematically different effect sizes. Our meta-analysis structural equation modeling (MASEM) analysis reveals that BGD's impact on risk operates primarily through the monitoring rather than advising function of the board. Regarding the moderating role of national institutions, we find that several aspects of the national institutional context (e.g., investor protection, gender equality, and national culture) influence the relationship between BGD and different types of risk.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Theoretical implications</h3>\n \n <p>Overall, our results suggest that agency theory has more explanatory power than resource dependence theory for understanding the association between BGD and risk, and women's board representation is more likely to reduce downside risk than upside risk. Our moderating effect analysis also highlights interesting avenues for further research on the interplay of BGD and different risks in national environments with varying institutional attributes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Practitioner/policy implications</h3>\n \n <p>Our meta-analysis offers important practical implications for corporate risk management, suggesting that BGD significantly mitigates downside risks associated with poor corporate transparency without stifling board support for corporate decisions shaping future growth potential. In an era of rising board vulnerability to litigation for insufficient transparency, this study contributes evidence supporting trends toward greater gender diversity.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48209,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Governance-An International Review","volume":"32 6","pages":"934-953"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Governance-An International Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/corg.12572","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research question

The primary focus of this meta-analysis is to synthesize previously discordant findings on the relationship between board gender diversity (BGD) and different types of firm risk and to explore potential moderating and mediating mechanisms underlying these relationships.

Research findings

We statistically combine the results from 193 studies and find a negative association between BGD and firm risk. Further investigation indicates that different measures of risk lead to systematically different effect sizes. Our meta-analysis structural equation modeling (MASEM) analysis reveals that BGD's impact on risk operates primarily through the monitoring rather than advising function of the board. Regarding the moderating role of national institutions, we find that several aspects of the national institutional context (e.g., investor protection, gender equality, and national culture) influence the relationship between BGD and different types of risk.

Theoretical implications

Overall, our results suggest that agency theory has more explanatory power than resource dependence theory for understanding the association between BGD and risk, and women's board representation is more likely to reduce downside risk than upside risk. Our moderating effect analysis also highlights interesting avenues for further research on the interplay of BGD and different risks in national environments with varying institutional attributes.

Practitioner/policy implications

Our meta-analysis offers important practical implications for corporate risk management, suggesting that BGD significantly mitigates downside risks associated with poor corporate transparency without stifling board support for corporate decisions shaping future growth potential. In an era of rising board vulnerability to litigation for insufficient transparency, this study contributes evidence supporting trends toward greater gender diversity.

董事会性别多样性、公司风险和中间机制:荟萃分析
本荟萃分析的主要重点是综合之前关于董事会性别多样性(BGD)与不同类型公司风险之间关系的不一致研究结果,并探索这些关系背后潜在的调节和中介机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
11.30%
发文量
79
期刊介绍: The mission of Corporate Governance: An International Review is to publish cutting-edge international business research on the phenomena of comparative corporate governance throughout the global economy. Our ultimate goal is a rigorous and relevant global theory of corporate governance. We define corporate governance broadly as the exercise of power over corporate entities so as to increase the value provided to the organization"s various stakeholders, as well as making those stakeholders accountable for acting responsibly with regard to the protection, generation, and distribution of wealth invested in the firm. Because of this broad conceptualization, a wide variety of academic disciplines can contribute to our understanding.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信