Gender diversity and injustice among supply chain executives: exploring outcomes that advance social justice

IF 7.1 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
James Kroes, Anna Land, Andrew Steven Manikas, Felice Klein
{"title":"Gender diversity and injustice among supply chain executives: exploring outcomes that advance social justice","authors":"James Kroes, Anna Land, Andrew Steven Manikas, Felice Klein","doi":"10.1108/ijopm-06-2023-0524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>This study investigates whether the underrepresentation of women in executive-level roles within the supply chain management (SCM) field is justified or the result of gender injustices. The analysis examines if there is a gender compensation gap within executive-level SCM roles and whether performance differences or other observable factors explain disparities.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>Publicly reported executive compensation and financial data are merged to empirically test if gender differences exist and investigate whether the underrepresentation of women in executive-level SCM roles is unjust.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>Women occupy only 6.29% of the positions in the sample of 447 SCM executives. Unlike prior studies, we find that women executives receive higher compensation. The analysis does not identify observable factors explaining the limited inclusion of women in top-level roles, suggesting that gender injustices are prevalent in SCM.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\n<p>This study only considers observable factors and cannot conclusively determine if discrimination is occurring. The low level of inclusion of women in executive roles suggests that gender injustice is intrinsic within the SCM profession. These findings will hopefully motivate firms to undertake transformative actions that result in outcomes that advance gender equity, ultimately leading to social justice for female SCM executives.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>The use of social justice and feminist theories, a focus on SCM roles, and an empirical methodology utilizing objective measures represents a novel approach to investigating gender discrimination in SCM organizations, complementing prior survey-based studies.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":14234,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Operations & Production Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Operations & Production Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm-06-2023-0524","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

This study investigates whether the underrepresentation of women in executive-level roles within the supply chain management (SCM) field is justified or the result of gender injustices. The analysis examines if there is a gender compensation gap within executive-level SCM roles and whether performance differences or other observable factors explain disparities.

Design/methodology/approach

Publicly reported executive compensation and financial data are merged to empirically test if gender differences exist and investigate whether the underrepresentation of women in executive-level SCM roles is unjust.

Findings

Women occupy only 6.29% of the positions in the sample of 447 SCM executives. Unlike prior studies, we find that women executives receive higher compensation. The analysis does not identify observable factors explaining the limited inclusion of women in top-level roles, suggesting that gender injustices are prevalent in SCM.

Research limitations/implications

This study only considers observable factors and cannot conclusively determine if discrimination is occurring. The low level of inclusion of women in executive roles suggests that gender injustice is intrinsic within the SCM profession. These findings will hopefully motivate firms to undertake transformative actions that result in outcomes that advance gender equity, ultimately leading to social justice for female SCM executives.

Originality/value

The use of social justice and feminist theories, a focus on SCM roles, and an empirical methodology utilizing objective measures represents a novel approach to investigating gender discrimination in SCM organizations, complementing prior survey-based studies.

供应链管理人员中的性别多样性和不公正现象:探索促进社会公正的成果
目的本研究调查了在供应链管理(SCM)领域中担任高管职位的女性人数不足是合理的还是性别不公正的结果。研究分析了供应链管理高管职位是否存在性别薪酬差距,以及绩效差异或其他可观察到的因素是否可以解释这种差距。研究结果在 447 位供应链管理高管的样本中,女性仅占 6.29% 的职位。与之前的研究不同,我们发现女性高管获得了更高的薪酬。研究局限性/影响本研究仅考虑了可观察到的因素,无法最终确定是否存在歧视。女性担任高管职位的比例较低,这表明在供应链管理行业中存在固有的性别不公正现象。希望这些发现能激励企业采取变革行动,从而产生促进性别平等的结果,最终实现单片机行业女性高管的社会公正。原创性/价值本研究运用社会公正和女权主义理论,关注单片机行业角色,并采用客观测量的实证方法,是调查单片机行业组织中性别歧视的一种新方法,是对之前基于调查的研究的补充。
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
13.30
自引率
17.20%
发文量
96
期刊介绍: The mission of the International Journal of Operations & Production Management (IJOPM) is to publish cutting-edge, innovative research with the potential to significantly advance the field of Operations and Supply Chain Management, both in theory and practice. Drawing on experiences from manufacturing and service sectors, in both private and public contexts, the journal has earned widespread respect in this complex and increasingly vital area of business management. Methodologically, IJOPM encompasses a broad spectrum of empirically-based inquiry using suitable research frameworks, as long as they offer generic insights of substantial value to operations and supply chain management. While the journal does not categorically exclude specific empirical methodologies, it does not accept purely mathematical modeling pieces. Regardless of the chosen mode of inquiry or methods employed, the key criteria are appropriateness of methodology, clarity in the study's execution, and rigor in the application of methods. It's important to note that any contribution should explicitly contribute to theory. The journal actively encourages the use of mixed methods where appropriate and valuable for generating research insights.
×
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