Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Board demographic diversity, institutional context and corporate philanthropic giving

  • Published:
Journal of Management and Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research findings generally suggest that board diversity has an effect on performance, be it social or financial, but there is uncertainty as to the strength and direction of the effect. In this study, we respond to two questions: (1) Do differences in the diversity of board demographic characteristics have an effect on Corporate Philanthropic Giving (CPG)? Does the institutional context affect such a relationship? We use a sample of all listed non-financial Chinese firms from 2010 to 2014. Our findings confirm that corporate giving is indeed related to gender, age, tenure, functional and foreign experience diversity. More importantly, the relationships are significantly moderated by the institutional context, as measured by the governance regime and the level of market development. This paper contributes convincing empirical evidence that within-board demographic diversity characteristics, controlled by board structural characteristics, have a clear effect on corporate giving, and that this effect is affected by the institutional context. This in turn should facilitate responding to a wider set of stakeholders’ needs and issues. Each of these findings is a contribution to theory and have important implications for research on corporate social responsibility, or corporate governance, and for managing board composition.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Eastern provinces: Hebei(河北), Beijing(北京), Tianjin(天津), Shandong(山东), Jingsu(江苏), Shanghai(上海), Zhejiang(浙江), Fujian(福建), Guangdong(广东), Hainan(海南).

    https://www.stats.gov.cn/ztjc/zthd/sjtjr/dejtjkfr/tjkp/201106/t20110613_71947.htm

  2. These are donations in cash only. Donations in nature are not included in this assessment.

  3. The number reaches the maximum of 0.5 when 50% of the directors are female and 50% are male.

  4. SPSS and Stata are main software programs used in the data analysis section.

References

  • Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. (2010). Comparative and international corporate governance. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 485–556.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, H. K., Pandey, N., Kumar, S., & Haldar, A. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of board diversity: Current status, development, and future research directions. Journal of Business Research, 108, 232–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17(1), 99–120.

    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(2), 207–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekiroglu, C., Erdil, O., & Alkpan, L. (2011). Variables perceived by managers as antecedents that leads firms to environmental management: An empirical research in the Turkish construction sector. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 9, 157–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben Barka, H., & Dardour, A. (2015). Investigating the relationship between director’s profile, board interlocks and corporate social responsibility. Management Decision, 53(3), 553–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Amar, W., Francoeur, C., Hafsi, T., & Labelle, R. (2013). What makes better boards?: A closer look at diversity and ownership. British Journal of Management., 24, 85–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bortree, D. S. (2009). The impact of green initiatives on environmental legitimacy and admiration of the organization. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 133–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Is philanthropy strategic? An analysis of the management of charitable giving in large UK companies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(3), 234–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, P. (2010). Going green: women entrepreneurs and the environment. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 2(3), 245–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byron, K., & Post, C. (2016). Women on boards of directors and corporate social performance: A meta-analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(4), 428–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, K., & Mínguez-Vera, A. (2008). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(3), 435–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannella, A. A., Park, J. H., & Lee, H. U. (2008). Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance: Examining the roles of team member colocation and environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 768–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao, J., Pan, X., & Tian, G. (2011). Disproportional ownership structure and pay performance relationship: Evidence from China’s listed firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 17(3), 541–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Review, 38(1), 33–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, C. M., Makino, S., & Isobe, T. (2010). Does subnational region matter? Foreign affiliate performance in the United States and China. Strategic Management Journal, 31(11), 1226–1243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Being different yet feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 749–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. J., Patten, J., Dennis, M., & Roberts, R. (2008). Corporate charitable contributions: A corporate social performance or legitimacy strategy? Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 131–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, B. J. (2003). Red capitalists in China: The party, private entrepreneurs, and prospects for political change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    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(4), 569.

    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(2), 102–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, G., Wang, X. L., & Zhu, H. P. (2010). NERI Index of marketization of China’s provinces. Beijing: Economic Science Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, W. C. (2006). Corporation, be good! the story of corporate social responsibility. New York: Dog Ear Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, I. L. (1894). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. MA Pitman: Marshall.

    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(1), 17–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, Y., & Hafsi, T. (2015). Government intervention, peers’ giving and corporate philanthropy: Evidence from Chinese private SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2), 433–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, Y., & Hafsi, T. (2017). Political dependence, social scrutiny, and corporate philanthropy: Evidence from disaster relief. Business Ethics: A European Review, 26(2), 189–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, Y., Yang, H., & Hafsi, T. (2019). Corporate giving and corporate financial performance: The S-curve relationship. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36, 687–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giannetti, M., Liao, G., & Yu, X. (2015). The brain gains of corporate boards: Evidence from China. The Journal of Finance, 70(4), 1629–1682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, J., & Boeker, W. (1991). Turbulence at the top: A new perspective on governance structure changes and strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 306–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graafland, J., & Zhang, L. (2014). Corporate social responsibility in China: implementation and challenges. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23(1), 34–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosvold, J., & Brammer, S. (2011). National institutional systems as antecedents of female borad representation: An empirical study. Corporate Governance: An international Review, 19(2), 116–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie Datta, J. P., & Deepak, K. (1997). Contextual influences on executive selection: Firm characteristics and CEO experience. Journal of Management Studies, 34(4), 537–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. D. (1990). Corporate social disclosure practice: a comparative international analysis. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 3, 159–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafsi, T., & Turgut, G. (2013). Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance: Conceptualization and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 463–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handajani, L., Subroto, B., Sutrisno, T., & Saraswati, E. (2014). Does board diversity matter on corporate social disclosure? An Indonesian evidence. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 5(9), 8–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harjoto, M., Laksmana, I., & Lee, R. (2015). Board diversity and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4), 641–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, K. T., & Hillman, A. (2010). The effect of board capital and CEO power on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 31(11), 1145–1163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A., & Paetzold, R. L. (2000). The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management studies, 37(2), 235–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Luce, R. A. (2001). Board composition and stakeholder performance: Do stakeholder directors make a difference? Business & Society, 40(3), 295–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, H., & Hafsi, T. (2010). Strategic change in a shifting institutional context. Journal of Change Management, 10(3), 293–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(5), 405–410.

    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(4), 393–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jia, M., & Zhang, Z. (2014). Donating money to get money: The role of corporate philanthropy in stakeholder reactions to IPOs. Journal of Management Studies, 51(7), 1118–1152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, F., & Kim, K. A. (2015). Corporate governance in China: A modern perspective. Journal of Corporate Finance, 32, 190–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A., & Jackson, S. E. (2003). Managing workforce diversity to enhance cooperation in organizations. International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working, 12, 277–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, S. (2006). In the driver’s seat or rubber stamp? The role of the board in providing strategic guidance in Australian boardrooms. Management Decision, 44(1), 56–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khine, K., Olugbode, M., & Petracci, B. (2017). Can board gender diversity promote corporate social performance? Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 17(5), 789–802.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knippenberg, D. A., & Haslam, S. A. (2003). Social identity at work. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krüger, P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and the board of directors. Toulouse School of Economics, France: Job Market Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyaw, K., Olugbode, M., & Petracci, B. (2017). Can board gender diversity promote corporate social performance? Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 17(5), 789–802.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labelle, R., Francoeur, C., & Lakhal, F. (2015). To regulate or not to regulate? Early evidence on the means used around the world to promote gender diversity in the boardroom. Gender, Work & Organization, 22(4), 339–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrieta-Rubín, D., Velasco-Balmaseda, E., Fernández, D., Alonso-Almeida, M., & Intxaurburu-Clemente, G. (2015). Does having women managers lead to increased gender equality practices in corporate social responsibility? Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(1), 91–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattemann, C., Fetscherin, M., Alon, I., Li, S., & Schneider, A. M. (2009). CSR communication intensity in Chinese and Indian multinational companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4), 426–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, W., He, A., Lan, H., & Yiu, D. (2012). Political connections and corporate diversification in emerging economies: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(3), 799–818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, T.-L., Liu, H.-Y., Huang, C.-J., & Chen, Y.-C. (2018). Ownership structure, board gender diversity and charitable donation. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 18(4), 655–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., Wei, Z., & Xie, F. (2014). Do women directors improve firm performance in China? Journal of Corporate Finance, 28, 169–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. (2007). International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), 481–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, C., & Qian, C. (2014). Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: symbol or substance? Organization Science, 25(1), 127–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    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(2), 183–198.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. W. (2008). China’s second economic transition: Building national markets. Management and Organization Review, 4(1), 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T., & Triana, C. M. (2009). Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity-firm performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 755–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mori, R., Mori, R., Franks, D. M., Franks, D. M., Ali, S. H., & Ali, S. H. (2016). Sustainability certification schemes: Evaluating their effectiveness and adaptability. Corporate Governance, 16(3), 579–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moura-Leite, R. C., Padgett, R. C., & Galan, J. I. (2012). Is social responsibility driven by industry or firm-specific factors? Management Decision, 50(7), 1200–1221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muttakin, M. B., Khan, A., & Subramaniam, N. (2015). Firm characteristics, board diversity and corporate social responsibility: Evidence from Bangladesh. Pacific Accounting Review, 27(3), 353–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, S. (2010). Top management team diversity: A review of theories and methodologies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(3), 301–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010). The contribution of women on boards of directors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(2), 136–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxelheim, L., & Randøy, T. (2003). The impact of foreign board membership on firm value. Journal of Banking & Finance, 27(12), 2369–2392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pan, Xin, Chen, Xuanjin, & Ning, Lutao. (2018). The roles of macro and micro institutions in corporate social responsibility (CSR): Evidence from listed firms in China. Management Decision., 56, 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W. (2002). Towards an institution-based view of business strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2–3), 251–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrovic, J. (2008). Unlocking the role of a board director: A review of the literature. Management Decision, 46(9), 1373–1392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). The big idea. Creating value. How to reinvent capitalism and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, 20, 62–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, C., Rahman, N., & Rubow, E. (2011). Green governance: Boards of directors’ composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business & Society, 50(1), 189–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purushothaman, M., Tower, G., Hancock, P., & Taplin, R. (2000). Determinants of corporate social reporting practices of listed Singapore companies. Pacific Accounting Review, 12(2), 101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qian, C., Cao, Q., & Takeuchi, R. (2013). Top management team functional diversity and organizational innovation in China: The moderating effects of environment. Strategic Management Journal, 34(1), 110–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quisumbing, A. R., & Maluccio, J. A. (2000). Intrahousehold allocation and gender relations: New empirical evidence from four developing countries. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raatikainen, P. (2002). Contributions of mulitculturalism to the competitive advantage of an organisation. Singapore Management Review, 24(1), 81–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramgutty-Wong, A. (2000). CEO attitudes toward women managers in corporate Mauritius. Women in Management Review, 15(4), 184–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randoy, T., L. Oxelheim, & S. Thomsen (2006). A Nordic Perspective on Corporate Board Diversity, Stockholm.

  • Rao, K., & Tilt, C. (2016). Board diversity and CSR reporting: an Australian study. Meditarien Accountancy Research, 24(2), 182–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. The Academy of Management Executive, 11(3), 21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Dominguez, L., Gallego-Alvarez, I., & Garcia-Sanchez, I. M. (2009). Corporate governance and codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(2), 187–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, D. (2007). Education for a sustainable future. Science, 317(July), 323–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saiia, D. H. (2002). Philanthropy and corporate citizenship: strategic philanthropy is good corporate citizenship. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 1(2), 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, C. M. (2000). Motives for corporate philanthropy in El Salvador: altruism and political legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4), 363–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: ideas and interests (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siciliano, J. I. (1996). The relationship of board member diversity to organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(12), 1313–1320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skaggs, S., Stainback, K., & Duncan, P. (2012). Shaking things up or business as usual? The influence of female corporate executives and board of directors on women’s managerial representation. Social Science Research, 41(4), 936–948.

    Google Scholar 

  • Su, R. X., & Zhong, W. Z. (2010). An Empirical Study of CSR in Listed Companies: A Corporate Communication Perspective. Modern Economic Science, 5, 008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terjesen, S., Couto, E. B., & Francisco, P. M. (2016). Does the presence of independent and female directors impact firm performance? A multi-country study of board diversity. Journal of Management & Governance, 20(3), 447–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D. B., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Firm reputation and applicant pool characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(6), 733–751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., & Qian, C. (2011). Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: The roles of stakeholder response and political access. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1159–1181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Chaudhri, V. (2009). Corporate social responsibility engagement and communication by Chinese companies. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 247–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Coffey, B. S. (1992). Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(10), 771–778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., & Juslin, H. (2009). The impact of Chinese culture on corporate social responsibility: The harmony approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 433–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welford, R. (2002). Globalization, corporate social responsibility and human rights. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9(1), 1–7.

    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(2), 366–398.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan, W., Schiehll, E., & Muller-Kahle, M. I. (2018). Human and Relational Capital behind the Structural Power of Female CEOs in China. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1), 16073.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, G., Stedham, Y., & Beekun, R. I. (2000). Board of directors and the adoption of a CEO performance evaluation process: Agency and institutional theory perspectives. Journal of Management Studies, 37(2), 277–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zukin, S., & DiMaggio, P. (1990). Structures of capital: The social organization of the economy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ESG UQAM, 315 Rue Sainte-Catherine Est, Montreal, Quebec, H2X 3X2, Canada

    Majdi Ben Selma

  2. HEC Montreal, 3000 Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, Quebec, H3T 2A7, Canada

    Wenxi Yan & Taïeb Hafsi

Authors
  1. Majdi Ben Selma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wenxi Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Taïeb Hafsi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Majdi Ben Selma.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ben Selma, M., Yan, W. & Hafsi, T. Board demographic diversity, institutional context and corporate philanthropic giving. J Manag Gov 26, 99–127 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-020-09535-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-020-09535-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation