Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gender and Identity of BoD Members: The Influence on CSR and Financial Performance

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Gender Studies, Entrepreneurship and Human Capital (IPAZIA 2019)

Part of the book series: Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics ((SPBE))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 648 Accesses

Abstract

By analyzing the literature regarding the peculiarities of the Corporate Governance (CG) structure and their impact on the companies’ performance, it is possible to understand that the characteristics of the CG, especially of the Board of Directors (BoDs), strongly affect companies. Particularly, it is renowned that the diversity of members, as well as their identity, can influence the obtainable results. Among all different kinds of diversity, the gender element was chosen in the present work, because although it has been studied by several scholars, its relationship with the companies’ performance still remains partially unexplored.

Furthermore, other important personal characteristics of members of BoD are considered in the present study, in line with how it is represented in both organizational and professional identity theories.

Starting from another work done by the authors (Tutino et al., Corporate governance, CSR and financial performances: what types of relationships exist between these dimensions? In: Corporate governance: search for the advanced practices, pp 231–240. https://doi.org/10.22495/cpr19p12, 2019), where was studied what characteristics of BoD could influence the performance, the aim of this paper is to analyze the diversity of the BoD’ members, with the focus on gender, as well as to verify if in the world of “women in business,” some characteristics (as knowledge, skills, personal characteristics, level of education) are determinant and influence the thought process of directors and how they make decisions, which can impact strategy formulation, therefore the performance of companies.

To understand how the personal features of the members of BoD could be more perceivable regarding both the financial and CSR policies, the work is carried out using quantitative analysis on the data of the most capitalized Italian listed companies on December 28, 2018.

The findings demonstrated that the ones who are more interested on the topic of sustainability inside the Board are women that have recently joined the board, whose education is in the area of engineering. On the other hand, the members that give more attention to financial performance are men that have been on the board for a long period, despite their age, who belong to the audit associate profession.

The value of the present work is represented by the possibility of bridging the gap highlighted above, with reference to the relationship between the corporate governance structure and company performance. Another important aspect brought to light by this study concerns the specific characteristics of the board members that most influence strategic decisions and therefore performances.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration or Economy or Master’ Degree in Business Administration, Economy, Law, and Political Sciences

References

  • Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and teir impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A., Knoeber, C. R. (1996). Firm Performance and Mechanisms to Control Agency Problems between Managers and Shareholders. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 31(3), 377–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amran, A., Lee, S. P., & Devi, S. S. (2014). The influence of governance structure and strategic corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(4), 217–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baysinger, B. D., & Butler, H. N. (1985). Corporate governance and the board of directors: Performance effects of changes in board composition. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 1(1), 101–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, G., & Hutchings, K. (2005). Training and developing an age diverse workforce in SMEs: The need for a strategic approach. Education and Training, 47(8–9), 592–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belkhir, M. (2009). Board of directors’ size and performance in the banking industry. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 5(2), 201–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhagat, S., & Black, B. S. (2005). The Non-Correlation Between Board Independence and Long-Term Firm Performance. SSRN Electronic Journal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brante, T. (2005). Om begreppet och företeelsen profession. Tidskrift för Praxisnära forskning (1), 1–13. Division of Sociology, Högskolan i Borås.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broberg, P., Umans, T., Skog, P., & Theodorsson, E. (2018). Auditors’ professional and organizational identities and commercialization in audit firms. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 31(2), 374–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byoun, S., Chang, K., & Kim, Y. S. (2016). Does Corporate Board Diversity Affect Corporate Payout Policy? Asia-Pacific Journal of Financial Studies, 45(1), 48–101.

    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 

  • Carter, D. A., D’Souza, F., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2010). The gender and ethnic diversity of US boards and board committees and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(5), 396–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Celikyurt, U., Sevilir, M., & Shivdasani, A. (2014). Venture capitalists on boards of mature public firms. Review of Financial Studies, 27(1), 56–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain, T. W. (2010). Board Composition and Firm Performance: Some Canadian Evidence. International Advances in Economic Research, 16(4), 421–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H., & Wang, X. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance in China: An empirical research from Chinese firms. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 11(4), 361–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, E. C. M., & Courtenay, S. M. (2006). Board composition, regulatory regime and voluntary disclosure. International Journal of Accounting, 41(3), 262–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, S. (2008). Board size and the variability of corporate performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 87(1), 157–176.

    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 

  • Cobham, D., Cosci, S., & Mattesini, F. (1999). The Italian financial system: Neither bank based nor market based. Manchester School, 67(3), 325–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2018). Women on corporate boards: Do they advance corporate social responsibility? Human Relations, 71(7), 897–924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagsson, S., & Larsson, E. (2011). How age diversity on the Board of Directors affects Firm Performance (Dissertation).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Johnson, J. L., & Ellstrand, A. E. (1999). Number of directors and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 674–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, H. W. (1997). The governance structure and performance of large European corporations. Journal of Management and Governance, 1(1), 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Villiers, C., Naiker, V., & van Staden, C. J. (2011). The effect of board characteristics on firm environmental performance. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1636–1663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duru, A., Iyengar, R. J., & Zampelli, E. M. (2016). The dynamic relationship between CEO duality and firm performance: The moderating role of board independence. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4269–4277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esa, E., & Ghazali, N. A. M. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Malaysian government-linked companies. Corporate Governance (Bingley), 12(3), 292–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group Cohesion and Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Small Group Research, 22(2), 175–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. (1980). Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm. Journal of Political Economy,88(2), 288–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E., & Jensen, M. (1983). Separation of Ownership and Control. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz-Blanco, S. (2014). Women on boards: Do they affect sustainability reporting? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(6), 351–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrarini, G., & Filippelli, M. (2014). Independent Directors and Controlling Shareholders Around the World Working Paper N°. 258/2014. SSRN Electronic Journal, (May).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrero-Ferrero, I., Fernández-Izquierdo, M. Á., & Muñoz-Torres, M. J. (2015). Integrating Sustainability into Corporate Governance: An Empirical Study on Board Diversity. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(4), 193–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florackis, C., Kostakis, A., & Ozkan, A. (2009). Managerial ownership and performance. Journal of Business Research, 62(12), 1350–1357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a Name? Reputation Building and Corporate Strategy. The Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fracassi, C., & Tate, G. (2012). External networking and internal firm governance. Journal of Finance, 67(1), 153–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984), Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Series in Business and Public Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (2007). The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. In Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance (pp. 173–178). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Blandon, J., & Argiles-Bosch, J. (2017). The interaction effects of firm and partner tenure on audit quality. Accounting and Business Research, 47(7), 1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, C., Cook, A., & Ingersoll, A. R. (2016). Do Women Leaders Promote Sustainability? Analyzing the Effect of Corporate Governance Composition on Environmental Performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(7), 495–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero-Villegas, J., Sierra-García, L., & Palacios-Florencio, B. (2018). The role of sustainable development and innovation on firm performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(6), 1350–1362.

    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 

  • Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M.-J. (2006). The Influence of Top Management Team Heterogeneity on Firms’ Competitive Moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 659.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. E. (2002). Culture, corporate governance and disclosure in Malaysian corporations. Abacus, 38(3), 317–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hekman, D. R., Steensma, H. K., Bigley, G. A., & Hereford, J. F. (2009). Effects of Organizational and Professional Identification on the Relationship Between Administrators’ Social Influence and Professional Employees’ Adoption of New Work Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1325–1335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, C. O., Schmidheiny, S., Watts, P., & World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2002). Walking the talk: The business case for sustainable development. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C. J. (2010). Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility and corporate performance. Journal of Management & Organization, 16(05), 641–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hussain, N., Rigoni, U., & Orij, R. (2018). Corporate governance and sustainability performance: Analysis of triple bottom line performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(2), 411–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, B. H., & Kim, S. (2009). It pays to have friends. Journal of Financial Economics, 93(1), 138–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, H., & Abdul Samad, F. M. (2011). Corporate Governance and Agency Costs. International Corporate Governance, 14, 109–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (1993). The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems. The Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831–880.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M.C., & Meckling, W.H. (1976). Theory of the Firm : Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jianakoplos, N., & Bernasek, A. (1998). Are women more risk averse? Economic Inquiry,36(4), 620–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, L., Li, Y., & Cai, L. (2018). Evaluation of enterprise economic performance based on principal component analysis. Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics, 21(5), 1309–1314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2011). Corporate Governance and Firm Value: The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(3), 351–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, K., & Senbet, L. W. (1998). Corporate governance and board effectiveness. Journal of Banking & Finance, 22(4), 371–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, L. (2006). Engineering education in sustainable development at Delft University of Technology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9–11), 928–931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karayel, M., & Dogan, M. (2016). Board Composition and Firm Performance: Evidence from BIST 100 Companies in Turkey. Annals of Dunărea de Jos University. Fascicle I: Economics and Applied Informatics, 22(2), 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassinis, G., & Vafeas, N. (2002). Corporate boards and outside stakeholders as determinants of environmental litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 23(5), 399–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kathuria, V., & Dash, S. (1999). Board size and corporate financial performance: An investigation. Vikalpa, 24(3), 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kocmanová, A., & Dočekalová, M. (2012). Construction of the economic indicators of performance in relation to environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) factors. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 60(4), 195–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, P. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility and the Board of Directors. Geneva Finance Institute, (Working paper).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefort, F., & González, R. (2008). Hacia un mejor gobierno corporativo en chile. Abante, 11(1), 19–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., Miletkov, M. K., Wei, Z., & Yang, T. (2015). Board independence and firm performance in China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 30(C), 223–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loscocco, K. A., Robinson, J., Hall, R. H., & Allen, J. K. (1991). Gender and small business success: An inquiry into women’s relative disadvantage. Social Forces, 70(1), 65–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Maztoul, S. (2014). Does Corporate Governance Matter in Meeting and Beating Analysts’ Forecasts. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(2), 276–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelon, G., & Parbonetti, A. (2012). The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure. Journal of Management and Governance, 16(3), 477–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulder K.F., Segalas J. & Cruz Y. (2004) What professionals should know about Sustainable Development; Results of SD teaching experiences at engineering institutions as starting point for a course design. In: Proceedings of the engineering education in sustainable development conference. Barcelona; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, S. A., & McIntyre, M. L. (2007). Board of director performance: A group dynamics perspective. Corporate Governance, 7(2), 209–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navarro, M. S., & Anson, S. G. (2009). Do families shape corporate governance structure?. Journal of Management & Organization, 15(3), 327–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikolić Jelena, & Babić Verica. (2016). The implications of ownership concentration for shareholder protection and strategic decision-making. Ekonomski Anali, 61(211), 69–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orozco, L. A., Vargas, J., & Galindo-Dorado, R. (2018). Trends on the relationship between board size and financial and reputational corporate performance: The Colombian case. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 27(2), 183–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paoloni, P., & Demartini, P. (2016). Women in management: Perspectives on a decade of research (2005–2015). Palgrave Communications. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. (2013). Using social identity theory to predict managers’ emphases on ethical and legal values in judging business issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 497–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. A., & Zahra, S. A. (1992). Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 29(4), 411–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1972). Size and Composition of Corporate Boards of Directors: The Organization and its Environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (2006). Size, Composition, and Function of Hospital Boards of Directors: A Study of Organization-Environment Linkage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18(3), 349–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platt, H., & Platt, M. (2012). Corporate board attributes and bankruptcy. Journal of Business Research, 65(8), 1139–1143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, D. (2006). Bradford and Bingley audits age diversity in the workplace. Human Resource International Digest, 14(6), 27–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, C., & Byron, K. (2015). Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1546–1571.

    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 

  • Provan, K. G. (1980). Board power and organizational effectiveness among human service agencies. Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management, 23(2), 221–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, K., & Tilt, C. (2016). Board Composition and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Diversity, Gender, Strategy and Decision Making. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(2), 327–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saidat, Z., Silva, M., & Seaman, C. (2019). The relationship between corporate governance and financial performance: Evidence from Jordanian family and nonfamily firms. Journal of Family Business Management, 9(1), 54–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Setó-Pamies, D. (2015). The relationship between women directors and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(6), 334–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singhvi, S. S., & Desai, H. B. (1971). An empirical analysis of the quality of corporate financial disclosure. The Accounting Review, 46(1), 129–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stranberg, C. (2005) The Convergence of Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility: Though-Leader Study.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szabó, D. G., & Sørensen, K. E. (2015). New EU Directive on the Disclosure of Non-Financial Information (CSR). European Company and Financial Law Review, 12(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity of intergroup behavior. In The social psychology of intergroup relations, 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D., & Greening, D. (1997). Corporate Social Performance and Organizational Attractiveness to Prospective Employees. The Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tutino, M., Mattei, G., Paoloni, N., & Santolamazza, V. (2019). Corporate governance, CSR and financial performances: What types of relationships exist between these dimensions? Corporate Governance: Search for the Advanced Practices, 231–240. https://doi.org/10.22495/cpr19p12

    Google Scholar 

  • Vafeas, N. (2003). Length of Board Tenure and Outside Director Independence. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 30(7–8), 1043–1064.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic management journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wartick, S., & Cochran, P. (1985). The Evolution of the Corporate Social Performance Model. The Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758–769.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Studies, University of Roma Tre, Rome, Italy

    M. Paoloni, M. Tutino & G. Mattei

  2. Department of Engineering, University of Roma Tre, Rome, Italy

    N. Paoloni

Authors
  1. M. Paoloni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Tutino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Mattei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. N. Paoloni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Mattei .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law and Economics of Productive Activities, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Paola Paoloni

  2. Department of Law and Economics of Productive Activities, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Rosa Lombardi

Appendices

Appendices

1.1 Appendix 1: Sample

Sample

A2A

Enel

Pirelli

Amplifon

Eni

Prysmian

Atlantia

Exor

Recordati

Azimut Holding

Fiat Chrysler

Saipem

Brembo

Italgas

Salvatore Ferragamo

Buzzi Unicem

Juventus Football Club

Snam

Campari

Leonardo

Telecom Italia

Cnh Industrial

Mediaset

Tenaris

Diasorin

Moncler

Terna

1.2 Appendix 2: CSR Indicators

Name

Description

Charitable giving

The company has consistently given over 1.5% of trailing 3-year net earnings before taxes (NEBT) to charity or has otherwise been notably generous in its giving.

No negative economic impact

The company’s actions haven’t resulted in major controversies concerning its economic impact on the community.

These controversies can include issues related to environmental contamination, water rights disputes, plant closings.

“Put-or-pay” contracts with trash incinerators or other company actions that adversely affect the quality of life, tax base, or property values in the community.

Transparency strength

The company is particularly effective in reporting on a wide range of social and environmental performance measures or is exceptional in reporting on one particular measure.

No high compensation

The company hasn’t recently awarded notably high levels of compensation to its top management or its board members.

The limit for a rating is total compensation of more than $10 million per year for a CEO or $100,000 per year for outside directors.

CEO

The company’s chief executive officer is a woman or a member of a minority group.

Board of Directors

Women, minorities, and/or the disabled hold four seats or more (with no double counting) on the board of directors, or one-third or more of the board seats if the board numbers less than 12.

Women, minority contracting

The company does at least 5% of its subcontracting or otherwise has a demonstrably strong record on purchasing or contracting, with women- and/or minority-owned businesses.

Employee involvement

The company strongly encourages worker involvement and/or ownership through stock options available to a majority of its employees; gain sharing, stock ownership, sharing of financial information, or participation in management decision-making.

Retirement benefits strength

The company has a notably retirement benefits program.

No workforce reductions

The company has not made significant reductions in its workforce in recent years.

Beneficial products and services

The company derives substantial revenues from innovative remediation products, environmental services, or products that promote the efficient use of energy, or it has developed innovative products with environmental benefits.

(The term “environmental service” does not include services with questionable environmental effects, such as landfills, incinerators, waste-to-energy plants, and deep injection wells.)

Clean energy

The company has taken measures to reduce its impact on climate change and air pollution through use of renewable energy and clean fuels or through energy efficiency. The company has demonstrated a commitment to promoting climate-friendly policies and practices outside its own operations.

Pollution prevention

The company has notably pollution prevention programs including both emissions reductions and toxic use reduction programs.

No regulatory problems

The company has not recently paid substantial fines or civil penalties for violations of air, water, or other environmental regulations, or it has a pattern of regulatory controversies.

1.3 Appendix 3: Assumption Regression Model with Dependent Variable – CSR Performance

Null hypothesis: heteroskedasticity not present Test statistic: LM = 11.0384 with p-value = P(Chi-square(9) > 11.0384) = 0.273086 Breusch-Pagan test for heteroskedasticity - Null hypothesis: heteroskedasticity not present Test statistic: LM = 5.28467 with p-value = P(Chi-square(5) > 5.28467) = 0.382136 Test for normality of residual - Null hypothesis: error is normally distributed Test statistic: Chi-square(2) = 0.24289 with p-value = 0.88564 The post estimation tests positively check for the basic assumption of OLS: - The error is normally distributed - There’s no heteroskedasticity, so there are not sub-populations that have different variabilities from others

1.4 Appendix 4: Assumption Regression Model with Dependent Variable – Financial Performance

Null hypothesis: heteroskedasticity not present Test statistic: LM = 9.3682 with p-value = P(Chi-square(12) > 9.3682) = 0.671201 Breusch-Pagan test for heteroskedasticity - Null hypothesis: heteroskedasticity not present Test statistic: LM = 3.69825 with p-value = P(Chi-square (6) > 3.69825) = 0.717434 Test for normality of residual - Null hypothesis: error is normally distributed Test statistic: Chi-square(2) = 0.4341 with p-value = 0.80489 Also for this model the post estimation tests are satisfactory: - The error is normally distributed - There’s no heteroskedasticity

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Paoloni, M., Tutino, M., Mattei, G., Paoloni, N. (2020). Gender and Identity of BoD Members: The Influence on CSR and Financial Performance. In: Paoloni, P., Lombardi, R. (eds) Gender Studies, Entrepreneurship and Human Capital. IPAZIA 2019. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46874-3_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation