The Association Between Gender-Diverse Compensation Committees and CEO Compensation

Abstract

We examine the association between gender-diverse compensation committees and CEO pay and find that CEO compensation levels are negatively associated with gender-diversity of the compensation committee, but not gender-diversity of the board. Furthermore, we find that excess CEO compensation is negatively related to subsequent return on assets for firms with an all-male compensation committee but not for firms with a gender-diverse compensation committee. These results suggest that CEOs do receive some level of excess compensation which can be mitigated by having one or more females on the compensation committee.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Norway maintains a mandatory gender quota of 40 %, Spain of 40 % by 2015, and France is to introduce 50 % by 2015. More recently, the European commission is seeking to implement a 40 % female-quota for company boards across Europe, which is being opposed by eight countries including Britain, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Malta (Traynor 2012).

  2. 2.

    ‘Excess’ compensation is compensation above what can be explained by economic determinants (e.g. Core et al. 1999, 2008).

  3. 3.

    For example, see Cuomo (2009) and Parsons and Puzzanghera (2009).

  4. 4.

    See Weisman and Lublin (2009) and Schuman (2010) for some U.S. examples and Murphy (2010) for proposed changes in Europe. There is also legislation introduced in March 2013 in Switzerland which mandates that CEOs’ incentive payments cannot be greater than a marked percent of their base compensation. And more recently, Say on Pay legislation is being implemented in numerous countries (see for example, Burns and Minnick (2013), Correa and Lel (2013), Cunat et al. (2013), and Kimbro and Xu (2013)).

  5. 5.

    Krishnan and Parsons (2008) also document a positive relation between gender-diversity of senior management and earnings quality. However, the relation between gender-diversity and firm performance remains mixed (e.g. Campbell and Mínguez-Vera 2008; Adams and Ferreira 2009; Joecks et al. 2013; Chapple and Humphrey 2014).

  6. 6.

    See for example, Core et al. (1999) and Smith and Watts (1992).

  7. 7.

    The natural logarithm of these measures is used due to a positively skewed distribution.

  8. 8.

    CEOs may receive excess compensation both as a reward for past performance and an incentive for future performance. We test the incentive aspect of CEO compensation as the reward component is incorporated by our method of estimating expected compensation shown in Eq. 2.

  9. 9.

    We also test the association between gender-diverse compensation committees and levels of excess compensation, discussed in “Further Tests” section.

  10. 10.

    These observations are either data errors or unusual circumstances. The next lowest value for total CEO compensation is $1180.

  11. 11.

    The sample is reduced to 7552 observations for tests on equity compensation due to the removal of firms for which equity data is missing or equal to zero.

  12. 12.

    The descriptive statistics are shown prior to winsorizing the economic control variables at the 0.05 and 99.5 percentiles to remove the effect of significant outliers/data errors.

  13. 13.

    This is expected due to the Compustat database being biased towards large listed firms.

  14. 14.

    For tests on equity, the sample reduces to 4690 observations as we exclude firms for which equity data are missing or equal to zero.

  15. 15.

    Tobit regression is used for bonus due to the large number of zero bonuses in the sample. We also use rank regressions to test the robustness of results and then OLS regressions after having deleted zero bonus firms. The results do not change.

  16. 16.

    This involves estimating a yearly logit regression that models the probability of having a female on the compensation committee. See Rosenbaum (2001) for an overview of the procedure and applications, Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983) for a detailed theoretical discussion, and Armstrong et al. (2012) for a discussion and example of the procedure.

  17. 17.

    See Adams and Ferreira (2009), Carter et al. (2003) and Farrell and Hersch (2005).

  18. 18.

    In nearly all of the matching regressions used in the propensity score procedure, sales is insignificant. The percentage of female directors on the board and board size are positive and significant.

  19. 19.

    The financial services industry (GICS 40) is regulated and known for high levels of executive compensation. Although industry indicators are included in the models, it is possible that the financial industry is influencing the results.

  20. 20.

    The inclusion of additional governance variables did not reduce the size or significance of the gender-diverse compensation committee variable. The majority of female directors in the sample are independent directors as opposed to executive directors and thus examining only independent female directors did not alter results.

  21. 21.

    There are many articles in the mainstream press that argue female business leaders receive lower compensation due to some form of gender discrimination; however, recent research shows this is not the case for CEOs (Bugeja et al. 2012).

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Adams, R., & Funk, P. (2012). Beyond the glass ceiling: Does gender matter? Management Science, 58, 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, R. C., & Bizjak, J. M. (2003). An empirical examination of the role of the CEO and the compensation committee in structuring executive pay. Journal of Banking & Finance, 27, 1323–1349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Armstrong, C. S., Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (2012). Corporate governance, compensation consultants, and CEO pay levels. Review of Accounting Studies, 17(2), 322–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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, 207–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bebchuk, L., Fried, J., & Fried, J. M. (2003). Executive compensation as an agency problem. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(3), 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bebchuk, L., Fried, J., & Walker, D. (2002). Managerial power and rent extraction in the design of executive compensation. The University of Chicago Law Review, 69, 751–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bilimoria, D., & Piderit, S. K. (1994). Board Committee Membership: Effect of sex-based bias. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1453–1477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Boulouta, I. (2013). Hidden connections: The link between board gender diversity and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bugeja, M., Matolcsy, Z. P., & Spiropoulos, H. (2012). Is there a gender gap in CEO compensation? Journal of Corporate Finance, 18(4), 849–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Burns, N., & Minnick, K. (2013). Does say-on-pay matter? Evidence from say-on-pay proposals in the United States. The Financial Review, 48, 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chalmers, K., Koh, P., & Stapledon, G. (2006). The determinants of CEO compensation: Rent extraction or labour demand? The British Accounting Review, 38, 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chapple, L., & Humphrey, J. (2014). Does board gender diversity have a financial impact? Evidence using stock portfolio performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 709–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Coles, J. L., Daniel, N. D., & Naveen, L. (2008). Boards: Does one size fit all? Journal of Financial Economics, 87(2), 329–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Core, J. E., Guay, W. R., & Larcker, D. F. (2008). The power of the pen and executive compensation. Journal of Financial Economics, 88, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Core, J. E., Holthausen, R. W., & Larcker, D. F. (1999). Corporate governance, chief executive officer compensation, and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 51(3), 371–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Correa, R., & Lel, U. (2013). Say on Pay Laws, Executive Compensation, CEO Pay Slice, and Firm Value around the World. Working Paper. SSRN eLibrary.

  20. Cunat, V., Gine, M., & Gaudalupe, M. (2013). Say Pays! Shareholder voice and firm performance. Working Paper. SSRN eLibrary.

  21. Cuomo, A. M. (2009, July 30). No rhyme or reason: The ‘Heads I win, tails you Lose’ bank Bonus Culture. Attorney General State of New York.

  22. Daily, C. M., Johnson, J. L., Ellstrand, A. E., & Dalton, D. R. (1998). Compensation committee compensation as a determinant. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 209–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Farrell, K. A., & Hersch, P. L. (2005). Additions to corporate boards: The effect of gender. Journal of Corporate Finance, 11(1/2), 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Grinstein, Y., & Hribar, P. (2004). CEO compensation and incentives: Evidence from M&A bonuses. Journal of Financial Economics, 73(1), 119–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gul, F. A., Srinidhi, B., & Ng, A. C. (2011). Does board gender diversity improve the informativeness of stock prices? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 51(3), 314–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251–1271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Huse, M., & Solberg, A. (2006). Gender-related boardroom dynamics: How Scandinavian women make and can make contributions on corporate boards. Women in Management Review, 21(2), 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jensen, M. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 22(1), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Joecks, J., Pull, K., & Vetter, K. (2013). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance: What exactly constitutes a ‘critical mass?’. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kesner, I. F. (1988). Directors' characteristics and committee membership: An investigation of type, occupation, tenure and gender. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 66–84.

  33. Kimbro, M. B., & Xu, D. (2013). Shareholders have a say on executive compensation: Evidence from say-on-pay in the United States. Working Paper. SSRN eLibrary.

  34. Konrad, A. M., Kramer, V., & Erkut, S. (2008). Critical mass: The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics, 37(2), 145–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Krishnan, G., & Parsons, L. (2008). Getting to the bottom line: An exploration of gender and earnings quality. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Larker, D. F., Richardson, S. A., & Tuna, I. (2007). Corporate governance, accounting outcomes and organizational performance. The Accounting Review, 82(4), 963–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Levi, M., Li, K., & Zhang, F. 2014. Director gender and mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Corporate Finance (forthcoming).

  38. Murphy, K. J. (1985). Corporate performance and managerial remuneration. An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 7(1–3), 11–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Murphy, M. (2010, October 7). Europe’s bankers face bonus blues. Financial Times.

  40. Parsons, C., & Puzzanghera, J. (2009, January 30). USA finance: Sharp words from Obama over Wall Street Bonuses. Los Angeles Times.

  41. Rosenbaum, P. R. (2001). Observational studies: Overview. In J. S. Neil & B. B. Paul (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 10808–10815). Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Schuman, I. (2010, March 25). Bill would limit executive compensation paid by systematically significant financial institutions. Washington DC Employment Law Update.

  44. Smith, C. W., Jr., & Watts, R. L. (1992). The investment opportunity set and corporate financing, dividend, and compensation policies. Journal of Financial Economics, 32(3), 263–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Srinidhi, B., Gul, F. A., & Tsui, J. (2011). Female directors and earnings quality. Contemporary Accounting Research., 28(5), 1610–1644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sun, J., Cahan, S. F., & Emanuel, D. (2009). Compensation committee governance quality, chief executive officer stock option grants, and future performance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 33(8), 1507–1519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Traynor, I. (2012, September 17). Britain could scupper EU mandatory quotas for women on company boards. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/sep/17/britain-eu-mandatory-quotas-women-boards.

  48. Wade, J., O’Reilly, C. A., & Chandratat, I. (1990). Golden parachutes: CEOs and the exercise of social influence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 587–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Weisman, J., & Lublin, J. S. (2009, February 5). Obama lays out limits on executive pay. The Wall Street Journal.

  50. White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Yermack, D. (1996). Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40(2), 185–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Zhang, J., Zhu, H., & Ding, H.-B. (2013). Board composition and corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation in the post Sarbanes-Oxley Era. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 381–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen Spiropoulos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bugeja, M., Matolcsy, Z. & Spiropoulos, H. The Association Between Gender-Diverse Compensation Committees and CEO Compensation. J Bus Ethics 139, 375–390 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2660-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gender-diversity
  • Compensation committee
  • CEO compensation