Skip to main content

Female Institutional Directors on Boards and Firm Value

Abstract

The aim of this research is to examine what impact female institutional directors on boards have on corporate performance. Previous research shows that institutional female directors cannot be considered as a homogeneous group since they represent investors who may or may not maintain business relations with the companies on whose corporate boards they sit. Thus, it is not only the effect of female institutional directors as a whole on firm value that has been analysed, but also the impact of pressure-resistant female directors, who represent institutional investors (investment, pension and mutual funds) that only invest in the company, and do not maintain a business relation with the firm. We hypothesize that there is a non-linear association, specifically quadratic, between institutional and pressure-resistant female directors on boards and corporate performance. Our results report that female institutional directors on boards enhance corporate performance, but when they reach a certain threshold on boards (11.72 %), firm value decreases. In line with female institutional directors, pressure-resistant female directors on boards also increase firm value, but only up to a certain figure (12.71 % on boards), above which they have a negative impact on firm performance. These findings are consistent with an inverted U-shaped relationship between female institutional directors and pressure-resistant female directors and firm performance.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Various features associated with the female leadership style mean that women directors may not have the same impact on board functions, and as a result, on corporate performance, as men directors. The essential differences between female and male leadership styles may be because women have different human capital and because there are innate differences between men’s and women’s personalities, among others. This may explain why women ask more questions than men and why women lead to more civilized behaviour and sensitivity to other perspectives, since they bring different concerns, perspectives, sensibilities and experiences and provide richer and deeper discussions and more constructive dissent. Furthermore, female leadership style may also explain why women are perceived to be more risk-averse than men and will thus be less trusted to make risky decisions, why female directors may exercise greater control over management and may be quicker to detect opportunistic behaviours than male counterparts and why female directors may be stricter in monitoring management and behave more ethically than male directors, because women prepare more conscientiously for meetings, attend more meetings, enhance the attendance behaviour of men directors, are stricter complying with the norms and behave more prudently. Finally, the fact that women investors may be less sophisticated and sensitive financially than male investors may also be a consequence of the low level of risk that females prefer, as well as their financial conservatism, characteristics of the female leadership style.

  2. 2.

    The term “more civilized behaviour” can be defined as being more ethical, more constructive, more conscientious, more tolerant, more peaceful and more moderate, among others.

References

  1. Abdelsalam, O., El-Masry, A., & Elsegini, S. (2008). Board composition, ownership structure and dividend policies in an emerging market: Further evidence from CASE 50. Managerial Finance, 34(12), 953–964.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Act 3/2007, of 22 March, for Effective Equality between Women and Men.

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

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aggarwal, R., Erel, I., Ferreira, M., & Matos, P. (2011). Does governance travel around the world? Evidence from institutional investors. Journal of Financial Economics, 100(1), 154–181.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ahl, H. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 595–621.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Al Farooque, O. A., Van Zijl, T., Dunstan, K., & Karim, A. W. (2007). Ownership structure and corporate performance: Evidence from Bangladesh. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 14(2), 127–149.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Aldama Report. (2003). Informe de la comisión especial para el fomento de la transparencia y la seguridad en los mercados financieros y en las sociedades cotizadas. Madrid: Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ali, M., Ng, Y. L., & Kulik, C. (2014). Board age and gender diversity: A test of competing linear and curvilinear predictions. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(3), 497–512.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Allen, J. W. (2001). Private information and spin-off performance. The Journal of Business, 74(2), 281–306.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Almazán, A., Hartzell, J. C., & Starks, L. T. (2005). Active institutional shareholders and costs of monitoring: Evidence from executive compensation. Financial Management, 34(4), 5–34.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Anderson, R. C., Mansi, S. A., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding family ownership and the agency cost of debt. Journal of Financial Economics, 68(2), 263–285.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Archambeaut, D., & DeZoort, F. T. (2001). Auditor opinion shopping and the Audit Committee: An analysis of suspicious auditor switches. International Journal of Auditing, 5(1), 33–52.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Arellano, M. (2003). Panel data econometrics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Atkinson, S. M., Baird, S. B., & Frye, M. B. (2003). Do female mutual fund managers manage differently? Journal of Financial Research, 26(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Attig, N., El Ghoul, S., & Guedhami, O. (2009). Do multiple large shareholders play a corporate governance role? Evidence from East Asia. Journal of Financial Research, 32(4), 395–422.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2001). Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 261–292.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Baum, F. C. (2006). An introduction to modern econometrics using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Beiner, S., Drobetz, W., Schmid, M. M., & Zimmermann, H. (2006). An integrated framework of corporate governance and firm valuation. European Financial Management, 12(2), 249–283.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bennett, J. A., Sias, R. W., & Starks, L. T. (2003). Greener pastures and the impact of dynamic institutional preferences. Review of Financial Studies, 16(4), 1203–1238.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bhattacharya, P. S., & Graham, M. (2007). Institutional ownership and firm value: Evidence from Finland? Working Paper, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Faculty of Business and Law, Deaking University, Melbourne.

  21. Bilimoria, D. (2000). Building the business case for women corporate directors. Women on Corporate Boards of Directors, 14, 25–40.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Booth, J. R., & Deli, D. N. (1999). On executives of financial institutions as outside directors. Journal of Corporate Finance, 5(3), 227–250.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Boubakri, N., & Ghouma, H. (2010). Control/ownership structure, creditor rights protection, and the cost of debt financing: International evidence. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(10), 2481–2499.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Brickley, J. A., Lease, R. C., & Smith, C. W. (1988). Ownership structure and voting on antitakeover amendments. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 267–291.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Burgess, Z., & Tharenou, P. (2002). Women board directors: Characteristics of the few. Journal of Business Ethics, 37(1), 39–49.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Burke, R. J. (1997). Women on corporate boards of directors: And needed resource. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(9), 909–915.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Burriel, P., Labrador, M., & Brusca, I. (2012). Factores explicativos de la rentabilidad: Género y Responsabilidad Social Empresarial. Paper presented at XV Congreso de la Asociación Española de Profesores Universitarios de Contabilidad, Cádiz.

  29. Byrnes, J., Miller, D., & Schafer, W. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  31. Campbell, K., & Mínguez-Vera, A. M. (2010). Female board appointments and firm valuation: Short and long-term effects. Journal of Management and Governance, 14(1), 37–59.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Carcello, J. V., & Neal, T. L. (2000). Audit committee composition and auditor reporting. The Accounting Review, 75(4), 453–467.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Carleton, W. T., Nelson, J. A., & Weisbach, M. S. (1998). The influence of institutions on corporate governance through private negotiations: Evidence from TIAAF-CREF”. Journal of Finance, 53(4), 1335–1362.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  36. Chen, C. R., Guo, W., & Mande, V. (2003). Managerial ownership and firm valuation: Evidence from Japanese firms. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 11(3), 267–283.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Chen, J., Blenman, L., & Chen, D. H. (2008). Does institutional ownership create values? The New Zealand case. Quarterly Journal of Finance and Accounting, 32, 109–124.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Chen, Z., Cheung, Y. L., Stouraitis, A., & Wong, A. W. (2005). Ownership concentration, firm value, and dividend policy in Hong Kong. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 13(4), 431–449.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Chirinko, R. S., van Ees, H., Garretsen, H., & Sterken, E. (1999). Firm value, financial institutions and corporate governance in the Netherlands. CESifo Working Paper.

  40. Christopher, J. (2010). Corporate governance—A multi-theoretical approach to recognizing the wider influencing forces impacting on organizations. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(8), 683–695.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Chung, R., Firth, M., & Kim, J. B. (2002). Institutional monitoring and opportunistic earnings management. Journal of Corporate Finance, 8(1), 29–48.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Coles, J. W., McWilliams, V. B., & Sen, N. (2001). An examination of the relationship of governance mechanisms to performance. Journal of Management, 27(1), 23–50.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Cornett, M. M., Marcus, A. J., Saunders, A., & Tehranian, H. (2007). The impact of institutional ownership on corporate operating performance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 31(6), 1771–1794.

    Google Scholar 

  44. De Miguel, A., Pindado, J., & De la Torre, C. (2004). Ownership structure and firm value: New evidence from Spain. Strategic Management Journal, 25(12), 1199–1207.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 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 

  46. Del Guercio, D., & Hawkins, J. (1999). The motivation and impact of pension fund activism. Journal of Financial Economics, 52(3), 293–340.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Demsetz, H., & Villalonga, B. (2001). Ownership structure and corporate performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 7(3), 209–233.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Dong, H. (2014). Essays on mutual fund strategies and investor characteristics. UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRID. Tesis Doctoral. Doctorado en Economía de la Empresa y Métodos Cuantitativos. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa. Mayo.

  49. Dong, M., & Ozkan, A. (2008). Institutional investors and director pay: An empirical study of UK companies. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 18(1), 16–29.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Drago, C., Millo, F., Ricciuti, R., & Satella, P. (201)1. The role of women in the Italian Network of Boards of Directors, 2003–2010. Working Paper Series Department of Economics, University of Verona, [ISSN: 2036-2919 (paper), 2036-4679 (online)].

  51. Eisenberg, T., Sundgren, S., & Wells, M. T. (1998). Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 48(1), 35–54.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Elyasiani, E., & Jia, J. (2010). Distribution of institutional ownership and corporate firm value. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(3), 606–620.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Erhardt, N., Werbel, J., & Shrader, C. (2003). Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(2), 102–110.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Faccio, M., & Lang, L. H. (2002). The ultimate ownership of Western European corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 65(3), 365–395.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Farinha, J. (2003). Dividend policy, corporate governance and the managerial entrenchment hypothesis: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 30(9–10), 1173–1209.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ferreira, M. A., & Matos, P. (2008). The colors of investors’ money: The role of institutional investors around the world. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(3), 499–533.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Fondas, N., & Sassalos, S. (2000). A different voice in the boardroom: How the presence of women directors affects board influence over management. Global Focus, 12(2), 13–22.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Francoeur, C., Labelle, R., & Sinclair-Desgnané, B. (2008). Gender diversity in corporate governance and top management. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 83–95.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Frink, D. D., Robinson, R. K., Reithel, B., Arthur, M. M., Ammeter, A. P., Ferris, G. R., et al. (2003). Gender demography and organization performance a two-study investigation with convergence. Group and Organization Management, 28(1), 127–147.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Garba, T., & Abubakar, B. A. (2014). Corporate board diversity and financial performance of insurance companies in Nigeria: An application of panel data approach. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 4(2), 257–277.

    Google Scholar 

  61. García-Meca, E., López-Iturriaga, F., & Tejerina, F. (2015). Institutional investors on board. Does their behaviour influence corporate finance? Journal of Business Ethics, 2, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  62. García-Osma, B., & Gill de Albornoz-Noguer, B. (2007). The effect of the board composition and its monitoring committees on earnings management: Evidence from Spain. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(6), 1413–1428.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Gillan, S. L., & Starks, L. T. (2003). Corporate governance, corporate ownership, and the role of institutional investors, a global perspective. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 13(2), 4–22.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Giner, B., & Pardo, F. (2015). How ethical are managers’ goodwill impairment decisions in Spanish-listed firms? Journal of Business Ethics, 132(1), 21–40.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Grant Thornton. (2013). Women in senior management: Setting the stage for growth. Available at: www.grantthornton.ie.

  66. Gómez-Ansón, S. (2005). Diversidad de género en los consejos de administración de las sociedades cotizadas y cajas de ahorros españolas. Papeles de la Fundación de Estudios Financieros, paper 12.

  67. Gulzar, M. A., & Wang, Z. (2011). Corporate Governance characteristics and earnings management: Empirical evidence from Chinese listed firms. International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting., 1(1), 134–151.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Haan, C. T. (2002). Statistical methods in hydrology (2nd ed.). Ames, IA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Haddaji, W. (2009). Corporate Governance and corporate control: Evidence from trading. Doctoral dissertation, Duke University.

  70. Han, K. C., Lee, S. H., & Suk, D. Y. (1999). Institutional shareholders and dividends. Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions, 12(1), 53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Heidrick & Struggles. (2011). Challenging board performance. European report on corporate governance: Chicago, IL: Heidrick & Struggles.

  72. Heidrick & Struggles. (2014). Towards dynamics governance 2014. European corporate governance report. Chicago, IL: Heidrick & Struggles.

  73. Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (1998). Endogenously chosen boards of directors and their monitoring of the CEO. American Economic Review, 88, 96–118.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Hidalgo, R., García, E., & Demetrio, S. (2012). Impacta la estructura del Gobierno Corporativo en la rentabilidad empresarial? Paper presented at al XV Congreso de la Asociación Española de Profesores Universitarios de Contabilidad, Cádiz.

  75. Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm value: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383–396.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Hovakimian, A., & Li, G. (2010). Shareholder investment horizons and payout policy. Available at SSRN 1571757.

  78. Hu, Y., & Izumida, S. (2008). Ownership concentration and corporate performance: A causal analysis with Japanese panel data. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(4), 342–358.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Huse, M., Nielsen, S., & Hagen, I. M. (2009). Women and employee-elected board members, and their contributions to board control tasks. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 581–597.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  81. Huson, M. R. (1997). Does governance matter? Evidence from CalPERS interventions. Unpublished working paper, University of Alberta, Edmonton.

  82. Ibrahim, H., & Samad, F. A. (2014). Corporate governance mechanisms and performance of public-listed family-ownership in Malaysia. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 3(1), 105–115.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Jacobson, R., & Aaker, D. (1993). Myopic management behaviour with efficient, but imperfect, financial markets: A comparison of information asymmetries in the US and Japan. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 16(49), 383–405.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Jara-Bertín, M., López-Iturriaga, F., & López-de-Foronda, O. (2012). Does the influence of institutional investors depend on the institutional framework? An international analysis. Applied Economics, 44(3), 265–278.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American Economic Review, 76(2), 323–329.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  88. Jiao, Y., & Ye, P. (2013). Public pension fund ownership and firm performance. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 40(3), 571–590.

    Google Scholar 

  89. 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 

  90. Johnsen, G. J., & McMahon, R. G. (2005). Owner-manager gender, financial performance and business growth amongst SMEs from Australia’s business longitudinal survey. International Small Business Journal, 23(2), 115–142.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Johnson, J. L., Daily, C. M., & Ellstrand, A. E. (1996). Boards of directors: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22(3), 409–438.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Johnson, R. A., & Greening, D. W. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 564–576.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Karpoff, J. M. (1999). The impact of shareholder activism on target companies: A survey of empirical findings. Unpublished working paper, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

  94. Khazanchi, D. (1995). Unethical behavior in information systems: The gender factor. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(9), 741–749.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Kirchmaier, T., & Grant, J. (2005). Corporate ownership structure and performance in Europe. European Management Review, 2(3), 231–245.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Klock, M. S., Mansi, S. A., & Maxwell, W. F. (2005). Does corporate governance matter to bondholders? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 40(4), 693–719.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Knouse, S. B., & Dansby, M. R. (1999). Percentage of work-group diversity and work-group effectiveness. The Journal of Psychology, 133, 486–494.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Knyazeva, A., Knyazeva, D., & Raheja, C. G. (2013). The benefits of focus versus heterogeneity: Dissimilar directors and coordination within corporate boards. Unpublished working paper.

  99. Kochhar, R., & David, P. (1996). Institutional investors and firm innovation: A test of competing hypotheses. Strategic Management Journal, 17(1), 73–84.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Kravitz, D. A. (2003). More women in the workplace: Is there a payoff in firm performance? Academy of Management Executive, 17(3), 148–149.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Kumar, J. (2004). Does corporate governance influence firm value? Evidence from Indian firms. Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance and Business Ventures, 9(2), 61–92.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Kumar, N., & Singh, J. P. (2012). Outside directors, corporate governance and firm value: Empirical evidence from India. Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, 4(2), 39–55.

    Google Scholar 

  103. La Porta, R., López de Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance, 54(2), 471–517.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Lee, J. W., & Zhang, Z. (2011). Ownership structure, corporate governance and firm value: Evidence from Chinese listed companies. In Corporate governance and firm value: Evidence from Chinese listed companies finance and corporate governance conference. December 16, 2010.

  105. Levine, R. (1999). Law, finance, and economic growth. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 8(1), 8–35.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Levine, R., Loayza, N., & Beck, T. (2000). Financial intermediation and growth: Causality and causes. Journal of Monetary Economics, 46(1), 31–77.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Lin, F. (2010). A panel threshold model of institutional ownership and firm value in Taiwan. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 42, 54–62.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Liu, Y., Wei, Z., & Xie, F. (2013). Do women directors improve firm value in China? Journal of Corporate Finance, 46, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  109. López-Iturriaga, F. J., García-Meca, E., & Tejerina Gaite, F. (2015). Institutional directors and board compensation: Spanish evidence. Business Research Quarterly, 18, 161–173.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Loukil, N., & Yousfi, O. (2013). Does gender diversity on board lead to risk-taking? Empirical evidence from Tunisia. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 33, 66–81.

  111. Lückerath-Rovers, M. (2013). Women on boards and firm value. Journal of Management and Governance, 17(2), 491–509.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Mak, Y. T., & Kusnadi, Y. (2005). Size really matters: Further evidence on the negative relationship between board size and firm value. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 13(3), 301–318.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Manzaneque, M., Merino, E., & Priego, A.M. (2016). The role of institutional shareholders as owners and directors and the financial distress likelihood. Evidence from a concentrated ownership context. European Management Journal, Forthcoming.

  114. Martín-Ugedo, J. F., & Mínguez-Vera, A. (2014). Firm value and women on the board: Evidence from Spanish small and medium-sized enterprises. Feminist Economics, 20(3), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Masulis, R. W., & Mobbs, S. (2011). Are all inside directors the same? Evidence from the external directorship market. Journal of Finance, 66(3), 823–872.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Mateos de Cabo, R. M., Gimeno, R., & Escot, L. (2010). Discriminación en consejos de administración: Análisis e implicaciones económicas. Revista de Economía Aplicada, 18(53), 131–162.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Maznevski, M. L. (1994). Understanding our differences: Performance in decision-making groups with diverse members. Human Relations, 47(5), 531–552.

    Google Scholar 

  118. McConnell, J. J., & Servaes, H. (1990). Additional evidence on equity ownership and corporate value. Journal of Financial Economics, 27, 595–612.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1988). Management ownership and market valuation: An empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 293–315.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Muller-Kahle, M. I. (2012). The impact of dominant ownership: The case of Anglo-American firms. Journal of Management & Governance, 16, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Navissi, F., & Naiker, V. (2006). Institutional ownership and corporate value. Managerial Finance, 32(3), 247–256.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Nekhili, M., & Gatfaoui, H. (2013). Are demographic attributes and firm characteristics drivers of gender diversity? Investigating women’s positions on French boards of directors. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2), 227–249.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kumer, M. (1985). Applied linear statistical models. Homewood, IL: Irwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  124. 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 

  125. Olivencia Report. (1998). El Buen Gobierno de las Sociedades. Madrid: Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda.

  126. Pathan, S., & Faff, R. (2013). Does board structure in banks really affect their performance? Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(5), 1573–1589.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervention process theory. Organization Science, 7, 615–631.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Peng, M. W. (2004). Outside directors and firm value during institutional transitions. Strategic Management Journal, 25(5), 453–471.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Peng, M. W., Zhang, S., & Li, X. (2007). CEO duality and firm value during China’s institutional transitions. Management and Organization Review, 3(2), 205–225.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Pound, J. (1988). Proxy contest and the efficiency of shareholder oversight. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 237–265.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Pucheta-Martínez, M. C., & García-Meca, E. (2014). Institutional investors on boards and audit committees and their effects on financial reporting quality. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 22(4), 347–363.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Qi, B., & Tian, G. (2012). The impact of Audit Committees’ personal characteristics on earnings management: Evidence from China. Journal of Applied Business Research, 28(6), 1331–1343.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Rajgopal, S., & Venkatachalam, M. (1998). The role of institutional investors in corporate governance: An empirical investigation. Working paper, University of Washington/Stanford University.

  134. Rashid, A. (2012). Corporate governance, ownership structure and firm value: Evidence from an emerging economy. Corporate Ownership and Control, 9(4), 441–455.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Rashid, A. (2013). CEO duality and agency cost: Evidence from Bangladesh. Journal of Management and Governance, 17, 989–1008.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Rashid, A., De Zoysa, A., Lodh, S., & Rudkin, K. (2010). Board composition and firm performance: Evidence from Bangladesh. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 4(1), 76–95.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. Academy of Management Executive, 11(3), 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Rogelberg, S. G., & Rumery, S. M. (1996). Gender diversity, team decision quality, time on task, and interpersonal cohesion. Small Group Research, 27(1), 79–90.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Ruegger, D., & King, E. W. (1992). A study of the effect of age and gender upon student business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(3), 179–186.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Ruiz-Mallorquí, M. V., & Santana-Martín, D. J. (2011). Dominant institutional owners and firm value. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(1), 118–129.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Sacramento, M., Moreira, A. C., & Vieira, E. F. S. (2013). Blockholders presence, identity and institutional context. Are they relevant for firm value? International Journal Business Governance and Ethics, 8(1), 18–49.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Sahu, A. K. (2014). Do financial institutions affect firm value? An empirical analysis in Indian market. SSRN Electronic Journal, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2413074.

  143. Sahut, J. M., & Othmani-Gharbi, H. (2010). Institutional investors’ typology and firm value: The case of French firms. International Journal of Business, 15(1), 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Saunders, A., Cornett, M. M., Marcus, A. J., & Tehranian, H. (2003). The impact of institutional ownership on corporate operating performance. NYU Stern Finance Working Paper No. 03-033.

  145. Schwartz-Ziv, M. (2011). Are all welcome a-board: What do women directors bring to the table. Working Paper, Hebrew University.

  146. Sheikh, N. A., Wang, Z., & Khan, S. (2013). The impact of internal attributes of corporate governance on firm value: Evidence from Pakistan. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 23(1), 38–55.

    Google Scholar 

  147. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1986). Large shareholders and corporate control. Journal of Political Economy, 94(3), 458–461.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Short, H., Zhang, H., & Keasey, K. (2002). The link between dividend policy and institutional ownership. Journal of Corporate Finance, 8(2), 105–122.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Simons, T., & Pelled, L. H. (1999). Understanding executive diversity: More than meets the eye. Human Resource Planning, 22, 49–51.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Singh, V. (2007). Ethnic diversity on top corporate boards: A resource dependency perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(12), 2128–2146.

    Google Scholar 

  151. Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 61–76). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Talpsepp, T. (2013). Does gender and age affect investor performance and the disposition effect? Research in Economics and Business: Central and Eastern Europe, 2(1), 76–93.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2009). Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 320–337.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Tian, J. J., & Lau, C. M. (2001). Board composition, leadership structure and performance in Chinese shareholding companies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 18(2), 245–263.

    Google Scholar 

  155. Unified Code of Corporate Governance (CUBG). (2015). Informe del grupo especial de trabajo sobre buen gobierno de las sociedades cotizadas. Madrid: Comité Conthe.

    Google Scholar 

  156. Valsan, R. (2015). Gender diversity in the boards of directors: A corporate governance perspective. Working paper, European Union Centre of Excellence, University of Alberta.

  157. Van Essen, M., Van Oosterhout, J., & Heugens, P. P. (2013). Competition and cooperation in corporate governance: The effects of labour institutions on blockholder effectiveness in 23 European countries. Organization Science, 24(2), 530–551.

    Google Scholar 

  158. Van Nuys, K. (1993). Corporate governance through the proxy process: Evidence from the 1989 Honeywell proxy solicitation. Journal of Financial Economics, 34, 101–132.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Van Pelt, T. (2013). The effect of board characteristics on dividend policy. Tilburg: Tilburg University.

    Google Scholar 

  160. Villalonga, B., & Amit, R. (2006). How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value? Journal of Financial Economics, 80(2), 385–417.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Vo, D. H., & Nguyen, T. M. (2014). The impact of corporate governance on firm value: Empirical study in Vietnam. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 6(6), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Wahba, H., & Elsayed, K. (2014). The effect of institutional investor type on the relationship between CEO duality and financial performance. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 9(3), 221–242.

    Google Scholar 

  163. Wang, M. (2014). Which types of institutional investors constrain abnormal accruals? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 22(1), 43–67.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Wei, Z., Xie, F., & Zhang, S. (2005). Ownership structure and firm value in China’s privatized firms: 1991–2001. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 40(01), 87–108.

    Google Scholar 

  165. Welch, S., & Wang, Y. (2013). Is manager gender important in the performance of mutual funds? Accounting and Finance Faculty Publications, 6, 1–31. Available: http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/acct_pubs/6.

  166. Wellalage, N., Fauzi, F., & Wang, G. (2012). Corporate governance and cash dividend policy: Evidence from Chinese IPOs. Working Paper.

  167. Yeh, Y. (2005). Do controlling shareholders enhance corporate value? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13(2), 313–325.

    Google Scholar 

  168. Yermack, D. (1996). Higher valuation of companies with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40(2), 185–213.

    Google Scholar 

  169. Yuan, R., Xiao, J. Z., & Zou, H. (2008). Mutual funds’ ownership and firm value: Evidence from China. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32(8), 1552–1565.

    Google Scholar 

  170. Zou, H. (2010). Hedging affecting firm value via financing and investment: Evidence from property insurance use. Financial Management, 39(3), 965–996.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María Consuelo Pucheta-Martínez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pucheta-Martínez, M.C., Bel-Oms, I. & Olcina-Sempere, G. Female Institutional Directors on Boards and Firm Value. J Bus Ethics 152, 343–363 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3265-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Corporate governance
  • Female institutional directors
  • Pressure-resistant female directors
  • Board of directors
  • Firm value