Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Board Diversity and Corporate Social Responsibility: Empirical Evidence from France

Journal of Business Ethics volume 173, pages 133–155 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

This study analyzes how the board’s characteristics could be associated with globally corporate social responsibility CSR and specific areas of CSR. It is drawn on all listed firms, in 2016, on the SBF120 between 2003 and 2016. Our results provide strong evidence that diversity in boards and diversity of boards globally are positively associated with corporate social performance. However, they influence differently specific dimensions of CSR performance. First, we show that large boards are positively associated with all areas of CSR performance, while specific and overall CSR scores are negatively associated with CEO-chair structures. Second, board gender diversity is positively associated with human rights and corporate governance dimensions. Third, age diversity is positively associated with corporate governance, human resources, human rights, and environmental activities. Also, our results provide evidence that outside directors care about CSR performance. Specifically, the presence of foreign directors is positively associated with environmental performance and community involvement, whereas CSR-Governance dimension is positively associated with the presence of independent directors. Regarding the director’s educational level, post-graduated directors are positively and significantly associated with overall CSR score and all CSR sub-scores, except the corporate governance one. When directors have multiple directorships, they are more concerned about human resources, environmental performance, and business ethics. Finally, our findings are robust only in non-family firms. In fact, family boards are less diverse than non-family ones; specifically, they have a lower number of independent, foreign, and high-educated directors.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Notes

  1. VigeoEiris is a global provider of environmental, social and governance (ESG) research to investors and public and private corporates in 41 sectors on 38 ESG. Scores vary from 0 to 100. CSR score is used to assign a relative performance rating from—- to +  + on a scale of 5 levels of scoring.

  2. More statistics are available upon request.

  3. The second stage is to achieve at least 40% of board members, in 2017.

  4. In previous studies, authors focus on either all French listed firms appearing in the World scope database (Boubaker and Labégorre 2008), or small and medium-sized corporations (Faccio and Lang 2002), or non-financial listed firms (Nekhili et al. 2016). However, in the current study, we calculate the percentage of family-controlled firms among financial and non-financial firms listed on the SBF 120 index of 2016.

References

  • Aboody, D., & Lev, B. (2000). Information asymmetry, R&D, and insider gains. The Journal of Finance, 55(6), 2747–2766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. A. (2002). Internal organizational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting: Beyond current theorizing. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(2), 223–250.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A., & Chadha, S. (2005). Corporate Governance and Accounting Scandals. Journal of Law and Economics, 48, 371–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Tuwaijri, S. A., Christensen, T. E., & Hughes, K. E. (2004). The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: A simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(5–6), 447–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexis, C., Pierre, C., & Gajewski, J. (2011). Les annonces de notations extra financières véhiculent-elles une information au marché ? Finance Contrôle Stratégie, Association FCS, 14(3), 5–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amama, S., Yan, Q., & Grzegorz, T. (2015). Board attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. Journal Business Ethics, 135(3), 569–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aras, G., & Crowther, D. (2008). Governance and sustainability: An investigation into the relationship between corporate governance and corporate sustainability. Management Decision, 46(3), 433–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argandoña, A. (2008). Integrating ethics into action theory and organizational theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(3), 435–446.

    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, 136–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baret, P. (2007). Comprendre l’appropriation de la RSE: quel(s) éclairage(s) théorique(s)?. 16e Conférence Internationale de Management Stratégique.

  • Barney, J. B., & Tyler, B. (1991). The attributes of top management teams and sustained competitive advantage. In M. Lawless & L. R. Gomez-Mejia (Eds.), Managing the high technology firm. Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, T., Lepetit, L., & Tarazi, A. (2011). Ownership structure and risk in publicly held and privately owned banks. Journal of Banking and Finance, 35(5), 1327–1340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barontini, R., & Caprio, L. (2006). The effect of family control on firm value and performance: Evidence from continental Europe. European Financial Management, 12(5), 689–723.

    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., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Variables perceived by managers as antecedents to environmental management: An empirical study in the Turkish construction sector. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 9, 157–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Amar, W., Chang, M., & McIlkenny, P. (2017). Board gender diversity and corporate response to sustainability initiatives: Evidence from the Carbon Di.sclosure Project. Journal of Business Ethics, 142, 369–383.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi, R. A., & Arnold, D. F., Sr. (1997). An examination of moral development within public accounting by gender, staff level, and firm. Contemporary Accounting Research, 14(4), 653–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25(3), 258–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertoni, F., Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2014). Board independence, ownership structure and the valuation of IPOs in continental Europe. Corporate Governance International Review, 22, 116–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betz, M., O’Connell, L., & Shepard, J. M. (1989). Gender differences in proclivity for unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(5), 321–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianco, M., Ciavarella, A., & Signoretti, R. (2015). Women on corporate boards in Italy: The role of family connections. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23(2), 129–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, J. B., Dyer, W. G., Smith, I., & Adams, G. L. (2011). A stakeholder identity orientation approach to corporate social performance in family firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 565–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, J. H., & Wagner, M. (2014). The effect of family ownership on different dimensions of corporate social responsibility: Evidence from large US firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23, 475–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boubaker, S., & Labégorre, F. (2008). Ownership structure, corporate governance and analyst following: A study of French listed firms. Journal of Banking and Finance, 32(6), 961–976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bocquet, R., Le Bas, C., Mothe, C., & Poussing, N. (2017). CSR, innovation, and firm performance in sluggish growth contexts: A firm-level empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(1), 241–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulouta, I. (2013). Hidden connections: The link between board gender diversity and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2), 185–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, J. S., Kenneth, C. S., Paula, S. W., & James, E. W. (2006). Scale and study of student attitudes toward business education’s role in addressing social issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(4), 381–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. (2008). Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(2), 120–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Pavelin, S. (2007). Gender and ethnic diversity among UK corporate boards. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(2), 393–403.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkart, M., Panunzi, F., & Shleifer, A. (2003). Family firms. Journal of Finance, 58(5), 2167–2202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, J. J., Hoitash, R., & Hoitash, U. (2017). The heterogeneity of board-level sustainability committees and corporate social performance. Journal Business Ethics, 154(4), 1161–1186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahan, S. F., De Villiers, C., Jeter, D. C., Naiker, V., & Van Staden, C. J. (2016). Are CSR disclosures value relevant? Cross-country evidence. The European Accounting Review, 25(3), 579–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D. R., Neal, T. L., & Riley, R. A. (2002). Board characteristics and audit fees. Contemporary Accounting Research, 19(3), 365–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caren, O., & Recadina, Y. W. (2017). Effect of age diversity of board members on performance of non-governmental organizations in Kenya. International Journal of Novel Research in Marketing Management and Economics, 4(2), 101–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, M. A. (2002). The implications of strategy and social context for the relationship between top management team heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 275–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, M., & Westphal, J. (2001). The strategic context of external network ties: examining the impact of director appointments on board involvement in strategic decision-making. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 639–660.

    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 

  • 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 

  • Chauvey, J. N., Giordano-Spring, S., Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2015). The normativity and legitimacy of CSR disclosure: Evidence from France. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4), 789–803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chelli, M., Durocher, S., & Fortin, A. (2016). Normativity in environmental reporting: A comparison of three regimes. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(2), 285–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. W. (2014). CSR report assurance in the USA: An empirical investigation of determinants and effects. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 5(2), 130–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, B. B., Lee, D., & Park, Y. (2013). Corporate social responsibility, corporate governance and earnings quality: Evidence from Korea. Corporate Governance, an International Review, 21(5), 447–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. (2001). Globalization and the environment: Determinants of firm self-regulation in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 32, 439–458.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2011). Does it really pay to be green? Determinants and consequences of proactive environmental strategies. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 30(2), 122–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffey, B. S., & Wang, J. (1998). Board diversity and managerial control as predictors of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1595–1603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conyon, M. J., & He, L. (2017). Firm performance and boardroom gender diversity: A quantile regression approach. Journal of Business Research, 79, 198–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz, C., Larraza-Kintana, M., Garcés-Galdeano, L., & Berrone, P. (2014). Are family firms really more socially responsible? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38, 1295–1316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahya, J., Lonie, A. A., & Power, D. M. (1996). The case for separating the roles of chairman and CEO: An analysis of stock market and accounting data. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 4(2), 71–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Ellstrand, A. E., & Johnson, J. L. (1998). Number of directors and financial performance: AMeta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 674–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dam, L., & Scholtens, B. (2012). Does ownership type matter for corporate social responsibility? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20, 233–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dam, L., & Scholtens, B. (2013). Ownership concentration and CSR policy of European multinational enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 117–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dang, R., Bender, A. F., & Scotto, M. J. (2014). Women on French corporate board of directors: How do they differ from their male counterparts? Journal of Applied Business Research, 30, 489–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F., & Cobb, J. A. (2010). Resource dependence theory: Past and future. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 28, 21–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Graaf, F. J., & Stoelhorst, W. (2009). The role of governance in corporate social responsibility: Lessons from Dutch finance. Business and Society, 52, 282–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deschênes, S., Rojas, M., Boubacar, H., & Prud’homme, B., and Ouedraogo, A., (2015). The impact of board traits on the social performance of Canadian firms. Corporate Governance, 15, 293–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Villiers, C., & Van Staden, C. J. (2011). Where firms choose to disclose voluntary environmental information. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 30(6), 504–525.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaz, D., Theodoulidis, B., and Shahgholian, A. (2013). Social Networking Influence on Environmental and Corporate Performance. IEEE International Conference on Business Informatics, 63–68.

  • Dienes, D., & Velte, P. (2016). The impact of supervisory board composition on CSR reporting. Evidence from the German two-tier system. Sustainability, 8(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding, D. K., Ferreira, C., & Wongchoti, U. (2016). Does it pay to be different? Relative CSR and its impact on firm value. International Review of Financial Analysis, 47, 86–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, G., & Whetten, D. (2006). Family firms and social responsibility. Preliminary evidence from the S&P500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(4), 785–802.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elstad, B., & Ladegard, G. (2012). Women on corporate boards: Key influencers or tokens? Journal of Management and Governance, 16(4), 595–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erhardt, N. L., Werbel, J. D., & Shrader, C. B. (2003). Board director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(2), 102–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eskeland, G. A., & Harrison, A. E. (2002). Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and the pollution haven hypothesis. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewert, A., & Baker, D. (2001). Standing for where you sit: An exploratory analysis of the relationship between academic major and environment beliefs. Environment and Behavior, 33(5), 687–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabrizi, M., Mallin, C., & Michelon, G. (2014). The role of CEO’s personal incentives in driving corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 311–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faccio, M., & Lang, L. (2002). The ultimate ownership of West European corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 65(3), 365–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88, 288–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrero-Ferrero, I., Fernández-Izquierdo, M. Á., & Muñoz-Torres, M. J. (2015). Board diversity: An empirical study in the board of directors. Cybernetics and Systems, 46(3–4), 249–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrero-Ferrero, I., Fernández-Izquierdo, M. Á., & Muñoz-Torres, M. J. (2013). Integrating sustainability into corporate governance: An empirical study on board diversity. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22, 193–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams and boards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firth, M., Fung, P. M., & Rui, O. M. (2007). Ownership, two-tier board structure, and the informativeness of earnings-evidence from China. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 26, 463–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of management Journal, 33(2), 233–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francoeur, C., Labelle, R., Balti, S., & Bouzaidi, S. (2019). To what extent do gender diverse boards enhance corporate social performance? Journal of Business Ethics, 155, 343–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management a stakeholder approach. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadenne, D. L., Kennedy, J., & McKeiver, C. (2009). An empirical study of environmental awareness and practices in SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 45–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. (2010). Corporate governance practices that address climate change: An exploratory study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 335–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. (2016). The impact of board structure on corporate social responsibility: A temporal view. Business Strategy and Environment, 26, 358–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Johnson, R. (2000). Exporting environmentalism: US. Multinational chemical corporations in Brazil and Mexico. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Sánchez, I., Rodríguez-Domínguez, L., & Frías-Aceituno, J. (2015). Board of directors and ethics codes in different corporate governance systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 681–698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Torea, N., Fernandez-Feijoo, B., & de la Cuesta, M. (2016). Board of director’s effectiveness and the stakeholder perspective of corporate governance: Do effective boards promote the interests of shareholders and stakeholders? BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 19, 246–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geletkanycz, M. A., & Black, S. S. (2001). Bound by the past? Experience-based effects on commitment to the strategic status quo. Journal of Management, 27, 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbins, M., Richardson, A. J., & Waterhouse, J. (1990). The management of corporate financial disclosure: opportunism, ritualism, policies, and processes. Journal of Accounting Research, 28, 121–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giannarakis, G. (2014). The determinants influencing the extent of CSR disclosure. International Journal of Law and Management, 56(5), 393–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goel, A., & Thakor, A. (2008). Overconfidence, CEO selection, and corporate governance. Journal of Finance, 63(6), 2737–2784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goyder, M. (2003). Redefining CSR: From the rhetoric of accountability to the reality of earning trust. London: Tomorrow’s Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goll, I., & Rasheed, A. A. (2004). The moderating effect of environmental munificence and dynamism on the relationship between discretionary social responsibility and firm performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), 41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafsi, T., & Turgut, G. (2013). Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance: conceptualization and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(3), 385–402.

    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, 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32, 334–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. E. (2005). The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(5), 391–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harjoto, M., & Jo, H. (2011). Corporate governance and CSR nexus. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 45–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harjoto, M., Laksmana, I., & Yang, Y. (2018). Board nationality diversity and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 19(2), 217–239.

    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 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 479–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (2003). Board of directors as endogenously determined institution: A survey of the economic literature. Economic Policy Review, 9(1), 7–26.

    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. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., Canella, A. A., & Harris, I. C. (2002). Women and racial minorities in the boardroom How do directors differ? Journal of Management, 28, 747–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., Shropshire, C., & Canella, A. A. (2007). Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 941–952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, S. S., & Shun Wong, K. (2001). A study of the relationship between corporate governance structures and the extent of voluntary disclosure. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 10(2), 139–156.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. W., & de Sousa-Filho, J. M. (2019). Board structure and environmental, social, and governance disclosure in Latin America. Journal of Business Research, 102, 220–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, N. A., & Angelidis, J. P. (1994). Effect of board members’ gender on corporate social responsiveness orientation. Journal of Applied Business Research, 10(1), 35–41.

    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 

  • Jaafar, S. B. (2016). Board diversity in family firms. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2797718.

  • Jamali, D., Safieddine, A. M., & Rabbath, M. (2008). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies and interrelationships. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16, 443–459.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jizi, M. (2017). The influence of board composition on sustainable development disclosure. Business Strategy Environment, 26, 640–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jizi, M. I., Salama, A., Dixon, R., & Stratling, R. (2014). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from the US Banking Sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 601–615.

    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 

  • Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2012). The causal effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 53–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jo, H., Kim, H., & Park, K. (2015). Corporate environmental responsibility and firm performance in the financial services sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 257–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kabir, R., & Thai Minh, H. (2017). Does corporate governance shape the relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance? Pacific Accounting Review, 29(2), 227–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalkanci, B., Ang, E., & Plambeck, E. L. (2016). Strategic disclosure of social and environmental impacts in a supply chain. Environmentally Responsible Supply Chains (Vol. 3, pp. 223–239). Berlin: Springer International Publishing.

    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 

  • Kets de Vries, M., & Miller, D. (1984). The neurotic organization: Diagnosing and changing counterproductive styles of management. Jossey Bass business and management series. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, A., Muttakin, M. B., & Siddiqui, J. (2013). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(2), 207–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, P., Mahoney, J., McGahan, A., & Pitelis, C. (2010). Toward a theory of public entrepreneurship. European Management Review, 7(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kock, C., Santalo, J., & Diestre, L. (2012). Corporate governance and the environment: what type of governance creates greener companies? Journal of Management Studies, 49(3), 492–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, G. V., & Parsons, L. M. (2008). Getting to the bottom line: An exploration of gender and earnings quality. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(1–2), 65–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuratko, D. F., & Welsch, H. P. (1994). Entrepreneurial strategy: Text and cases. New York: Dryden Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz, L. (2002). Studies in the field of SRI investing. Working paper.

  • Lamb, N. H., & Butler, F. C. (2016). The influence of family firms and institutional owners on corporate social responsibility performance. Business and Society, 57(7), 1374–1406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, C., Lu, Y., & Liang, Q. (2014). lau: A corporate governance approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. (2016). Family firms and practices of sustainability: A contingency view. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7(1), 26–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, B. W., Walls, J. L., & Dowell, G. W. S. (2014). Difference in degrees: CEO characteristics and firm environmental disclosure. Strategic Management Journal, 35(5), 712–722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, L., Lin, T. P., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Corporate board and corporate social responsibility assurance: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1), 211–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, L., Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2014). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, 47(4), 409–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luoma, P., & Goodstein, J. (1999). Stakeholders and corporate boards: institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 553–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luthar, H. K., DiBattista, R. A., & Gautschi, T. (1997). Perception of what the ethical climate is and what it should be: The role of gender, academic status, and ethical education. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(2), 205–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masulis, R., Wang, C., Xie, F., and Zhang, S. (2018). Directors: Older and wiser, or too old to govern?. European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)—Finance Working Paper No. 584/2018.

  • Marta, A. G., & Black, S. S. (2001). Bound by the past? Experience-based effects on commitment to the strategic status quo. Journal of Management, 27, 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J., Dow, S., & Argheyd, K. (2003). CEO incentives and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(4), 341–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J., Dow, S., & Ibrahim, B. (2012). All in the family? Social performance and corporate governance in the family firm. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1643–1650.

    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 

  • Miller, T., & del Carmen Triana, 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 

  • Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morck, R., & Yeung, B. (2004). Family control and the rent-seeking society. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 391–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nekhili, M., Chakroun, H., & Chtioui, T. (2016). Women’s leadership and firm performance: Family versus nonfamily firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(2), 291–316.

    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 

  • O'Neill, H. M., Saunders, C. B., & McCarthy, A. D. (1989). Board members, corporate social responsiveness and profitability: Are tradeoffs necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 8(5), 353–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., Aragón-Correa, J. A., Delgado-Ceballos, J., & Ferrón-Vílchez, V. (2012). The effect of director interlocks on firms’ adoption of proactive environmental strategies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(2), 164–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouma, C. A., & Webi, R. Y. (2017). Effect of age diversity of board members on performance of non-governmental organizations in Kenya. International Journal of Novel Research in Marketing Management and Economics, 4(2), 101–123.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Panapanaan, V. M., Linnanen, L., Karvonen, M., & Phan, V. T. (2003). Roadmapping corporate social responsibility in finnish companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 133–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1972). Size and composition of corporate boards of directors: The organization and its environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 218–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1973). Size, composition and function of hospital boards of directors: A study of organization-environment linkage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18(3), 349–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organisations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Rob Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plumlee, M., Brown, D., Hayes, R. M., & Marshall, R. S. (2015). Voluntary environmental disclosure quality and firm value: Further evidence. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 34(4), 336–361.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Pucheta-Martínez, M. C., Bel-Oms, I., & Olcina-Sempere, G. (2016). Corporate governance, female directors and quality of financial information. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25(4), 363–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qiu, Y., Shaukat, A., & Tharyan, R. (2016). Environmental and social disclosures: Link withcorporate financial performance. The British Accounting Review, 48, 102–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, K., & Tilt, C. A. (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 

  • Rees, W., & Rodionova, T. (2015). The influence of family ownership on corporate social responsibility: An international analysis of publicly listed companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23, 184–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bushman, R. M., & Abbie, J. S. (2001). Financial accounting information and corporate governance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 32, 237–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Ariza, L., Martínez-Ferrero, J., & Bermejo-Sánchez, M. (2016). Consequences of earnings management for corporate reputation. Accounting Research Journal, 29(4), 457–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T., & Berman, S. (2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business and Society, 39(4), 397–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupley, K. H., Brown, D., & Marshall, R. S. (2012). Governance, media and the quality of environmental disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 31(6), 610–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management Review, 32, 549–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, J., & Sarkar, S. (2015). Corporate social responsibility in India-An effort to bridge the welfare gap. Review of Market Integration, 7(1), 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahgholian, A. (2017). The effect of board roles on firm environmental governance. Academy of Management Proceedings.

  • Shaukat, A., Qiu, Y., & Trojanowski, G. (2016). Board attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 569–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shropshire, C. (2010). The role of the interlocking director and board receptivity in the diffusion of practices. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 246–264.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate and decision comprehensiveness in Top Management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 662–673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siregar, S. V., & Bachtiar, Y. (2010). Corporate social reporting: empirical evidence from Indonesia Stock Exchange. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 3(3), 241–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sleeper, B. J., Schneider, K. C., Weber, P. S., & Weber, J. E. (2006). Scale and study of student attitudes toward business education’s role in addressing social issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(4), 381–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. G., Grimm, C. M., Gannon, M., & Chen, M. (1991). Organizational information processing, competitive responses, and performance in the US domestic airline industry. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 60–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sraer, D., & Thesmar, D. (2007). Performance and behavior of family firms: Evidence from the French stock market. Journal of the European Economic Association, 5(4), 709–751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundarasen, S. D. D., Je-Yen, T., Rajangam, N., Eweje, G., & Eweje, G. (2016). Board composition and corporate social responsibility in an emerging market. Corporate Governance, 16(1), 35–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surroca, J., & Tribo, J. A. (2008). Managerial entrenchment and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 35(5–6), 748–789.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe, K., & Huber, G. (1998). Firm and industry determinants of executive perceptions of the environment. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 793–809.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    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 and Governance, 20(3), 447–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tihanyi, L. D., Griffith, A., & Russel, C. J. (2005). The effect of cultural distance on entry mode choice, international diversification, and MNE performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1), 270–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trinidad, C., & Normore, A. H. (2005). Leadership and gender: A dangerous liaison? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26(7), 574–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinnicombe, S., & Singh, V. (2003). Locks and keys to the boardroom. Women in Management Review, 18(6), 325–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vives, A. (2006). Social and environmental responsibility in small and medium entreprises in Latin America. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 21, 39–50.

    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 

  • Walls, J. L., Berrone, P., & Phan, P. H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link? Strategic Management Journal, 33, 885–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, D. (1999). Greening industry: New roles for communities, markets, and governments. New York: Oxford/World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, P., & Ferris, S. (1997). Agency conflict and corporate strategy: The effect of divestment on corporate value. Strategic Management Journal, 18(1), 77–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. (1996). Director reputation, CEO-board power, and the dynamics of board interlocks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 507–529.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerbini, F. (2017). CSR initiatives as market signals: A review and research Agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Juelin, Y. (2012). Institutional dynamics and corporate social responsibility (CSR) in an emerging country context: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), 301–316.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Montpellier Research in Management Laboratory, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Rania Beji & Ouidad Yousfi

  2. Gouvernance d’Entreprise, Finance Appliquée Et Audit Laboratory, Institut Supérieur de Gestion de Tunis, Université de Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia

    Rania Beji, Nadia Loukil & Abdelwahed Omri

Authors
  1. Rania Beji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ouidad Yousfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nadia Loukil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abdelwahed Omri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rania Beji.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix

Appendix

See Table

Table 13 List CSR criteria in VigeoEiris database
Full size table

13.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beji, R., Yousfi, O., Loukil, N. et al. Board Diversity and Corporate Social Responsibility: Empirical Evidence from France. J Bus Ethics 173, 133–155 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04522-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04522-4

Keywords

JEL Codes

search

Navigation