Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Board Diversity, Risk Management and Efficiency Evaluation: Evidence from European Listed Manufacturing Companies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Future of Risk Management, Volume II

  • 938 Accesses

Abstract

Board diversity can influence the management of different kinds of risks affecting performance. Our research analyzes the relationship between corporate efficiency and board diversity in 451 European listed manufacturing companies for the year 2015. In particular, we investigate the effects on profitability efficiency and risk management of gender inclusion (women and foreigners on boards). In order to assess the profitability efficiency, we rely on a non-oriented, slack-based model for Data Envelopment Analysis, and a logistic regression analysis to identify the effect of diversity management variables. The results demonstrate that the increased presence of women is associated with a higher probability for greater relative efficiency in countries without mandatory gender regulation. The increased presence of foreigners, however, is associated with a lower probability of above-average efficiency.

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

Access this chapter

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2007). A theory of friendly boards. The Journal of Finance, 62(1), 217–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, R. D. (2001). Women in the executive suite correlate to high profits. Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 30–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahern, K. R., & Dittmar, A. K. (2012). The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(1), 137–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akpan, E. O., & Amran, N. A. (2014). Board characteristics and company performance: Evidence from Nigeria. Journal of Finance and Accounting, 2(3), 81–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization. The American Economic Review, 62(5), 777–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avkiran, N. K. (2011). Association of DEA super-efficiency estimates with financial ratios: Investigating the case for Chinese banks. OMEGA, The International Journal of Management Science, 39(3), 323–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bajary, P., Fox, J., & Kyoo, K. (2009). The random coefficients logit model is identified (NBER Working Paper No. 14934).

    Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30, 1078–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bassett-Jones, N. (2005). The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 169–175.

    Article  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, 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonn, I., Yoshikawa, T., & Phan, P. H. (2004). Effects of board structure on firm performance: A comparison between Japan and Australia. Asian Business & Management, 3(1), 105–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boone, A. L., Field, L. C., Karpoff, J. M., & Raheja, C. G. (2007). The determinants of corporate board size and composition: An empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 85(1), 66–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1996). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

    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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., Liu, C., & Tjosvold, D. (2005). Conflict management for effective top management teams and innovation in China. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 277–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, T. (2007). International corporate governance: A comparative approach. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E. (1998). The corporation and its stakeholders: Classic and contemporary readings. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Tone, K. (2007). Data envelopment analysis: A comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahya, J., & McConnell, J. J. (2007). Board composition, corporate performance, and the Cadbury committee recommendation. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 42(3), 535–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darmadi, S. (2011). Board diversity and firm performance: The Indonesian evidence. Corporate Ownership and Control Journal, 8(2), 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darmadi, S. (2013). Do women in top management affect firm performance? Evidence from Indonesia. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 13(3), 288–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Andres, P., Azofra, V., & Lopez, F. (2005). Corporate boards in OECD countries: Size, composition, functioning and effectiveness. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13(2), 197–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16(1), 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eulerich, M., Velte, P., & Van Uum, C. (2014). The impact of management board diversity on corporate performance—An empirical analysis for the German two-tier system (November 8, 2013). Problems and Perspectives in Management (PPM), 12, 25–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. The Journal of Law & Economics, 26(2), 301–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Färe, R., & Lovell, C. K. (1978). Measuring the technical efficiency of production. Journal of Economic Theory, 19(1), 150–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, M. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 120(3), 253–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gabrielsson, J., & Huse, M. (2004). Context, behavior, and evolution: Challenges in research on boards and governance. International Studies of Management & Organization, 34(2), 11–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallego-Álvarez, I., García-Sánchez, I. M., & Rodríguez-Dominguez, L. (2010). The influence of gender diversity on corporate performance. Revista de contabilidad, 13(1), 53–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidrick & Struggles. (2014). Towards dynamic governance 2014: European Corporate Governance Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A., & Harris, I. C. (2002). Women and racial minorities in the boardroom: How do directors differ? Journal of Management, 28(6), 747–763.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackling, B., & Johl, S. (2009). Board structure and firm performance: Evidence from India’s top companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4), 492–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jafari, M., Aghaei Chadegani, A., & Biglari, V. (2011). Effective risk management and company’s performance: Investment in innovations and intellectual capital using behavioral and practical approach. Journal of Economics and International Finance, 3(15), 780–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (1983). Organization theory and methodology. Accounting Review, 58(2), 319–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (2000). Value maximization and the corporate objective function. In M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change (pp. 37–58). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    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(4), 305–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiel, G. C., & Nicholson, G. J. (2003). Board composition and corporate performance: How the Australian experience informs contrasting theories of corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(3), 189–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., & Lim, C. (2010). Diversity, outside directors and firm valuation: Korean evidence. Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 284–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kramer, V. W., Konrad, A. M., Erkut, S., & Hooper, M. J. (2006). Critical mass on corporate boards: Why three or more women enhance governance (pp. 2–4). Boston: Wellesley Centers for Women.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loden, M., & Rosener, J. B. (1991). Workforce America!: Managing employee diversity as a vital resource. Homewood: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X. (2003). Evaluating the profitability and marketability efficiency of large banks: An application of data envelopment analysis. Journal of Business Research, 56(8), 627–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luoma, P., & Goodstein, J. (1999). Research notes. Stakeholders and corporate boards: Institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 553–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macey, J. R. (1998). Fiduciary duties as residual claims: Obligations to nonshareholder constituencies from a theory of the firm perspective. Cornell Law Review, 84, 1266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallin, C. (2004). Corporate governance. New York: Oxford University Press.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed, H. K., & Knápková, A. (2016). The impact of total risk management on company’s performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 220, 271–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Näsi, J. (1995). What is stakeholder thinking? A snapshot of a social theory of the firm. In J. Näsi (Ed.), Understanding stakeholder thinking (pp. 19–32). Helsinki: LSR-Julkaisut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakley, J. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4), 321–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., Buck, T., & Filatotchev, I. (2003). Do outside directors and new managers help improve firm performance? An exploratory study in Russian privatization. Journal of World Business, 38(4), 348–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perryman, A. A., Fernando, G. D., & Tripathy, A. (2016). Do gender differences persist? An examination of gender diversity on firm performance, risk, and executive compensation. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 579–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randøy, T., Thomsen, S., & Oxelheim, L. (2006). A Nordic perspective on corporate board diversity. Age, 390(0.5428), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, C. (2007a). Does female board representation influence firm performance? The Danish evidence. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(2), 404–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, J. M. (2007b). Corporate directors and social responsibility: Ethics versus shareholder value. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(3), 319–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, P. (2007c). The corporate governance industry. Journal of Corporation Law, 32(4), 887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader, C. B., Blackburn, V. B., & Iles, P. (1997). Women in management and firm financial performance: An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9(3), 355–372.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N., Smith, V., & Verner, M. (2006). Do women in top management affect firm performance? A panel study of 2,500 Danish firms. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 55(7), 569–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tone, K. (2001). A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 130, 498–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torchia, M., Calabrò, A., & Huse, M. (2011). Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2), 299–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tosi, H. L., Jr. (2008). Quo Vadis? Suggestions for future corporate governance research. Journal of Management and Governance, 12(2), 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ujunwa, A. (2012). Board characteristics and the financial performance of Nigerian quoted firms. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 12(5), 656–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ujunwa, A., Okoyeuzu, C., & Nwakoby, I. (2012). Corporate board diversity and firm performance: Evidence from Nigeria. Revista de Management Comparat International, 13(4), 605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Berghe, L. A., & Levrau, A. (2004). Evaluating boards of directors: What constitutes a good corporate board? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(4), 461–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Walt, N., & Ingley, C. (2003). Board dynamics and the influence of professional background, gender and ethnic diversity of directors. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(3), 218–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vani Kant, B. (2001). Logit and Probit. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voordeckers, W., Van Gils, A., & Van den Heuvel, J. (2007). Board composition in small and medium-sized family firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 45(1), 137–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Stanton, W. W. (1988). The implications of board of directors composition for corporate strategy and performance. International Journal of Management, 5(2), 229–236.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, University of Turin, Turin, Italy

    Simona Alfiero, Massimo Cane, Ruggiero Doronzo & Alfredo Esposito

Authors
  1. Simona Alfiero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Massimo Cane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ruggiero Doronzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alfredo Esposito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simona Alfiero .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Turin, Turin, Italy

    Paola De Vincentiis

  2. Department of Management, University of Turin, Turin, Italy

    Francesca Culasso

  3. University of Turin, Turin, Italy

    Stefano A. Cerrato

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Alfiero, S., Cane, M., Doronzo, R., Esposito, A. (2019). Board Diversity, Risk Management and Efficiency Evaluation: Evidence from European Listed Manufacturing Companies. In: De Vincentiis, P., Culasso, F., Cerrato, S. (eds) The Future of Risk Management, Volume II. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16526-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16526-0_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16525-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16526-0

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation