Interval-Based Gender Diversity Composite Indicators in Gender Studies

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


This study aims to construct an original interval-based composite indicator of the gender diversity considering different assumptions on the development of the composite indicator. In this way the composite indicator built can be considered more robust than a classical version of the same indicator. Composite indicators are a very important tool to analyse and evaluate policies and sectors. The problem in using composite indicators is that the results which can be obtained can be dependent to the assumptions given on their construction. In this sense we have already considered an initial approach in the construction of composite indicator (Paoloni et al. (2016) Towards a new architecture of knowledge: Big data, culture and creativity. Proceedings, 15–17 June 2016 Dresden Germany (pp. 1944–1958)). We take into account different assumptions, and we are able to construct an interval-based composite indicator. In this way we can consider a value which is useful for the comparison (the chosen assumption), a centre of the composite indicator, and the range which is related to the variability due to the different assumptions. Our work contributes to the existing literature on composite indicators in gender studies. In particular our work is addressed on providing a composite indicator of gender diversity for the listed European companies. This study is useful to policy purposes because it helps the process of decision-making which can be based on the different rankings which are derived from the interval-based composite indicators.


Gender Composite indicators Europe ESG Corporate reporting Women Board 


  1. Adams, C., Coutts, A., & Harte, G. (1995). Corporate equal opportunities (non-) disclosure. The British Accounting Review, 27, 87–108. doi: 10.1006/bare.1994.0005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, C., & Harte, G. (1999). Towards corporate accountability for equal opportunities performance, occasional research paper no. 26. London: CAET.Google Scholar
  3. Aiello F., & Attanasio, M. (n.d.). Some issues in constructing composite indicators. Retrieved from:
  4. Beattie, V., & Thomson, S. J. (2007). Lifting the lid on the use of content analysis to investigate intellectual capital disclosure. Accounting Forum, 31, 129–163. doi: 10.1016/j.accfor.2007.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beattie, V., McInnes, B., & Fearnley, S. (2004). Through the eyes of management: Narrative reporting through three sectors. London: Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.Google Scholar
  6. Bericat, E. (2012). The European gender equality index: Conceptual and analytical issues. Social Indicators Research, 108, 1–28. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9872-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bericat, E., & Bermejo, E. S. (2016). Structural gender equality in europe and its evolution over the first decade of the twenty first century. Social Indicators Research, 127, 55–81. doi: 10.1007/s11205-015-0949-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bohren, O., & Strom, R. O. (2010). Governance and politics: Regulating independence and diversity in the boardroom. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 37(9), 1281–1308. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5957.2010.02222.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyatzis, M. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information. Thematic analysis and code development. Cleveland: Sage, Case Western Reserve University.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, K., & Mınguez-Vera, A. (2008). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(3), 435–451. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9630-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castellano, R., & Rocca, A. (2014). Gender gap and labour market participation: A composite indicator for the ranking of European countries. International Journal of Manpower, 35(3), 345–367. doi: 10.1108/IJM-07-2012-0107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castellano, R., & Rocca, A. (2015). Assessing the gender gap in labour market index: Volatility of results and reliability. International Journal of Social Economics, 42(8), 749–772. doi: 10.1108/IJSE-06-2014-0117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drago, C. (2014, November). Interval based composite indicators. Conference paper conference of european statistics stakeholders, at Rome. doi: 10.13140/2.1.1280.6721.
  14. Farrell, K. A., & Hersch, P. L. (2005). Additions to corporate boards: The effect of gender. Journal of Corporate Finance, 11, 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferrant, G. (2014). The multidimensional gender inequalities index (MGII): A descriptive analysis of gender inequalities using MCA. Social Indicators Research, 115, 653–690. doi: 10.1007/s11205-012-0233-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freudenberg, M. (2003). Composite indicators of country performance: a critical assessment (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2003/16, O). Google Scholar
  17. Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), 78–101. doi: 10.1108/09513579510086812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grosser, K., Adams, C. & Moon, J. (2008). Equal opportunities for women in the workplace: A study of corporate disclosure, research report 102, The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, ACCA.Google Scholar
  19. Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communications Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89. doi: 10.1080/19312450709336664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. He, J., & Huang, Z. (2011). Board informal hierarchy and firm financial performance: Exploring a tacit structure guiding boardroom interactions. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1119–1139. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.0824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. International Labour Organization (ILO) (2017). Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, available at multi/documents/publication/wcms_094386.pdf. (Last access 30th May 2017).
  22. International Organization for Standardization (2010). ISO 26000:2010 Guidance on social responsibility, available at (Last access 30th May 2017).Google Scholar
  23. Joecks, J., Pull, K., & Vetter, K. (2013). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance: What exactly constitutes a «critical mass»? Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 61–72. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1553-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krippendorff K. (2004). Content Analysis. An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Krippendorff, K. H., & Bock, M. A. (Eds.). (2009). The content analysis reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. McGillivray, M., & Pillarisetti, J. R. (2004). International inequality in well-being. Journal of International Development, 16, 563–574. doi: 10.1002/jid.1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Milne, M. J., & Adler, R. W. (1999). Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 12(2), 237–256. doi: 10.1108/09513579910270138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Munda, G. (2011). Choosing aggregation rules for composite indicators. Social Indicators Research, 109(3), 337–354. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9911-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., & Giovannini, E. (2005). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. OECD (2011). Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises 2011. Edition available at (Last access 30th May 2017).Google Scholar
  31. Paoloni, P., Doni, F., & Drago, C. (2016). Gender diversity indicator, corporate environmental and financial performance: Evidence from Europe. In Towards a new architecture of knowledge: Big data, culture and creativity. Proceedings, 15–17 June 2016 Dresden Germany (pp. 1944–1958). IFKAD 2016.Google Scholar
  32. Permanyer, I. (2013). A critical assessment of the UNDP’S gender inequality index. Feminist Economics, 19(2), 1–32. doi: 10.1080/13545701.2013.769687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Post, C., Rahman, N., & Mcquillen, C. (2015). From board composition to corporate environmental performance through sustainability themed alliances. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 423–435. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2840074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rhode, A. K., & Packel, D. L. (2010). Diversity on corporate boards: How much difference does difference make? (Rock center for corporate governance working paper series 89). SSRN Journal. pp. 1–24. Accessed April 2016.
  35. Robb, S. W. G., Single, L. E., & Zarzeski, M. T. (2001). Nonfinancial disclosures across Anglo American countries. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Taxation, 10, 71–83. doi: 10.1016/s1061-9518(01)00036-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 168(2), 307–323. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985x.2005.00350.x.
  37. Setò-Pamies, D. (2013). The relationships between women directors and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(6), 334–345. doi: 10.1002/csr.1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tinker, A., Neimark, M., & Lehman, C. (1991). Falling down the hole in the middle of the road: Political quietism in corporate social reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 4, 28–54. doi: 10.1108/09513579110000504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. United Nations (UN) Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (2011). Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Available at: (Last access 30th may 2017)
  40. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2010). Gender Inequality Index (GII). Available at (Last access 30th May 2017)
  41. Vanstraelen, A., Zarzeski, M. T., & Robb, S. W. G. (2003). Corporate nonfinancial disclosure practices and financial analyst forecast ability across three European countries. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 14(3), 249–278. doi: 10.1111/1467-646x.00098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vuontisjärvi, T. (2006). Corporate social reporting in the European context and human resource disclosures: An analysis of finnish companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 331–354. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9094-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newburry Park, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Milano-BicoccaMilanItaly
  2. 2.University of Rome “Niccolò Cusano”RomeItaly
  3. 3.Department of UNISU, Faculty of EconomicsNiccolò Cusano UniversityRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations