Board Characteristics and the Presence of Women on the Board of Directors: The Case of the Greek Shipping Sector

  • Aspasia S. Pastra
  • Dimitrios N. Koufopoulos
  • Ioannis P. Gkliatis
Conference paper
Part of the WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs book series (WMUSTUD, volume 3)


Shipping is a vital sector of the Greek economy. According to the Foundation for Economic & Industrial Research (2013), more than 52 % of the shipping companies listed in the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the NASDAQ Stock Market (NASDAQ) are owned by Greek nationals. Current demands for transparency in the decision making of the shipping firms, led boards to take various initiatives so as to comply with international regulations. This article attempts to discuss the findings of the Hellenic Observatory of Corporate Governance (HOCG) about the Board Characteristics (CEO duality, Board size, Independent Directors, cross directorships, tenure, age and gender) of the Greek-owned public shipping companies which are listed in foreign Stock Exchanges for the period 2001–2012. Special emphasis is given on the presence of Women on the Board of Directors. Possible reasons why women’s access to board seats has been limited are discussed, and some practical suggestions to the Shipping owners to consider adding qualified women to the board are presented.


Board characteristics Greece Listed companies Shipping sector Women 


  1. Adams, S. M., Gupta, A., & Leeth, J. D. (2009). Are female executives over-represented in precarious leadership positions? British Journal of Management, 20(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bazerman, M. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1983). A limited rationality model of interlocking directorates. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 206–217.Google Scholar
  3. Boston Consulting Group. (2013). Impact assessment of the shipping cluster on the Greek economy & society. Accessed 20 Oct 2013.
  4. Cadbury, A. (1992). Report of the committee on the financial aspect of corporate governance. London: Gee & Co. Limited.Google Scholar
  5. Cambell, K., & Mínguez-Vera, A. (2008). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(3), 435–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Review, 38(1), 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Catalyst. (2004). The Bottom line: Connecting corporate performance and gender diversity. Accessed 20 Jan 2013.
  8. Child, J. (1974). Managerial and organizational factors associated with company performance. Journal of Management Studies, 11(3), 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Core, J., Holthausen, R. W., & Larcker, D. F. (1999). Corporate governance, chief executive officer compensation and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 51(3), 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dalton, D., Daily, C., Ellstrand, A., & Johnson, J. (1998). Meta-analytic review of board composition, leadership structure and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dalton, D., Daily, C., Ellstrand, A., & Johnson, J. (1999). Number of directors and financial performance, a meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 674–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, G. (1991). Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through intercorporate network. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(4), 583–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis, J., Schoorman, D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship: Theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47.Google Scholar
  14. Devillard, S., Sancier, S., Werner, C., Maller, I., & Kossoff, C. (2013). Women matter 2013. Gender diversity in top management: Moving corporate culture, moving boundaries. Paris: McKinsey & Company.Google Scholar
  15. Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16(1), 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunn, P. (2012). Breaking the boardroom gender barrier the human capital of female corporate directors. Journal of Management & Governance, 16(4), 557–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elstad, B., & Ladegard, G. (2012). Women on corporate boards: Key influencers or tokens? Journal of Management and Governance, 16(4), 595–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Erhardt, N., Werbel, J., & Shrader, S. (2003). Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance, 11, 102–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Foundation for Economic & Industrial Research. (2013). The contribution of ocean-going shipping to the Greek economy: Performance and outlook. Accessed 20 Jan 2014.
  22. García-Ramos, R., & Olalla, M. G. (2012). Independent directors, family ownership structure and firm financial performance. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 90, 6–24.Google Scholar
  23. Golden, B., & Zajac, E. (2001). When will boards influence strategy? Inclination x power = strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 22(12), 1087–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gul, F. A., Hutchinson, M., & Lai, K. M. Y. (2013). Gender-diverse boards and properties of analyst earnings forecasts. Accounting Horizons, 27(3), 511–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hafsi, T., & Turgut, G. (2013). Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance: Conceptualization and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 463–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haslam, S. A., Ryan, M. K., Kulich, C., Trojanowski, G., & Atkins, C. (2010). Investing with prejudice: The relationship between women’s presence on company boards and objective and subjective measures of company performance. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 484–497.Google Scholar
  27. Hillman, A., & 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
  28. Hillman, A. J., Shropshire, C., & Cannella, A. A. (2007). Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 941–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jensen, M. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Konrad, A. M., & Kramer, V. (2006). How many women do boards need? Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 22.Google Scholar
  32. Koufopoulos, D. N., Georgakakis, D. G., & Gkliatis, I. P. (2008). Boards and organisational performance in non-profit, public healthcare organisations: The Greek perspective. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 4(4), 330–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Koufopoulos, D. N., Lagoudis, I., Theotokas, I., & Syriopoulos, T. (2010). Corporate governance and board practices by Greek shipping management companies. Corporate Governance, 10(3), 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lipton, M., & Lorsch, J. (1992). A modest proposal for improved corporate governance. Business Lawyer, 48(1), 59–67.Google Scholar
  35. Mizruchi, M. S. (1996). What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 271–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Musteen, M., Datta, D., & Kemmerer, B. (2010). Corporate reputation: Do board characteristics matter? British Journal of Management, 21(2), 498–510.Google Scholar
  37. Muth, M., & Donaldson, L. (1998). Stewardship theory and board structure: A contingency approach. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 6(1), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peng, W., Zhang, S., & Li, X. (2007). CEO duality and firm performance during China’s institutional transitions. Management and Organization Review, 3(2), 205–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Petrofin Research. (2013). 2013 Greek fleet statistics. Accessed 1 Nov 2013.
  40. Platt, H., & Platt, M. (2012). Corporate board attributes and bankruptcy. Journal of Business Research, 65(8), 1139–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rechner, P. L., & Dalton, D. R. (1991). CEO duality and organisational performance: A longitudinal analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 12(2), 155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rose, C. (2007). Does female board representation influence firm performance? The Danish evidence. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(2), 404–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002). Public Law 107-204, July 30, 2002.Google Scholar
  44. Schoorman, F. D., Max, H. B., & Atkin, S. R. (1981). Interlocking directorates: A Strategy for reducing environmental uncertainty. The Academy of Management Review, 6(2), 243–251.Google Scholar
  45. Shipilov, A. V., Greve, H. R., & Rowley, T. J. (2010). When do interlocks matter? Institutional logics and the diffusion of multiple corporate governance practices. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 846–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Singh, H., & Harianto, F. (1989). Top management tenure, corporate ownership structure and the magnitude of golden parachutes. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., O’Bannon, D. P., & Scully, J. A. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 412–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Spencer Stuart. (2013). Spenser Stuart U.S. Board Index Accessed 20 Oct 2013.
  49. Syriopoulos, T., & Tsatsaronis, M. (2012). Corporate governance mechanisms and financial performance: CEO duality in shipping firms. Eurasian Business Review, 2(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
  50. Torchia, M., Calabro, A., & Huse, M. (2011). Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2), 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Upadhyay, A., & Sriram, R. (2011). Board size, corporate information environment and cost of capital. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 38(9–10), 1238–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vafeas, N. (2003). Length of board tenure and outside director independence. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 30(7–8), 1043–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vandegrift, D., & Brown, P. (2005). Gender differences in the use of high-variance strategies in tournament competition. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 34(6), 834–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wei, X. (2007). Wage compensation for job-related illness: Evidence from a matched employer and employee survey in the UK. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 34(1), 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yermack, D. (1996). Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40(2), 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aspasia S. Pastra
    • 1
  • Dimitrios N. Koufopoulos
    • 2
  • Ioannis P. Gkliatis
    • 2
  1. 1.Gnosis Management ConsultantsLondonUK
  2. 2.Brunel University, Brunel Business SchoolUxbridgeUK

Personalised recommendations