The Effect of Top Management Team Gender Diversity on Climate Change Management: An International Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Gender Diversity
2.2. Gender Diversity and Green Management
3. Data and Methodology
3.1. Sample
3.2. Variables
3.2.1. Dependent Variables
3.2.2. Independent Variables
Gender-Specific Variables
Firm and Country-Specific Variables
3.3. Methods
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.2. Models
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- IPCC. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Ali, M.; Metz, I.; Kulik, C.T. Retaining a Diverse Workforce: The Impact of Gender-Focused Human Resource Management. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2015, 25, 580–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ararat, M.; Sayedy, B. Gender and Climate Change Disclosure: An Interdimensional Policy Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cucari, N.; Falco, S.E.D.; Orlando, B. Diversity of Board of Directors and Environmental Social Governance: Evidence from Italian Listed Companies. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 250–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabeza-García, L.; Fernández-Gago, R.; Nieto, M. Do Board Gender Diversity and Director Typology Impact CSR Reporting? Eur. Manag. Rev. 2018, 15, 559–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glass, C.; Cook, A.; Ingersoll, A.R. Do Women Leaders Promote Sustainability? Analyzing the Effect of Corporate Governance Composition on Environmental Performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2016, 25, 495–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C. Are Women Greener? Corporate Gender Diversity and Environmental Violations. J. Corp. Financ. 2018, 52, 118–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baalouch, F.; Ayadi, S.D.; Hussainey, K. A Study of the Determinants of Environmental Disclosure Quality: Evidence from French Listed Companies. J. Manag. Gov. 2019, 23, 939–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ben-Amar, W.; Chang, M.; McIlkenny, P. Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Response to Sustainability Initiatives: Evidence from the Carbon Disclosure Project. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 142, 369–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elsayih, J.; Tang, Q.; Lan, Y.-C. Corporate Governance and Carbon Transparency: Australian Experience. Account. Res. J. 2018, 31, 405–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollindale, J.; Kent, P.; Routledge, J.; Chapple, L. Women on Boards and Greenhouse Gas Emission Disclosures. Account. Financ. 2019, 59, 277–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kathy Rao, K.; Tilt, C.A.; Lester, L.H. Corporate Governance and Environmental Reporting: An Australian Study. Corp. Gov. 2012, 12, 143–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kılıç, M.; Kuzey, C. The Effect of Corporate Governance on Carbon Emission Disclosures: Evidence from Turkey. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. 2019, 11, 35–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liao, L.; Luo, L.; Tang, Q. Gender Diversity, Board Independence, Environmental Committee and Greenhouse Gas Disclosure. Br. Account. Rev. 2015, 47, 409–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tingbani, I.; Chithambo, L.; Tauringana, V.; Papanikolaou, N. Board Gender Diversity, Environmental Committee and Greenhouse Gas Voluntary Disclosures. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 2194–2210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben-Amar, W.; Chelli, M. What Drives Voluntary Corporate Water Disclosures? The Effect of Country-Level Institutions. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 1609–1622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsueh, L. Opening up the Firm: What Explains Participation and Effort in Voluntary Carbon Disclosure by Global Businesses? An Analysis of Internal Firm Factors and Dynamics. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 1302–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, D.; Huang, M.; Ren, S.; Chen, X.; Ning, L. Environmental Legitimacy, Green Innovation, and Corporate Carbon Disclosure: Evidence from CDP China 100. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 150, 1089–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stojmenovska, D. Management Gender Composition and the Gender Pay Gap: Evidence from British Panel Data. Gend. Work Organ. 2019, 26, 738–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brandth, B.; Bjørkhaug, H. Gender Quotas for Agricultural Boards: Changing Constructions of Gender? Gend. Work Organ. 2015, 22, 614–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dang, R.; Nguyen, D.K. Does Board Gender Diversity Make a Difference? New Evidence from Quantile Regression Analysis. Manag. Int. 2016, 20, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dardour, A.; Husser, J.; Hollandts, X. CEO Compensation and Board Diversity: Evidence from French Listed Companies. Rev. De Gest. Des Ressour. Hum. 2015, 4, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, N.; Smith, V.; Verner, M. Do Women in Top Management Affect Firm Performance? A Panel Study of 2,500 Danish Firms. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2006, 55, 569–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abdullah, S.N.; Ismail, K.N.I.K.; Nachum, L. Does Having Women on Boards Create Value? The Impact of Societal Perceptions and Corporate Governance in Emerging Markets. Strateg. Manag. J. 2016, 37, 466–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atif, M.; Hossain, M.; Alam, M.S.; Goergen, M. Does Board Gender Diversity Affect Renewable Energy Consumption? J. Corp. Financ. 2021, 66, 101665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, X.; Jiang, S. Does Gender Diversity Matter for Green Innovation? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 1341–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eagly, A.H.; Carli, L.L. The Female Leadership Advantage: An Evaluation of the Evidence. Leadersh. Q. 2003, 14, 807–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, R.M.; Wang, X.-H.F.; Wendt, J.H.; Wu, J.; Euwema, M.C. Gender and Managerial Coaching across Cultures: Female Managers Are Coaching More. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2016, 27, 1791–1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saint-Michel, S. Leader Gender Stereotypes and Transformational Leadership: Does Leader Sex Make the Difference? Management 2018, 21, 944–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nadeem, M.; Bahadar, S.; Gull, A.A.; Iqbal, U. Are Women Eco-friendly? Board Gender Diversity and Environmental Innovation. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 3146–3161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galia, F.; Zenou, E.; Ingham, M. Board Composition and Environmental Innovation: Does Gender Diversity Matter? Int. J. Entrep. Small Bus. 2015, 24, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rehman, S.; Orij, R.; Khan, H. The Search for Alignment of Board Gender Diversity, the Adoption of Environmental Management Systems, and the Association with Firm Performance in Asian Firms. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2161–2175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Post, C.; Rahman, N.; Rubow, E. Green Governance: Boards of Directors’ Composition and Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility. Bus. Soc. 2011, 50, 189–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuber, C.; Velte, P. Board Gender Diversity and Carbon Emissions: European Evidence on Curvilinear Relationships and Critical Mass. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 1958–1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haque, F. The Effects of Board Characteristics and Sustainable Compensation Policy on Carbon Performance of UK Firms. Br. Account. Rev. 2017, 49, 347–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elmagrhi, M.H.; Ntim, C.G.; Elamer, A.A.; Zhang, Q. A Study of Environmental Policies and Regulations, Governance Structures, and Environmental Performance: The Role of Female Directors. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 206–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García Martín, C.J.; Herrero, B. Do Board Characteristics Affect Environmental Performance? A Study of EU Firms. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Zhao, F.; Chen, S.; Jiang, W.; Liu, T.; Shi, S. Gender Diversity on Boards and Firms’ Environmental Policy: Gender Diversity on Boards. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 306–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, J.; Herremans, I.M. Board Gender Diversity and Environmental Performance: An Industries Perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 1449–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cordeiro, J.J.; Profumo, G.; Tutore, I. Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Environmental Performance: The Moderating Role of Family and Dual-class Majority Ownership Structures. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 1127–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waldman, D.A.; Siegel, D.S.; Javidan, M. Components of CEO Transformational Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility. J. Manag. Stud. 2006, 43, 1703–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birindelli, G.; Iannuzzi, A.P.; Savioli, M. The Impact of Women Leaders on Environmental Performance: Evidence on Gender Diversity in Banks. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 1485–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaffee, S.; Hyde, J.S. Gender Differences in Moral Orientation: A Meta-Analysis. Psychol. Bull. 2000, 126, 703–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fukukawa, K.; Shafer, W.E.; Lee, G.M. Values and Attitudes toward Social and Environmental Accountability: A Study of MBA Students. J. Bus. Ethics 2007, 71, 381–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burkhardt, K.; Nguyen, P.; Poincelot, E. Agents of Change: Women in Top Management and Corporate Environmental Performance. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 1591–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciocirlan, C.; Pettersson, C. Does Workforce Diversity Matter in the Fight against Climate Change? An Analysis of Fortune 500 Companies: Does Workforce Diversity Matter In The Fight Against Climate Change? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2012, 19, 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piñeiro-Chousa, J.; Vizcaíno-González, M.; Caby, J. Financial Development and Standardized Reporting: A Comparison among Developed, Emerging, and Frontier Markets. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 101, 797–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- La Porta, R.; Lopez-De-Silanes, F.; Shleifer, A.; Vishny, R.W. Legal Determinants of External Finance. J. Financ. 1997, 52, 1131–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- La Porta, R.; Lopez-de-Silanes, F.; Shleifer, A. The Economic Consequences of Legal Origins. J. Econ. Lit. 2008, 46, 285–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hitt, M.A.; Beamish, P.W.; Jackson, S.E.; Mathieu, J.E. Building Theoretical and Empirical Bridges Across Levels: Multilevel Research in Management. Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 1385–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Renkema, M.; Meijerink, J.; Bondarouk, T. Advancing Multilevel Thinking and Methods in HRM Research. J. Organ. Eff. People Perform. 2016, 3, 204–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, E.S.; Sears, G.J. The Glass Ceiling in Context: The Influence of CEO Gender, Recruitment Practices and Firm Internationalisation on the Representation of Women in Management: The Glass Ceiling in Context. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2017, 27, 133–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellingsæter, A.L. Scandinavian Welfare States and Gender (de) Segregation: Recent Trends and Processes. Econ. Ind. Democr. 2013, 34, 501–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yarram, S.R.; Adapa, S. Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Social Responsibility: Is There a Case for Critical Mass? J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Countries | Number of Firms in Databases | EPI Rank 2020 | EPI 10-Year Change | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CDP | MERIT500 | Sample | ||||||
N | % | N | % | N | % | |||
USA | 480 | 23.2 | 629 | 29.0 | 267 | 31.9 | 24 | +2.9 |
UK | 201 | 9.7 | 328 | 15.1 | 123 | 14.7 | 4 | +9.0 |
Canada | 98 | 4.7 | 232 | 10.7 | 72 | 8.6 | 20 | +3.7 |
France | 95 | 4.6 | 120 | 8.0 | 52 | 6.2 | 5 | +5.8 |
Germany | 74 | 3.6 | 130 | 6.0 | 45 | 5.4 | 10 | +1.2 |
Sweden | 68 | 3.3 | 97 | 5.5 | 42 | 5.0 | 8 | +5.3 |
Switzerland | 51 | 2.5 | 112 | 5.2 | 37 | 4.4 | 3 | +8.6 |
Australia | 51 | 2.5 | 173 | 4.5 | 40 | 4.8 | 13 | +5.5 |
Spain | 48 | 2.3 | 61 | 2.9 | 30 | 3.6 | 14 | +8.6 |
Italy | 47 | 2.3 | 64 | 2.8 | 28 | 3.3 | 20 | +1.1 |
Norway | 42 | 2.0 | 37 | 2.5 | 25 | 3.0 | 9 | +7.6 |
Finland | 40 | 1.9 | 31 | 1.7 | 22 | 2.6 | 7 | +6.0 |
Netherlands | 31 | 1.5 | 54 | 1.7 | 16 | 1.9 | 11 | +1.5 |
Denmark | 24 | 1.2 | 37 | 1.7 | 16 | 1.9 | 1 | +7.3 |
Belgium | 18 | 0.9 | 36 | 1.4 | 10 | 1.2 | 15 | +2.1 |
Austria | 12 | 0.6 | 29 | 1.3 | 11 | 1.3 | 6 | +5.4 |
Total | 1380 | 100 | 2170 | 100 | 836 | 100 | - | - |
Green Management Variables | Definition | Source |
CDP score | Score measuring firm’s progress and incentive action on climate change, forests and water security (A/B/C/D) | CDP scores database 2020 |
Governance indicators | G1. Board-level oversight of climate issues (0 = no or 1 = yes) G2. Incentive mechanisms to climate issues (0/1) | CDP climate change database 2020 |
Risk indicators | R1. Type of process to manage climate-related risks (0/1) R2. Identify climate risks with impact (0/1) R3. Identify climate opportunities with impact (0/1) R4. Frequency of monitoring climate risks (More than once a year; annually; every 2 years or more) R5. Horizon in the future to consider climate risks (up to 1 year; 1 to 3 years; 3 to 6 years; beyond 6 years) | CDP climate change database 2020 |
Strategic indicators | S1. Climate risks issues integrated in business strategy (0/1) S2. Use of climate risks scenario to inform strategy (0/1) S3. Use of an emission target active (0/1) S4. Use of emissions’ reductions initiatives (0/1) S5. Regulation of activities by a carbon pricing system (0/1) S6. Use of internal price on carbon (0/1) S7. Engage with your value chain on climate issues (0/1) S8. Engage for influencing public policy on climate (0/1) | CDP climate change database 2020 |
Gender Variables | Definition | Source |
CEO sex | Sex of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) | MERIT500 database |
COB sex | Sex of the Chair of the Board (COB) of Directors | MERIT500 database |
Women in board | % of women among the Board of Directors (WBD) | MERIT500 database |
Women in management | % of women among the management team (WMT) | MERIT500 database |
Women in operational management | % of women among the management team with operational functions (WoMT) | MERIT500 database |
Firm and Country Variables | Definition | Source |
Sector | Firm’s classification into industries | Global Industry Classification Standard |
Size | Number of employees for 2020 | Financial statements |
Revenues | Firm’s turnover for 2020 | Financial statements |
Profit margin | Net income divided by net revenues for 2020 | Financial statements |
Financial development | Country’s classification using the Financial Development Index Database | International Monetary Fund |
Legal system | Country’s classification using the historical origin of law system | La Porta et al. ii (2008) |
Characteristics | Number of Firms | CDP Score (% of Firms) | Gender Data (% of Female) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | % | A | B | C | D | CEO | COB | WBD | WMT | WoMT | |
Countries: | |||||||||||
USA | 267 | 31.9 | 36.7 | 37.8 | 18.7 | 6.7 | 7.1 | 5.6 | 30.5 | 24.6 | 18.2 |
UK | 123 | 14.7 | 32.5 | 41.5 | 18.7 | 7.3 | 7.3 | 14.6 | 37.4 | 24.3 | 16.5 |
Canada | 72 | 8.6 | 30.6 | 26.4 | 31.9 | 11.1 | 0.0 | 16.7 | 34.3 | 20.7 | 13.9 |
France | 52 | 6.2 | 61.5 | 21.2 | 13.5 | 3.8 | 5.8 | 7.7 | 43.4 | 22.3 | 16.9 |
Germany | 45 | 5.4 | 42.2 | 33.3 | 15.6 | 8.9 | 4.4 | 8.9 | 31.2 | 12.1 | 5.4 |
Sweden | 42 | 5.0 | 28.6 | 33.3 | 26.2 | 11.9 | 14.3 | 11.9 | 40.0 | 25.3 | 13.7 |
Switzerland | 37 | 4.4 | 48.6 | 27.0 | 21.6 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.5 | 14.1 | 8.4 |
Australia | 40 | 4.8 | 30.0 | 30.0 | 25.0 | 15.0 | 7.5 | 12.5 | 36.9 | 28.2 | 16.2 |
Spain | 30 | 3.6 | 63.3 | 26.7 | 6.7 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 10.0 | 31.0 | 19.2 | 14.6 |
Italy | 28 | 3.3 | 64.3 | 17.9 | 7.1 | 10.7 | 7.1 | 14.3 | 38.0 | 18.0 | 16.5 |
Norway | 25 | 3.0 | 40.0 | 48.0 | 8.0 | 4.0 | 12.0 | 2.0 | 39.3 | 25.9 | 19.4 |
Finland | 22 | 2.6 | 50.0 | 31.8 | 13.6 | 4.5 | 13.6 | 4.5 | 34.3 | 25.8 | 15.8 |
Netherlands | 16 | 1.9 | 50.0 | 6.3 | 43.8 | 0.0 | 12.5 | 0.0 | 38.4 | 26.8 | 25.9 |
Denmark | 16 | 1.9 | 18.8 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 6.3 | 6.3 | 0.0 | 30.0 | 15.6 | 12.0 |
Belgium | 10 | 1.2 | 30.0 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 38.5 | 25.8 | 35.0 |
Austria | 11 | 1.3 | 45.5 | 45.5 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.3 | 26.7 | 5.9 | 6.3 |
Sectors: | |||||||||||
Financials | 185 | 22.1 | 40.5 | 31.4 | 20.5 | 7.6 | 7.6 | 13.0 | 34.2 | 24.2 | 16.9 |
Industrials | 181 | 21.7 | 36.5 | 33.1 | 23.8 | 6.6 | 3.9 | 8.3 | 33.8 | 19.8 | 13.6 |
Cons. goods | 93 | 11.1 | 51.6 | 32.3 | 12.9 | 3.2 | 4.3 | 8.6 | 36.5 | 23.1 | 15.6 |
Cons. services | 82 | 9.8 | 37.8 | 32.9 | 22.0 | 7.3 | 11.0 | 6.1 | 36.3 | 27.3 | 20.0 |
Technology | 63 | 7.5 | 36.5 | 28.6 | 23.8 | 11.1 | 7.9 | 1.6 | 34.4 | 18.9 | 14.3 |
Basic materials | 61 | 7.3 | 23.0 | 34.4 | 29.5 | 13.1 | 8.2 | 14.8 | 32.8 | 15.4 | 10.2 |
Health care | 61 | 7.3 | 24.6 | 47.5 | 19.7 | 8.2 | 6.6 | 3.3 | 32.5 | 27.3 | 20.6 |
Utilities | 53 | 6.3 | 64.2 | 34.0 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 7.5 | 9.4 | 35.1 | 24.1 | 17.9 |
Oil and gas | 43 | 5.1 | 32.6 | 37.2 | 18.6 | 11.6 | 4.7 | 9.3 | 29.8 | 20.3 | 15.8 |
Telecom. | 14 | 1.7 | 71.4 | 28.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 28.6 | 36.7 | 25.5 | 16.2 |
Financial dev.: | |||||||||||
High | 569 | 68.1 | 36.7 | 35.3 | 20.4 | 7.6 | 5.4 | 9.3 | 32.9 | 23.3 | 16.3 |
Medium | 231 | 27.6 | 45.9 | 27.3 | 19.5 | 7.4 | 8.7 | 7.8 | 37.4 | 20.7 | 15.0 |
Low | 36 | 4.3 | 41.7 | 47.2 | 8.3 | 2.8 | 8.3 | 16.7 | 35.4 | 19.8 | 15.4 |
Law system: | |||||||||||
Common law | 502 | 60.0 | 34.3 | 36.5 | 21.1 | 8.2 | 6.2 | 10.0 | 33.3 | 24.3 | 17.0 |
French civil law | 173 | 20.7 | 56.6 | 23.7 | 15.0 | 4.6 | 4.6 | 6.4 | 36.7 | 20.0 | 16.5 |
Scandinavian law | 105 | 12.6 | 34.3 | 35.2 | 22.9 | 7.6 | 12.4 | 8.6 | 37.1 | 24.1 | 15.2 |
German civil law | 56 | 6.7 | 42.9 | 35.7 | 14.3 | 7.1 | 3.6 | 12.5 | 30.3 | 10.8 | 5.6 |
CDP score: | |||||||||||
A | 330 | 39.5 | - | - | - | - | 5.2 | 8.5 | 34.8 | 23.2 | 16.5 |
B | 281 | 33.6 | - | - | - | - | 6.8 | 10.0 | 34.5 | 22.8 | 16.3 |
C | 164 | 19.6 | - | - | - | - | 7.9 | 11.0 | 33.6 | 20.5 | 14.5 |
D | 61 | 7.3 | - | - | - | - | 9.8 | 4.9 | 31.7 | 22.0 | 14.5 |
Total | 836 | 100 | 39.5 | 33.6 | 19.6 | 7.3 | 6.5 | 9.2 | 34.2 | 22.4 | 15.9 |
Governance (G) and Risk (R) Indicators | All Firms | CEO Gender | Chair Gender | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Male | Female | Male | Female | ||
G1. Board-level oversight of climate-related issues: | |||||
Yes | 98.2 | 98.2 | 98.1 | 98.0 | 100.0 |
No | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 0.0 |
G2. Incentive mechanisms to climate-related issues: | |||||
Yes | 80.7 | 80.3 | 87.0 | 80.5 | 83.1 |
No | 19.3 | 19.7 | 13.0 | 19.5 | 16.9 |
R1. Type of process to manage climate-related risks: | |||||
Integrated process | 85.2 | 85.0 | 88.9 | 85.9 | 78.7 |
Specific process | 14.8 | 15.0 | 11.1 | 14.1 | 21.3 |
R2. Identify climate-related risks with impact: | |||||
Yes | 86.6 | 86.9 | 81.5 | 86.3 | 89.6 |
No | 13.4 | 13.1 | 18.5 | 13.7 | 10.4 |
R3. Identify climate-related opportunities with impact: | |||||
Yes | 91.1 | 91.3 | 88.9 | 91.4 | 88.3 |
No | 8.9 | 8.7 | 11.1 | 8.6 | 11.7 |
R4. Frequency of monitoring climate-related risks: | |||||
More than once a year | 62.0 | 62.3 | 58.5 | 62.1 | 61.6 |
Annually | 34.5 | 34.0 | 41.5 | 34.9 | 30.1 |
Every 2 years or more | 3.5 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 8.2 |
R5. Horizon in the future to consider climate-related risks: | |||||
Up to 1 year | 2.1 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 6.8 |
1–3 years | 1.4 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
3–6 years | 34.5 | 34.0 | 41.5 | 34.9 | 30.1 |
Beyond 6 years | 62.0 | 62.3 | 58.5 | 62.1 | 61.6 |
Strategic (S) Indicators | All Firms | CEO Gender | Chair Gender | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Male | Female | Male | Female | ||
S1. Climate-related risks issues integrated in business strategy: | |||||
Yes | 95.0 | 94.9 | 96.3 | 95.4 | 90.9 |
No | 5.0 | 5.1 | 3.7 | 4.6 | 9.1 |
S2. Use of climate risks scenario to inform strategy: | |||||
Yes | 59.9 | 59.6 | 63.5 | 59.5 | 63.8 |
No | 40.1 | 40.4 | 36.5 | 40.5 | 36.2 |
S3. Use of an emission target active: | |||||
Yes | 82.7 | 82.5 | 83.3 | 82.4 | 85.7 |
No | 17.3 | 17.5 | 16.7 | 17.6 | 14.3 |
S4. Use of emissions reductions initiatives: | |||||
Yes | 91.7 | 91.5 | 94.4 | 91.9 | 89.6 |
No | 8.3 | 8.5 | 5.6 | 8.1 | 10.4 |
S5. Regulation of activities by a carbon pricing system: | |||||
Yes | 61.3 | 61.4 | 60.4 | 61.3 | 61.4 |
No | 38.7 | 38.6 | 39.6 | 38.7 | 38.6 |
S6. Use of internal price on carbon: | |||||
Yes | 28.1 | 27.9 | 32.1 | 28.9 | 21.1 |
No | 71.9 | 72.1 | 67.9 | 71.1 | 78.9 |
S7. Engage with your value chain on climate-related issues: | |||||
Yes | 91.2 | 91.3 | 90.7 | 91.0 | 93.5 |
No | 8.8 | 8.7 | 9.3 | 9.0 | 6.5 |
S8. Engage in activities for influencing public policy on climate: | |||||
Yes | 86.5 | 86.3 | 88.7 | 86.2 | 89.3 |
No | 13.5 | 13.7 | 11.3 | 13.8 | 10.7 |
Gender Variables | Mean | Std. | Min. | Max. |
---|---|---|---|---|
CEO sex (M = 0; F = 1) | 0.065 | 0.245 | 0 | 1 |
COB sex (M = 0; F = 1) | 0.092 | 0.289 | 0 | 1 |
Women in board (%) | 0.342 | 0.101 | 0 | 0.667 |
Women in management (%) | 0.224 | 0.138 | 0 | 1 |
Women in operational management (%) | 0.159 | 0.151 | 0 | 1 |
Firm Variables | Mean | Std. | Min. | Max. |
Size (employees) | 45,681 | 112,237 | 3 | 2,300,000 |
Revenues (m$) | 18,099 | 36,510 | 5.142 | 559,151 |
Profit margin (%) | 0.091 | 0.037 | −2.115 | 2.019 |
Green management Variables | Mean | Std. | Min. | Max. |
CDP score (A = 0–D = 3) | 0.947 | 0.939 | 0 | 3 |
G1. Board level interest (0 = no; 1 = yes) | 0.982 | 0.133 | 0 | 1 |
G2. Incentive mechanisms to climate issues (0/1) | 0.807 | 0.395 | 0 | 1 |
R1. Type of process to manage climate-related risks (0/1) | 0.148 | 0.355 | 0 | 1 |
R2. Identify climate risks with impact (0/1) | 0.866 | 0.341 | 0 | 1 |
R3. Identify climate opportunities with impact (0/1) | 0.911 | 0.285 | 0 | 1 |
S1. Climate risks issues integrated in business strategy (0/1) | 0.950 | 0.219 | 0 | 1 |
S2. Use of climate risks scenario to inform strategy (0/1) | 0.599 | 0.490 | 0 | 1 |
S3. Use of an emission target active (0/1) | 0.827 | 0.378 | 0 | 1 |
S4. Use of emissions reductions initiatives (0/1) | 0.917 | 0.276 | 0 | 1 |
S5. Regulation of activities by a carbon pricing system (0/1) | 0.413 | 0.472 | 0 | 1 |
S6. Use of internal price on carbon (0/1) | 0.281 | 0.450 | 0 | 1 |
S7. Engage with your value chain on climate issues (0/1) | 0.912 | 0.283 | 0 | 1 |
S8. Engage for influencing public policy on climate (0/1) | 0.865 | 0.342 | 0 | 1 |
Variables | CDP Score | G2 | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | 3.11 *** | 2.33 *** | −0.89 | 3.06 *** | 2.45 ** | 1.20 *** | 0.74 *** | 1.44 *** | 1.06 * | 1.79 ** | 3.21 ** | 0.50 *** | −0.88 |
Gender variable | |||||||||||||
CEO sex (ref. male) | |||||||||||||
Female | −0.16 | 0.52 | −0.58 | −0.44 | −0.34 | −0.00 | −0.00 | 0.01 | 0.26 | 0.17 | 0.51 | 0.05 | 0.27 |
COB sex (ref. male) | |||||||||||||
Female | −0.02 | 0.17 | 0.67 ** | 0.45 | −0.37 | −0.05 | 0.06 | −0.05 | 0.17 | 0.11 | −0.23 | 0.00 | −0.40 |
Women in management | 0.003 | 0.002 | −0.00 | 0.02 | 0.04 *** | −0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | −0.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 | −0.01 ** | −0.01 |
Women in op. management | 0.001 | −0.008 | 0.01 | −0.02 * | −0.03 ** | 0.00 | −0.00 | −0.00 | −0.00 | −0.00 | −0.01 | 0.00 | −0.00 |
Women in board | 0.005 | 0.003 | −0.01 | 0.002 | 0.00 | −0.00 | −0.00 | −0.00 | −0.00 | −0.00 | −0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
Firm variables | |||||||||||||
Sector (ref. utilities) | |||||||||||||
Basic materials | −0.74 *** | 0.08 | −2.35 *** | −0.19 | 0.20 | 0.13 ** | 0.11 * | −0.06 | −0.38 | 0.00 | −0.54 | −0.08 | −0.55 |
Consumer goods | −0.42 *** | −0.81 | −0.58 | −0.89 | 0.11 | 0.13 ** | 0.10 * | −0.09 | −0.17 | −0.69 | −0.47 | 0.03 | −0.13 |
Consumer services | −0.69 *** | −1.13 ** | −1.59 *** | −0.99 | −0.22 | 0.11 ** | 0.11 ** | −0.10 | −0.32 | −0.90 * | −0.87 | −0.05 | 0.09 |
Financials | −0.49 *** | −0.61 | −1.44 *** | −0.98 | −0.53 | 0.09 * | 0.05 | −0.15 *** | 0.05 | −0.49 | −1.04 | −0.08 | −0.27 |
Health care | −0.75 *** | −0.64 | −1.21 ** | −1.29 * | −0.35 | 0.06 | 0.09 | −0.11 | −0.13 | −0.82 | −0.96 | −0.03 | 0.06 |
Industrials | −0.64 *** | −0.58 | −0.64 | −1.03 | −0.63 | 0.08 | 0.09 * | −0.11 * | −0.31 | −0.50 | −0.81 | −0.05 | −0.26 |
Oil and gas | −0.53 *** | −0.59 | −1.35 ** | −0.92 | −0.44 | 0.15 ** | 0.05 | −0.16 ** | 0.25 | 0.25 | −1.28 | 0.01 | −0.88 |
Technology | −0.66 *** | −1.17 ** | −0.63 | −1.07 | −0.70 | 0.10 * | 0.11 ** | −0.18 ** | −1.08 *** | −0.84 | −1.24 | −0.03 | −0.39 |
Telecommunications | −0.15 | −1.87 ** | −0.05 | −2.94 *** | −2.38 *** | 0.15 * | 0.13 | −0.38 *** | −1.69 ** | −0.85 | −2.16 ** | −0.18 | −1.67 |
Revenues | 0.00 *** | 0.00 *** | 0.00 *** | −0.00 *** | −0.00 *** | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | −0.00 *** | −0.00 | −0.00 *** | 0.00 | −0.00 *** |
Profit margin | −0.01 | −0.12 | −0.02 | 0.09 | −0.12 | 0.01 | 0.01 | −0.00 | −0.05 | 0.04 | −0.06 | 0.01 | −0.04 |
Size (ref. 5001–15,000) | |||||||||||||
0–5000 | −0.20 ** | −0.09 | 0.76 ** | −0.12 | −0.38 | −0.06 * | 0.01 | −0.07 * | −0.41 * | −0.17 | 0.01 | −0.01 | −0.28 |
15,001–45,000 | 0.17 ** | −0.12 | 0.42 | −0.11 | −0.53 | −0.03 | 0.02 | −0.09 ** | −0.23 | −0.22 | −0.02 | −0.04 | −0.30 |
+45,000 | 0.32 *** | −0.21 | 0.75 ** | 0.13 | −0.19 | −0.03 | −0.01 | −0.06 | 0.48 * | 0.31 | 0.39 | −0.02 | 0.08 |
Country variables | |||||||||||||
Financial dev. (ref. medium) | |||||||||||||
Low | 0.30 * | 0.35 | −0.14 | 0.46 | 1.65 | −0.07 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.38 | 1.48 | 0.84 | 0.16 | 0.68 |
High | 0.17 | 0.93 | −0.25 | 0.66 | 0.07 | −0.05 | −0.00 | 0.15 ** | 0.51 | 0.53 | 0.67 | 0.20 ** | 0.77 |
Legal system (ref. Scand. law) | |||||||||||||
Common law | −0.28 | −1.28 * | −0.06 | −1.12 | 0.22 | 0.07 | −0.01 | −0.20 *** | −0.62 | −0.12 | −0.43 | −0.19 * | −0.94 |
French civil law | 0.11 | −0.72 | −0.22 | −0.22 | 0.28 | 0.04 | 0.05 | −0.09 | −0.47 | 0.17 | −0.10 | −0.06 | −0.41 |
German civil law | 0.04 | −0.03 | −0.86 | −0.52 | 0.26 | 0.09 * | 0.01 | −0.03 | 0.05 | 1.94 ** | −0.03 | 0.03 | 0.41 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Caby, J.; Coron, C.; Ziane, Y. The Effect of Top Management Team Gender Diversity on Climate Change Management: An International Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1032. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14021032
Caby J, Coron C, Ziane Y. The Effect of Top Management Team Gender Diversity on Climate Change Management: An International Study. Sustainability. 2022; 14(2):1032. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14021032
Chicago/Turabian StyleCaby, Jérôme, Clotilde Coron, and Ydriss Ziane. 2022. "The Effect of Top Management Team Gender Diversity on Climate Change Management: An International Study" Sustainability 14, no. 2: 1032. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14021032