Our paper seeks to further understand the influence of gender board diversity on firms’ corporate social performance (CPS) in the context of publicly held family firms. Grounded on corporate governance and family firm literature, we argue that the influence of women directors on CSP will be contingent on their relative power and legitimacy within the board, and that such dynamics are particularly important in family firm boardrooms. Our empirical results show that increases in CSP associated with the presence of women in the boards of family firms are due mainly to the presence of outsider nonfamily and insider family women directors. Implications for the theory of family firms are discussed.
AdamsR. B.FerreiraD. (2009) Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics94: 291–309.
2.
AguinisH.GlavasA. (2012) What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility a review and research agenda. Journal of Management38(4): 932–968.
3.
AmoreM. D.GarofaloO.MinichilliA. (2014) Gender interactions within the family firm. Management Science60(5): 1083–1097.
4.
AndersonC. R.ReebM. D. (2003) Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P500. The Journal of FinanceLVIII(3): 1301–1328.
5.
AndersonC. R.ReebM. D. (2004) Board composition: Balancing family influence in S&P 500 firms. Administrative Science Quarterly49: 209–237.
6.
BaiG. (2013) How do board size and occupational background of directors influence social performance in for-profit and non-profit organizations? Evidence from California hospitals. Journal of Business Ethics118: 171–187.
7.
BammensY.VoordeckersW.Van GilsA. (2011) Boards of directors in family businesses: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews13(2): 134–152.
8.
BaysingerB.HoskissonR. E. (1990) The composition of boards of directors and strategic control: Effects on corporate strategy. Academy of Management Review15: 72–87.
9.
BerroneP.CruzC.Gomez-MejiaL.Larraza-KintanaM. (2010) Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less?Administrative Science Quarterly55: 82–113.
10.
BilimoriaD. (2000) Building the business case for women corporate directors. In: BurkeR. J.MattisM. C. (eds) Women on corporate boards of directors: International challenges and opportunities, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 25–40.
11.
BilimoriaD.PideritS. K. (1994) Board committee membership: Effects of sex-based bias. Academy of Management Journal37: 1453–1477.
12.
BouloutaI. (2013) Hidden connections: The link between board gender diversity and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics113: 185–197.
13.
BuM.LiuZ.WagnerM.YuX. (2013) Corporate social responsibility and the pollution haven hypothesis: Evidence from multinationals’ investment decision in China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics20(1): 85–99.
14.
BurgesZ.TharenouP. (2002) Women board directors: Characteristics of the few. Journal of Business Ethics37(1): 39–4.
15.
BurkeR. (1994) Women on corporate boards of directors: Views of Canadian chief executive officers. Women in Management Review9(5): 3–10.
16.
CesaroniF. M.SentutiA. (2014) Women and family businesses. When women are left only minor roles. The History of the Family19(3): 358–379.
17.
ChrismanJ. J.HoltD. T. (2016) Beyond socioemotional wealth: Taking another step toward a theory of the family firm. Management Research14: 279–287.
18.
ClarksonM. B. E. (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. The Academy of Management Review20(1): 92–117.
19.
CruzC.Gomez-MejiaL. R.BecerraM. (2010) Perceptions of benevolence and the design of agency contracts: CEO-TMT relationships in family firms. Academy of Management Journal53: 69–89.
20.
CruzC.JustoR.DeCastroJ. O. (2012) Does family employment enhance SMEs performance? Integrating socioemotional wealth and family embeddedness perspectives. Journal of Business Venturing27(1): 62–76.
21.
CruzC.Larraza-KintanaM.Garcés-GaldeanoL.BerroneP. (2014) Are family firms really more socially responsible?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice38(6): 1295–1316.
22.
DailyC. M.CertoS. T.DaltonD. R. (1999) A decade of corporate women: Some progress in the boardroom, none in the executive suite. Strategic Management Journal20: 93–99.
23.
EaglyA. H. (2005) Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter?Leadership Quarterly3: 459–474.
24.
EdlundC. J. (1992) Humanizing the workplace: Incorporating feminine leadership. In: BaileyM. T.MayerR. T. (eds) Public management in an interconnected world, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 75–88.
25.
ElstadB.LadegardG. (2012) Women on corporate boards: Key influencers or tokens?Journal of Management & Governance16(4): 595–615.
FamaE.FrenchK. R. (1992) The cross-section of expected stock returns. The Journal of Finance47: 427–465.
28.
FiegenerM. K.BonnieM. B.DirkR. D.WilliamJ. D. (2000) CEO stakes and board composition in small private firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice24: 5–24.
29.
FinkelsteinS. (1992) Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal35: 505–538.
30.
FombrunC. J.ShanleyM. (1990) What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal33: 233–258.
GilliganC. (1982) In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.Larraza-KintanaM.MakriM. (2003) The determinants of executive compensation in family-controlled public corporations. Academy of Management Journal46: 226–237.
34.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.CruzC.BerroneP.De CastroJ. (2011) The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. The Academy of Management Annals5: 653–707.
35.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.HaynesK.Nuñez-NickelM.JacobsonK.Moyano-FuentesJ. (2007) Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly52: 106–137.
36.
HafsiT.TurgutG. (2013) Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance: Conceptualization and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics112: 463–479.
37.
HechevarríaD.TerjesenS.IngramA.RenkoM.JustoR.ElamA. (2016) Taking care of business: The impact of culture and gender on entrepreneurs’ blended value creation goals. Small Business Economics48(1): 225–257.
38.
HillmanA. J.DalzielT. (2003) Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. The Academy of Management Review28(3): 383–396.
39.
HillmanA. J.KeimG. D.LuceR. A. (2001) Board composition and stakeholder performance: Do stakeholder directors make a difference?Business and Society40: 295–314.
40.
IbrahimN. A.AngelidisJ. P. (1995) The corporate social responsiveness orientation of board members: Are there differences between inside and outside directors?Journal of Business Ethics14(5): 405–410.
41.
JamaliD.SafieddineA. M.RabbathM. (2008) Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies and interrelationships. Corporate Governance: An International Review16: 443–459.
42.
JohnsonR. A.GreeningD. W. (1999) The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. The Academy of Management Journal42(5): 564–576.
43.
KennedyJ. A.KrayL. J. (2013) Who is willing to sacrifice ethical values for money and social status? Gender differences in reactions to ethical compromises. Social Psychological and Personality Science5: 52–59.
44.
Krüger, P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and the board of directors (Job Market Paper). Toulouse: Toulouse School of Economics.
45.
MaZ.LiangD.YuK. H.LeeY. (2012) Most cited business ethics publications: Mapping the intellectual structure of business ethics studies in 2001–2008. Business Ethics: A European Review21(3): 286–297.
46.
Martinez-JimenezR. (2009) Research on women in family firms: Current status and future directions. Family Business Review22(1): 53–64.
47.
McdonaldM. L.WestphalJ. D. (2010) Control, CEO identification with the corporate elite, and strategic help provided to CEOs at other firms. The Academy of Management Journal53(2): 343–370.
48.
MillerD.LeBreton-MillerI.LesterR. H.CannellaA. A. (2007) Are family firms really superior performers?Journal of Corporate Finance13(5): 829–858.
49.
MintzbergH. (1983) Power in and around organizations, Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
50.
MorgesonF. P.AguinisH.WaldmanD. A.SiegelD. S. (2013) Extending corporate social responsibility research to the human resource management and organizational behavior domains: A look to the future. Personnel Psychology66(4): 805–824.
51.
NielsenS.HuseM. (2010a) The contribution of women on boards of directors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate Governance: An International Review18: 136–148.
52.
PelozaJ. (2009) The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in corporate social performance. Journal of Management35(6): 1518–1541.
53.
RaginsB. R.SundstromE. (1989) Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological Bulletin105(1): 51–88.
54.
RaoK.TiltC. (2016) Board composition and corporate social responsibility: The role of diversity, gender, strategy and decision making. Journal of Business Ethics138(2): 327–347.
55.
Rodriguez-ArizaL.Cuadrado-BallesterosB.Martinez-FerreroJ.Garcia-SanchezM. I. (2017) The role of female directors in promoting CSR practices: An international comparison between family and non-family businesses. Business Ethics: A European Review26: 162–174.
56.
RowleyT.BermanS. (2000) A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business & Society39(4): 397–418.
57.
SalganicoffM. (1990) Women in family businesses: Challenges and opportunities. Family Business Review3(2): 125–137.
58.
SchulzeW. S.LubakinL. H.DinoR. N.BuchholtzA. K. (2001) Agency relationships in family firms: Theory and evidence. Organization Science12(2): 99–116.
59.
ShaferW. E.FukukawaK.LeeG. M. (2007) Values and the perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility: The U.S. versus China. Journal of Business Ethics70: 256–284.
60.
SinghV.PointS.MoulinY.DavilaA. (2015) Legitimacy profiles of women directors on top French company boards. Journal of Management Development34(7): 803–820.
61.
SinghV.TerjesenS.VinnicombeV. (2008) Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: How do women and men differ?European Management Journal26(1): 48–58.
62.
TerjesenS.SealyR. (2016) Board gender quotas: Exploring ethical tensions from a multi-theoretical perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly26(1): 23–65.
63.
TerjesenS.SealyR.SinghV. (2009) Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review17: 320–337.
64.
TosiH. L.Gomez-MejiaL. R.LoughryM. L.WernerS.BanningK.KatzJ.HarrisR.SilvaP. (1999) Ownership distribution and managerial discretion. In: FerrisG. (ed.) Research in personnel and human resources management, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 7.
65.
VillalongaB.AmitR. (2006) How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value?Journal of Financial Economics80: 385–417.
66.
WangH.TongL.TakeuchiR.GeorgeG. (2016) Corporate social responsibility: An overview and new research directions. Academy of Management Journal59(2): 534–544.
67.
WangJ.CoffeeB. S. (1992) Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics11: 771–778.
68.
WooldridgeJ. (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
69.
ZahraS. (1993) Conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior: A critique and extension. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice14(4): 5–21.
70.
ZelechowskiD. D.BilimoriaD. (2003) The experience of women corporate inside directors on the boards of fortune 1000 firms. Women in Management Review18(7): 376–381.
71.
ZelechowskiD. D.BilimoriaD.HaugR. (2006) Female directors, CEO characteristics, and board structure. Journal of Academy of Business and Economics6(1): 189–196.
72.
ZhangJ. Q.ZhuH.DingH. (2013) Board composition and corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation in the post Sarbanes-Oxley era. Journal of Business Ethics114: 381–392.
