Unveiling the influence of institutional quality on board gender diversity and corporate environmental, social, and governance disputes in China

被引:7
作者
Khalid, Fahad [1 ]
Naveed, Khwaja [2 ]
Sun, Xinhui [3 ]
Srivastava, Mohit [4 ]
机构
[1] Guilin Univ Elect Technol, Sch Business, Guilin, Peoples R China
[2] United Arab Emirates Univ, Coll Business & Econ, Al Ain, U Arab Emirates
[3] Univ Int Business & Econ, Business Sch, 10 Huixin Dongjie, Beijing 100029, Peoples R China
[4] EM Normandie Business Sch, Metis Lab, Le Havre, France
来源
BUSINESS ETHICS THE ENVIRONMENT & RESPONSIBILITY | 2025年 / 34卷 / 03期
关键词
board gender diversity (BGD); corporate governance (CG); ESG; institutional quality; regional institutional development; PANEL-DATA; DIRECTORS; WOMEN; SUSTAINABILITY; RESPONSIBILITY; MANAGEMENT; OWNERSHIP; VARIABLES; CONTEXT; MATTER;
D O I
10.1111/beer.12672
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This paper unravels an unprecedented interplay between board gender diversity (BGD) and corporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disputes among Chinese A-share-listed nonfinancial companies from 2017 to 2021. Framed within a knowledge-based and sensemaking perspective of institutional frameworks, the research not only illuminates the profound impact of internal (corporate governance ratings) and external (regional institutional development) institutional factors on this intricate relationship but also brings to light a paradigm-shifting revelation. The study employed a diverse set of empirical tests, ranging from ordinary least squares regression to advanced methods such as the generalized method of moments, two-stage least squares, and propensity score matching, providing a nuanced and comprehensive analysis. The findings highlight the pivotal role of female directors in significantly mitigating ESG disputes. A mechanism analysis further uncovers that internal and external institutional quality are potent positive moderators in shaping the BGD-ESG dispute dynamic. This research has profound implications, providing valuable insights for stakeholders, policymakers, and scholars, offering a comprehensive understanding of how gender diversity fosters sustainability while unravelling the intricate tapestry of internal and external institutional dynamics that shape ESG outcomes.
引用
收藏
页码:621 / 638
页数:18
相关论文
共 99 条
[1]   ESG controversies and governance: Evidence from the banking industry [J].
Agnese, Paolo ;
Battaglia, Francesca ;
Busato, Francesco ;
Taddeo, Simone .
FINANCE RESEARCH LETTERS, 2023, 53
[2]   Corporate sustainability and institutional shareholders: The pressure of social responsible pension funds on environmental firm practices [J].
Alda, Mercedes .
BUSINESS STRATEGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 2019, 28 (06) :1060-1071
[3]   Do ESG Controversies Matter for Firm Value? Evidence from International Data [J].
Aouadi A. ;
Marsat S. .
Journal of Business Ethics, 2018, 151 (4) :1027-1047
[4]   SOME TESTS OF SPECIFICATION FOR PANEL DATA - MONTE-CARLO EVIDENCE AND AN APPLICATION TO EMPLOYMENT EQUATIONS [J].
ARELLANO, M ;
BOND, S .
REVIEW OF ECONOMIC STUDIES, 1991, 58 (02) :277-297
[5]   THE DOUBLE-EDGE OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEGITIMATION [J].
Ashforth, Blake E. ;
Gibbs, Barrie W. .
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, 1990, 1 (02) :177-194
[6]   A comparison of propensity score matching methods for reducing selection bias [J].
Bai, Haiyan .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH & METHOD IN EDUCATION, 2011, 34 (01) :81-107
[7]   Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment [J].
Bansal, P ;
Clelland, I .
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 2004, 47 (01) :93-103
[8]  
Barile S., 2019, NEW CHALLENGES CORPO, P3, DOI [10.22495/ncpr_40, DOI 10.22495/NCPR_40]
[9]   Selection bias in ESG controversies as a risk for sustainable investors [J].
Barkemeyer, Ralf ;
Revelli, Christophe ;
Douaud, Anatole .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2023, 405
[10]   Are Boards Designed to Fail? The Implausibility of Effective Board Monitoring [J].
Boivie, Steven ;
Bednar, Michael K. ;
Aguilera, Ruth V. ;
Andrus, Joel L. .
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT ANNALS, 2016, 10 (01) :319-407