This paper examines the evolving pattern of gender diversity of the boards of directors of leading Norwegian and British companies on a longitudinal basis. The period covered by the study covers the run up to proposed affirmative action legislation in Norway and, as such, affords an insight into corporate actions in this emerging institutional context. The findings demonstrate that, while board diversity has grown substantially in both countries in recent years, it has done so considerably more rapidly in Norway than (...) in the United Kingdom. The analysis highlights the sectoral variation between the countries in the pattern and growth of board diversity and suggests that the vast majority of the overall growth in board diversity is the result of changing firm behaviour rather than sectoral shift in the United Kingdom or Norwegian economies. It is also shown that as diversity has increased there has been no fall in how experienced female directors are; neither is there evidence of a rise in the number of boards that female directors sit on. This suggests that the rapid growth in board diversity has been achieved without any fall in the quality of female directors. (shrink)

This research reports the results of a study of women serving on boards of directors of Canadian private and public sector organizations. These women (N = 278) were an impressive and talented group (eduction, professional designations). In addition, they brought a variety of backgrounds and expertise to their director responsibilities. Most were nominated as a result of recommendations from current board members, CEOs, or someone who knew board members or CEOs. Thus personal relationships (the old boy's network) as well as (...) track records and appropriate expertise were important factors in board nominations. Women directors thought they had some influence on women's issues with their boards and board companies. A majority believed that board members should be more diverse, including more women and fewer male CEOs. However they indicated several barriers faced by women in being selected and nominated for board appointments. (shrink)

Ten countries have established quotas for female representation on publicly traded corporate and/or state-owned enterprise boards of directors, ranging from 33 to 50 %, with various sanctions. Fifteen other countries have introduced non-binding gender quotas in their corporate governance codes enforcing a “comply or explain” principle. Countless other countries’ leaders and policy groups are in the process of debating, developing, and approving legislation around gender quotas in boards. Taken together, gender quota legislation significantly impacts the composition of boards of directors (...) and thus the strategic direction of these publicly traded and state-owned enterprises. This article outlines an integrated model of three institutional factors that explain the establishment of board of directors gender quota legislation based on the premise that the country’s institutional environment co-evolves with gender corporate policies. We argue that these three key institutional factors are female labor market and gendered welfare state provisions, left-leaning political government coalitions, and path-dependent policy initiatives for gender equality, both in the public realm as well as in the corporate domain. We discuss implications of our conceptual model and empirical findings for theory, practice, policy, and future research. These include the adoption and penalty design of board diversity practices into corporate practices, bottom-up approaches from firm to country-level gender board initiatives, hard versus soft regulation, the leading role of Norway and its isomorphic effects, the likelihood of engaging in decoupling, the role of business leaders, and the transnational and international reaction to board diversity initiatives. (shrink)

In this article, we examine the factors determining the representation of women on boards of directors by considering three main questions. The first question deals with the relationship between characteristics of ownership and governance on one side, and female directorship on the other. The second major question concerns the demographic attributes of women directors, such as nationality, foreign experience, educational level, business expertise, and connections to external sources. The third important question refers to women in senior positions on French boards (...) (e.g., as independent members or board subcommittee members) in relation to firm characteristics and women’s demographic attributes. Our study focuses on French large- and mid-capitalized companies belonging to the SBF120 stock market index during a 5-year period running from 2000 to 2004. First, our results give evidence that the appointment of women directors is strongly related to family ownership and board or firm size. Second, the appointment of women directors is related to their professional services, valuable skills, and network links. Furthermore, we show that women face a double glass-ceiling problem, and note that French firms rely more on the demographic attributes of their women directors when they are appointed to senior board positions. Our study sheds light on issues concerning the law that comes into force in 2016, which imposes quotas of women members on boards of directors in French companies. (shrink)

This study examines the presence and roles of female directors of U.S. Fortune 500 firms, focusing on committee assignments and director background. Prior work from almost two decades ago concludes that there is a systematic bias against females in assignment to top board committees. Examining a recent data set with a logistic regression model that controls for director and firm characteristics, director resource-dependence roles and interaction between director gender and director characteristics, we find that female directors are less likely than (...) male directors to sit on executive committees and more likely than male directors to sit on public affairs committees. There is little if any evidence of systematic gender bias in director assignment to other board committees. We find some evidence that boards evaluate resource dependence differently for women than men. (shrink)

This paper examines the evolving pattern of gender diversity of the boards of directors of leading Norwegian and British companies on a longitudinal basis. The period covered by the study covers the run up to proposed affirmative action legislation in Norway and, as such, affords an insight into corporate actions in this emerging institutional context. The findings demonstrate that, while board diversity has grown substantially in both countries in recent years, it has done so considerably more rapidly in Norway than (...) in the United Kingdom. The analysis highlights the sectoral variation between the countries in the pattern and growth of board diversity and suggests that the vast majority of the overall growth in board diversity is the result of changing firm behaviour rather than sectoral shift in the United Kingdom or Norwegian economies. It is also shown that as diversity has increased there has been no fall in how experienced female directors are; neither is there evidence of a rise in the number of boards that female directors sit on. This suggests that the rapid growth in board diversity has been achieved without any fall in the quality of female directors. (shrink)

This article investigates the gender diversity of the corporate board of European Union banks. Employing a large sample of 612 European banks from 20 European countries, it identifies organizational characteristics that could be predictive of women’s presence on bank boards. We identify three factors that play a particularly important role in defining bank board gender diversity. First, the proportion of women on the board is higher for lower-risk banks. We argue that there may be some statistical discrimination behind this relation, (...) although it could also be explained by a real risk-aversion hypothesis. Second, banks with larger boards have a higher proportion of women on their boards, which could be considered a signal of some kind of preference for homogeneity on small boards. Finally, banks that have a growth orientation are more prone to include women on their board, since they may be seen as providers of diverse external resources that are more valued by firms operating under critical circumstances. (shrink)

This study examines the presence and roles of female directors of U.S. Fortune 500 firms, focusing on committee assignments and director background. Prior work from almost two decades ago concludes that there is a systematic bias against females in assignment to top board committees. Examining a recent data set with a logistic regression model that controls for director and firm characteristics, director resource-dependence roles and interaction between director gender and director characteristics, we find that female directors are less likely than (...) male directors to sit on executive committees and more likely than male directors to sit on public affairs committees. There is little if any evidence of systematic gender bias in director assignment to other board committees. We find some evidence that boards evaluate resource dependence differently for women than men. (shrink)

We present results from a study about women and employee-elected board members, and fill some of the gaps in the literature about their contribution to board effectiveness. The empirical data are from a unique data set of Norwegian firms. Board effectiveness is evaluated in relation to board control tasks, including board corporate social responsibility (CSR) involvement. We found that the contributions of women and employee-elected board members varied depending on the board tasks studied. In the article we also explored the (...) effects of the esteem of the women and employee-elected board members, and we used creative discussions in the boardroom as a mediating variable. Previous board research, including research about women and employee-elected directors, questions if the board members contribute to board effectiveness. The main message from this study is that it may be more important to ask how, rather than if, women and employee-elected board members contribute, and we need to open the black box of actual board behavior to explore how they may contribute. (shrink)