This study analyses the impact of women leaders on environmental performance in a sample of 96 listed banks in the EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) region from 2011 to 2016. Gender diversity in leadership positions is explored through women in the board of directors, chief executive officer gender, and the interaction between these two aspects. This study sheds light on inconsistent results in prior literature by testing three theoretical perspectives: gender difference, critical mass, and homophily. The main results suggest that there is nonlinear relationship between women directors and the environmental performance of banks and that female chief executive officers play a strategic role in shaping this relationship, by confirming the homophily perspective for the banking sector. Therefore, leader gender diversity is an important driver of environmental sustainability in banks, which are increasingly involved in environmental issues either directly, as companies, or indirectly, through their lending activity.

A growing body of research suggests that the composition of a firm’s board of directors can influence its environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance. In the banking industry, ESG performance has not yet been explored to discover how a critical mass of women on the board of directors affects performance. This paper seeks to fill this gap in the literature by testing the impact of a critical mass of female directors on ESG performance. Other board characteristics are accounted for: independence, size, frequency of meetings and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) sustainability committee. We use fixed effects panel regression models on a sample of 108 listed banks in Europe and the United States for the period 2011–2016. Our main empirical evidence shows that the relationship between women on the board of directors and a bank’s ESG performance is an inverted U-shape. Therefore, the critical mass theory for banks is not supported, confirming that only gender-balanced boards positively impact a bank’s performance for sustainability. There is a positive link between ESG performance and board size or the presence of a CSR sustainability committee, while it is negative with the share of independent directors. With this work, we stress the key role of corporate governance principles in banks’ ESG performance, with relevant implications for both banks and supervisory authorities.

The relationships between sustainable behavior, firm reputation, and economic performance are significant issues that continue to become more important. Corporate reputation has important implications for economic performance while corporate social responsibility engagement is considered a key determinant of reputation. The aim of this study is to empirically test such relationships regarding the banking sector and for the sub-prime crisis period (2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012). We apply our hypothesis to 75 large international banks using Reputation Institute and ASSET4 data and adopting a multiple econometric approach. Our initial results are encouraging and consistent with the existing literature: bank reputation is positively related to accounting performance and is negatively related to leverage and riskiness profiles. However, while a positive relationship between reputation and social performance exists, relationships between reputation, corporate governance, and environmental performance are always negative. We discuss these results by identifying related causes and by presenting avenues for future research.

No abstract

This study investigates the financial and non-financial impacts of the use of sustainability criteria in banks’ executive compensation plans. The sample covers all the globally and systemically important European banks over the period 2013–2017. Panel data-fixed effect estimations are employed to mitigate endogeneity concerns and to control for within-firm dynamics. The implementation of sustainable criteria in the banks’ remuneration contracts was found to (i) negatively impact economic performance, (ii) negatively impact the riskiness profile, and (iii) positively impact sustainability performance. These findings have important implications for investors as well as banks. Indeed, these results are encouraging for the use of sustainability targets in executive compensation for restricting excessive risk-taking behaviors and improving sustainability performance.