Board gender diversity and corporate green innovation: An industry‐level institutional perspective

Abstract

This study contributes to the inconclusive literature on the relationship between board gender diversity (BGD) and green innovation (GI). It empirically examines the moderating role of normative, mimetic and coercive pressures in the relationship between BGD and GI, derived from an industry‐specific isomorphic exhibition of institutional theory. Appertaining to A‐share listed firms of China, the findings highlight the moderating effect of masculinity, environmental sensitivity, environmental regulation level and export orientation of an industry on the said relationship. Moreover, the coercive isomorphism exhibits pronounced impact with the intensity of export orientation. However, firms associated with high‐tech industries have not been confirmed for significant effect on the relationship. Thus, the findings imply that the dynamics of the corporate governance and institutional isomorphism in case of BGD and GI relationships, in the organisational field of industry, are likely both pertinent and prevalent. Moreover, the increase in the number of females on the corporate boards could enhance the green performance of a firm, subject to the fulfilment of industry specific boundary conditions, predefined by the unique set of industry specific institutional pressures. These pressures amid affiliation with a specific industry should be evaluated and controlled for, on the bases of coercive, normative, and mimetic isomorphism it hatches, to device an optimum composition of the corporate board.

Board gender diversity and corporate environmental commitment: A subnational perspective

“…Nevertheless, in industries with low polluting potential, the incremental role of an additional female in the betterment of CEC is vivid. These findings are in line with previous studies of the effective marginal impact of female inclusion in those organizations where the fruits of BGD are not reaped already (Naveed, Khalid, & Voinea, 2022).…”

“…Overall, these results follow neo‐institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) as put by Zhu et al (2013) who argue that the environmental behavior of a firm is shaped by the institutional isomorphism hatched in a particular organizational field. Pursuant to it, the results of our research further extend the preceding empirical literature (Majid et al, 2020; Naveed, Khalid, & Voinea, 2022; Ullah et al, 2022; Yuan & Zhang, 2020) by arguing that, besides the corroboration of national and international level impact of institutional pressures on environmental behavior, subnational organizational fields in the shape of provincial archetypes have also impact in shaping the environmental behavior of firms in a particular subnational region.…”

“…Following prior research (Naveed, Khalid, & Voinea, 2022; Usman et al, 2018), we have used lagged dependent variable (LDV) to check the robustness of our results. In panel data regression analysis, LDV technique has been utilized to generate reliable estimations of the independent variables (Wilkins, 2018).…”

“…Theoretically speaking, we extend neo‐institutional and stakeholder theory to foster how differences in the institutional environments of different provinces of China shape the role congruence/incongruence of women on corporate boards in terms of environmental commitment driven by stakeholders' pressures. Neo‐institutionalism has been informed by the homogenization of institutional environments and has fostered how regulative, cognitive, and normative processes and pressures across the industries (Naveed, Khalid, & Voinea, 2022; Scott, 2005) and national boundaries (Cormier & Gomez‐Gutierrez, 2018) lead to increasingly rationalized and standardized practices in firms. The key argument is that firms' practices become institutionalized due to legitimacy that is produced by coercive isomorphism, mimetic processes, and normative pressures' (Matten & Moon, 2008).…”

“…However, this phenomenon is not ubiquitous and is subject to the institutional environment provided to the firm. It has been observed in terms of country specific institutional environment (Zaman et al, 2022) and industry specific (Naveed, Khalid, & Voinea, 2022) factors.…”