z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Diversity on corporate boards: A systematic review
Author(s) -
Abdlmutaleb Boshanna
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
corporate ownership and control
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1810-0368
pISSN - 1727-9232
DOI - 10.22495/cocv18i4art1
Subject(s) - operationalization , diversity (politics) , framing (construction) , perspective (graphical) , agency (philosophy) , sociology , systematic review , public relations , political science , positive economics , social science , epistemology , economics , computer science , geography , law , philosophy , archaeology , medline , artificial intelligence
This study conducts a systematic review and provides a comprehensive up-to-date review of the literature about diversity on corporate boards. Unlike previous studies, we do not restrict our search to a specific type of diversity (e.g., gender diversity) or limited firm outcomes (e.g., firm performance). Our aim is to review, evaluate, synthesize, and summarize the literature and extend our knowledge on five key areas: 1) the theoretical approach (going beyond the theoretical analysis of each article by exploring how the theoretical perspective informs their focus); 2) dominant framing and theorizing (single theory vs multi-theories); 3) determinants and consequences; 4) how board diversity is defined and operationalized; and 5) the outcomes of board diversity. In reviewing the research from 2010 to February 2021 and using Saint Mary’s University Business Source Premier (SMU EBSCO) database, we identify 46 articles. Our findings reveal that agency theory no longer dominates board diversity research and has given way to institutional theory. The increasing use of institutional theory, which considers the effect of social structure on organizational outcomes, may be caused by most of the literature (based on our findings) using cross-country data. At the same time, there is a tendency to use a more multi-theoretical approach rather than a single theory one, and there are methodological limitations, including a paucity of rich data collection methods (e.g., surveys, questionnaires, and interviews). In addition, the current literature, according to the findings, focuses more on the consequences than the determinants of board diversity. Finally, our study intends to highlight and outline crucial research gaps that invite future investigation

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here