Global Sustainability Practices - Board Gender Diversity

1. GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY
PRACTICES: BOARD GENDER
DIVERSITY
Dayana Mastura Baharudin

2. INTRODUCTION - GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY
PRACTICES IN THE MEDIA

3. INTRODUCTION - GLOBAL GENDER
DIVERSITY IN THE MEDIA

4. INTRODUCTION - BOARD GENDER
DIVERSITY – A CATALYST?

5. To examine the impact of the gender diversified
board of directors on corporate sustainability
practices towards achieving overall firm’s
business sustainability.
RESEARCH AIM

6. PROBLEM STATEMENT

7. Literature Review:
• Al-Shaer and Zaman (2016) examined the effect on board gender diversity on sustainability
reporting quality using 4 alternative proxies for gender diversity and measure SR quality using
an index. The study is based on the UK context with a softer comply or explain approach.
• Hyun, Yang ,Jung and Hong (2016) examines the notion that having more women in the
boardroom leads to better CSR performance based on a sample of S&P 1500 index firms
(2000-2009).
• Glass, Cook and Ingersoll (2015) investigate the impact women leaders have on the corporate
environmental strategies of organisations using a dataset of all Fortune 500 CEOs and BODs
for a ten year period.
• Galbreath (2011) investigates a link between women on boards of directors and corporate
sustainability from a sample of public listed firms in Australia.
Research Gap:
Prior research on gender diversified board of directors did not examine the impact towards overall
firms’ business sustainability and on corporate sustainability practices.
Research Objectives:
• To examine the impact of gender diversified BOD on the Corporate Sustainability Practices
(CSP) of organisations.(RO1,RQ1,H1-H3) – slide 17
• To examine the impact of gender diversified BOD on overall Business Sustainability
(BS).(RO4,RQ4, H10) – slide 20
LITERATURE REVIEW & RESEARCH GAP–
Gender Diversified Board of Directors

8. Core business case drivers Past authors
• Costs and cost reduction e.g., Christmann (2000), Epstein and Roy
(1996)
• Risk and risk reduction e.g., Schaltegger and Wagner (2006)
• Sales and profit margin e.g., Porter and van der Linde (1995a, 1995b)
• Reputation and brand value e.g., Jones and Rubin (1999), van Marrewijk, 2003)
• Attractiveness as employer e.g., Ehnert (2009), Revell et al. (2010)
• Innovative capabilities e.g., Cohen and Winn (2007), Pujari (2006),
Schaltegger and Wagner (2011)
Literature Review: Source- Schaltegger,S, Ludeke-Freund,F and Hansen, EG (2012)
Research Gap:
Prior research on the drivers of sustainability did not focus on gender diversified board of directors as
CSP and BS drivers.
Research Objectives:
• To examine the impact of gender diversified BOD on the Corporate Sustainability Practices (CSP) of
organisations.(RO1,RQ1,H1-H3) [Gender diversified BOD as CSP drivers?] – slide 17
• To examine the impact of gender diversified BOD on overall Business Sustainability (BS).(RO4,RQ4,
H10) [Gender diversified BOD as BS drivers?] – slide 20
LITERATURE REVIEW & RESEARCH GAP–
Drivers of Corporate Sustainability
Practices

9. Literature Review: (Source: Alhaddi, 2015)
Research Gap:
• Prior research by Collins, Steg & Koning (2007) have researched on all three aspects of Sustainability
(Economic, Social & Environmental) within the context of Customers’ Values, Beliefs and Buying
Behaviour, which is not in the context of gender diversified BOD and Malaysian PLCs.
• Prior study by Muhammad Zahid and Zulkipli Ghazali (2015) observed CSP within 3 dimensions
(environmental, social and economic) after the 10th Malaysia Plan from 2010-2015 within the
context of Malaysian REITs and property PLCs.
• Prior research did not focus on the context of gender diversified Board of Directors and Malaysian
PLCs
Research Objective:
To examine if the CSP mediators mediate the relationship between Gender Diversified Board of
Directors and overall firms’ business sustainability. (RO3,RQ3,H7-H9) – slide 19

10. Literature Review
• Business sustainability may consist of two major elements; continuation of the same type of business
and long term viability (O’Gorman, 1991; Mann & Gazzarin, 2004).
• The continuation of the same business has been associated with reflecting a firm’s success (Lussier &
Halabi, 2008).
• Business sustainability has been defined as the ability of a firm to continue the same type of business
into the next generation (Mann & Gazzarin, 2004 & Elliott,2005). This concept has also been viewed as a
measurement of an enterprise’s long term viability (Ma,1999).
• High Sustainability companies are more likely to have established processes for stakeholder
engagement, to be more long-term oriented and to exhibit higher measurement and disclosure of
nonfinancial information (Eccles, Ioannou & Serafeim, 2011).
• Veleva and Ellenbecker (2000) identified four indicator frameworks to measure business sustainability
which are the ISO14031, WBCSD Eco-efficiency framework, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the
Center for Waste Reduction Technologies (CWRT) Sustainability Metrics in which GRI has the best
potential but lacks direction and detailed guidance for indicator use.
• Muhammad Zahid and Zulkipli Ghazali (2015) found that companies are only having much focus on the
social dimension while ignoring the environmental and economic dimensions.
• Darus (2012) also reported that Malaysian companies are more proactive towards social stakeholders
and community engagements.
Research Gap : Prior research did not study the impact of CSP on overall firms’ Business Sustainability.
Research Objective: To determine if the Corporate Sustainability Practices will result in Business
Sustainability as tested in H4,H5 and H6 (RO2 & RQ2). – slide 18
LITERATURE REVIEW & RESEARCH GAP–
Business Sustainability