No More Old Boys’ Club: Institutional Investors’ Fiduciary Duty to Diversify Corporate Boards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the highly contested issues today in corporate law and governance revolves around boardroom diversity, with an emphasis on gender diversity. In recent decades, unfortunately, despite the fact that women’s economic and political status have advanced significantly in the United States and around the world, women have yet to achieve parity with men on issues concerning representation and participation in the corporate world.This is evidenced by the stark lack of representation of female directors in the boardrooms of major public and private corporations.There are increasing calls for action from various groups, including academics and regulators. The following are some of the theories (rationales) calling to promote the election of women as directors, such as social issues, public good, organizational strategy, fair employment practices, and corporate governance. Such theories focus on the advancement of women and narrowing the gender salary gap, women’s contribution to society and the corporation (board of directors), diversity in the boardroom, taking stakeholder interests into account (employee motivation and improving customer loyalty), and even empirical studies that show that there is a direct correlation between having a certain percentage of women on the board and enhanced corporate (economic) performance.Some believe that this issue should be addressed through legislation and diversity initiatives. For example, there is an increase in quotas, regulation initiatives, the use of ESG disclosure requirements and soft law instruments (such as stewardship codes). This paper will review the recent rise (over the last twenty years) of institutional investors, who own an increasing share of public equity markets on the one hand, and the need to elect women to the boardroom on the other. The main argument is that institutional investors have a fiduciary duty to advance the goals of their beneficiaries (the individuals who invest in these institutions). Managers of financial institutions are subject to various enhanced fiduciary obligations, which require them to take board diversity concerns into account, due to the fact that they are serving as stewards to their beneficiaries and the portfolio companies. In light of the duties of the board of directors, the current regulatory framework, (and shifts in institutional investors market and legal powers), institutional investors have a duty to take into account the question of women representation in the boardroom in the corporations in which they invest. They also need to consider generally the ways in which they vote on appointment of directors to the board.There are several ramifications for breaching a fiduciary duty, such as litigation involving derivative actions, claims for breach of fiduciary duty, or proxy violations on behalf of individual (and/or institutional investors). These claims in the USA, for example, can be brought in state or federal courts (depending on the nature of the claim).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".