MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092106769 · doi:10.3390/su12208386

Board/Executive Gender Diversity and Firm Financial Performance in Canada: The Mediating Role of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Orientation

2020· article· en· W3092106769 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zeineb Ouni, Jamal Ben Mansour, Sana Arfaoui

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsNational Bank of CanadaUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender diversityCorporate governanceDiversity (politics)TimelineAccountingBusinessExecutive boardEmpirical researchSample (material)FinancePolitical scienceEconomicsGeographyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study is to verify the effect of gender diversity on the board of directors (BD) and the executive committee (EC) of participating Canadian firms with regard to the financial performance and the mediating role of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) orientation in this relationship. The study sample was composed of 133 Canadian firms, and the data cover an 18 year timeline (2002–2019), with 925 observations. This paper provides empirical support for the effect that gender diversity in turnover has on the financial performance of firms and explains 53% of its variance. In addition to supporting the beneficial effect of gender diversity on performance, the study reveals the mediating mechanism through the ESG orientation of companies explaining almost 4% of the total effect of gender diversity on performance. By analyzing two levels of diversity, the study revealed the superiority of the effect of gender diversity in BDs as compared to ECs. We discuss the theoretical and empirical implications of the results found, as well as the limitations and future prospects of research on the subject.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207