Sustainability context and industry profile on the effect of gender diversity on firm value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to test the influence of the board's gender diversity on firm value through sustainability report disclosure. The research also examines the effect of industry profile in moderating the board's gender diversity relationship with sustainability report disclosure and the moderation of sustainable investment practices in the relationship between sustainability report disclosure and firm value. The testing uses panel data regression to analyze 306 sample data from non-financial companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange that comply with the sample selection criteria. The research findings prove that board gender diversity is able to increase firm value because investors view the presence of female board members as reflecting a good corporate governance mechanism. This research also proves that the presence of women board members reduces the level of sustainability report disclosure. The effect of board gender diversity on sustainability report disclosure is reduced in high-profile companies. High-profile companies experience strong pressure to make disclosures of activities in which environmental and social impacts are transparent. Conversely, this study cannot demonstrate a mediating role of sustainability report disclosure on the effect of board gender diversity on increasing firm value. The interaction effect of sustainable investment practices is also not significant in this study. The research findings provide an understanding of board gender diversity, sustainability report disclosure, and firm value within the multi-theoretical framework of agency theory, stakeholder theory, and social role theory.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".