• Home
  • The Effects of Firms’ Board Gender Diversity on Their Labor Investment Efficiency

Share To

Article Url


Manuscript ID : JZVJ-2109-3676 (R4) Visit : 99 Page: 103 - 122

10.30495/jzvj.2023.29044.3676

Article Type: Original Research

The Effects of Firms’ Board Gender Diversity on Their Labor Investment Efficiency

Subject Areas : Woman and Society

Ramin Zeraatgari 1

1 - Assistant Professor, Department of Accounting, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran.

Received: 2021-09-26 Accepted : 2023-07-29 Published : 2023-07-23

Keywords: woman, Monitoring, Labor investment, Board,

Abstract :

Introduction: This paper investigates the effect of board gender diversity on firm labor investment efficiency with the considering role of internal and external monitoring.
Methods: The methodology of this study is a quantitative and ex-post and labor investment efficiency was measured using the Pinnuck and Lillis model. The sample of this research is related to 122 companies on Tehran Stock Exchange from 2008 to 2020.
Results: The results of research regression analysis showed that there is a positive and significant relationship between board gender diversity and firms’ labor investment efficiency. Also, the evidence showed that the relationship between board gender diversity and over- or under-investment in labor is negative and significant. In addition, evidence shows that when firms have weak internal and external monitoring a stronger positive relationship between board gender diversity and labor investment efficiency exists.
Conclusion: Based on the evidence obtained from the research, it is suggested to the shareholders of companies that in the choice of board members, the presence of Women and their choice as members of the board should be given special attention. Also, the Tehran Stock Exchange and Securities Organization, the institutions in charge of employment in Iran and other relevant institutions are suggested to interact with each other to improve the efficiency of investment in companies to enact laws that the company Have a legal obligation to elect female board members.

References:


  1. Catalyst. Catalyst census: Women and men board directors. New York, NY: Catalyst; 2016, pp: 23-35.
    2.
  2. Campbell K, Mínguez-Vera A. Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics. 2008; 83 (3): 435–451. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s1055 1-007-9630-y]
    3.
  3. García-Meca E, García-Sánchez I-M, Martínez-Ferrero J. Board diversity and its effects on bank performance: An international analysis. Journal of Banking & Finance. 2015; 53: 202–214. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbank fin.2014.12.002]
    4.
  4. Gul FA, Srinidhi B, Ng AC. Does board gender diversity improve the informativeness of stock prices? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 2011; 51 (3): 314–338. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacce co.2011.01.005]
    5.
  5. Chen J, Leung WS, Goergen M. The impact of board gender composition on dividend payouts. Journal of Corporate Finance, 2017; 43: 86–105. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorp fin.2017.01.001]
    6.
  6. Evgeniou T, Vermaelen T. Share buybacks and gender diversity. Journal of Corporate Finance. 2017; 45: 669–686. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jcorp fin.2017.06.005]
    7.
  7. Bernile G, Bhagwat V, Yonker S. Board diversity, firm risk, and corporate policies. Journal of Financial Economics. 2018; 127 (3): 588–612. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfine co.2017.12.009]
    8.
  8. Levi M, Li K, Zhang F. Director gender and mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Corporate Finance. 2014; 28: 185–200. [https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jcorp fin.2013.11.005]
    9.
  9. Sila V, Gonzalez A, Hagendorff J. Women on board: Does boardroom gender diversity affect firm risk? Journal of Corporate Finance. 2016; 36: 26–53. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorp fin.2015.10.003]
    10.
  10. Adams RB, Ferreira D. Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics. 2009; 94 (2): 291–309. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfine co.2008.10.007]
    11.
  11. Chen Y, Eshleman JD, Soileau JS. Board gender diversity and internal control weaknesses. Advances in Accounting. 2016; 33: 11–19. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2016.04.005]
    12.
  12. Majdzadeh Tabatabaei S, Rezaei G, Zarinkolah F. The Effect of Board Gender Diversity on the Information Asymmetry for the companies listed on Tehran Stock Exchange. Quarterly Journal of Woman & Society. 2020; 10 (40): 317-338. [Doi: 20.1001.1.20088566.1398.10.40.14.9] (Persian)
    13.
  13. Sun X, Zhang T. Board gender diversity and corporate labor investment efficiency. Review of Financial Economics. 2021; 39: 290-313. [DOI: 10.1002/rfe.1112]
    14.
  14. Huang J, Kisgen DJ. Gender and corporate finance: Are male executives overconfident relative to female executives? Journal of Financial Economics. 2013; 108 (3): 822–839. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfine co.2012.12.005]
    15.
  15. Shaukat A, Qiu Y, Trojanowski G. Board Attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. Journal of Business Ethics. 2016; 135 (3): 569–585. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s1055 1-014-2460-9]
    16.
  16. Liu C. Are women greener? Corporate gender diversity and environmental violations. Journal of Corporate Finance. 2018; 52, 118–142. [https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorp fin.2018.08.004]
    17.
  17. Ahern KR, Dittmar AK. The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2012; 127 (1): 137–197. [https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr049]
    18.
  18. Greene D, Intintoli VJ, Kahle KM. Do board gender quotas affect firm value? Evidence from California Senate Bill No. 826. Journal of Corporate Finance. 2020; 60: 101-526. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorp fin.2019.101526]
    19.
  19. Adams RB, Funk P. Beyond the glass ceiling: Does gender matter? Management Science. 2012; 58 (2): 219–235. [https://doi.org/10.1287/ mnsc.1110.1452]
    20.
  20. Chen F, Hope O-K, Li Q, Wang X. Financial reporting quality and investment efficiency of private firms in emerging markets. The Accounting Review. 2011; 86 (4): 1255–1288. [https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-10040]
    21.
  21. Jung B, Lee W-J, Weber DP. Financial reporting quality and labor investment efficiency. Contemporary Accounting Research 2014; 31 (4): 1047–1076. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12053]
    22.
  22. Biddle GC, Hilary G, Verdi RS. How does financial reporting quality relate to investment efficiency? Journal of Accounting and Economics. 2009; 48 (2): 112–131. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacce co.2009.09.001]
    23.
  23. García Lara JM, García Osma B, Mora A, Scapin M. The monitoring role of female directors over accounting quality. Journal of Corporate Finance. 2107; 45: 651–668. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorp fin.2017.05.016]
    24.
  24. Ghaly M, Dang VA, Stathopoulos K. Institutional investors' horizons and corporate employment decisions. Journal of Corporate Finance. 2020; 64: 101-130. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101634]
    25.
  25. Bertrand M, Mullainathan S. Enjoying the quiet life? Corporate governance and managerial preferences. Journal of Political Economy, 2003; 111 (5): 1043-1075. [https://doi.org/10.1086/376950]
    26.
  26. Atanassov J, Kim EH. Labor and corporate governance: International evidence from restructuring decisions. The Journal of Finance, 2009; 64 (1): 341-374. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01436.x]
    27.
  27. Jensen MC, Meckling WH. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics. 1976; 3 (4): 305–360. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026 –X]
    28.
  28. Hope O-K, Thomas WB. Managerial empire building and firm disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research. 2008; 46 (3): 591–626. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2008. 00289.x]
    29.
  29. Bertrand M, Mullainathan S. Enjoying the quiet life? Corporate governance and managerial preferences. Journal of Political Economy. 2003; 111 (5): 1043–1075. https://doi.org/10.1086/376950
    30.
  30. Pandey R, Biswas PK, Ali MJ, Mansi M. Female directors on the board and cost of debt: Evidence from Australia. Accounting & Finance. 2020; 60 (4): 4031-4060. [https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12521]
    31.
  31. Pinnuck M, Lillis AM. Profits versus losses: Does reporting an accounting loss act as a heuristic trigger to exercise the abandonment option and divest employees? The Accounting Review. 2007; 82 (4): 1031–1053. [https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2007.82.4.1031]
    32.
  32. Li F. Earnings quality based on corporate investment decisions. Journal of Accounting Research. 2011; 49 (3): 721-752. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2010.00397.x]
    33.
  33. Ben-Nasr H, Alshwer AA. Does stock price informativeness affect labor investment efficiency? Journal of Corporate Finance. 2016; 38: 249–271. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorp fin.2016.01.012]
    34.
  34. Khedmati M, Sualihu MA, Yawson A. CEO-director ties and labor investment efficiency. Journal of Corporate Finance. 2020; 65: 101-119. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2019.101492]
    35.
  35. Biddle GC, Hilary G. Accounting quality and firm-level capital investment. The Accounting Review. 2006; 81 (5): 963-982. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/4093094]
    36.
  36. Rezaie G, Taghizadeh R, Zeraatgari R, Sadegzadeh Maharlui M. Investigating the effect of accounting comparability on labor investment efficiency: Moderating role of financing constraint, internal and external oversight. Journal of Accounting Knowledge. In press. [10.22103/JAK.2021.17702.3501] (Persian)
    37.
  37. Chen Y, Vann CE. Clawback provision adoption, corporate governance, and investment decisions. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. 2017; 44 (9-10): 1370-1397. [https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12259]
    38.
  38. Jung B, Lee W-J, Yang YS. The impact of dividend Covenants on investment and operating performance. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. 2016; 43 (3-4): 414-447. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12172]
    39.
  39. Zhang Z, Ntim CG, Zhang Q, Elmagrhi MH. Does accounting comparability affect corporate employment decision-making? The British Accounting Review. 2020; 52 (6): 1-23. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2020.100937]
    40.
  40. Dechow P, Dichev I. The quality of accruals and earnings: the role of accruals in estimation errors. The Accounting Review. 2002; 77: 35-59. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3203324]
    41.
  41. Paternoster R, Brame R, Mazerolle P, Piquero A. Using the Correct Statistical Test for Equality of Regression Coefficients. Criminology. 1998; 36 (4): 859-866. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01268.x]
    42.
  42. Taylor G, Richardson G. Incentives for corporate tax planning and reporting: empirical evidence from Australia. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics. 2014; 10 (1): 1–15. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jcae.2013.11.003]
    43.
  43. Rezaei G, Zeraatgari R, Avazpour A. The Role of Time Management Mediating in the Relationship Between Individual Characteristic and Women Accountants Productivity. Quarterly Journal of Woman & Society. 2021; 12 (45): 144-160. [DOI:10.30495/jzvj.2021.4570] (Persian)
    44.
  44. Chen J, Leung WS, Song W, Goergen M. Why female board representation matters: The role of female directors in reducing male CEO overconfidence. Journal of Empirical Finance. 2019; 53: 70–90. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jempf in.2019.06.002]
    45.
_||_

Sanad

Sanad is a platform for managing Azad University publications

Links

Related Centers

Technical Support

Official pages

The rights to this website are owned by the Raimag Press Management System.
Copyright © 2021-2024

Home| Login| About Us| Contact Us|
[فارسی] [العربية] [fa] [ar]