Figure 1.
Research model.
Knowledge of the impact of board gender diversity on environmental violations in Europe remains limited, as previous literature has focused on socially responsible practices, with less research being directed toward the determinants of corporate actions that harm the environment. This study aimed to address this gap through a multi-theoretical approach and by using different estimation methods. In addition, we used penalties related to environmentally harmful practices, since they represent an appropriate proxy for measuring environmental irresponsibility given that they directly reflect sanctions imposed by regulators and are therefore not subject to manipulation or greenwashing practices. We analyzed a sample of non-financial firms in the STOXX Europe 600 index for 2016–2022. Our findings indicate that board gender diversity leads to a reduction in environmental violations. These results suggest that female directors help mitigate environmental misconduct by improving oversight, enhancing the firm's public image, and facilitating access to essential resources. In addition, board gender diversity improves decision-making and fosters a culture of sustainability by integrating diverse perspectives and approaches. We validated the robustness of our results by using different procedures to address endogeneity issues (OLS, TOBIT, 2SLS, Heckman, and GMM).
Citation: Gema C. Fleitas-Castillo, Devora Peña-Martel, Jerónimo Pérez-Alemán, Domingo Javier Santana-Martín. Gender diversity on boards and environmental violations in European firms[J]. Green Finance, 2025, 7(1): 117-145. doi: 10.3934/GF.2025005
| [1] | Jinheng Liu, Kemei Zhang, Xue-Jun Xie . The existence of solutions of Hadamard fractional differential equations with integral and discrete boundary conditions on infinite interval. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(4): 2286-2309. doi: 10.3934/era.2024104 |
| [2] | Qingcong Song, Xinan Hao . Positive solutions for fractional iterative functional differential equation with a convection term. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(4): 1863-1875. doi: 10.3934/era.2023096 |
| [3] | Hongyu Li, Liangyu Wang, Yujun Cui . Positive solutions for a system of fractional q-difference equations with generalized p-Laplacian operators. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(2): 1044-1066. doi: 10.3934/era.2024051 |
| [4] | Xiaoli Wang, Peter Kloeden, Meihua Yang . Asymptotic behaviour of a neural field lattice model with delays. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(2): 1037-1048. doi: 10.3934/era.2020056 |
| [5] | David Cheban, Zhenxin Liu . Averaging principle on infinite intervals for stochastic ordinary differential equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(4): 2791-2817. doi: 10.3934/era.2021014 |
| [6] | Mufit San, Seyma Ramazan . A study for a higher order Riemann-Liouville fractional differential equation with weakly singularity. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(5): 3092-3112. doi: 10.3934/era.2024141 |
| [7] | Limin Guo, Weihua Wang, Cheng Li, Jingbo Zhao, Dandan Min . Existence results for a class of nonlinear singular p-Laplacian Hadamard fractional differential equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(2): 928-944. doi: 10.3934/era.2024045 |
| [8] | Chungen Liu, Yuyou Zhong . Infinitely many periodic solutions for ordinary p(t)-Laplacian differential systems. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(5): 1653-1667. doi: 10.3934/era.2022083 |
| [9] | Xu Liu, Jun Zhou . Initial-boundary value problem for a fourth-order plate equation with Hardy-Hénon potential and polynomial nonlinearity. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(2): 599-625. doi: 10.3934/era.2020032 |
| [10] | Milena Dimova, Natalia Kolkovska, Nikolai Kutev . Global behavior of the solutions to nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation with critical initial energy. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(2): 671-689. doi: 10.3934/era.2020035 |
Knowledge of the impact of board gender diversity on environmental violations in Europe remains limited, as previous literature has focused on socially responsible practices, with less research being directed toward the determinants of corporate actions that harm the environment. This study aimed to address this gap through a multi-theoretical approach and by using different estimation methods. In addition, we used penalties related to environmentally harmful practices, since they represent an appropriate proxy for measuring environmental irresponsibility given that they directly reflect sanctions imposed by regulators and are therefore not subject to manipulation or greenwashing practices. We analyzed a sample of non-financial firms in the STOXX Europe 600 index for 2016–2022. Our findings indicate that board gender diversity leads to a reduction in environmental violations. These results suggest that female directors help mitigate environmental misconduct by improving oversight, enhancing the firm's public image, and facilitating access to essential resources. In addition, board gender diversity improves decision-making and fosters a culture of sustainability by integrating diverse perspectives and approaches. We validated the robustness of our results by using different procedures to address endogeneity issues (OLS, TOBIT, 2SLS, Heckman, and GMM).
When comparing the education budget in Turkey and OECD countries between 2000 and 2018, it is seen that Turkey's highest investment rate (4.18%) was in 2018, which ranked third from the bottom among OECD countries [39]. R & D and human resources managers with STEM graduates are taking initiatives to make sustainable decisions regarding the support for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education from this limited budget [47], as STEM education and skills are a very important issue for sustainable development in Turkey [45]. As senior executives from the public, private sector, and academia often argue, the country needs to produce high-value-added products and services to move from the middle-income level to the upper-income level and to reduce the current account deficit [46]. Turkey must invest in STEM education to reach the national targets in Vision 2023 or Development Programs [8].
Because of the limited financing, investments to be made in STEM must have a return in practice. For this reason, nurturing interest in a STEM career field and ensuring that students in this pipeline do not leak after budget cuts is a task of vital importance. There are interventions to nurture STEM careers in many countries of the world [35,40,43]. Before implementing these interventions in Turkey, it is important to understand the variables associated with STEM career aspirations. Previous literature has offered a wealth of information on this issue [25,38,49]. However, researchers have focused primarily on the needs of the West over the past 20 years [48]. Moreover, this phenomenon needs to be experienced in Turkey. Taking into account previous studies and the STEM potential in Turkey, we have considered a few variables associated with STEM career aspirations.
According to Archer et al. [7], STEM-related cultural capital is one of the factors associated with students' STEM career aspirations and goals. Students' STEM-related experiences in and outside of school help to nurture positive feelings regarding these subjects and support the development of STEM career aspirations [10,33]. Parental support is also paramount. Many researchers have reported that students who receive support from their parents are more comfortable determining their STEM career goals [24,41,42] and they indicated that the continuity of parental support perception provides stability for students involved in STEM [43]. The interrelated nature of STEM career aspirations with STEM hopes and goals has been another point of emphasis [14]. It has been observed that students who receive support from their parents have STEM-related experiences and the potential to pursue a STEM career in the future have hope in STEM [45]. All these variables may be related to each other both directly and indirectly. Considering this, the following research questions were generated within the scope of the research:
1. What is the level of Turkish students' STEM career aspirations, STEM hopes and goals, perceived parental support, and STEM cultural capital?
2. What is the relationship between STEM hopes and goals, perceived parental support, STEM cultural capital, and STEM career aspirations?
With STEM industries developing all over the world, there is a need for trained manpower to utilize domestic technologies [26]. Although there is greater demand in STEM fields, studies have shown that students are less willing than ever before to pursue STEM-related careers [40]. It is crucial to understand why students' STEM career aspirations are so low [47]. Given the expected shortage in the STEM workforce in the coming years [23] and the need for more individuals to enter and stay in STEM fields [19,20], developing a roadmap for sustainable change is of utmost importance.
As the need to attract and retain STEM talent increases, researchers have become more interested in the factors that determine STEM career goals [10,47]. In recent years, there has been increasing emphasis on the importance of career goals in STEM [6]. One of the major reasons for this is the evidence that early career goals are important predictors of later career success [4]. Although these data suggest that early STEM career aspirations are important in predicting students' likelihood of future career success, the factors shaping these aspirations are not fully understood. Consequently, efforts to understand the factors that shape the likelihood of aspiring to STEM careers are ongoing.
We aimed to elucidate the relationships between Turkish students' STEM career aspirations, STEM hopes and goals, perceived parental support, and STEM cultural capital and the relative impact of these relationships. A career goal is a very complex phenomenon that involves the interaction of many behavioral, contextual, and psychological variables [10]. For this reason, we considered basing the theoretical framework of the study on social cognitive career theory (SCCT) [29].
SCCT is based on Bandura's social cognitive theory [9]. Accordingly, career goals in SCCT are primarily associated with beliefs: the belief that a future STEM career will offer a higher standard of living may feed students' hopes and goals regarding STEM [14]. In addition, career orientation can also be influenced by cultural capital, which is a product of students' past experiences [30]. Apart from the student's interests and beliefs, the use of certain learning strategies and the influence of educators, family, and peers are the antecedents that constitute SCCT [38]. Therefore, we decided to consider variables within the scope of SCCT for the research.
Specific research on STEM career aspirations is quite limited compared to research on career aspirations as a whole [34]. The evidence from these studies has indicated that students' interest in STEM fields has increased very little and decreased in some areas [25]. Students often view a STEM career as too difficult to achieve. Moreover, the necessary support structures are not in place to encourage a diverse group of students into these professions [46]. Even more worrying is the fact that students taking STEM electives at different levels often give up on their chosen career goals. Schools must take seriously the responsibility placed upon them to create pathways to a healthy, growing STEM workforce to attract and prepare more students for STEM careers [22]. Many countries employ interventions to nurture STEM careers in their students [40,43]. Regardless of the strategy, researchers are increasingly interested in the factors that determine students' STEM career goals.
Goal setting and hope are two of the major interrelated factors. Hope is fueled by the perception of successful agency regarding goals, which in turn creates a sense of successful determination to achieve past, present, and future goals. Hope is likely influenced by the belief that there is a successful pathway to reaching one's goals [14], and therefore, a successful and fulfilling future [1]. Students' current beliefs in STEM fields and their perceptions regarding future possibilities provide information on their STEM hopes and goals. Furthermore, students' level of hope contributes to their academic success [11]. This positions students for a better future due to the opportunities offered by STEM careers.
Providing opportunities in STEM can give underprivileged students hope to improve their financial situation and quality of life, thus providing more opportunities for future generations. Given the potential that a STEM-related career can move someone in poverty to a more economically stable situation, research is needed to assess student interest in STEM and their hopes for a better standard of living. Therefore, it is important to determine which variables most influence students' STEM hopes and goals.
An increasing number of professional development researchers are stressing the role of social relationships, especially parent-child relationships, in career development [5,31]. Perceived parental support appears to have a significant impact on students' career expectations [18]. In addition to intrinsic influences on diversity in future career orientation, support, especially from parents, is important in achieving academic goals. The home has been identified as an important context in which children learn from their parents and form their own personal educational and occupational expectations [7]. Researchers have argued that parents are an untapped resource [21]. However, considering the claim that deficits are likely to worsen unless additional measures are taken despite efforts to encourage interest in and pursuit of STEM careers [45], explaining parental support is critical to understanding how children's STEM career goals are formed [31]. Understanding the relationships between perceived parental support and STEM career aspirations can prove useful in increasing the number of students interested in and qualified for STEM careers.
STEM cultural capital refers to the effects of one's cultural identity, family background, and societal experiences on STEM education and careers [28]. Associated with norms and values and developed through education [17], STEM capital is shown as one of the key factors shaping the likelihood of students developing STEM-related goals [24,36]. Individuals with high levels of STEM capital generally have a stronger foundation in the field. This may enable them to focus more on STEM-related goals and have more motivation to achieve them. For example, a student with a strong math or science background may be more comfortable focusing on engineering or science careers.
Less is known about how STEM cultural capital is related to STEM career aspirations and whether these relationships differ when presented with certain variables [10]. In this context, it is important to understand the dynamics of the relationships between STEM career aspirations and STEM cultural capital.
In this study, we addressed variables that we hypothesized to be related to STEM career aspirations. Qualitative [4] and quantitative [13] research on STEM capital has identified certain links between STEM capital and expectations and interest in STEM. Some have reported an increase in hopes and expectations for STEM among students aged 16 years and older [7], while others have identified the age as 18 years and older [36]. High levels of STEM capital may be associated with high STEM-related hopes and goals. Therefore, we chose to test this in the group of students aged 9–15. The following hypothesis was established for this test:
H1: STEM cultural capital is a significant predictor of STEM-related hopes and goals.
There is evidence in the literature that families with strong STEM capital offer more resources to their children. In Du and Wong's [15] study, it was stated that parents who have professions in STEM fields more effectively offer social, economic, and cultural resources to their children. Again, in Cooper and Berry's [12] study, it was observed that children of families with high STEM capital have a high level of interest in science. Because of this, we suggest that there is a relationship between STEM capital and parental expectations. We assume that in a family with developed STEM cultural capital, parental expectations will be shaped in parallel. The hypothesis put forward to address this was as follows:
H2: STEM cultural capital is a significant predictor of parental expectancy.
Parental expectations have been found to affect STEM-related hopes and goals in many studies. For example, in the study of Zhan et al. [49], parents stated that they believe that STEM develops their children's basic competencies. In Kier and Blanchard's [25] study, children living in rural areas affirmed that they dreamed about STEM to make their families proud. And in Mzobe's [37] study, it was observed that parental expectation was more effective than financial incentives on students' career decisions. Moreover, according to SCCT [30], the influence of families, educators, and peers on career choice is undeniable. Moreover, parental expectancy may also influence STEM-related hopes and goals through STEM cultural capital. In this case, we decided to test the following hypothesis in the study:
H3: Parental expectation influences STEM-related hopes and goals.
Studies have shown that parental expectancy affects not only STEM-related hopes and goals but also STEM career aspirations. Chen et al. [10] reported a significant relationship between short-term and long-term parental expectations and STEM career aspirations. Starr et al. [43] reported that parental support has a significant effect on a stable STEM career, while Lv et al. [32] conveyed that parental support is a significant predictor of STEM career interest for both girls and boys among high school students. Based on this, the hypothesis we tested in the study was written as follows:
H4: Parental expectation influences STEM career aspirations.
Finally, we hypothesized that STEM-related hopes and goals can affect STEM career aspirations both directly and indirectly. According to Douglas and Strobel [14], for students to have a STEM-related career aspiration in the future, they need to have hopes and develop goals in STEM. In other words, the hope that pursuing a STEM career will increase living standards, interest in STEM, and positive attitudes towards science and mathematics as the main structure of STEM can produce a desire for employment in STEM fields [45]. However, there is a serious deficiency in the studies on this subject. Considering this deficiency, we decided to test the following hypothesis:
H5: STEM-related hopes and goals influence STEM career aspirations.
In the research model, we examined the relationship between STEM career aspiration, STEM hopes and goals, parental perception, and STEM cultural capital. The model is presented in Figure 1.
A total of 633 students between the ages of 9-15 (M = 11.87, SD = 1.33) from the Mediterranean region of Turkey participated in the study. A total of 334 (52.8%) of the students were girls and 299 (47.2%) were boys. The students were studying at the secondary school level. Accordingly, 119 (18.8%) of the students reported that they were studying in the 5th grade, 191 (30.2%) in the 6th grade, 117 (18.5%) in the 7th grade and 206 (32.5%) in the 8th grade. In Turkey, secondary school covers a 4-year education period, and science and mathematics education is compulsory. In addition, in the latest curriculum updated by the Ministry of National Education (2018), STEM education is offered in all grades in secondary schools.
To obtain demographic information from the students in the study, we developed a questionnaire. In the questionnaire, age, gender, and grade level information were asked of the students. Afterward, the following scale items were applied.
To uncover students' STEM-related career aspirations, the measurement tool used in Archer and DeWitt's [4] study was adapted and implemented. The relevant items were first translated into Turkish and reviewed by two academicians specialized in science education and one STEM expert. Before the questionnaire was applied, it was subjected to a pilot study through a focus group interview with 21 secondary school students. The items were finalized for content validity purposes after consultation with an expert and feedback from students. The details of the validity and reliability studies of the scale are presented in the following section. There were four items in the final scale. The items included questions from the fields of science ("When I grow up, I would like to work in the field of science [e.g., in the laboratory, biology]"), engineering ("When I grow up, I would like to work in the field of engineering [e.g., civil engineering, automotive engineering, architectural design]"), mathematics ("When I grow up, I would like to work in the field of mathematics [e.g., mathematics engineering, finance, economics]"), and technology ("When I grow up, I would like to work in the field of technology [e.g., computer programmer, software development]"). The scale is scored on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree), and high scores are interpreted as high STEM career aspirations.
The perceived parental short-term and long-term expectations scale developed by Lloyd et al. [31] was used to measure students' perceived parental expectations. The scale consists of two dimensions: Short-term parental perception (e.g., it is important for my parents that I try my best in school) and long-term parental perception (e.g., my parents think that not attending university means failure). The scale, which includes four items, is a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). The higher the score obtained from the scale, the higher the perceived parental expectancy. The scale is adapted to Turkish within the scope of the study [3].
To understand students' STEM-related cultural capital, the scale used by Chen et al. [10] was employed in the study. The scale addressed STEM-related cultural capital in the dimensions of media consumption about STEM and out-of-school STEM experiences. There are two items in each dimension (e.g., I read a book or magazine about science, technology, engineering/mathematics, or watch a TV program). Scale items are evaluated between 0 and 4 points (0 = never, 1 = once per year, 2 = once per half year, 3 = once per month, 4 = once per week). A high score obtained from the scale is interpreted as high STEM cultural capital. This scale was also adapted into Turkish for the study.
The hopes and goals survey for use in STEM developed by Douglas and Strobel [14] was used to assess students' hopes and goals pertaining to STEM. The scale was previously adapted to Turkish [45]. The 20-item scale consists of learning in school hope (4 items), job satisfaction hope (5 items), attitudes towards science (4 items), attitudes towards engineering (4 items), and attitudes towards math (3 items). A high score obtained from the 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) is interpreted as high STEM-related hopes and goals.
Ethical procedures were completed prior to data being collected. Research permission was obtained from the Bartın University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee (Protocol No. 2023-SBB-0706). Then, the demographic information questionnaire and scales were converted into a single form, an online form. In line with the permission of the school principals, it was delivered to the classroom teachers, and parental permissions were obtained before the application. The online questionnaire was administered to the students whose parental permission had been obtained by their teachers. Each student participated in the study after indicating their willingness to do so on the consent form. Data were collected in the 2023-2024 academic year.
SPSS 26.0 software was used to calculate descriptive analyses and AMOS 25.0 software was used for path analysis. Average variance extracted (AVE) values, standardized factor loadings, and correlation values between constructs were examined to test the convergent and discriminant validity of the scales. For reliability, Cronbach's alpha and combined reliability (CR) values were calculated. Maximum likelihood was used as the estimation method in testing the model. χ2/df, RMSEA, GFI, TLI, CFI, and NFI were applied to reveal the compatibility levels of the relationship patterns in the research model [27].
The goodness of fit values obtained from the confirmatory factor analysis for the STEM career aspirations scale is as follows: χ2/df = 3.02, RMSEA = .07 (.03/.13), NFI = .94, GFI = 95, CFI = 96, and TLI = .94. These values show that the scale has acceptable goodness of fit (Anderson & Gerbing, 1984). The factor loadings of the items on the scale ranged between.663 and.709. The Cronbach alpha value of the scale is 61; the AVE value is 53; and the CR value is 80.
The goodness of fit values obtained from the confirmatory factor analysis for the perceived parental expectations scale is as follows: χ2/df = 3.64, RMSEA = .07 (.05/.18), NFI = .97, GFI = 99, CFI = 97, TLI = .96. The factor loadings of the items in the scale ranged between.603 and.901. The Cronbach alpha values of the scale are.70 and.63, respectively. AVE values are.69 and.58. CR values are.82 and.73, respectively.
The goodness of fit values obtained from the confirmatory factor analysis for the STEM cultural capital scale is as follows: χ2/df = 3.50, RMSEA = .03 (.03/.04), NFI = .95, GFI = 95, CFI = 99, and TLI = .94. The factor loadings of the items in the scale vary between.734 and.766. Cronbach's alpha values on the scale are.74 and.72, respectively. AVE values are.57 and.55. CR values are.72 and.71, respectively.
Finally, the goodness of fit values obtained from the confirmatory factor analysis for the hopes and goals on the STEM scale are as follows: χ2/df = 2.69, RMSEA = .05 (.05/.06), NFI = .96, GFI = .92, CFI = .97, TLI = .97. Accordingly, the scale has good fit values (Kline, 2015). The factor loadings of the items in the scale vary between.638 and.930. Cronbach's alpha values for the scale are 73, .96, .93, .96, and.92, respectively. AVE values are.66, .70, .70, .70, .82, and.82. CR values are.88, .92, .90, .94, and.93, respectively. The detailed table regarding the reliability values of the measurement tools is presented in Appendix.
Descriptive analyses of the study variables are presented in Table 1. STEM career aspirations (M/k = 2.43, SD = 3.16) and perceived parental expenditures (M/k = 3.14, SD = 2.46) appeared to be above average. Similarly, the level of hope and goals for STEM (M/K = 3.54, SD = 2.38) was above average. This was valid for all sub-dimensions of the scale. However, students' STEM cultural capital level was low both in the media consumption dimension (M/k = 1.74, SD = 2.57) and in the out-of-school STEM experiences dimension (M/k = 1.09, SD = 1.99).
| Number of items (k) | ||||||
| Min | Max | Mean | Mean/k | SD | ||
| STEM Career Aspiration | 4 | 4.00 | 16.00 | 9.73 | 2.43 | 3.16 |
| Perceived Parental Expectations | 4 | 4.00 | 16.00 | 12.59 | 3.14 | 2.46 |
| Short-term | 2 | 2.00 | 8.00 | 6.96 | 3.48 | 1.53 |
| Long-term | 2 | 2.00 | 8.00 | 5.62 | 2.81 | 1.76 |
| STEM Cultural Capital | 4 | .00 | 16.00 | 5.66 | 1.41 | 3.85 |
| STEM media consumption | 2 | .00 | 8.00 | 3.48 | 1.74 | 2.57 |
| Out-of-school STEM experiences | 2 | .00 | 8.00 | 2.18 | 1.09 | 1.99 |
| Hopes and Goals | 20 | 23.00 | 100.00 | 70.86 | 3.54 | 2.38 |
| Learning in school hope | 4 | 4.00 | 20.00 | 15.95 | 3.98 | 4.02 |
| Job satisfaction hope | 5 | 5.00 | 25.00 | 19.33 | 3.86 | 6.21 |
| Attitudes toward science | 4 | 4.00 | 20.00 | 13.36 | 3.34 | 5.04 |
| Attitudes toward engineering | 4 | 4.00 | 20.00 | 12.00 | 3.00 | 5.08 |
| Attitudes toward math | 3 | 3.00 | 15.00 | 10.21 | 3.40 | 3.89 |
DownLoad:
CSV
Pearson correlation coefficients were evaluated to determine the relationship between STEM career aspiration, perceived parental expectations, STEM cultural capital, and the hopes and goals of Turkish students. Accordingly, a low-level and positive (r = .15, p < .01) significant relationship was found between STEM career aspiration and perceived parental expectations (r = .18, p < .01), between STEM career aspiration and STEM cultural capital (r = .22, p < .01), and between STEM career aspiration and hopes and goals (r = .15, p < .01). Again, there was a significant relationship between perceived parental expectations and STEM cultural capital (r = .11, p < .01) and between perceived parental expectations and hopes and goals (r = .23, p < .01). Finally, a medium-level and positive (r = .30, p < .01) significant relationship was found between hopes and goals and STEM cultural capital.
In the last stage, the model created within the scope of the study was tested. The goodness of fit values obtained is as follows: χ2/df = 3.69, RMSEA = .07 (.07/.08), NFI = .91, GFI = .91, CFI = .90, and TLI = .90. In this context, the tested model was accepted [44]. Path coefficients in the accepted model are presented in Fig. 2. There were positive relationships between STEM cultural capital and parental support perception (β = .17, p < .01) and STEM-related hope goals (β = .45, p < .01). In addition, STEM cultural capital was shown to indirectly affect STEM-related hopes and goals (β = .48, p < .01). Again, the results showed that parental perception affects STEM career aspiration both directly (β = .18, p < .01) and indirectly (β = .24, p < .01). In the research model, the greatest effect was found between parental support and STEM-related hopes and goals (β = .50, p < .01).
In the tested research model, STEM cultural capital and perceptions of parental support together explained 20% of the variance in STEM-related hopes and goals. However, STEM cultural capital, perception of parental support, and STEM-related hopes and goals explained 30% of the variance in STEM career aspirations. In addition, the factor loading of the STEM media consumption dimension in the study was 810, and the factor loading of the out-of-school STEM experiences dimension was 721. The short-term expectation factor loading of parental expectation was 602, and the long-term factor loading was 930. The factor loadings of the dimensions of hopes and goals in STEM were.843, .950, .990, .784, and.681, respectively.
In the study, the relationships between STEM cultural capital, parents' STEM-related expectations, STEM hopes and goals, and STEM career aspirations were examined. The findings showed that parental perception was an inspirational variable for STEM career aspirations and STEM hopes and goals. This supports previous literature findings [31,43] and draws attention to the importance of parental support in children's career development. Moreover, this finding proves that the family component, which is a part of the cultural capital mentioned in Archer et al. [5‒7] studies, is a strong variable. The fact that parental influence is so effective may also be related to the nature of the traditional family structure in Turkey, where children are obedient to their parents.
In terms of SCCT, we accept that family support is a variable that affects STEM career interests. In this case, we can assume that parents understand the meaning and value of STEM subjects. Of course, this may not be the only reason. Families may have the belief that STEM careers will bring a higher salary and social status in the future as its external value [32]. Parents may have contributed to their children's hopes and goals related to STEM for this reason.
In the study, STEM cultural capital was found to predict parental expectations and STEM-related hopes and goals. In addition, STEM cultural capital was found to have a mediating role in determining STEM career aspirations. Previous studies have reported that STEM cultural capital has a direct effect on STEM career aspirations, but the effect varies according to age. No significant difference was found in secondary school students [10]. However, in this study, it was observed that experiencing STEM fostered the hope of orienting towards STEM-related fields in the future and contributed to aiming for a STEM career. This indicates that young students' experiences in STEM education influence them and perhaps increase parent-child dialogue. Du and Wong [15] found that out-of-school STEM experiences such as science clubs, museums, and media consumption involve the family and build awareness. Therefore, STEM cultural capital, parental perception, and career aspiration can be considered variables that should be addressed together in STEM studies.
Finally, the relationship of STEM hopes and goals with other variables, which have not been frequently included in the literature, was addressed in the study. STEM hopes and aspirations were found to be influenced by STEM cultural capital and parental expectations and to be a strong predictor of STEM career aspiration. Previous literature has reported that those who have hopes for STEM fields have higher motivation [16]. Alexander et al. [2] concluded that STEM hope effectively uncovers students' full potential in STEM fields. Therefore, it seems obvious that STEM hope predicts STEM career aspirations. This can be effective in encouraging student continuation along the STEM pathway. Young students who have hopes and goals for the STEM future will also have a high tendency to begin a STEM career.
Our results illuminate the relationships between STEM cultural capital, parental expectations, STEM hopes and aspirations, and STEM career aspirations in the Turkish context and provide a deeper understanding when related to the global literature. Parental perception was found to inspire STEM career aspiration in Turkey, which supports the importance of parental support, as reported by Lloyd et al. [31] and Starr et al. [43]. In the global literature, parents' expectations in STEM fields have been shown to play an important role in students' career aspirations [5‒7]. The predominance of traditional family structure in Turkey may have further strengthened the effect of parental support on STEM career aspirations. However, the impact of STEM cultural capital has been reported to vary by age, with limited impact, especially at the middle school level [10]. These findings suggest that STEM experiences increase students' hopes to pursue STEM fields and strengthen parent-child interaction. In the international literature, the effects of STEM cultural capital and parental perception on STEM career aspirations have been frequently emphasized, and STEM hopes and aspirations are considered a strong predictor [2,16]. In this context, it can be said that STEM hopes increase students' tendency to pursue STEM careers and yield similar results on a global scale. Thus, it is understood that the findings in Turkey are in line with global trends and should be expanded to contribute to the international literature.
Finally, educators and educational policy developers should increase parental involvement to support STEM career aspirations and provide information programs to parents about opportunities in STEM fields. Hands-on learning opportunities and STEM activities should be organized to develop students' STEM cultural capital. Education policymakers should increase investments in STEM education, provide quality education and resources, and organize awareness-raising campaigns highlighting the importance of STEM fields in society. They should also support research evaluating the impact of STEM education and integrate the findings into education policies for continuous improvements in this area.
There are various limitations to the study. First, parental support was analyzed according to children's perceptions. Data were not collected directly from parents. However, actual support and perceptions of support may lead to different findings [42]. Therefore, we suggest that this be considered for future research.
Second, the study was limited to only one region from the Turkish sample. Therefore, the findings could not be generalized to the whole country. In addition, data were collected only with self-report scales. Although this increases the social desirability effect, it has the possibility of providing limited information. We adopted a quantitative design using structural equation modeling. However, future studies can diversify the results with additional data collection tools such as observations and interviews. By its nature, STEM covers more than one discipline, and STEM career aspirations may vary because of this. We considered only a general STEM career aspiration, so there were no discipline-specific results to share. Similarly, STEM hopes and goals were analyzed under a single roof. Examining students' career aspirations for each discipline that constitutes STEM and addressing their hopes and goals for this may be a good idea for determining effective strategies.
Finally, the relevant scales were adapted and used in the pilot study. Therefore, reaching different results with different measurement tools may be possible.
This study contributed to our understanding of the relationships between STEM cultural capital, STEM-related hopes and goals, STEM career aspirations, and parental perceptions in a Turkish sample. Although there are direct and indirect effects, all these variables are interrelated, and parental support is the main emphasis in the model. This shows that parental support is also important for having STEM cultural capital. Therefore, the parental variable has a lot of influence in determining whether children are directed to STEM fields in the future. Specifically, parental awareness, interest, and studies to improve parents' understanding of STEM issues can be put on the agenda for future research.
Hakan Ulum: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision; Menşure Alkış Küçükaydın: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Analysis, Supervision; All authors: Formal analysis. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
We would like to thank the constructive feedback provided by the reviewers.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
This study was approved by the ethics committee of the Bartın University (2023-SBB-0706). A preprint is available at Research Square: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3755224/v1.
| [1] |
Abebe MA, Acharya K (2022) Founder CEOs and corporate environmental violations: Evidence from S&P 1500 firms. Bus Strategy Environ 31: 1204–1219. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2950 doi: 10.1002/bse.2950
|
| [2] |
Abu Alia M, Dwekat A, Meqbel R, et al. (2024) Can effective board drive environmental innovation? The moderating power of CSR committee. J Financ Report Account https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-05-2024-0280 doi: 10.1108/JFRA-05-2024-0280
|
| [3] |
Adams R B, De Haan J, Terjesen S, et al. (2015) Board diversity: Moving the field forward. Corp Gov 23: 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12106 doi: 10.1111/corg.12106
|
| [4] |
Adams RB, Ferreira D (2009) Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. J Financ Econ 94: 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.10.007 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.10.007
|
| [5] |
Ain QU, Yuan X, Javaid HM, et al. (2021) Female directors and agency costs: evidence from Chinese listed firms. Int J Emerg Mark 16: 1604–1633. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-10-2019-0818 doi: 10.1108/IJOEM-10-2019-0818
|
| [6] |
Al Amosh H (2024a) Stakeholder theory in elections: Navigating political money, tribal tendencies, ethics, and the dark side of stakeholders. Polit Policy 52: 828–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12610 doi: 10.1111/polp.12610
|
| [7] |
Al Amosh H (2024b) From home to boardroom: Marital status and its influence on ESG disclosure. Bus Strategy Dev 7: e402. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.402 doi: 10.1002/bsd2.402
|
| [8] |
Al Amosh H, Khatib SF (2023) ESG performance in the time of COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-country evidence. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30: 39978–39993. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-25050-w doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-25050-w
|
| [9] |
Ali M, Ng YL, Kulik CT (2014) Board age and gender diversity: A test of competing linear and curvilinear predictions. J Bus Ethics 125: 497–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1930-9 doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1930-9
|
| [10] |
Al-Shaer, H, Zaman, M. (2016) Board gender diversity and sustainability reporting quality. J Contemp Account Econ 12: 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2016.09.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jcae.2016.09.001
|
| [11] |
Amin A, Ali R, ur Rehman R, et al. (2023) Gender diversity in the board room and sustainable growth rate: The moderating role of family ownership. J Sustain Financ Invest 13: 1577–1599. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2022.2138695 doi: 10.1080/20430795.2022.2138695
|
| [12] |
Amorelli MF, García-Sánchez IM (2020) Critical mass of female directors, human capital, and stakeholder engagement by corporate social reporting. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma 27: 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1793 doi: 10.1002/csr.1793
|
| [13] |
Ananzeh H, Al Shbail MO, Alshurafat H, et al. (2024) A cross-country examination on the relationship between cash holding, dividend policies, and the moderating role of ESG ratings. Cogent Bus Manag 11: 2300523. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2300523 doi: 10.1080/23311975.2023.2300523
|
| [14] |
Arayssi M, Jizi M, Tabaja HH (2020) The impact of board composition on the level of ESG disclosures in GCC countries. Sustain Account Manag Policy J 11: 137–161. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2018-0136 doi: 10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2018-0136
|
| [15] |
Arena C, Garcia-Torea N, Michelon G (2024) The lines that divide: Board demographic faultlines and proactive environmental strategy. Corp Gov Int Rev 32: 833–855. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12570 doi: 10.1111/corg.12570
|
| [16] |
Atay E, Terpstra-Tong JLY (2020) The determinants of corporate social irresponsibility: A case study of the Soma mine accident in Turkey. Soc Responsib J 16: 1433–1452. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-01-2019-0042 doi: 10.1108/SRJ-01-2019-0042
|
| [17] |
Baker HK, Pandey N, Kumar S, et al. (2020) A bibliometric analysis of board diversity: Current status, development, and future research directions. J Bus Res 108: 232–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.025 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.025
|
| [18] |
Barnea A, Rubin A (2010) Corporate Social Responsibility as a Conflict Between Shareholders. J Bus Ethics 97: 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0496-z doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0496-z
|
| [19] |
Bell DA (2010) Reconciling socialism and Confucianism? Reviving tradition in China. Dissent 57: 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1353/dss.0.0114 doi: 10.1353/dss.0.0114
|
| [20] |
Berrone P, Cruz C, Gomez-Mejia LR (2012) Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Fam Bus Rev 25: 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486511435355 doi: 10.1177/0894486511435355
|
| [21] |
Bhandari A, Javakhadze D (2017) Corporate social responsibility and capital allocation efficiency. J Corp Financ 43: 354–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2017.01.012 doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2017.01.012
|
| [22] |
Birindelli G, Chiappini H, Jalal RNUD (2024) Greenwashing, bank financial performance and the moderating role of gender diversity. Res Int Bus Financ 69: 102–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2024.102235 doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2024.102235
|
| [23] |
Blau PM (1977) A macrosociological theory of social structure. Am J Sociol 83: 26–54. https://doi.org/10.1086/226505 doi: 10.1086/226505
|
| [24] |
Blundell R, Bond S (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econom 87: 115–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00009-8 doi: 10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00009-8
|
| [25] |
Bolton P, Kacperczyk M (2021) Do investors care about carbon risk? J Financ Econ 142: 517–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.05.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.05.008
|
| [26] |
Bona‐Sánchez C, Pérez‐Alemán J, Santana‐Martín DJ (2023) Media visibility and corporate social responsibility investment evidence in Spain. Bus Ethics Environ Responsib 32: 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12488 doi: 10.1111/beer.12488
|
| [27] |
Borghesi R, Houston JF, Naranjo A (2014) Corporate socially responsible investments: CEO altruism, reputation, and shareholder interests. J Corp Financ 26: 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2014.03.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2014.03.008
|
| [28] |
Bouckaert S, Pales AF, McGlade C, et al. (2021) Net zero by 2050: A roadmap for the global energy sector. Int Energy Agency. https://doi.org/10.1787/c8328405-en doi: 10.1787/c8328405-en
|
| [29] |
Boudier F, Bensebaa F (2011) Hazardous waste management and corporate social responsibility: illegal trade of electrical and electronic waste. Bus Soc Rev 116: 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8594.2011.00376.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8594.2011.00376.x
|
| [30] |
Briano‐Turrent GDC (2022) Female representation on boards and corporate ethical behavior in Latin American companies. Corp Gov 30: 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12416 doi: 10.1111/corg.12416
|
| [31] |
Byron K, Post C (2016) Women on boards of directors and corporate social performance: A meta-analysis. Corp Gov Int Rev 24: 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12165 doi: 10.1111/corg.12165
|
| [32] |
Campbell JL (2007) Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Acad Manage Rev 32: 946–967. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275684 doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.25275684
|
| [33] |
Carney RW, Child TB (2013) Changes to the ownership and control of East Asian corporations between 1996 and 2008: The primacy of politics. J Financ Econ 107: 494–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.08.013 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.08.013
|
| [34] |
Carton AM, Cummings JN (2012) A theory of subgroups in work teams. Acad Manage Rev 37: 441–470. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0322 doi: 10.5465/amr.2009.0322
|
| [35] |
Carvajal M, Nadeem M, Zaman R (2022) Biodiversity disclosure, sustainable development and environmental initiatives: Does board gender diversity matter? Bus Strat Environ 31: 969–987. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2929 doi: 10.1002/bse.2929
|
| [36] |
Chen J, Fan Y, Zhang X (2022) Rookie independent directors and corporate fraud in China. Financ Res Lett 46: 102411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2021.102411 doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2021.102411
|
| [37] |
Chen P, Dagestani AA (2023) Greenwashing behavior and firm value–From the perspective of board characteristics. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 30: 2330–2343. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2488 doi: 10.1002/csr.2488
|
| [38] |
Cheng IH, Hong H, Shue K (2023) Do managers do good with other people's money? Rev Corp Financ Stud 12: 443–487. https://doi.org/10.1093/rcfs/cfad008 doi: 10.1093/rcfs/cfad008
|
| [39] |
Claessens S, Djankov S, Lang LH (2000) The separation of ownership and control in East Asian corporations. J Financ Econ 58: 81–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00067-2 doi: 10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00067-2
|
| [40] |
Clark CE, Riera M, Iborra M (2022) Toward a theoretical framework of corporate social irresponsibility: Clarifying the gray zones between responsibility and irresponsibility. Bus Soc 61: 1473–1511. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211015911 doi: 10.1177/00076503211015911
|
| [41] |
Cox TH, Blake S (1991) Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Acad Manag Perspect 5: 45–56. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1991.4274465 doi: 10.5465/ame.1991.4274465
|
| [42] |
Crucke S, Knockaert M (2016) When stakeholder representation leads to faultlines. A study of board service performance in social enterprises. J Manage Stud 53: 768–793. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12197 doi: 10.1111/joms.12197
|
| [43] |
Cuervo A (2002) Corporate governance mechanisms: A plea for less code of good governance and more market control. Corp Gov Int Rev 10: 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00272 doi: 10.1111/1467-8683.00272
|
| [44] |
Cumming D, Leung TY, Rui O (2015) Gender diversity and securities fraud. Acad Manage J 58: 1572–1593. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0750 doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0750
|
| [45] |
Darnall N, Henriques I, Sadorsky P (2008) Do environmental management systems improve business performance in an international setting? J Int Manag 14: 364–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2007.09.006 doi: 10.1016/j.intman.2007.09.006
|
| [46] |
Delmas MA, Pekovic S (2013) Environmental standards and labor productivity: Understanding the mechanisms that sustain sustainability. J Organ Behav 34: 230–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1827 doi: 10.1002/job.1827
|
| [47] |
Delmas MA, Toffel MW (2008) Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strateg Manage J 29: 1027–1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.701 doi: 10.1002/smj.701
|
| [48] | Deloitte. (2024) Women in the Boardroom, eighth edition. Deloitte. Available from: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/leadership/women-in-the-boardroom.html. |
| [49] |
Djankov S, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, et al. (2008) The law and economics of self-dealing. J Financ Econ 88:430–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.02.007 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.02.007
|
| [50] |
Donaldson JR, Malenko N, Piacentino G (2020) Deadlock on the board. Rev Financ Stud 33: 4445–4488. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhaa006 doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhaa006
|
| [51] |
Du X (2015) Is corporate philanthropy used as environmental misconduct dressing? Evidence from Chinese family-owned firms. J Bus Ethics 129: 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2163-2 doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2163-2
|
| [52] |
Du J, Dai Y (2005) Ultimate corporate ownership structures and capital structures: Evidence from East Asian economies. Corp Gov Int Rev 13: 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2005.00403.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2005.00403.x
|
| [53] |
Du X, Weng J, Zeng Q, et al. (2017) Do lenders applaud corporate environmental performance? Evidence from Chinese private-owned firms. J Bus Ethics 143: 179–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2758-2 doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2758-2
|
| [54] |
Duan H, Rogers C, Wang J, et al (2024) Do big shifts in economic development incentives attract people? Econ Lett 234: 111451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2023.111451 doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2023.111451
|
| [55] |
Eccles RG, Ioannou I, Serafeim G (2014) The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Manage Sci 60: 2835–2857. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984 doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984
|
| [56] |
Eliwa Y, Aboud A, Saleh A (2023) Board gender diversity and ESG decoupling: Does religiosity matter? Bus Strateg Environ 32: 4046–4067. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3353 doi: 10.1002/bse.3353
|
| [57] |
Endrikat J, De Villiers C, Guenther TW, et al. (2021) Board characteristics and corporate social responsibility: A meta-analytic investigation. Bus Soc 60: 2099–2135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650320930638 doi: 10.1177/0007650320930638
|
| [58] |
Esterhuyse L (2020) Towards corporate transparency: The link between inclusion in a socially responsible investment index and investor relations practices. Bottom Line 32: 290–307. https://doi.org/10.1108/BL-03-2019-0081 doi: 10.1108/BL-03-2019-0081
|
| [59] |
Feng C, Xiang K (2023) Structural power of female executives and retailer profitability: A contingent resource-based perspective. J Bus Res 168: 114137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114137 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114137
|
| [60] |
Fernando CS, Sharfman MP, Uysal VB (2017) Corporate environmental policy and shareholder value: Following the smart money. J Financ Quant Anal 52: 2023–2051. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109017000680 doi: 10.1017/S0022109017000680
|
| [61] |
Ferrell A, Liang H, Renneboog L (2016) Socially responsible firms. J Financ Econ 122: 585–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2015.12.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2015.12.003
|
| [62] |
Fields S (2002) Sustainable business makes dollars and sense. Environ Health Perspect 110: 142–145. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.110-a142 doi: 10.1289/ehp.110-a142
|
| [63] |
Flammer C (2013) Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Acad Manage J 56: 758–781. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0744 doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0744
|
| [64] |
Flammer C (2015) Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial performance? A regression discontinuity approach. Manage Sci 61: 2549–2568. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2038 doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.2038
|
| [65] |
Flammer C (2021) Corporate green bonds. J Financ Econ 142: 499–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.01.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.01.010
|
| [66] |
Fleitas-Castillo GC, Peña-Martel D, Pérez-Alemán J, et al. (2024) Board gender diversity and corporate social irresponsibility in a dominant owner context. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2851 doi: 10.1002/csr.2851
|
| [67] |
Foulon B, Marsat S (2023) Does environmental footprint influence the resilience of firms facing environmental penalties? Bus Strateg Environ 32: 6154–6168. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3478 doi: 10.1002/bse.3478
|
| [68] |
Gao Y, Yang H (2021) Does Ownership Matter? Firm Ownership and Corporate Illegality in China. J Bus Ethics 168: 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04264-y doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04264-y
|
| [69] |
García-Meca E, López-Iturriaga FJ, Santana-Martín DJ (2022) Board gender diversity and dividend payout: The critical mass and the family ties effect. Int Rev Financ Anal 79: 101973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2021.101973 doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2021.101973
|
| [70] |
García-Sánchez IM, Aibar-Guzmán C, Núnez-Torrado M, et al. (2023) Women leaders and female same-sex groups: The same 2030 Agenda objectives along different roads. J Bus Res 157: 113582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113582 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113582
|
| [71] |
García-Sánchez IM, Cuadrado-Ballesteros B, Frias-Aceituno JV (2016) Impact of the institutional macro context on the voluntary disclosure of CSR information. Long Range Plan 49: 15–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2015.02.004 doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2015.02.004
|
| [72] |
Giannarakis G, Andronikidis A, Zopounidis C, et al. (2023) Determinants of Global Reporting Initiative report: A comparative study between USA and European companies. Sustain Prod Consump 35: 376–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.11.014 doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2022.11.014
|
| [73] |
Gilson SC (1990) Bankruptcy, boards, banks, and blockholders: Evidence on changes in corporate ownership and control when firms default. J Financ Econ 27: 355–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(90)90060-D doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(90)90060-D
|
| [74] |
Godfrey C, Hoepner AG, Lin MT, et al. (2024) Women on boards and corporate social irresponsibility: evidence from a Granger style reverse causality minimisation procedure. Eur J Financ 30: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/1351847X.2020.1841664 doi: 10.1080/1351847X.2020.1841664
|
| [75] |
Godfrey PC (2005) The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Acad Manage Rev 30: 777–798. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.18378878 doi: 10.5465/amr.2005.18378878
|
| [76] |
Graham ME, Belliveau MA, Hotchkiss JL (2017) The view at the top or signing at the bottom? Workplace diversity responsibility and women's representation in management. ILR Rev 70: 223–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793916668879 doi: 10.1177/0019793916668879
|
| [77] |
Gul FA, Srinidhi B, Ng AC (2011) Does board gender diversity improve the informativeness of stock prices? J Account Econ 51: 314–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2011.01.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2011.01.005
|
| [78] |
Gull AA, Nekhili M, Nagati H, et al. (2018) Beyond gender diversity: How specific attributes of female directors affect earnings management. Brit Account Rev 50: 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2017.09.001 doi: 10.1016/j.bar.2017.09.001
|
| [79] |
Hafsi T, Turgut G (2013) Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance: Conceptualization and empirical evidence. J Bus Ethics 112: 463–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1272-z doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1272-z
|
| [80] |
He Z (2023) History and freedom: Two corresponding facets of Marxism and Confucianism. Front Philos China 18: 191–209. https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-012-023-0011-3 doi: 10.3868/s030-012-023-0011-3
|
| [81] |
Henry LA, Buyl T, Jansen RJ (2019) Leading corporate sustainability: The role of top management team composition for triple bottom line performance. Bus Strateg Environ 28: 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2247 doi: 10.1002/bse.2247
|
| [82] |
Herzig C, Moon J (2013) Discourses on corporate social ir/responsibility in the financial sector. J Bus Res 66: 1870–1880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.008
|
| [83] |
Ioannou I, Serafeim G (2015) The impact of corporate social responsibility on investment recommendations: Analysts' perceptions and shifting institutional logics. Strateg Manage J 36: 1053–1081. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2268 doi: 10.1002/smj.2268
|
| [84] |
Issa A, In'airat M (2024) From words to action: Unpacking the real impact of sustainability initiatives on carbon emissions reduction. Soc Responsib J 20: 585–604. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-06-2023-0320 doi: 10.1108/SRJ-06-2023-0320
|
| [85] |
Iwasaki I, Ma X, Mizobata S (2024) Board gender diversity in China and Eastern Europe. Asia Glob Econ 4: 100077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aglobe.2024.100077 doi: 10.1016/j.aglobe.2024.100077
|
| [86] |
Javeed SA, Teh BH, Ong TS, et al. (2022) How does green innovation strategy influence corporate financing? Corporate social responsibility and gender diversity play a moderating role. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19: 8724. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148724 doi: 10.3390/ijerph19148724
|
| [87] |
Jiang X (2009) Confucianism, women, and social contexts. J Chin Philos 36: 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1163/15406253-03602005 doi: 10.1163/15406253-03602005
|
| [88] |
Kamil R, Appiah KO (2022) Board gender diversity and cost of debt: do firm size and industry type matter? Gend Manag 37: 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-12-2020-0363 doi: 10.1108/GM-12-2020-0363
|
| [89] |
Kamran M, Djajadikerta HG, Mat Roni S, et al. (2023) Board gender diversity and corporate social responsibility in an international setting. J Account Emerg Econ 13: 240–275. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-05-2021-0140 doi: 10.1108/JAEE-05-2021-0140
|
| [90] |
Kassinis G, Panayiotou A, Dimou A, et al. (2016) Gender and environmental sustainability: A longitudinal analysis. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 23: 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1386 doi: 10.1002/csr.1386
|
| [91] |
Kassinis G, Vafeas N (2002) Corporate boards and outside stakeholders as determinants of environmental litigation. Strateg Manage J 23: 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.230 doi: 10.1002/smj.230
|
| [92] |
Kazim I, Wang F, Zhang X (2024) Unlocking the link: Foreign-experienced board of directors and environmental violations in China. Finance Res Lett 60: 104912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.104912 doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2023.104912
|
| [93] |
Keig DL, Brouthers LE, Marshall VB (2015) Formal and informal corruption environments and multinational enterprise social irresponsibility. J Manage Stud 52: 89–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12102 doi: 10.1111/joms.12102
|
| [94] |
Kikwiye IR (2019) The nature and extent of corporate social responsibility disclosure in Tanzania. Bus Strateg Dev 2: 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.62 doi: 10.1002/bsd2.62
|
| [95] |
Kılıç M, Kuzey C (2016) The effect of board gender diversity on firm performance: evidence from Turkey. Gend Manag 31: 434–455. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-10-2015-0088 doi: 10.1108/GM-10-2015-0088
|
| [96] |
Klein J, Dawar N (2004) Corporate social responsibility and consumers' attributions and brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis. Int J Res Mark 21: 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.003 doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.003
|
| [97] |
Kock CJ, Santaló J, Diestre L (2012) Corporate governance and the environment: what type of governance creates greener companies? J Manage Stud 49: 492–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00993.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00993.x
|
| [98] |
Kölbel JF, Busch T, Jancso LM (2017) How media coverage of corporate social irresponsibility increases financial risk. Strateg Manage J 38: 2266–2284. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2647 doi: 10.1002/smj.2647
|
| [99] |
Krishnan HA, Park D (2005) A few good women—on top management teams. J Bus Res 58: 1712–1720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.09.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.09.003
|
| [100] |
Krueger P, Sautner Z, Starks LT (2020) The importance of climate risks for institutional investors. Rev Financ Stud 33: 1067–1111. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz137 doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhz137
|
| [101] |
Krüger P (2015) Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth. J Financ Econ 115: 304–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.09.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.09.008
|
| [102] |
Kyaw K, Treepongkaruna S, Jiraporn P (2022) Board gender diversity and environmental emissions. Bus Strateg Environ 31: 2871–2881. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3052 doi: 10.1002/bse.3052
|
| [103] |
La Porta RL, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, et al. (1998) Law and finance. J Polit Econ 106: 1113–1155. https://doi.org/10.1086/250042 doi: 10.1086/250042
|
| [104] |
La Porta R, Lopez de Silanes F, Shleifer A (1999) Corporate ownership around the world. J Financ 54: 471–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00115 doi: 10.1111/0022-1082.00115
|
| [105] |
La Porta R, Lopez‐de‐Silanes F, Shleifer A, et al. (2000) Agency problems and dividend policies around the world. J Financ 55:1–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00199 doi: 10.1111/0022-1082.00199
|
| [106] |
Laique U, Abdullah F, Rehman IU, et al. (2023) Two decades of research on board gender diversity and financial outcomes: Mapping heterogeneity and future research agenda. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 30: 2121–2144. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2510 doi: 10.1002/csr.2510
|
| [107] |
Lau DC, Murnighan JK (1998) Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Acad Manage Rev 23: 325–340. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533229 doi: 10.5465/amr.1998.533229
|
| [108] |
Laufer WS (2003) Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. J Bus Ethics 43: 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022962719299 doi: 10.1023/A:1022962719299
|
| [109] |
Leicht‐Deobald U, Huettermann H, Bruch H, et al. (2021) Organizational demographic faultlines: Their impact on collective organizational identification, firm performance, and firm innovation. J Manage Stud 58: 2240–2274. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12747 doi: 10.1111/joms.12747
|
| [110] |
Levi M, Li K, Zhang F (2014) Director gender and mergers and acquisitions. J Corp Financ 28: 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2013.11.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2013.11.005
|
| [111] |
Li YX, He C (2023) Board diversity and corporate innovation: Evidence from Chinese listed firms. Int J Financ Econ 28: 1092–1115. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2465 doi: 10.1002/ijfe.2465
|
| [112] |
Liao L, Luo L, Tang Q (2015) Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. Brit Account Rev 47: 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2014.01.002 doi: 10.1016/j.bar.2014.01.002
|
| [113] | Liao Z, Zhang M (2024) Regulatory distance and firms' environmental innovation: The role of environmental information disclosure and social trust. Bus Strateg Environ[In press]. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3771 |
| [114] |
Liu C (2018) Are women greener? Corporate gender diversity and environmental violations. J Corp Financ 52: 118–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2018.08.004 doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2018.08.004
|
| [115] |
Liu Y, Wei Z, Xie F (2014) Do women directors improve firm performance in China? J Corp Financ 28: 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2013.11.016 doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2013.11.016
|
| [116] |
Lu J, Herremans IM (2019) Board gender diversity and environmental performance: An industries perspective. Bus Strateg Environ 28: 1449–1464. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2326 doi: 10.1002/bse.2326
|
| [117] |
Lucas-Pérez ME, Mínguez-Vera A, Baixauli-Soler JS, et al. (2015) Women on the board and managers' pay: Evidence from Spain. J Bus Ethics 129: 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2148-1 doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2148-1
|
| [118] |
Ludwig P, Sassen R (2022) Which internal corporate governance mechanisms drive corporate sustainability? J Environ Manag 301: 113780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113780 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113780
|
| [119] |
Ma J, Huang X (2023) Knowledge-Based Faultlines and Corporate Social Irresponsibility: Evidence from Chinese High-Polluting Companies. Sustainability 15: 13156. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713156 doi: 10.3390/su151713156
|
| [120] |
Ma R, Ji Q, Zhai P, Yang R (2022) Environmental violations, refinancing risk, and the corporate bond cost in China. J Int Financ Manage Account 33: 480–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12154 doi: 10.1111/jifm.12154
|
| [121] |
Markoczy L, Kolev KD, Qian C (2023) Trade-off among stakeholders: CEO political orientation and corporate social irresponsibility. Long Range Plan 56: 102273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2022.102273 doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2022.102273
|
| [122] |
Martínez‐García I, Terjesen S, Gómez‐Ansón S (2022). Board gender diversity codes, quotas and threats of supranational legislation: impact on director characteristics and corporate outcomes. Brit J Manage 33: 753–783. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12517 doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12517
|
| [123] |
Mäs M, Flache A, Takács K, et al. (2013) In the short term we divide, in the long term we unite: Demographic crisscrossing and the effects of faultlines on subgroup polarization. Organ Sci 24: 716–736. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0767 doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0767
|
| [124] |
Maswadi L, Amran A (2023) Does board capital enhance corporate social responsibility disclosure quality? The role of CEO power. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 30: 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2349 doi: 10.1002/csr.2349
|
| [125] |
Matejek S, Gössling T (2014) Beyond legitimacy: A case study in BP's "green lashing". J Bus Ethics 120: 571–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-2006-6 doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-2006-6
|
| [126] |
Mather P, Ranasinghe D, Unda LA (2021) Are gender diverse boards more cautious? The impact of board gender diversity on sentiment in earnings press releases. J Contemp Account Econ 17: 100278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2021.100278 doi: 10.1016/j.jcae.2021.100278
|
| [127] | Matten D, Moon J (2005) Pan-European approach: A conceptual framework for understanding CSR, In: Corporate social responsibility across Europ, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 335–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2021.100278 |
| [128] |
Matten D, Moon J (2008) "Implicit" and "explicit" CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Acad Manage Rev 33: 404–424. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193458 doi: 10.5465/amr.2008.31193458
|
| [129] |
McGuinness PB, Vieito JP, Wang M (2017) The role of board gender and foreign ownership in the CSR performance of Chinese listed firms. J Corp Financ 42: 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.11.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.11.001
|
| [130] |
Mumu JR, Saona P, Haque MS, et al. (2022) Gender diversity in corporate governance: A bibliometric analysis and research agenda. Gend Manag Int J 37: 328–343. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-02-2021-0029 doi: 10.1108/GM-02-2021-0029
|
| [131] |
Nadeem M (2020) Does board gender diversity influence voluntary disclosure of intellectual capital in initial public offering prospectuses? Evidence from China. Corp Gov 28: 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12304 doi: 10.1111/corg.12304
|
| [132] |
Nadeem M (2021) Corporate governance and supplemental environmental projects: A restorative justice approach. J Bus Ethics 173: 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04561-x doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04561-x
|
| [133] |
Nadeem M, Bahadar S, Gull AA, et al. (2020) Are women eco‐friendly? Board gender diversity and environmental innovation. Bus Strateg Environ 29: 3146–3161. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2563 doi: 10.1002/bse.2563
|
| [134] |
Nardella G, Brammer S, Surdu I (2020) Shame on who? The effects of corporate irresponsibility and social performance on organizational reputation. Brit J Manage 31: 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12365 doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12365
|
| [135] |
Nguyen T, Locke S, Reddy K (2015) Does boardroom gender diversity matter? Evidence from a transitional economy. Int Rev Econ Financ 37: 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2014.11.022 doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2014.11.022
|
| [136] |
Nirino N, Santoro G, Miglietta N, et al. (2021) Corporate controversies and company's financial performance: Exploring the moderating role of ESG practices. Technol Forecast Soc Change 162: 120341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120341 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120341
|
| [137] |
Oh WY, Cha J, Chang YK (2017) Does ownership structure matter? The effects of insider and institutional ownership on corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 146: 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2914-8 doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2914-8
|
| [138] |
Ongsakul V, Jaroenjitrkam A, Treepongkaruna S, et al. (2021). Does board gender diversity reduce 'CEO luck'? Account Financ 62: 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12788 doi: 10.1111/acfi.12788
|
| [139] |
Orazalin N, Baydauletov M (2020) Corporate social responsibility strategy and corporate environmental and social performance: The moderating role of board gender diversity. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27: 1664–1676. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1915 doi: 10.1002/csr.1915
|
| [140] |
Oyewo B (2023) Corporate governance and carbon emissions performance: International evidence on curvilinear relationships. J Environ Manage 334: 117474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117474 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117474
|
| [141] |
Pearce CL, Manz CC (2011) Leadership centrality and corporate social ir-responsibility (CSIR): The potential ameliorating effects of self and shared leadership on CSIR. J Bus Ethics 102: 563–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0828-7 doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0828-7
|
| [142] |
Perryman AA, Fernando GD, Tripathy A (2016) Do gender differences persist? An examination of gender diversity on firm performance, risk, and executive compensation. J Bus Res 69: 579–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.013 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.013
|
| [143] | Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1978) The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row. |
| [144] |
Post C, Rahman N, Rubow E (2011) Green governance: Boards of directors' composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Bus Soc 50: 189–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650310394642 doi: 10.1177/0007650310394642
|
| [145] |
Pucheta‐Martínez MC, Bel‐Oms I (2019) What have we learnt about board gender diversity as a business strategy? The appointment of board subcommittees Bus Strateg Environ 28: 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2226 doi: 10.1002/bse.2226
|
| [146] |
Pucheta‐Martínez MC, Chiva‐Ortells C (2018) The role of directors representing institutional ownership in sustainable development through corporate social responsibility reporting. Sustain Dev 26: 835–846. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1853 doi: 10.1002/sd.1853
|
| [147] |
Raghunandan A, Rajgopal S (2022) Do ESG funds make stakeholder-friendly investments? Rev Account Stud 27: 822–863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-022-09693-1 doi: 10.1007/s11142-022-09693-1
|
| [148] |
Rao K, Tilt C (2016) Board composition and corporate social responsibility: The role of diversity, gender, strategy and decision making. J Bus Ethics 138: 327–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2613-5 doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2613-5
|
| [149] |
Saeed A, Riaz H, Liedong TA, et al. (2022) The impact of TMT gender diversity on corporate environmental strategy in emerging economies. J Bus Res 141: 536–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.057 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.057
|
| [150] |
Shahab Y, Hussain T, Wang P, et al. (2023) Business groups and environmental violations: Evidence from China. Int Rev Financ Anal 85:102459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102459 doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102459
|
| [151] |
Shakil MH, Tasnia M, Mostafiz MI (2021) Board gender diversity and environmental, social and governance performance of US banks: Moderating role of environmental, social and corporate governance controversies. Int J Bank Mark 39: 661–677. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-04-2020-0210 doi: 10.1108/IJBM-04-2020-0210
|
| [152] |
Shiu YM, Yang SL (2017) Does engagement in corporate social responsibility provide strategic insurance‐like effects? Strateg Manage J 38:455–470. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2494 doi: 10.1002/smj.2494
|
| [153] | Spencer Stuart (2022) 2022 Spencer Stuart Board Index: Board Trends and Practices of Leading European Companies. Spencer Stuart. |
| [154] |
Strike VM, Gao J, Bansal P (2006) Being good while being bad: Social responsibility and the international diversification of US firms. J Int Bus Stud 37: 850–862. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400226 doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400226
|
| [155] | Studenmund AH (1997) Using Econometrics. A Practical Guide. Addison-Wesley, New York. |
| [156] |
Suchman MC (1995) Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Acad Manage Rev 20: 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331 doi: 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
|
| [157] |
Sun Y, Zhang J, Han J, et al. (2023) The impact of top management teams' faultlines on organizational transparency―Evidence from CSR initiatives. Bus Ethics Environ Responsib 32: 1262–1276. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12564 doi: 10.1111/beer.12564
|
| [158] |
Surroca J, Tribó JA, Zahra SA (2013) Stakeholder pressure on MNEs and the transfer of socially irresponsible practices to subsidiaries. Acad Manage J 56: 549–572. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0962 doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0962
|
| [159] |
Tang Y, Qian C, Chen, G, et al. (2015). How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir) responsibility. Strateg Manage J 36: 1338–1357. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2286 doi: 10.1002/smj.2286
|
| [160] | Taylor RL (2005) The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Confucianism (Vol. 2). Rosen Publishing. |
| [161] |
Terjesen S, Sealy R, Singh V (2009) Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corp Gov 17: 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00742.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00742.x
|
| [162] |
Thatcher SM, Jehn KA, Zanutto E (2003) Cracks in diversity research: The effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decis Negot 12: 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023325406946 doi: 10.1023/A:1023325406946
|
| [163] |
Usman M, Farooq MU, Zhang J, et al. (2019) Female directors and the cost of debt: does gender diversity in the boardroom matter to lenders? Manag Audit J 34: 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-04-2018-1863 doi: 10.1108/MAJ-04-2018-1863
|
| [164] |
Vandebeek A, Voordeckers W, Huybrechts J, et al. (2021) Corporate performance and CEO dismissal: The role of social category faultlines. Corp Govern Int Rev 29: 436–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12376 doi: 10.1111/corg.12376
|
| [165] |
Wang J, Yuan W, Rogers C (2020) Economic development incentives: What can we learn from policy regime changes? Econ Dev Q 34: 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242420909899 doi: 10.1177/0891242420909899
|
| [166] |
Wang Y, Wilson C, Li Y (2021) Gender attitudes and the effect of board gender diversity on corporate environmental responsibility. Emerg Mark Rev 47: 100744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2020.100744 doi: 10.1016/j.ememar.2020.100744
|
| [167] |
Wei KJ, Zhang Y (2008) Ownership structure, cash flow, and capital investment: Evidence from East Asian economies before the financial crisis. J Corp Finance 14: 118–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2008.02.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2008.02.002
|
| [168] |
Wu B, Jin C, Monfort A, et al. (2021) Generous charity to preserve green image? Exploring linkage between strategic donations and environmental misconduct. J Bus Res 131: 839–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.040 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.040
|
| [169] |
Wu Q, Furuoka F, Lau SC (2022) Corporate social responsibility and board gender diversity: A meta-analysis. Manag Res Rev 45: 956–983. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2021-0236 doi: 10.1108/MRR-03-2021-0236
|
| [170] |
Xia J, Jiang Y, Wang H, et al. (2023) Rule violation and time-to-enforcement in weak institutional environments: A good faith perspective. J Manag 49: 2549–2594. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221108931 doi: 10.1177/01492063221108931
|
| [171] |
Yang H, Xue K (2023) Board diversity and the marginal value of corporate cash holdings. Pac Basin Financ J 79: 102048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2023.102048 doi: 10.1016/j.pacfin.2023.102048
|
| [172] |
Yao C, Duan Z, Baruch Y (2020) Time, space, Confucianism and careers: A contextualized review of career research in China. Int J Manag Rev 22: 222–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12223 doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12223
|
| [173] |
Yasser QR, Al Mamun A, Ahmed I (2017) Corporate social responsibility and gender diversity: Insights from Asia Pacific. Corp Soc Resp Env Manag 24: 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1400 doi: 10.1002/csr.1400
|
| [174] |
Young MN, Peng MW, Ahlstrom D, et al. (2008) Corporate governance in emerging economies: A review of the principal–principal perspective. J Manage Stud 45: 196–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00752.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00752.x
|
| [175] |
Yu EPY, Van Luu B, Chen CH (2020) Greenwashing in environmental, social and governance disclosures. Res Int Bus Finance 52: 101192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2020.101192 doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2020.101192
|
| [176] |
Zahid RA, Maqsood US, Irshad S, et al. (2025) The role of women on board in combatting greenwashing: A new perspective on environmental performance. Bus Ethics Environ Responsib 34: 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12607 doi: 10.1111/beer.12607
|
| [177] |
Zalata AM, Ntim CG, Choudhry T, et al. (2019) Female directors and managerial opportunism: Monitoring versus advisory female directors. Leadersh Q 30: 101309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101309 doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101309
|
| [178] |
Zhu N, Osei A, Agyemang AO (2024) Do board attributes influence environmental sustainability disclosure in manufacturing firms? Evidence from sub‐Saharan Africa. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 31: 4759–4771. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2822 doi: 10.1002/csr.2822
|
| [179] |
Zou HL, Zeng RC, Zeng SX, et al. (2015) How do environmental violation events harm corporate reputation? Bus Strat Environ 24: 836–854. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1849 doi: 10.1002/bse.1849
|
| [180] |
Zubeltzu‐Jaka E, Álvarez‐Etxeberria I, Ortas E (2020) The effect of the size of the board of directors on corporate social performance: A meta‐analytic approach. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27: 1361–1374. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1889 doi: 10.1002/csr.1889
|
 GF-07-01-005-s001.pdf |
 |
| 1. | Ömer Gökhan Ulum, Menşure Alkış Küçükaydın, Hakan Ulum, Mental Health of Host and Refugee Youth in the Turkish Education System: The Role of Daily Material Stress, Well‐Being, Social Support and Resilience, 2025, 53, 0090-4392, 10.1002/jcop.70012 |
Gema C. Fleitas-Castillo, Devora Peña-Martel, Jerónimo Pérez-Alemán, Domingo Javier Santana-Martín. Gender diversity on boards and environmental violations in European firms[J]. Green Finance, 2025, 7(1): 117-145. doi: 10.3934/GF.2025005
| Number of items (k) | ||||||
| Min | Max | Mean | Mean/k | SD | ||
| STEM Career Aspiration | 4 | 4.00 | 16.00 | 9.73 | 2.43 | 3.16 |
| Perceived Parental Expectations | 4 | 4.00 | 16.00 | 12.59 | 3.14 | 2.46 |
| Short-term | 2 | 2.00 | 8.00 | 6.96 | 3.48 | 1.53 |
| Long-term | 2 | 2.00 | 8.00 | 5.62 | 2.81 | 1.76 |
| STEM Cultural Capital | 4 | .00 | 16.00 | 5.66 | 1.41 | 3.85 |
| STEM media consumption | 2 | .00 | 8.00 | 3.48 | 1.74 | 2.57 |
| Out-of-school STEM experiences | 2 | .00 | 8.00 | 2.18 | 1.09 | 1.99 |
| Hopes and Goals | 20 | 23.00 | 100.00 | 70.86 | 3.54 | 2.38 |
| Learning in school hope | 4 | 4.00 | 20.00 | 15.95 | 3.98 | 4.02 |
| Job satisfaction hope | 5 | 5.00 | 25.00 | 19.33 | 3.86 | 6.21 |
| Attitudes toward science | 4 | 4.00 | 20.00 | 13.36 | 3.34 | 5.04 |
| Attitudes toward engineering | 4 | 4.00 | 20.00 | 12.00 | 3.00 | 5.08 |
| Attitudes toward math | 3 | 3.00 | 15.00 | 10.21 | 3.40 | 3.89 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Number of items (k) | ||||||
| Min | Max | Mean | Mean/k | SD | ||
| STEM Career Aspiration | 4 | 4.00 | 16.00 | 9.73 | 2.43 | 3.16 |
| Perceived Parental Expectations | 4 | 4.00 | 16.00 | 12.59 | 3.14 | 2.46 |
| Short-term | 2 | 2.00 | 8.00 | 6.96 | 3.48 | 1.53 |
| Long-term | 2 | 2.00 | 8.00 | 5.62 | 2.81 | 1.76 |
| STEM Cultural Capital | 4 | .00 | 16.00 | 5.66 | 1.41 | 3.85 |
| STEM media consumption | 2 | .00 | 8.00 | 3.48 | 1.74 | 2.57 |
| Out-of-school STEM experiences | 2 | .00 | 8.00 | 2.18 | 1.09 | 1.99 |
| Hopes and Goals | 20 | 23.00 | 100.00 | 70.86 | 3.54 | 2.38 |
| Learning in school hope | 4 | 4.00 | 20.00 | 15.95 | 3.98 | 4.02 |
| Job satisfaction hope | 5 | 5.00 | 25.00 | 19.33 | 3.86 | 6.21 |
| Attitudes toward science | 4 | 4.00 | 20.00 | 13.36 | 3.34 | 5.04 |
| Attitudes toward engineering | 4 | 4.00 | 20.00 | 12.00 | 3.00 | 5.08 |
| Attitudes toward math | 3 | 3.00 | 15.00 | 10.21 | 3.40 | 3.89 |
