The Role of Gender,Race/Ethnicity,and Other Factors in Influencing Top Executive Compensation in American Environmental Nonprofits

Abstract

The article reports the findings of a pathbreaking national study that examines executive compensation in American environmental nonprofits. This article seeks to accomplish two goals: (1) examine the gender disparities in the pay of chief executive officers (CEOs), executive directors, and presidents in environmental organizations; and (2) analyze the ethnic/racial differences in the wages of the top executive in said nonprofits. The study uses financial information from Internal Revenue Service Form 990 to examine top executive salaries in 2,703 organizations. The author collected data from tax forms filed between 2018 and 2020. The article examines how gender and race/ethnicity are associated with compensation. It also analyzes how region, organizational type, urbanization, organizational revenue, staff size, the board size, the receipt of bonuses and incentives, the size of the bonuses/incentives, and the size of the base wages are related to overall compensation. Men occupied 51.2% (1,383) and women 48.8% (1,320) of the top executive positions in the organizations studied. Whites dominate the CEO position, that is, 92% or 2,488 of the CEOs were White, and 8% (215) were people of color. The study found significant gender pay gaps. While the median compensation for men was $117,468, it was $88,568.50 for women. Hence, women CEOs earned 75.4% of what men were paid. There was also an ethnic/racial pay gap. The study found that White CEOs earned a median income of $102,801. The median wage for Asian CEOs was 97.6%, Black CEOs was 96%, Latinx CEOs was 80.8%, and Native American CEOs was 73.4% of what White CEOs earned. White men obtained the highest median compensation of all gender, and racial/ethnic groups studied. The total compensation also varied by region, organizational revenues, organizational type, level of urbanization, staff size, board size, receipt of bonuses and incentives, the size of bonuses/incentives, and size of base wages. The size of the organization’s revenue, whether a CEO received bonuses/incentives, region, the CEO’s race/ethnicity, the CEO’s gender, and size of the staff were significant factors in the multivariate regression model.

Keywords

salary wages pay bonus incentive disparities racial/ethnic region staff board revenue urbanized rural conservation

Introduction

Since the 1960s, scholars have raised questions about racial/ethnic, gender, and class diversity in environmental organizations (Fox, 1981; Shabecoff, 1990; Taylor, 2014, 2021; Taylor et al., 2019). Wages and compensation have received less attention, yet women and people of color have expressed dissatisfaction with their salaries for some time; they report that they are underpaid (Taylor, 2011). Women and people of color’s discontent with their wages transcend the environmental sector—it encompasses all sectors of the U.S. labor force. For instance, a 2017 Pew Research Center survey found that 40% of women felt they got less pay than men who did the same work. However, only 5% of men thought they earned less than women doing the same work (Graf et al., 2019).

Recent claims of gender discrimination and wage inequality in environmental organizations have made news headlines (Ayesh, 2019; Belmaker, 2018; Jones & Solomon, 2019a). The latest assertions add credence to long-time claims of wage inequality in environmental organizations. The environmental sector is not unique, as national assessments find systematic wage inequality in the general workforce (Chang, 2019; Jones & Solomon, 2019b; Ptak, 2018).

Ergo, this article seeks to accomplish two goals: (1) examine the gender disparities in the compensation of chief executive officers, chief operating officers, executive directors, and presidents (henceforth CEOs) in environmental organizations; and (2) analyze the racial/ethnic disparities in the compensation of the CEOs. The article also assesses how region, urban-rural locality, organizational revenue, staff size, the board, organizational type, the receipt of bonuses and incentives, the size of base wages, and the size of bonuses/incentives influence overall compensation.

Though environmental organizations are both influential and numerous, little attention has been paid to salaries in the sector in the United States or elsewhere in the world. This article is significant as it is the first to conduct a cross-sectoral analysis of compensation in environmental organizations. The article will shed new light on an understudied and little-understood aspect of institutional diversity in environmental nonprofits. The article will also contribute to the broader literature on wage disparities in the United States.

Compensation, Diversity, and Equity

Wage Disparities in the General Workforce

There is extensive documentation of persistent and pervasive gender and race pay gaps in the U.S. workforce (Alkadry & Tower, 2011; Bertrand & Hallock, 2001; Blau & Khan, 2017; Finley et al., 2021; Jarrell & Stanley, 2004; Lee & Lee, 2021; L’Herrou & Tynes, 2020; Patten, 2016; Perryman et al., 2016; Weichselbaumer & Winter-Ebmer, 2005). Mason (2011) conducted a longitudinal study of adult wages from 1965 to 2007 and found entrenched racial and gender disparities in pay over the period examined.

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show a gender wage gap and a racial/ethnic wage gap. BLS data that track gender wage disparities from 1979 to 2020 reveal that in 1979 women earned 62.3% of what men earned; in 2019, women made 81.5% of what men earned, and in 2020, women earned 82.3% of what men earned (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021).

BLS data also reveals that in 2019 and 2020, White women earned 81.1 and 81.5% of what White men earned. In those same years, Black women made 91.5 and 92% of what Black men earned, Asian women earned 76.7 and 79% of what Asian men earned, and Latinx women 85.9 and 88.5% of what Latinx men earned (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021).

Blau and Kahn (2017) also conducted a longitudinal study of salaries from 1980 to 2010 and found that though the gender pay gap is getting smaller over time, disparities remain. Graf et al. (2019) also studied gender and wages from 1980 to 2018 and found that in 2018 women had to work an additional 39 days to earn what men did in 2018.

The gender pay gap is not distributed evenly across all pay grades. Blau and Khan (2017) found that the gender pay gap declined much more slowly at the top of the pay scale than in the middle and bottom of the wage distribution. Bishu and Alkadry (2017) reviewed 98 studies and found gender-related wage inequalities across various sectors. Perryman et al. (2016) and Falk et al. (2013) also argue that the gender wage gap persists across industries and in executive and non-executive compensation.

The data also shows that Black, LatinX, and Native Americans earn considerably less than Asians and Whites (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015; Patten, 2016). Analysis conducted by the Pew Research Center corroborates the BLS findings (Kochhar & Cilluffo, 2018).

Salary deficits require attention as they translate into significant earnings gaps over time. Nature (2017) reports that in 2016, women in administrative positions earned 80 cents for every dollar their male colleagues earned. This deficit is a difference of about $20,000 in annual pay. A Johns Hopkins study shows the cumulative effect of the wage gap. The study indicates that if a woman hired in 2005 received 2.6% less than a man counterpart, she would earn $501,416 less in wages and investment returns than her man colleague by 2016 (NewsRx Science, 2019).

Researchers account for pay disparities in many ways. Some argue that work characteristics influence wages. There is a tendency to devalue work perceived as “women’s work.” Such work often utilizes caring and affiliative skills. If women are concentrated in parts of the labor force that highlight women’s work, they will receive lower pay because such work usually receives less compensation (Cohen & Huffman, 2003).

Other scholars make the “sticky floor” argument when they point out that women and people of color earn lower salaries because they are either hired into junior positions or do not get promotions to management positions (Cotter et al., 2001). The “leaky pipeline” phenomenon can also help explain wage disparities if women and people of color quit before attaining senior staff positions. Wage inequalities can arise this way (Gayle et al., 2012; Taylor, 2014; Zeng, 2011).

It is not always the case that women and people of color quit before or shortly after obtaining senior positions; they may be fired. Gupta, Mortal, Silveri, et al. (2018) found gender disparities in CEO dismissals. However, Elsaid and Ursel (2018) counter the “glass cliff” hypothesis by arguing that firms do not fire women CEOs because they fear the negative publicity accompanying such actions. The researchers did not find a significant difference in the dismissal of men and women CEOs.

Researchers also posit that educational attainment and workforce experience can explain pay disparities. Blau and Khan (2017) argue that these factors accounted for 8% of the gender wage gap in 2010. Blau and Khan also found that industry and occupation account for 51% of the gender wage gap. Graf et al. (2019) attribute the gender wage gap to educational attainment, occupational segregation, and work experience differences. However, Gray and Benson (2003) found that women executives were paid less than their men counterparts even when education, tenure, organizational size, performance, and affiliation were considered.

Finley et al. (2021) suggest that willingness to or the opportunity to negotiate compensation can account for gender wage disparities. Others also suggest that the ability to negotiate and success in negotiations contribute to pay gaps (Babcock & Laschever, 2003; Gerhart & Rynes, 1991). Carter et al. (2017) also find that negotiations and risk aversion by women executives also contribute to wage differentials.

Scholars have also investigated the racial wage gap. In so doing, Grodsky and Pager (2001) found that education and work experience accounted for 52% of the racial wage gap in 1990. Ananat et al. (2017) have also examined the factors that influence the racial wage gap and found that urbanization negatively impacts Black workers’ earnings. The researchers found that the earnings of Black men grow more slowly as city size increases. Kochhar and Cilluffo (2018) ascribe the racial and ethnic wage gap to differences in educational attainment, the share of foreign-born in some ethnic groups, and historical and contemporary discrimination.

Disparities in CEO Compensation

CEO compensation has come under increasing scrutiny in recent decades. Adams et al. (2007) studied CEO compensation in 1,500 corporations from 1992 to 2004 and found that women CEOs were not compensated as much as men before becoming CEOs. The researchers also found that few women who became CEOs received the same compensation as men. However, not all researchers think women CEOs are under-compensated. Hill et al.’s (2015) study of CEOs found that women occupying these positions received much higher pay than men in similar jobs.

Leslie et al. (2017) also believe that women CEOs receive higher compensation than men. They contend that because women are underrepresented at the CEO level, there is a premium on high-potential women who become CEOs. The premium arises from the added diversity value women bestow on organizations. Consequently, such women receive higher salaries than high-potential men. The researchers describe women’s higher compensation as a “female premium.”

Research on CEO compensation does not widely support the idea of a female premium. Vieito (2012) and Vieito and Khan (2010) studied 1,500 public U.S. companies and found that women CEOs occupied about 4.35% of the top executive positions. The researchers do not suggest that women CEOs earned a premium; they found insignificant differences between men's and women's compensation. They also found that men and women CEOs were paid bonuses and incentives in addition to their base salaries. Mohan and Ruggiero (2007) studied 1,000 U.S. firms. Though women constituted less than 1% of the CEOs in these firms, women earned less than men.

In 2018, Gupta, Mortal and Guo (2018) replicated Hill et al.’s (2015) research on executive compensation. The replication employed an extended timeline and used a larger sample than the original study. Gupta, Mortal and Guo (2018) reported no significant differences in the compensation paid to men and women CEOs. They argue that the suggestion that women CEOs received a premium “may be premature.”

Studies find that organizational size (budget size and the number of full-time employees) is a crucial predictor of executive compensation (Frumkin & Keating, 2010; Grasse et al., 2014). Moreover, Ronquillo et al. (2017) posit that the gender wage gap increases with the size of the organizational budget. GuideStar (2018), an organization that houses information on more than 2.7 million nonprofits, produces regular compensation reports. GuideStar’s analysis of 2016 data shows that the average men CEOs’ wages outstrip women CEOs’ salaries by $3,703. Moreover, the gender wage gap increases as budget sizes increase. In institutions with budgets surpassing $10 million, women CEOs earn about 20% less than men. The pay disparity will continue into the foreseeable future because women got an average 4.9% increase while men got about 8.4%.

Pay disparities persist even though women comprise a substantial portion of the workforce in the nonprofit sector. Many women staff these organizations, and increasingly, they occupy leadership positions (GuideStar, 2016). However, women CEOs are uncommon in large organizations (Candid, 2020; Lee, 2019; Lee & Lee, 2021; Zhao, 2020). Only one in four CEOs are women in organizations with budgets of $50 million or more (Candid, 2020).

Executive Compensation in Environmental Organizations

Compensation and workplace inequities are part of the social dimensions of conservation practice that are often overlooked and understudied. However, recent developments at major conservation organizations demonstrate that conservationists can ill-afford to ignore sex, gender, and other diversity-related dynamics in their workplaces. For instance, when the president and three senior executives of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) resigned abruptly in 2019, disparities in compensation played a role in the upheaval. Women employed at TNC alleged that sexual harassment and wage discrimination occurred regularly at the nonprofit (Ayesh, 2019; Jones & Solomon, 2019a; Zak, 2019). TNC case propelled the issue of wage inequity to the top of the agenda at one of the world’s largest, most influential conservation organizations. However, employees lodged similar complaints at Conservation International (Belmaker, 2018).

This study examines an often-overlooked aspect of diversity—executive compensation in the environmental sector. As the above discussion shows, executive compensation is crucial because it relates to organizational culture, performance, and environmental practices. However, why study top executives? By focusing on the wages of CEOs, it is possible to compare the compensation of women and racial/ethnic minorities in the top salaried position in environmental organizations.

CEOs are among the most visible people in environmental organizations. Therefore, wages indicate how the leadership sees, thinks about, and treats one crucial aspect of diversity and institutional life—compensation for work performed. The study will help us assess whether there is wage inequality in the top positions in environmental organizations, and if wage inequality exists, what its extent is. This study is one of the first to focus on environmental nonprofits.

Income disparities in the environmental sector remain largely unexplored. However, prior research indicates that wage inequalities exist. An assessment of 265 professionals working in environmental nonprofits and government conservation agencies found that women earned less than men. The differences in the wages paid to Whites and racial/ethnic minorities were not statistically significant (Taylor, 2011).

The BLS finds that the gender earnings gap varies by occupation. Jones and Solomon (2019b) studied 56 women who occupy leadership positions in American conservation organizations and found that the women’s salaries were less than men’s. In the environmental fields of farming, fishing, and forestry, women earn roughly 82 cents for each dollar men in these sectors earn (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021).

In 2019, the Land Trust Alliance assessed staff salaries in 264 affiliated land-management organizations in 45 states. The survey found that the longer CEOs were on the job, the greater the disparity between men’s and women’s wages. There was a small gap between the salaries paid to men and women CEOs with 10 or fewer years of experience. However, the earnings of men CEOs with 15 to 20 years of experience trended upwards. For women CEOs with 12 to 20 years of experience, salaries leveled off and then declined if they had 20 or more years of experience. The study found that other staff salaries remained flat (Chang, 2019).

Methodology

Data Collection

This article reports the findings of an analysis of top executive compensation data. It is a national assessment of CEO compensation in 2,703 environmental nonprofits. All the organizations studied met eight criteria: they (1) were nonprofits, (2) had a paid CEO, (3) had paid staff, (4) had board members, (5) reported annual revenues of at least $100,000, (6) reported how much the CEO earned, (7) reported the name of the CEO, and (8) filed a tax return between 2018 and 2020.

The study uses a multi-method approach that collects organizational data from government and other public sources and uses descriptive and multivariate statistical analyses. These data were inputted and analyzed in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 28.0 (IBM, 2022). The data were collected over 3 months, from December 2021 to February 2022.

Variables Studied

There are several components to earnings, including base salary, bonuses, incentives, and fringe benefits. Though most of the studies cited above examine only base salaries, this study analyzes the CEO's total compensation; this is the base salary plus the bonus and the incentive combined. Including the incentives and bonuses in calculating the full pay provides insights into compensation that has not been studied before in environmental organizations. Hence, the study examines one dependent variable—total compensation reported on each organization’s most recent publicly available tax form. Only wages reported on tax forms filed between 2018 and 2020 were considered.

The study examines 11 independent variables that previous research suggests influence wages. It examines the CEO’s gender and race/ethnicity because numerous studies have shown that these two factors significantly impact earnings. Such studies show persistent gender and race/ethnic pay gaps (Alkadry & Tower 2011; Bertrand & Hallock 2001; Blau & Khan 2017; Jarrell & Stanley 2004; Johnston, 2018; Kochhar & Cilluffo, 2018; Mason, 2011; Patten, 2016; Weichselbaumer & Winter-Ebmer 2005). Bishu and Alkadry (2017), Jones and Solomon (2019b), and Graf et al. (2019 have also identified gender wage gaps. Additionally, Ananat et al. (2017) and Grodsky and Pager (2001) have identified racial/ethnic wage gaps.

The region and city size are analyzed because prior research on environmental organizations indicates that these variables affect the dependent variable (Bouwman, 2012; Chang, 2019; Taylor et al., 2019). Johnston (2018) and Ananat et al. (2017) found that wages differ from one urban area to another. This finding raises several questions worth exploring. For instance, are men and women in different regions being paid differently? Are Whites and people of color in the different regions being paid differently? Where do women and People of Color fare best vis-à-vis compensation? Are high regional or urban wages associated with greater or lesser inequality in earnings? Are low regional or urban wages related to greater or lesser inequality in earnings?

Research conducted by Chang (2019) and Taylor et al. (2019) indicates that the type of environmental organization is related to institutional diversity factors such as transparency, demographic characteristics of the staff, and compensation. Blau and Khan (2017) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021, 2016) examine salaries and find variations attributed to industry type and occupation. In the case of environmental organizations, the make-up of the staff can vary from one type of organization to another, and staff composition influences wages.

Some scholars argue that organizational size is one of the most significant variables in explaining executive compensation (Vieito, 2012; Vieito & Khan, 2010). Additionally, several studies cited above use indicators of organization size, such as revenue, staff size, and board size, to study impacts on the dependent variable. For example, Glass et al. (2015); Joecks et al. (2018), and Liu (2018), have investigated the influence of revenues and boards on executive compensation. The article also examines whether CEOs receive bonuses and incentives, how much bonus and incentive they receive, and the size of the base salary, because these are crucial components of the total compensation a CEO gets.

Data Sources and Organizational Selection

The two primary search engines used were GuideStar¹ Premium (Paul, 2016) and ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer (Tigas et al., 2019). Data were also collected from Charity Navigator (2019), CauseIQ, Open 990, and the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Form 990, Form 990-EZ, Form 990-PF (Internal Revenue Service, 2019a), and from environmental organizations’ websites, Facebook, Twitter, and related LinkedIn pages. GuideStar and ProPublica were used extensively because both platforms attach the organization’s latest tax forms to the nonprofit’s profiles.

Relevant organizations were identified by using search terms such as “environmental quality,” “environmental protection,” “environment and animals,” “conservation,” “sustainability,” “energy,” “environmental justice,” and “zoos and aquarium.” This approach yielded some organizations that were not environmental institutions; such organizations were excluded from the database.

L’Herrou and Tynes (2020) use a similar approach to mine. These researchers use GuideStar to collect information on nonprofits in South Florida in their study of executive compensation. They used salary information from IRS tax forms and the IRS’s classification codes to group the organizations studied. Finley et al. (2021) and Newton (2015) also use tax forms to obtain data for their studies of executive compensation.

Obtaining Financial Information for Organizations

Organizations must file a version of Form 990 with the IRS to maintain their nonprofit status. These forms are available to the public. Three hundred and seventeen (11.7%) of the tax forms used were from 2018. Most—2150 or 79.5%—were from 2019, and the remaining 236 (8.7%) were from 2020. Nonprofits can file different kinds of tax forms depending on their revenues and the type and purpose of the organization. The institutions in the study could file either Form 990, Form 990-EZ, or Form 990-PF.

Most of the tax forms used in this study were Form 990. Each of the tax forms gathers various information from the submitter. If an organization has gross receipts less than $200,000 or total assets below $500,000, it is eligible to file the 990-EZ. Private foundations, regardless of size, file a 990-PF. Other nonprofits file a Form 990 (Internal Revenue Service, 2019a, 2019b). While these three forms provide slightly different information in different parts of the tax form, they all provide enough information for the research needs of this study.

Organization Typology

The National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) codes were used in the initial classification of environmental nonprofits. The IRS uses NTEE codes to classify nonprofit organizations (National Center for Charitable Statistics, 2019). GuideStar, ProPublica, and Charity Navigator use the NTEE codes to organize institutions in their databases. Though organizations may select major and minor categories to describe themselves, one cannot rely solely on classification codes downloaded from data sources for research purposes.²

A typology of 34 different categories of organizations was developed for this study. For this analysis, the categories were collapsed, and nonprofits were assigned to 1 of 19 organizational typologies based on their primary mission and focus. Mission statements, available on GuideStar and organizations' websites and social media portals, were also used to inform how organizations were classified. The classification scheme used in this article includes categories such as environmental justice that were not in the NTEE codes at the time of data collection.

Regions, Urbanized Areas, Urban Clusters, and Rural Designations

Based on their address, the nonprofits are assigned to one of eight regions.³ The article uses the U.S. Census Bureau guidelines to classify urban and rural areas. According to the census, an urbanized area is a continuously built-up setting with a population of 50,000 or more. The bureau defines an urban cluster—a small urban area—as an incorporated locale outside of a metropolitan area or central city with a population of at least 2,500 residents but less than 50,000 inhabitants. Rural areas are incorporated entities or census-designated places with fewer than 2,500 inhabitants; these are not located in urbanized areas (Ratcliffe et al., 2016; U.S. Census Bureau, 2020; 2013).

Results

Demographic Characteristics of CEOs in Environmental Nonprofits

The article examines the compensation of the top executive in 2,703 environmental nonprofits. The sample contained 1,383 men and 1,320 women CEOs. Men occupied 51.2% and women 48.8% of the top executive positions in the organizations studied. Organizations reported executive salaries on one of the IRS Form 990s described above between 2018 and 2020 (Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of CEOs.

Race or ethnicity	Total	Percent	Gender				Percent of total N
Race or ethnicity	Total	Percent	Men	Percent	Women	Percent	Men	Women
White	2,488	92.0	1,299	52.2	1,189	47.8	48.1	44.0
Racial/ethnic minority	215	8.0	84	39.1	131	60.9	3.1	4.8
Total	2,703	100.0	1,383	51.2	1,320	48.8	51.2	48.8
Racial/ethnic minority categories
Black	62	2.3	23	37.1	39	62.9	0.9	1.4
Asian	60	2.2	22	36.7	38	63.3	0.8	1.4
Latinx	60	2.2	26	43.3	34	56.7	1.0	1.3
Native American	25	0.9	10	40.0	15	60.0	0.4	0.6
Multiracial/other	8	0.03	3	37.5	5	62.5	0.1	0.2

Note. CEO = chief executive officer.

Whites dominate the CEO positions. Ninety-two percent or 2,488 CEOs were White, and 8% (215) were racial/ethnic minorities. Further analysis of the racial/ethnic minority CEOs shows that 62 Blacks comprise 2.3% of the sample, 60 Asians and 60 Latinx CEOs each constitute 2.2%, and 25 Native Americans account for 0.9% of the sample. There were also eight (.03%) multiracial/other CEOs in the sample.

An intersectional analysis of race, gender, and who occupied CEO positions shows that White men held 52.2% of the top executive jobs among White CEOs, while White women had 47.8%. However, this pattern does not hold for racial/ethnic minority executives. Women of color were more likely to hold CEO positions than men of color. So, women of color held 60.9% of the top executive positions, and men of color 39.1% of the CEO positions that racial/ethnic minorities occupied. More Black, Asian, Latinx, and Native American women held CEO positions than men of their racial/ethnic groups.

Disparities in CEO Total Compensation

Earnings and the Salary Scale

The total salaries paid to CEOs ranged from under $1,000 to $1.88 million. Seven CEOs were paid more than $1 million, and 18 earned between $500,000 and $1 million. A woman was the highest-paid CEO; the third highest-paid CEO was also a woman. However, five of the seven highest-paid CEO were men. In all, 50 (1.9%) CEOs earned $500,000 or more. Of those 50, 36 were men, and 14 were women. In other words, men comprised 72% and women 28% of the CEOs earning half a million dollars or more. Three CEOs who earned $500,000 or more were people of color.

Table 2 shows that when the CEOs who earned $400,000 or more are examined, most of these high-wage earners are White men. The table shows that 68(70.8%) of the CEOs who earn $400,000 or more are White men; 24(25%) are White women, and four (4.2%) are men of color. No women of color are paid such high wages.

Table 2.

Total Compensation Scale for CEOs.

Racce/ethnicity and gender	Total	Total compensation scale
Racce/ethnicity and gender	Total	Less than $50,000	$50,000–$99,999	$100,000–$199,999	$200,000–$299,999	$300,000–$399,999	$400,000–$499,999	$500,000 or More
White	2,488	264	933	873	254	72	45	47
Men	1,299	100	397	507	173	54	35	33
Women	1,189	164	536	366	81	18	10	14
Racial/ethnic minority	215	32	91	65	18	5	1	3
Men	84	16	34	18	10	2	1	3
Women	131	16	57	47	8	3	0	0
Total	2,703	296	1,024	938	272	77	46	50
Racial/ethnic minority categories
Black	62	8	23	22	7	2	0	0
Men	23	5	8	4	5	1	0	0
Women	39	3	15	18	2	1	0	0
Asian	60	6	24	20	7	2	0	1
Men	22	3	10	5	2	1	0	1
Women	38	3	14	15	5	1	0	0
Latinx	60	11	29	17	0	1	1	0
Men	26	6	11	7	0	0	1	1
Women	34	5	18	10	0	1	0	0
Native American	25	7	11	5	2	0	0	0
Men	10	2	4	2	2	0	0	0
Women	15	5	7	3	0	0	0	0
Multiracial/other	8	0	4	1	2	0	0	1
Men	3	0	1	0	1	0	0	1
Women	5	0	3	1	1	0	0	0

Note. CEO = chief executive officer. Bold text indicates totals and sub totals for White and all racial/ethnic groups combined.

Despite the substantial salaries referenced above, most CEOs in environmental nonprofits earn modest wages; they earn less than $100,000. The data analysis shows that 48.8% of the CEOs are paid less than $100,000. Of the 1,320 who fall into this category, 497 or 37.7% are White men, 700(53%) are White women, 50 (3.8%) are men of color, and 73 (5.5%) are women of color. Further analysis of race/ethnicity found that no Black CEO earned over $400,000, and no Native American CEO was paid more than $300,000.

Median Total Compensation

The article examines the median salaries of CEOs as another way of comparing earnings. From this point onwards, the article will only show and discuss the results of median calculations with ten or more CEOs in each subsample.

There are noticeable gender and racial/ethnic variations in the median earnings. Hence, the article examines how median wages vary among men and women and four racial/ethnic minority groups—Asians, Blacks, Latinx, and Native Americans. The median salary paid to all CEOs in environmental nonprofits was $101,810. White CEOs have the highest median of $102,801.

Asians are the second highest-earning group—they have a median of $100,301.50 and compensation that is 97.6% of what White CEOs are paid. The median wage for Blacks is $98,695.50; this amount is 96% of the White CEOs’ median earnings. The median salary of Latinx and Native American CEOs is substantially lower than the wages of the three groups mentioned earlier. The median compensation for Latinx CEOs was $83,027; this means that the median salary of Latinx CEOs is 80.8% of the median for White CEOs. Native Americans have the lowest median compensation of the five groups.

The median salary for this group was $75,474. Hence, Native American CEOs had a median salary that was 73.4% of the median wage of White CEOs (Table 3). The analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows that race/ethnicity does not have a significant effect on the dependent variable when all these racial/ethnic categories are considered (df = 5, F = 1.976, p ≤ .079). However, when the racial/ethnic categories are collapsed into a binary form (White and racial/ethnic minority), the ANOVA indicates that the differences are borderline significant (df = 1, F = 3.780, p = .052). Because of the small sample sizes of some racial/ethnic groups and lower predictive power, most of the article focuses on the binary racial/ethnic categories.

Table 3.

Percentage of Men’s Wages Women Earn and Percentage of Whites’ Wages Racial/Ethnic Minorities Earn.

CEO gender and race/ethnicity	N	Median salary	Minimum salary	Maximum salary	Percent of men’s wages that women earn in each eacial/ethnic group earn	Percent of white men’s median wages that women and racial/ethnic minorities earn	Percent of white median income racial/ethnic minorities earn
Total sample	2703	$101,810.00	$706	$1,881,009
Men	1383	$117,468.00	$706	$1,367,655
Women	1320	$88,568.50	$1,500	$1,881,009	75.4
White	2489	$102,801.00	$706	$1,881,009	74.3		100.0
Men	1,299	$118,560.00	$706	$1,288,130		100.0
Women	1,189	$88,039.00	$1,500	$1,881,009		74.3
Asian	60	$100,301.50	$8,200	$681,310	115.8		97.6
Men	22	$93,803.00	$8,200	$681,310		79.1
Women	38	$108,606.50	$12,600	$321,417		91.6
Black	62	$98,695.50	$5,400	$377,086	108.0		96.0
Men	23	$93,411.00	$5,400	$377,086		78.8
Women	39	$100,843.00	$34,500	$310,328		85.1
Latinx	60	$83,027.00	$11,650	$1,367,655	115.0		80.8
Men	26	$75,980.00	$11,650	$1,367,655		64.1
Women	34	$87,378.00	$16,154	$303,447		73.7
Native American	25	$75,424.00	$5,188	$224,614	93.5		73.4
Men	10	$80,680.50	$16,806	$224,614		68.1
Women	15	$75,424.00	$5,188	$159,642		63.6

Note. CEO = chief executive officer.

The median compensation for all men exceeded the median for all women. It was $117,468 for men and $88,568 for women. In other words, women’s median salary is 75.4% of what men earn. Among White CEOs, men’s median salary of $118,560 is substantially higher than White women’s $88,039 median wage. Therefore, White women’s median compensation is 74.3% of White men’s compensation. The ANOVA suggests that gender is a significant factor when accounting for CEO total compensation ((df = 1, F = 80.349, p ≤ .001).

White men’s median salaries exceed White women’s by 25.7%. However, this pattern does not hold for men and women of color. Asian, Black, and Latinx women CEOs have higher median salaries than their male counterparts. More specifically, Asian women’s compensation is 15.8% higher than Asian men’s. Black women’s earnings exceed Black men’s by 8%, and Latinx women are paid 15% more than Latinx men. However, the median wage for Native American men CEOs is 6.5% higher than for Native American women.

Table 3 also shows that the median wage is highest among White men CEOs. Asian women earn a median salary of 91.6% of what White men obtain and have the second-highest median compensation. The data show that Native American women, whose median salary is 63.6% of White men, have a median salary of $75,424—the lowest of any male or female group.

Figure 1 shows how the median salary differs between gender and racial/ethnic groups, while Figure 2 shows the maximum salary paid by gender and race/ethnicity. Caution should be taken in interpreting the median compensation of CEOs of color because the number of racial/ethnic minority CEOs is small compared to the number of White CEOs.

Figure 1.

Race/ethnicity, gender, and CEO median salary. Note. CEO = chief executive officer.

Figure 2.

Race/ethnicity, gender, and CEO maximum salary paid. Note. CEO = chief executive officer.

Regional Variations in CEO Salaries

The Mid-Atlantic had much higher median wages than other regions; the median salary in the region was $141,676. In comparison, median wages in other regions ranged from $80,000 in the Plains-Mountain to $101,670 in the Pacific (Table 4). Men CEOs earned higher median wages than women in all regions. Even though the median salaries for men and women are highest in the Mid-Atlantic, women CEOs in the region earn only 72.9% of the median wage paid to men. In the South, women CEOs receive 70.9% of men’s salaries. The smallest wage gap is in the Pacific region, where women CEOs’ median salary is 81.4% of men’s median earnings.

Table 4.

Regional Variations in CEO Median Compensation.

Region	Total sample		Gender				Percent of men’s median wage that women earn	Race/ethnicity				Percent of whites’ median wage that racial/ethnic minorities earn
	Total sample		Men		Women			White		Racial/ethnic minority
	N	Median	N	Median	N	Median		N	Median	N	Median
Total	2703	$101,810.00	1383	$117,468.00	1320	$88,568.50	75.4	2488	$102,801.00	215	$91,361.00	88.9
Mid Atlantic	575	$141,676.00	309	$164,083.00	266	$119,640.50	72.9	524	$140,597.00	51	$151,068.00	107.4
Pacific	710	$101,670.00	357	$114,075.00	353	$92,823.00	81.4	633	$103,650.00	77	$86,154.00	83.1
Southeast	206	$97,460.00	99	$108,940.00	107	$86,821.00	79.7	193	$96,200.00	13	$105,148.00	109.3
New England	285	$95,358.00	154	$112,526.00	131	$80,253.00	71.3	271	$95,871.00	14	$91,557.00	95.5
Southwest	314	$91,197.50	150	$110,953.00	164	$80,272.50	72.3	292	$92,102.50	22	$77,972.50	84.7
Midwest	361	$89,880.00	183	$102,306.00	178	$77,284.00	75.5	333	$90,352.00	28	$67,000.00	74.2
South	135	$88,833.00	66	$107,587.50	69	$76,250.00	70.9	134	$89,208.00	1	NC	NC
Plains-Mountain	117	$80,000.00	65	$91,592.00	52	$69,179.00	75.5	108	$80,041.50	9	NC	NC

Note. Key: NC = The median is not calculated because there are too few observations. CEO = chief executive officer.

The article examines regional variations in the median salaries of Whites and racial/ethnic minorities. White CEOs earned higher median wages than racial/ethnic minorities in four regions. The most significant wage gaps were observed in the Midwest, where racial/ethnic minorities earned 74.2% of Whites’ median wages; racial/ethnic minorities earned 83.1% of what Whites earned in the Pacific. Ethnic/racial minorities earned higher median salaries than Whites in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic. Racial/ethnic minorities had median wages of 9.3% and 5.9% higher than the White median wage in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic, respectively. The ANOVA shows that the region significantly affects CEOs’ total compensation (df = 7, F = 22.188, p ≤ .001).

The Relationship Between Organizational Revenues and CEO Salaries

Revenue is an indicator of organizational size. Organizations’ revenues ranged from $103,795 to $3.57 billion. As Table 5 shows, 80% (2164) of the organizations studied had revenues under $5 million. As organizational revenues increase, so does the amount the CEO earns. However, the median wages paid to men CEOs exceed the median wages paid to women CEOs in all revenue categories. The greatest wage disparity is found in organizations with revenues of $10 million to $19.9 million. This revenue category is the second largest; women CEOs obtain 81.8% of men’s earnings. The data show that there is almost parity in the median wages in organizations with revenues of $5 million to $9.9 million; women CEOs earn 99.6% of the salaries paid to men.

Table 5.

Organizational Revenue and Variations in CEO Median Compensation.

Organizational revenue	Total sample		Gender				Percent of men’s median wage that women earn	Race/ethnicity				Percent of whites’ median wage that racial/ethnic minorities earn
	Total sample		Men		Women			White		Racial/ethnic minority
	N	Median	N	Median	N	Median		N	Median	N	Median
Total	2703	$101,810.00	1383	$117,468.00	1320	$88,568.50	75.4	2488	$102,801.00	215	$91,361.00	88.9
$100,000–$499,999	602	$60,149.00	226	$64,056.00	376	$59,236.50	92.5	553	$60,325.00	49	$58,845.00	97.5
$500,000–$999,999	538	$79,083.00	263	$81,600.00	275	$76,912.00	94.3	496	$79,350.00	42	$75,212.00	94.8
$1,000,000–$4,999,999	1024	$118,544.50	541	$124,388.00	483	$112,227.00	90.2	934	$119,951.00	90	$101,578.00	84.7
$5,000,000–$9,999,999	236	$168,085.50	144	$168,085.50	92	$167,362.50	99.6	221	$168,508.00	15	$162,728.00	96.6
$10,000,000–$19,999,999	132	$219,992.00	87	$241,817.00	45	$197,712.00	81.8	123	$230,462.00	9	NC	NC
$20,000,000 or More	171	$373,763.00	122	$377,185.50	49	$344,661.00	91.4	161	$373,763.00	10	$340,878.00	91.2

Note. Key: NC = The median is not calculated because there are too few observations. CEO = chief executive officer.

The median salaries of White and racial/ethnic minority CEOs increase as organizational revenues increase. However, White CEOs earn higher median wages in all the calculated revenue categories. The most significant racial/ethnic wage gap was observed in organizations with revenues of $1 million to $4.9 million. Most racial/ethnic minority CEOs are in organizations in this revenue category; the ethnic/racial minority CEOs earn 84.7% of what White CEOs in this revenue category are compensated. Racial/ethnic minority CEOs earn 91.2% of the wages White CEOs make in organizations with $20 million or more in revenues. ANOVA reveals that organizational revenue significantly impacts total CEO compensation (df = 5, F = 503.647, p = .000).

The Relationship Between Staff Size and CEO Salaries

The number of employees an organization has is another indication of size. The study found that the larger the number of staff in an organization, the greater the median wage paid to CEOs (Table 6). Thus, the median wage of CEOs working in organizations with fewer than 10 staff was $76,917.50. However, the median wage of CEOs increased to $243,402 in organizations with 100 or more staff. ANOVA indicates that staff size has a significant impact on the CEO’s overall compensation (df = 4, F = 279.567, p ≤ .001).

Table 6.

Staff Size and Variations in CEO Median Compensation.

Staff size	Total sample		Gender				Percent of men’s median wage that women earn	Race/ethnicity				Percent of whites’ median wage that racial/ethnic minorities earn
	Total sample		Men		Women			White		Racial/ethnic minority
	N	Median	N	Median	N	Median		N	Median	N	Median
Total	2703	$101,810.00	1383	$117,468.00	1320	$88,568.50	75.4	2488	$102,801.00	215	$91,361.00	88.9
1–9	1072	$76,917.50	496	$88,075.00	576	$71,474.50	81.2	979	$77,250.00	93	$72,100.00	93.3
10–19	623	$97,391.00	298	$102,811.50	325	$90,352.00	87.9	570	$97,019.00	53	$99,297.00	102.3
20–49	528	$121,160.50	285	$136,464.00	243	$105,148.00	77.1	486	$126,851.50	42	$99,992.50	78.8
50–99	223	$152,635.00	135	$160,941.00	88	$138,031.50	85.8	209	$154,500.00	14	$110,925.50	71.8
100 or More	257	$243,402.00	169	$295,479.00	88	$196,728.50	66.6	244	$245,147.00	13	$189,994.00	77.5

Note. CEO = chief executive officer.

The median compensation awarded to men CEOs outpaced the median amount paid to women CEOs regardless of the number of staff. The most significant gender wage gap was observed in organizations with 100 or more employees; in the biggest environmental nonprofits, women CEOs earned 66.6% of the wages paid to men CEOs. Table 6 also compares White and racial/ethnic minority CEOs’ median salaries. In nonprofits with 10 to 19 staff, the median wage of racial/ethnic minority CEOs outpaces that of White CEOs by 2.3%. However, in all other staff size categories, White CEOs have higher median salaries than racial/ethnic minority CEOs. The most significant racial/ethnic wage disparity was observed in organizations with 50 to 99 staff; these nonprofits' racial/ethnic minority CEOs earn 71.8% of what their White CEO counterparts are paid.

Base Wages, Bonuses, and Incentives

Base Wages

Men CEOs have higher median wages than women CEOs in every category of base salary examined (Table 7). Women CEOs earn between 91 and 99% of the median wage men earn. The story is more complicated for race/ethnicity. Racial/ethnic minority CEOs make between 1.1 and 4.2% more than White CEOs in three base salary categories. However, for CEOs with base salaries of $50,000 to $99,000, racial/ethnic minority CEOs earn 97.4% of what White CEOs obtain. The ANOVA of the CEO Wage × Gender × Race interactions finds that these differences are significant (df = 6, F = 2808.804, p = .000).

Table 7.

Gender, Race and the Relationship Between Base Salary, Bonus/Incentives, and CEO’s Total Median Compensation.

Received bonus and/or incentives	Total sample		Gender				Percent of men’s median wage that women earn	Race/ethnicity				Percent of whites’ median wage that racial/ethnic minorities earn
	Total sample		Men		Women			White		Racial/ethnic minority
	N	Median	N	Median	N	Median		N	Median	N	Median
Total	2703	$101,810.00	1383	$117,468.00	1320	$88,568.50	75.4	2488	$102,801.00	215	$91,361.00	88.9
Size of base salary
Less than $50,000	346	$38,300.00	143	$40,507.00	203	$36,923.00	91.2	313	$38,074.00	33	$38,500.00	101.1
$50,000–$99,999	1100	$76,868.50	474	$79,238.50	626	$76,065.50	96.0	1000	$77,109.00	100	$75,115.50	97.4
$100,000–$199,999	903	$141,878.00	517	$144,313.00	386	$139,977.00	97.0	840	$141,438.00	63	$147,425.00	104.2
$200,000–$299,999	215	$256,704.00	147	$257,713.00	68	$250,587.00	97.2	202	$256,562.00	13	$258,868.00	100.9
$300,000–$399,999	69	$379,103.00	53	$388,779.00	16	$359,748.50	92.5	65	$379,103.00	4	NC	NC
$400,000–$499,999	35	$486,807.00	23	$490,330.00	12	$485,100.00	98.9	35	$486,807.00	0	NC	NC
$500,000 or More	35	$707,168.00	26	$720,979.50	9	NC	NC	33	$707,168.00	2	NC	NC
Receive bonus/incentive and the size of it
No	1119	$71,460.00	508	$75,630.00	611	$67,200.00	88.9	1015	$71,715.00	104	$68,970.00	96.2
Yes	1584	$136,565.00	875	$152,659.00	709	$119,374.00	78.2	1473	$137,425.00	111	$123,966.00	90.2
Less than $5,000	337	$85,772.00	157	$92,700.00	180	$80,303.50	86.6	312	$85,976.00	25	$83,010.00	96.6
$5,000–$19,999	724	$124,431.50	360	$131,788.00	364	$116,419.00	88.3	674	$126,851.50	50	$101,592.50	80.1
$20,000–$69,999	462	$215,744.50	307	$223,184.00	155	$203,400.00	91.1	429	$216,734.00	33	$203,615.00	93.9
$70,000 or More	61	$351,213.00	51	$432,175.00	10	$158,330.50	36.6	58	$329,578.50	3	NC	NC

Note. Key: NC = The mean is not calculated because there are too few observations. CEO = chief executive officer.

Bonuses and Incentives

Many CEOs receive bonuses and incentives; 58.6% receive these extras in their compensation. A higher percentage of White CEOs receive bonuses and incentives than racial/ethnic minority CEOs. Hence, 59.2% of White CEOs and 51.6% of racial/ethnic CEOs receive bonuses and incentives as part of their compensation. Men CEOs were more likely than women CEOs to receive bonuses and incentives. More specifically, 63.3% of men receive bonuses and incentives, while 53.8% of the women obtain similar compensation.

Moreover, White men CEOs were more likely to receive incentives and bonuses than any other group. While 64.7% of White men CEOs get incentives and bonuses as part of their salaries, 40.5% of racial/ethnic minority men do. Though a higher percentage of racial/ethnic minority women CEOs obtain bonuses than White women CEOs, neither group of women are as likely as White men CEOs to receive bonuses. Racial/ethnic minority women CEOs are also more likely to receive bonuses than racial/ethnic minority men.

Irrespective of whether CEOs receive bonuses/incentives, men CEOs obtain higher wages than women CEOs (Table 7). When CEOs receive bonuses/incentives, they earn considerably higher wages than those who did not get these perks. Among CEOs who received no bonuses/incentives, women CEOs were compensated 88.9% of what men CEOs were paid. However, when CEOs obtain bonuses/incentives, women’s median wage is only 78.2% of men’s median wage.

White CEOs earn more than racial/ethnic CEOs regardless of bonuses/incentives. Hence, racial/ethnic minority CEOs earn 96.2% of the wages that Whites who do not get bonuses/incentives are paid. When CEOs receive bonuses/incentives, racial/ethnic minorities earn 90.2% of White CEOs’ wages. ANOVA reveals that the receipt of bonuses and incentives has a significant impact on CEO compensation (df = 1, F = 463.580, p ≤ .001).

The size of the bonus matters also. Table 7 shows that men earn more than women at every bonus/incentive level. The biggest wage gap is evident amongst CEOs who get the largest bonuses and incentives. Hence, for CEOs who get $70,000 or more in incentives/bonuses, women CEOs have a median wage that is only 36.6% of the median wage of men CEOs. White CEOs earn more than racial/ethnic minority CEOs in the three bonus/incentive levels calculated. The largest wage gap is at the $5,000 to $19,999 bonus/incentive level. Racial/ethnic minority CEOs with this level of bonuses/incentives earn 80.1% of what similarly situated men CEOs earned. The ANOVA shows that these differences are significant (df = 4, F = 423.541, p ≤ .001).

Other Factors

Urbanized Areas, Urban Clusters, and Rural Variations in CEO Salaries

Earnings for men and women CEOs were highest in urbanized areas and lowest in rural environmental nonprofits.⁴ However, the gender gap in wages was the smallest in rural settings. When the median salary of men CEOs in urbanized areas was compared to that of women CEOs in urbanized areas, the women CEOs were paid 75.4% of what the men earned. In urban clusters, women CEOs make 74.2% of men CEOs’ wages. The women CEOs in rural environmental nonprofits earn 80.8% of what the men CEOs in such nonprofits earn.⁵

White and racial/ethnic minority CEOs earn the highest wages in urbanized areas and the lowest in rural locales. While White CEOs in urbanized areas had a median salary of $113,257, their racial/ethnic minority counterparts earned $97,755.50 or 86.3% of the wages. The racial/ethnic wage gap widens in urban clusters where racial/ethnic minorities earn 82.3% of what White CEOs are paid. The wage gap is widest in rural areas; racial/ethnic CEOs earn 80.3% of what White CEOs do.⁶ The ANOVA shows that these differences are significant (df = 2, F = 42.061, p ≤ .001).

Wages and Organizational Type

The article examines salaries in different types of environmental nonprofits. The highest median CEO salary was in energy resources conservation and sustainable development organizations, while the lowest was in recycling centers and reuse programs. Men CEOs had higher median wages than women CEOs in all but three types of organizations.⁷ Women CEOs earned 20.5% more than men CEOs in natural history/historic preservation/heritage organizations.

Women CEOs had median wages 12.4% higher than men’s in environmental justice organizations. Women CEOs had median wages that were 4.8% higher than men’s in recycling centers and reuse programs. The biggest wage gap was in zoos/zoological societies/aquariums, where women CEOs earned 44.4% of men’s median wages. There were also significant wage gaps in research institutes/public policy, land resource conservation, and environmental education/outdoor survival/nature centers. Women CEOs’ median salaries were less than 70% of what men CEOs were paid.

Racial/ethnic minority CEOs had higher median wages than White CEOs in two types of environmental nonprofits. In the most significant wage differential identified in the study, racial/ethnic minority CEOs in botanical gardens/arboreta/botanical organizations had a median salary that was 24.5% higher than the median wage earned by White CEOs. The median salary of racial/ethnic minority CEOs working in environmental quality/protection/beautification nonprofits also outstripped the median made by White CEOs in said organizations by 15.4%. Conversely, racial/ethnic minority CEOs earned lower median wages than Whites in four types of organizations. Racial/ethnic minorities made 76.4% of the wages White CEOs obtained in natural resources conservation and protection nonprofits. Though most of the CEOs in environmental justice organizations are racial/ethnic minorities, the racial/ethnic minority CEOs earned 95.5% of what the White CEOs in this type of organization made.

The Relationship Between Board Size and CEO Salaries

Board size is also related to CEO compensation. The study found that the larger the board, the higher the median CEO wage for men and women. While the median CEO compensation is $85,000 in organizations with fewer than ten board members, the median salary is $168,824 in nonprofits with 20 or more board members.⁸ Regardless of the number of board members an organization has, men CEOs have median salaries that are higher than the median earnings of women CEOs. The gender wage gap is larger in organizations with fewer than 15 board members than those with 15 or more board members.

White CEOs’ median salary rises as the board size increases. A similar pattern is evident for racial/ethnic minority CEOs. Racial/ethnic minority CEOs have higher median incomes in nonprofits with 10 to 14 members and 15 to 19 members than White CEOs. The reverse is true in organizations with 20 or more board members; in these organizations, racial/ethnic minority CEOs earn 92.9% of what White CEOs earn. Racial/ethnic minority CEOs also have lower median salaries than White CEOs in organizations with fewer than ten board members.

Multivariate Analysis

All the independent variables significantly impact the dependent variable in the two-way and three-way comparisons discussed above. Further analysis was conducted to see how the variables behaved in a multivariate model. A linear regression model was used to identify which independent variables remained significant in the multivariate model. The ANOVA model had an F value of 951.481 and a significance of p = .000 (Table 8). The R² indicates that the model explains 78.0% of the variations in CEO compensation (the adjusted R² = 0.799).

Table 8.

Analysis of Variance of the Impact of the Independent Variables on CEO Compensation.

Factors	Unstandardized B	Standard error	Standardized β coefficients	t Statistic	Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F value	Signifi-cance (p)	R ²	Adjusted R²
Model summary					3.208 E+13	10	3.208 E+12	951.481	.000	0.779	0.779
Constant	58589.826	19507.491		3.003					.003
Organizational revenue	3237.217	1408.299	0.036	2.299					.022
Received bonus and incentive	63054.226	23527.645	0.252	2.680					.007
Region	1345.153	502.564	0.025	2.677					.007
Race/ethnicity of CEO	−52959.839	10190.864	−0.116	−5.197					<.001
Gender of CEO	−19781.533	3690.920	−0.080	−5.360					<.001
Size of staff	3967.988	1212.750	0.042	3.272					.001
Gender of CEO × Base Salary Category	10395.402	809.119	0.497	12.848					<.001
Gender of CEO × Size of Bonus/Incentive	6721.729	384.015	0.355	17.504					<.001
Race of CEO × Base Salary Category	23251.345	3921.906	0.252	5.929					<.001
Gender of CEO × Received Bonus/Incentive	−22952.393	4220.972	−0.504	−5.438					<.001

Note. CEO = chief executive officer.

Six of the independent variables have significant main effects in the model. The strongest predictors are the size of the organization’s revenue, whether a CEO receives a bonus and incentive, region, the race/ethnicity of the CEO, the gender of the CEO, and the size of the staff. All had a p-value of .007 or less. Four interaction effects were significant in the model. The change in R² showed that the interaction effects added 33.6% (0.336) to the model’s explanatory power. Hence, the interaction between the CEO’s gender and the size of the base salary, the CEO’s gender and the size of the bonus/incentive received, the CEO's race/ethnicity and the size of base salary, and the CEO’s gender and the receipt of bonus/incentive were all significant to the p ≤ .001 level. Three independent variables—urban-rural locales, type of environmental nonprofit, and board size were insignificant in the multivariate model.

Discussion

The study demonstrates the importance of interrogating various factors when examining wage disparities. The study identified organizational revenue as the most influential independent variable examined. The size of a nonprofit’s revenue contributed the most to the regression model. Another understudied variable, whether the CEO receives an incentive and bonus, is also significant in the multivariate model. The region, race of the CEO, gender of the CEO, and staff size also had significant direct effects on total compensation. The study shows that there were significant interaction effects that added to the explanatory power of the model.

The analysis revealed significant gender and racial/ethnic wage gaps in environmental nonprofits. White men earned the highest median wages in environmental organizations in most instances. The findings of this study are consistent with that of other researchers who find that gender has a significant impact on wages (Alkadry & Tower, 2011; Bertrand & Hallock, 2001; Blau & Khan, 2017; Jarrell & Stanley, 2004; Mason, 2011; Patten, 2016; Weichselbaumer & Winter-Ebmer, 2005).

The findings of this article do not support those of scholars who argue that women CEOs earn as much as or more than men CEOs (Gupta, Mortal and Guo, 2018; Hill et al., 2015). The study did not show much evidence of the women’s premium in salaries that Leslie et al. (2017) predicted. If there were a premium, women would be at the top of the pay scale in most or all instances. Overall, women CEOs made up 48.8% of the sample. However, women CEOs became rarer in the highest salary brackets and organizations with the largest revenues and staff. So, of the 96 CEOs who earned salaries of $400,000 or more in the study, only 24 (25%) were women. Additionally, only 29 (28.7%) of the 171 CEOs in organizations with revenues of $20 million or more were women. Moreover, only 88 (34.2%) of the 257 CEOs in organizations with 100 or more staff are women. Despite the dearth of women in the CEO positions just described, this study found that the women CEOs were not paid higher wage premiums to reflect their rarity.

The women premium argument is based on the premise that women CEOs are sparse, and scarcity increases demand which, in turn, drives up salaries. If this is true, one would predict that women CEOs and racial/ethnic minority CEOs in environmental nonprofits would earn premium wages in situations where they are few and far between. However, as with women, racial/ethnic minorities did not earn premium wages either.

Racial/ethnic minorities constituted only 8% of all the CEOs studied. There were only four (4.2%) racial/ethnic minority CEOs among the CEOs who earned $400,000 or more. Moreover, a mere ten (5.8%) of the CEOs in organizations with revenues of $20 million or more and 13 (5.1%) of the CEOs at the helm of organizations with 100 or more staff are racial/ethnic minorities. Ergo, if environmental organizations paid a premium for gender or racial/ethnic scarcity, CEOs of color would be rewarded with unusually high wages. Though there were a few instances where CEOs of color earned higher salaries than Whites, this was not regular.

The findings presented above are more consistent with the work of researchers refuting the woman premium thesis (Benkraiem et al., 2017; Gupta, Mortal and Guo, 2018; Lam et al., 2013; Mohan & Ruggiero, 2007; Vieito, 2012; Vieito & Khan, 2010; Xiao et al., 2013)

Instead, the study found that the most abundant CEO—White men—consistently had the highest median wages in environmental organizations. White men CEOs made up 48.1% of the entire sample of top executives studied, yet they earned the highest overall salaries. White women comprised 44% of the sample, women of color CEOs constituted 4.8%, and men of color CEOs made up 3.1% of the executives studied; all earned lower wages than White men CEOs. Environmental organizations reward the abundance of White men in the CEO positions with high wage premiums rather than the rarity of White women and racial/ethnic minority CEOs.

The pay gap varies with the size of the organization. Though women CEOs earn the highest wages in the wealthiest organizations, their compensation is usually lower than the earnings of men CEOs of such institutions. GuideStar (2018) finds that the gender salary gap increases with budget size. This study found that the relationship is not linear and that the size of the pay gap fluctuated with the size of the organization’s revenues.

Are women paid less because they manage small organizations? Bertrand and Hallock (2001) found that organizational size was related to CEO compensation. They contend that women managed smaller organizations, which helps explain lower compensation levels. The findings of the study do not support this thesis fully. Though 49.3% of 651 women are CEOs in organizations that report revenues of less than $1 million, 35.4% (489) of similarly sized organizations also have men CEOs. Staff size can be examined too. The data show that 57.4% of men and 68.3% of women CEOs are in organizations with fewer than ten staff. So, though more women than men are CEOs of the smallest organizations, substantial amounts of these organizations are also headed by men.

Similarly, are racial/ethnic minority CEOs concentrated in smaller organizations, and could that explain lower compensation? Can a more robust case be made that racial/ethnic minority CEOs are concentrated in small environmental nonprofits, and that this factor may influence compensation? The study found that 42.3% (91) of racial/ethnic minority CEOs are in organizations with less than $1 million in revenues. In comparison, 42.2% of White CEOs headed organizations with revenues under $1 million. How about staff size? The findings show that 62.3% (1,549) of the White CEOs and 67.9% (146) of the racial/ethnic CEOs were heads of organizations with fewer than ten staff. These data show that similar percentages of Whites and racial/ethnic minority CEOs head organizations with less than $1 million in revenues. More than 60 percent of White and non-White CEOs also run organizations with fewer than ten staff. These data do not suggest that racial/ethnic minority CEOs are significantly more concentrated in smaller environmental nonprofits than White CEOs.

The region is also related to the size of the gender and racial/ethnic pay gap. Both men and women CEOs earn the highest wages in the Mid-Atlantic region of the country. Notwithstanding, the wage gap is quite significant in this region. Other regions where women CEOs are compensated less than 75% of what men earn include New England, the Southwest, and the South. Whites and racial minorities earn the highest wages in the Mid-Atlantic also. However, racial/ethnic minority CEOs have higher median incomes than Whites in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast regions of the country. The regional gender wage gap is more pronounced than the race/ethnic wage gap.

Adams et al. (2007) also claim that differences in work experience can help explain the salary gaps between men and women. This study did not collect data on work experience, so it could not examine the impact of experience on wages. We need to explore the relationship between work experience and compensation more fully. We should also investigate how experience impacts the salaries of other staff in environmental organizations.

Researchers such as Blau and Khan (2017) argue that educational differences can partly explain the gender gap in wages. Others, such as Grodsky and Pager (2001), posit that educational attainment and work experience can explain the racial pay gap. Kochhar and Cilluffo (2019) contend that educational differences can account for the racial pay gap. However, scholars have found that even when women CEOs have more education than men CEOs, the women CEOs earn less (Xiao et al., 2013). This study did not examine the educational attainment of CEOs. However, future compensation studies in environmental organizations must consider educational attainment as part of the assessment of wage differentials.

Though Kochhar and Cilluffo (2018) believe that discrimination can help explain the racial wage gap, bias is implied in this and other studies but not examined in detail. The study did not examine discrimination either. This area of research should be the topic of further investigation of gender and racial inequalities in compensation.

Limitations

The sample size of this study constrained how the data were analyzed. Because the study examined CEO compensation and only a small number of racial/ethnic minorities occupy the top leadership position in environmental organizations, this limited the racial/ethnic analyses that could be performed. It would have been illuminating to examine Black, Asian, LatinX, and Native American CEOs. However, this was impossible in the above analysis because too few of these executives were in the sample. Consequently, the analysis focused on racial/ethnic minority CEOs rather than on comparisons involving several racial/ethnic minority groups.

This study does not investigate whether the wage gap reflects a skill, education, or experience gap. Researchers such as Neal and Johnson (1996) and Heckman (1998) suggest that wage differentials are a function of varying skills rather than racial discrimination. Fryer et al. (2013) argue that a wage gap exists between Blacks and Whites because Blacks get lower starting wages than Whites. The research did not examine starting salaries, so no analysis of starting wages was possible. However, these dynamics are worthy of investigation in the context of environmental organizations.

Lastly, the study does not examine whether CEO compensation is related to institutional discrimination or diversity initiatives. Are the organizations with the highest CEO compensation more likely to have more racially/ethnically diverse staff or boards, divulge their diversity data publicly, or have more diversity initiatives in their portfolios? This type of analysis will be the subject of future research by this author.

Conclusions

This article reports the findings of one of the first studies to analyze CEO compensation in environmental nonprofits extensively. It provides us with valuable insights that can help organizations become more equitable. Financial compensation is a dimension of diversity, equity, and inclusion that is unspoken and often left uninterrogated in the environmental sector.

This study demonstrates that salary compensation—at every level—should be analyzed and restructured. The data show pervasive gender and racial/ethnic gaps in compensation that do not arise purely by happenstance. The wage gaps are associated with the organizational revenues, whether a CEO receives bonuses/incentives, region, staff size, gender, and the race/ethnicity of the CEO.

This article is a call to action. It implores organizations to conduct historical and contemporary equity analyses of wages and staff positions to identify if disparities exist, what causes the discrepancies, and institute remedial action. The equity analysis should go beyond the salaries employees currently earn. Organizations can use the existing research on compensation to help determine if there are biases in the salaries that new employees get. Environmental nonprofits should also examine disparities in raises, promotions, and tenure. Organization leaders and workers must recognize that the wage disparities uncovered in this article systematically benefit one group of employees while placing others at a disadvantage. Salary wage gaps should not be treated solely as annual differences in earnings. Wage discrepancies add up over the lifetime of a person’s work history. If left unchecked, the wage gaps identified in this article will accumulate over time to become enormous wage deficits throughout a person’s career.

Wage inequality amongst CEOs is pervasive in environmental nonprofits. Consequently, environmental organizations must answer the following questions: If men and women CEOs do the same work in organizations of similar size and complexity, why pay men more than women for their work? If Whites and racial/ethnic minorities are asked to do the same work in similar-sized organizations, why pay Whites and people of color differently? More research should be conducted to determine if wage inequality exists at all levels of these organizations. The boards, leaders, employees, members, and other stakeholders in environmental organizations must acknowledge the problem this article uncovers and implement strategies to change it. It is time to change what is an open secret.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was financially supported by the JPB Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, National Philanthropy Trust, and an Anonymous Foundation.

Notes

Author Biography

Dorceta E. Taylor is a professor at the Yale School of the Environment. She is the author of The Rise of the American Conservation Movement: Power, Privilege, and Environmental Protection (Duke University Press, 2016); Toxic Communities: Environmental Racism, Industrial Pollution, and Residential Mobility (New York University Press, 2014); and The Environment and the People in American Cities, 1600s to 1900s: Disorder, Inequality, and Social Change (Duke University Press, 2009).

References

Adams

S. M.

Gupta

Haughton

Leeth

J. D.

(2007). Gender differences in CEO compensation: Evidence from the USA. Women in Management Review, 22(3), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420710743662

Alkadry

M. G.

Tower

L. E.

(2011). Covert pay discrimination: How authority predicts pay differences between women and men. Public Administration Review, 71, 740–750. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23017441

Ananat

Fhihe

Ross

S. L.

(2017). Race-specific urban wage premia and the black-white wage gap. Journal of Urban Economics, 108, 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2018.11.002

Ayesh

(2019). Nature Conservancy president resigns amid sexual harassment investigation. Axios. June 1. https://www.axios.com/nature-conservancy-president-resigns-269a414f-04a6-4640-a0a9-1e3dd03c58e3.html

Babcock

Laschever

(2003). Women don’t ask: Negotiation and the gender divide. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691210537/women-dont-ask

Belmaker

(2018). Call for change in the handling of abuse allegations at top conservation group. Mongabay. https://news.mongabay.com/2018/04/calls-for-change-in-handling-abuse-allegations-at-top-conservation-group/

Benkraiem

Hamrouni

Lakhal

Toumi

(2017). Board Independence, gender diversity and CEO compensation. Corporate Governance, 17(5), 845–860. https://www-emerald-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/insight/content/doi/10.1108/CG-02-2017-0027/full/pdf?title=board-independence-gender-diversity-and-ceo-compensation

Bertrand

Hallock

K. F.

(2001). The gender gap in top corporate jobs. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55(1, October), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979390105500101

Bishu

S. G.

Alkadry

M. G.

(2017). A systematic review of the gender pay gap and factors that predict it. Administration & Society, 49(1), 65–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716636928

10.

Blau

F. D.

Kahn

L. M.

(2017). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(3): 789–865. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20160995

11.

Bouwman

C. H. S.

(2012). The geography of executive compensation. Texas A&M University, Wharton Financial Institutions Center. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2023870

12.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2015). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2014. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-earnings/archive/highlights-of-womens-earnings-in-2014.pdf

13.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2016). The Economics Daily, Women’s earnings 83 percent of men's, but vary by occupation. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2016/womens-earnings-83-percent-of-mens-but-vary-by-occupation.htm

14.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2021). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2020. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-earnings/2020/home.htm

15.

Candid. (2020). Candid’s 2020 nonprofit compensation report finds an increase in female leadership–and an increase in the female pay gap. https://candid.org/about/press-room/releases/candid-s-2020-nonprofit-compensation-report-finds-an-increase-in-female-leadership-and-an-increase-in-the-female-pay-gap

16.

Carter

M. E.

Franco

Gine

(2017). Executive gender pay gaps: The roles of female risk aversion and board representation. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(2), 1232–1264. https://doi-org/10.1111/1911-3846.12286

17.

Chang

(2019). Land trust salaries and benefits survey (Summary report). Washington, D.C. Land Trust Alliance.

18.

Charity Navigator. (2019). Making a difference starts here. https://www.charitynavigator.org/

19.

Cohen

P. N.

Huffman

M. L.

(2003). Individuals, jobs, and labor markets: The devaluation of women’s work. American Sociological Review, 68(3), 443–463. https://www.jstor.org/page-scan-delivery/get-page-scan/1519732/0

20.

Colman

(2019). The system was broken: How the nature conservancy prospered but ran aground. Politico. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/07/nature-conservancy-discrimination-leadership-turnover-1399149

21.

Cotter

D. A.

Hermsen

J. M.

Ovadia

Vannema

(2001). The glass ceiling effect. Social Forces, 80, 655–681. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2001.0091

22.

Elsaid

Ursel

N. D.

(2018). Re-examining the glass cliff hypothesis using survival analysis: The case of women CEO tenure. British Journal of Management, 29, 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12241

23.

Falk

Edwards

L. H.

Lewis

G. B.

McGinnis

(2013). An analysis of gender pay disparity in the nonprofit sector: An outcome of labor motivation or gendered jobs? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(6), 1268–1287. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0899764012455951

24.

Finley

A. R.

Hall

C. M.

Marino

A. R.

(2021). Negotiation and executive gender pay gaps in nonprofit organizations. Review of Accounting Studies, 27, 1357–1388. https://doi-org/10.1007/s11142-021-09628-2

25.

Fox

(1981). The American conservation movement: John Muir and his legacy. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

26.

Frumkin

Keating

E. K.

(2010). The price of doing good: Executive compensation in nonprofit organizations. Policy and Society, 29(3), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.07.004

27.

Fryer

R. G.

Jr. Pager

Spenkuch

J. L.

(2013). Racial disparities in job finding and offered wages. The Journal of Law & Economics, 56(3), 633–689. https://doi.org/10.1086/673323

28.

Gayle

G. L.

Golan

Miller

R. A.

(2012). Gender differences in executive compensation and job mobility. Journal of Labor Economics, 30(4), 829–872. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/666615?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

29.

Gerhart

Rynes

(1991). Determinants and consequences of salary negotiations by male and female MBA graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 256. https://doi-org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.256

30.

Glass

Cook

Ingersoll

A. R.

(2015). Do women leaders promote sustainability? Analyzing the effect of corporate governance composition on environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25, 495–511. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1879

31.

Graf

Brown

Patten

(2019, March 22). The narrowing, but persistent, the gender gap in pay. Fact Tank. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/22/gender-pay-gap-facts/

32.

Grasse

N. J.

Davis

Ihrke

(2014). Understanding the compensation of nonprofit executive directors: Examining the influence of performance and organizational characteristics. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 24(3), 377–398. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21099

33.

Gray

S. R.

Benson

P. G.

(2003). Determinants of executive compensation in small business development centers. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 13(3), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.11

34.

Grodsky

Pager

(2001). The structure of disadvantage: Individual and occupational determinants of the black-white wage gap. American Sociological Review, 66(4), 542–567.: https://doi.org/10.2307/3088922

35.

GuideStar. (2016). More women headed large nonprofits according to new GuideStar Analysis. https://learn-guidestar-org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/news/news-releases/more-women-headed-large-nonprofits-according-to-new-guidestar-analysis

36.

GuideStar. (2018). Nonprofit compensation report (18th ed.). GuideStar. https://learn.guidestar.org/hubfs/Docs/2018-CompReport-Sample.pdf?t= 1537821886604

37.

Gupta

V. K.

Mortal

S. C.

Guo

(2018). Revisiting the gender gap in CEO compensation: Replication and extension of Hill, Upadhyay, and Beekun’s (2015) work on CEO gender pay gap. Strategic Management Journal, 39(7), 2036–2050. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2905

38.

Gupta

V. K.

Mortal

S. C.

Silveri

Sun

Turban

D. B.

(2018). You’re fired! Gender disparities in CEO dismissal. Journal of Management, 46(4), 560–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318810415

39.

Heckman

J. J.

(1998). Detecting discrimination. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.12.2.101

40.

Hill

A. D.

Upadhyay

A. D.

Beekun

R. I.

(2015). Do women and racial/ethnically diverse executives endure inequity in the CEO position or do they benefit from their minority status? An empirical examination. Strategic Management Journal, 36(8), 1115–1134. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2274

41.

IBM. (2022). SPSS V28.0. Brief guide. https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/SSLVMB_28.0.0/pdf/IBM_SPSS_Statistics_Brief_Guide.pdf

42.

Internal Revenue Service. (2019a). Annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations–Form 990-N (e-Postcard). https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/annual-electronic-filing-requirement-for-small-exempt-organizations-form-990-n-e-postcard

43.

Internal Revenue Service. (2019b). Form 990 series which forms do exempt organizations file filing phase in? https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/form-990-series-which-forms-do-exempt-organizations-file-filing-phase-in

44.

Jarrell

Stanley

T. D.

(2004). Declining bias and gender wage discrimination? A meta-regression analysis. The Journal of Human Resources, 39, 828–838. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XXXIX.3.828

45.

Joecks

Pull

Scharfenkamp

(2018). Perceived roles of women directores on supervisory boards: Insights from a qualitative study. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002218783925

46.

Johnston

(2018, June 30). Equal pay law has companies taking stock: As deadline nears, many still find gender disparities on salaries. Boston Globe. https://search-proquest-com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/2061748344?pq-origsite=summon

47.

Jones

M. S.

Solomon

(2019a, June 21). Women are rising in the conservation movement, but still face #MeToo challenge. Environmental Health News. https://www.ehn.org/women-are-rising-in-the-conservation-movement-but-still-face-metoo-challenge-2638931777.html

48.

Jones

M. S.

Solomon

(2019b). Challenges and support for women conservation leaders. Conservation Science and Practice, 1(6), e36. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.36

49.

Kochhar

Cilluffo

(2018, July 12). Key findings on the rise of income inequality within America’s racial and ethnic groups. Fact Tank. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/12/key-findings-on-the-rise-in-income-inequality-within-americas-racial-and-ethnic-groups/

50.

Lam

C. K.

McGuinness

P. B.

Vieito

J. P.

(2013). CEO gender, executive compensation and firm performance in Chinese-listed enterprises. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 21(1), 1136–1159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2012.08.006

51.

Lee

Y. J.

(2019). Scarce as hen’s teeth: Women CEOs in large nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 29(4), 601–610. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21354

52.

Lee

Y. J.

Lee

C. K.

(2021). The roots of the gender pay gap for nonprofit CEOs. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 32(1), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21455

53.

Leslie

L. M.

Manchester

Dahm

(2017). Why and when does the gender gap reverse? Diversity goals and the pay premium for high potential women. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 402–432. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0195

54.

L’Herrou

Tynes

(2020). The gender pay gap in nonprofit executive compensation in South Florida. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 30(3), 525–533. http://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21390

55.

Liu

(2018). Are women greener? Corporate gender diversity and environmental violations. Journal of Corporate Finance, 52(October), 118–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2018.08.004

56.

Mason

P. L.

(2011). Moments of disparate peaks: Race-gender wage gaps among mature persons, 1965–2007. The Review of Black Political Economy, 38, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12114-010-9059-x

57.

Mohan

Ruggiero

(2007). Influence of firm performance and gender on CEO compensation. Applied Economics, 39, 1107–1113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500474264

58.

National Center for Charitable Statistics. (2019). National taxonomy of exempt entities. https://nccs.urban.org/project/national-taxonomy-exempt-entities-ntee-codes

59.

Nature. (2017). Salaries: Gender pay disparity. Nature, 543, 455. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7645-455b

60.

Neal

D. A.

Johnson

W. R.

(1996). The role of premarket factors in black-white wage differences. Journal of Political Economy, 39(9), 1107–1113. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2138945

61.

NewsRx Science. (2019, February 17). Johns Hopkins faculty data highlight how gender disparities in salary add up over a lifetime. Newsroom. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A575701402/AONE?u=umuser&sid=AONE&xid=848a09d8

62.

Newton

A. N.

(2015). Executive compensation, organizational performance, and governance quality in the absence of owners. Journal of Corporate Finance, 30, 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2014.12.016

63.

Patten

(2016, July 1). Racial, gender wage gaps persist in U.S. despite some progress. FactTank, Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/01/racial-gender-wage-gaps-persist-in-u-s-despite-some-progress/

64.

Paul

(2016). A better way to explore the nonprofit sector. https://trust.guidestar.org/a-better-way-to-explore-the-nonprofit-sector

65.

Perryman

A. A.

Fernando

G. D.

Tripathy

(2016). Do gender differences persist? An examination of gender diversity on firm performance, risk, and executive compensation. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 579–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.013

66.

Ptak

(2018, October 18). Addressing gender bias in conservation organizations. Saving Land Magazine. https://www.landtrustalliance.org/news/addressing-gender-bias-conservation-organizations

67.

Ratcliffe

Burd

Holder

Fields

(2016). Defining rural at the U.S. Census Bureau: American community survey and geography brief. Department of Commerce: Census Bureau. https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/ua/Defining_Rural.pdf

68.

Ronquillo

J. C.

Miller

Drury

(2017). Trends in nonprofit employment. In Word

J. K. A.

Sowa

J. E.

(Eds.), The Nonprofit Human Resource Management Handbook (pp. 29–44). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315181585

69.

Shabecoff

(1990, February 1). Environmental groups told they are racists in hiring. New York Times. (p. A20). https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/01/us/environmental-groups-told-they-are-racists-in-hiring.html

70.

Taylor

D. E.

(2011). Racial and gender differences in job mobility and wages of employees in environmental organizations. Environmental Practice, 13(4), 370–385. https://doi.org/10.1017/S146604661100038X

71.

Taylor

D. E.

(2014). The state of diversity in environmental organizations mainstream NGOs foundations government agencies. University of Michigan. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34512.40962

72.

Taylor

D. E.

(2021). The transparency challenge in environmental organizations: Factors influencing whether institutions collect and reveal diversity data. American Behavioral Scientist, 66(7), 812–855.

73.

Taylor

D. E.

Paul

S. K.

McCoy

(2019). Diversity, equity, and inclusion and the salience of publicly disclosing demographic data in American environmental nonprofits. Sustainability, 11, 5491. https://www-mdpi-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/2071-1050/11/19/5491

74.

Tigas

Wei

Schwencke

Glassford

(2019, July 12). ProPublica: Nonprofit explorer. Research on tax-exempt organizations. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/

75.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2013, March 4). The urban and rural classifications. Department of Commerce: Census Bureau. https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/GARM/Ch12GARM.pdf

76.

US Census Bureau. (2020, February 24). Urban and rural. Department of Commerce: Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural.html

77.

Vieito

J. P. T.

(2012). Gender, top management compensation gap, and company performance: Tournament versus behavioral theory. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(1), 46–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2011.00878.x

78.

Vieito

J. P. T.

Khan

W. A.

(2010). Executive compensation and gender: S&P 1500 listed firms. Journal of Economics and Finance, 36, 371–399.

79.

Weichselbaumer

Winter-Ebmer

(2005). A meta-analysis of the international gender wage gap. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19, 479–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0950-0804.2005.00256.x

80.

Xiao

Lin

Elkins

(2013). CEO compensation in China: Accounting performance, corporate governance, and the gender gap. Nankai Business Review International, 4(4), 309–328. https://www-emerald-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/insight/content/doi/10.1108/NBRI-09-2013-0032/full/html

81.

Zeng

(2011). The myth of the glass ceiling: Evidence from a stock-flow analysis of authority attainment. Social Science Research, 40, 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.06.012

82.

Zhao

(2020). Are nonprofits more equitable than for-profits? An estimate of the gender pay gap in the US human services field. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 44(4), 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2020.1767746