Board Gender Diversity and the Indian Banking Sector: A Bibliometric Analysis

Abstract

This paper aims at identifying the probable impact of board gender diversity on the key business operational areas explored by the existing published research. Moreover, the study also emphasises exploring the role of board gender diversity in the Indian banking sector. The data from existing literature from 2000 to 2022 have been extracted from the Scopus database. By devising VOSviewer software, citation analysis and bibliographic coupling analysis were conducted to identify the influential documents, authors and journals that made significant contributions to this segment of research. According to the findings of the study, no significant research has been conducted to determine the impact of board gender diversity on various key operational aspects of the banking sector. It also discovers that the majority of the studies were carried out in European countries. The Indian context is still underexplored. The study suggests key research questions, the answers to which can be investigated by future researchers.

Keywords

Board gender diversity banking sector bibliometric analysis India

Introduction

Recent dynamic and complex business scenarios have set the debate regarding women’s low presence on corporate boards, and thus piqued the attention of scholars and policymakers (Bøhren & Staubo, 2016). This grave concern rattles all the corporate boardrooms across the globe. This has resulted in many developed countries enacting gender quota legislation, which mandates the nomination of female board members. For example, Norway, Germany, Belgium, Iceland and France, mandate a minimum of 40% female representation on public company boards (Ahern & Dittmar, 2012). Discourses, conventions, programmes, procedures and firm’s spectrum of day-to-day behaviours are assessed and challenged by gender diversity policies, which also cause a change in organisational culture and attitudes. A lot of research has been done about board gender diversity because there has been a big rise in the number of women on boards.

Moreover, public debate has, further, centred on whether gender diversity on corporate boards affects company performance (Adams & Funk, 2009; Terjesen et al., 2016). Numerous research studies have focused on exploring the probable impact of board gender diversity on various company operations, such as risk-taking (Chatjuthamard et al., 2021; Poletti-Hughes, & Briano-Turrent, 2019; Mohsni et al., 2021; Nadeem et al., 2019), firm performance (Munira, 2020; Solal & Snellman, 2019), decision-making (Arora & Kumar, 2016; García-Izquierdo et al., 2018; Sila et al., 2016), innovation (Attah-Boakye et al., 2020; Ritter-Hayashi et al., 2019) and corporate social responsibility (Fadli et al., 2019; Ghaleb et al., 2021; Giannarakis et al., 2020). Previous research studies have produced conflicting findings on the relationship between female representation on boards and firm performance: some studies have shown that increasing the proportion of women on corporate boards improves financial performance, while others have found negative or no benefits. The vast majority of research on board gender diversity is empirical in nature and draws on management literature for its theoretical foundations. In earlier research on board gender diversity, three management theories have been highlighted: (a) resource dependence theory (b) behavioural agency theory and (c) social identity theory.

We, therefore, have the opportunity to propose an in-depth analysis of how board gender diversity affects the various aspects of bank performance. In this context, we performed a systematic literature review of the board gender diversity and performance of banks. To achieve this goal, we propose to answer two questions:

Three research questions are formulated in this study to review the literature on board gender diversity and business operational aspects. In this study, we identify the key business operational areas in which the impact of board gender diversity has been explored by the researchers based on a systematic literature review. Further, we also aim to identify the extent to which board gender diversity plays a role in the Indian banking sector.

We conducted a systematic literature review with research in the academic databases Scopus from 2000 to 2022. VOSviewer software was used to perform citation analysis and bibliographic coupling analysis to explore the influential documents, authors and journals that contributed significantly to this segment of research. The study finds that no substantial research has been conducted to find the impact of board gender diversity on various key operational aspects of the banking sector. It also, further, finds that most of the studies were conducted in European countries. The Indian context is still untapped as very few studies have explored the impact of increasing female board members in a bank on key banking operations. The study also suggests key research questions whose answers can be explored by future researchers.

The rest of this study is organised as follows: The second section presents the methodology of this study and the results of bibliometric citation analysis. The comprehensive bibliometric review and discussions are developed and presented in the third section. The fourth section offers the future research agendas, and the fifth section concludes the study with the conclusion and limitations of the review study.

Resource Dependence Theory

One of the most important organisational and strategic theories is resource dependence. The theory observes the corporation as an open system that relies on the external environment for its survival. The resource dependence hypothesis, which has been extensively studied in the past, has been suggested as a useful paradigm for studying boards of directors. To put it another way, Pfeffer and Salancik (2003) argue that directors contribute four benefits to organisations: advice and counsel, information in the form of advice or counsel, access to channels of communication between the firm and environmental contingencies. The benefits provided by directors are classified by Hillman et al. (2000) as business experts, insiders, community influencers and support specialists. Hillman et al. (2000) extend the applications of resource dependence theory and observe that a gender-diversified board of directors provides effective and efficient financial and operational outcomes for companies. The resource dependence theory paradigm provides various considerations for promoting board diversity. To illustrate this point, a diverse board of directors serves as a conduit between the company’s internal and external constituents. The postulates of resource dependence theory give a number of arguments in support of increasing board diversity. Gender-based diversified directors also bring different perspectives to the table, which can potentially improve board advisory services to managers and aid in better decision-making. In addition, board diversity sends a crucial message to the product and workforce markets. Because they are not business insiders or specialists, directors from a wide range of backgrounds can bring a variety of viewpoints and unconventional ideas to bear on the company’s challenges. Gender and ethnicity have been treated separately in prior studies on board diversity under the resource dependence paradigm. Although the impact of gender diversity on economic outcomes has been studied in the context of resource dependence theory, recent studies have focused more specifically on gender and the impact of gender on economic outcomes (García-Sánchez et al., 2017). A diverse set of skills, knowledge and perspectives distinguishes male and female directors from one another, all of which lead to a higher level of creativity and innovation in the workplace (Taylor & Greve, 2006). By including female directors on the board, the needs of female clients, staff and customers can be catered to effectively (Hillman et al., 2009).

Behavioural Agency Theory

Agency theory, an influential management theoretical paradigm (Boučková, 2015) developed by Jensen and Meckling (1976), is based on the relationship between a principal and an agent (s). The theory emphasises the operation of a business based on competing interests in principal–agent relationships. In addition, knowledge asymmetries and misaligned motivations on either side of the interaction may be a source of friction in the relationship. The linkage between corporate board gender diversity and firm performance in the context of the monitoring function of a firm is explained by agency theory. The advocates of the agency theory (Fama & Jensen, 1983; Jensen, 1986; Jensen & Meckling, 1976) argue that decision-making should be kept separate from control. Further, Eisenhardt (1989) highlighted that agency theory is concerned with resolving two difficulties that arise when the principal and agent’s interests or aims conflict and/or when the principal cannot verify what the agent is actually doing. Roberts et al. (2005) employ agency theory as a foundation for corporate governance. When the board has representation from varied groups, like different genders, it is less likely that a single individual or a small number of individuals will exert too much influence over the board’s decisions (Hampel, 1998). The responsibility of the board of directors is to provide authentic information to the shareholders, resulting in the effective supervision of corporate management and executives (Fama & Jensen, 1983). Several previous research studies have used the agency theory framework to investigate the impact of board gender diversity on business actions and outcomes (Ararat et al., 2015; Nguyen et al., 2015; Ntim, 2015).

Social Identity Theory

Tajfel (1978) describes the tendency of an individual to categorise himself and others into socially homogeneous groups based on demographic characteristics, such as education, gender and age. Homogeneous and heterogeneous groups are created to differentiate one another and to maintain self-identity. The authors observed, along the same lines as social identity theory, that gender diversity in corporate boards leads to the development of an ‘Us vs. Them’ perception among board members.

This paper reviews the research on the presence of gender diversity on corporate boards of directors in the banking sector. The rationality behind the selection of banking sectors is their different operating and risk management mechanisms. The regulations and government policies differ from those of other industrial sectors across the globe (Elamer et al., 2019; Elamer et al., 2020). The banking sector is thought to be the heart of any economy because it keeps an eye on and controls the amount of money that businesses have. This means that the banking industry’s compliance standards are very strict (Arnaboldi et al., 2020). The lending practices of banks make it one of the most financially exposed sectors in the economy. Thus, the role of the board of directors of banks has become substantially more important in formulating policies regarding bank performance and other critical business aspects that influence board gender diversity, and the impact that board gender diversity has on firm-specific challenges. Furthermore, future research directions are suggested. Undoubtedly, the profile of board members will have a significant influence on the performance, lending practices, decision-making and risk management strategies of banks (Figure 1).

Literature Review

An increase in the number of academics examining female participation on corporate boards of directors, as well as their multidimensional implications on companies, has resulted in a proliferation of research.

Figure 1.

Source: Authors’ compilation.

Figure 2.

Source: Vosviewer output.

Table 1 summarises the findings of the existing literature related to board gender diversity and critical decision-making activities. The first section of the table depicts the summary of findings in the context of board gender diversity and risk-taking in firm operation. The results give mixed results. Eight of the 15 studies described in the section support the positive relationship between board gender diversity and risk-taking, while seven other studies describe the negative impact of increasing women directors on corporate boards on companies’ risk-taking capacity. The next section depicts the findings of the previous studies conducted to explain the impact of board gender diversity and firm performance. The results reveal that 66% of studies show the negative impact of adding women to boards on firm performance, whereas only 33% of existing studies observed the positive relationship between board gender diversity and the performance of a company. It shows that with an increase in women’s presence on board, the companies’ performance improves. The third section documents the summary of studies highlighting the relationship between board gender diversity and decision-making. The findings of the section show that out of 14 studies, 11 studies show that with adding more women to the board, there is more transparency in the decision-making, whereas 3 studies oppose this fact and give negative findings. In the context of board gender diversity and innovation, all the studies under investigation show similar findings of an increase in innovation in companies by involving more women on the board. On the same note, a similar trend has been noticed in the findings of the studies conducted to examine the role of corporate social responsibility and board gender diversity in the studies. It implies that, with giving more space to women as board members, the company intends to do more corporate social responsibility activities. They become more socially responsible.

Table 1.

Systematic Literature Review on Board Gender Diversity and Company Critical Issues.

Theme	Study and Year	Country	Category of Country	Impact
Board gender diversity and risk-taking	Westphal and Milton (2000)	USA	Developed	Negative
	Larcker and Tayan (2013)	USA	Developed	Positive
	Lenard et al. (2014)	USA	Developed	Positive
	Sila et al. (2016)	USA	Developed	Negative
	Chatjuthamard et al. (2021)	USA	Developed	Positive
	Berger et al. (2013)	Germany	Developed	Positive
	Gulamhussen and Santa (2015)	OECD countries	Developed	Negative
	Faccio et al. (2016)	Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,  Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom	Developed	Negative
	Nadeem et al. (2019)	UK	Developed	Negative
	Hutchinson et al. (2015)	Australia	Developed	Positive
	Abou-El-Sood (2018)	Gulf Cooperation Council countries	Developed	Negative
	Poletti-Hughes and Briano-Turrent (2019)	Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico	Developing	Positive
	Mumtaz et al. (2021)	Pakistan	Developing	Positive
	Mohsni et al. (2021)	27 developing countries	Developing	Negative
	Fehr-Duda et al. (2006)	Zurich	Developed	Negative
Board gender diversity and firm performance	Marimuthu and Kolandaisamy (2009)	Malaysia	Developed	Negative
	Abdullah and Ismail (2013)	Malaysia	Developed	Negative
	Yasser (2012)	Pakistan	Developing	Negative
	Chandani and Mabood (2018)	Pakistan	Developing	Negative
	Chakrabarty and Bass (2014)	Eastern Europe and Central Asia, East Asia and the Pacific, Africa, South Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Middle East and North Africa	Developing	Positive
	Adams and Ferreira (2009)	USA	Developed	Positive
	Owen and Temesvary (2018)	USA	Developed	Positive
	Solal and Snellman (2019)	USA	Developed	Negative
	Oldford et al. (2020)	USA	Developed	Negative
	García-Meca et al. (2015)	Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States	Developed	Positive
	Shehata et al. (2017)	UK	Developed	Negative
	Nadeem et al. (2019)	UK	Developed	Positive
	Adusei et al. (2017)	76 nations		Negative
	Jindal and Jaiswall (2015)	India	Developing	Negative
	Vishwakarma (2017)	India	Developing	Positive
		India	Developing	Negative
	Dankwano and Hassan (2018)	India	Developing	Negative
	Abdullatif et al. (2018)	Jordan	Developing	Negative
	Saidat et al. (2019)	Jordan	Developing	Negative
	Darmadi (2011)	Indonesia	Developing	Negative
	Endraswati (2018)	Indonesia	Developing	Positive
	Ionascu et al. (2018)	Romania	Developing	Positive
	Mori (2014)	Kenya, Tanzaniaand Uganda	Least developed	Negative
	Munira (2020)	Bangladesh	Developing	Positive
Board gender diversity and decision-making	Hafsi and Turgut (2013)	USA	Developed	Positive
	Haung and Kisgen (2013)	USA	Developed	Positive
	Boulouta (2013)	USA	Developed	Positive
	Gul et al. (2013)	USA	Developed	Positive
	Levi et al. (2014)	USA	Developed	Negative
	Perrault (2015)	USA	Developed	Positive
	Sila et al. (2016)	USA	Developed	Negative
	Gregory et al. (2013)	UK	Developed	Positive
	Liao et al. (2015)	UK	Developed	Positive
	Nguyen et al. (2015)	Vietnam	Developing	Positive
	Ntim (2015)	South Africa	Developing	Positive
	Arora and Kumar (2016)	India	Developing	Negative
	Nielsen and Huse (2010)	Norway	Developed	Positive
	García-Izquierdo et al. (2018)	Spain	Developed	Positive
Board gender diversity and innovation	Daily et al. (1999)	USA	Developed	Positive
	Miller and Triana (2009)	USA	Developed	Positive
	Dezso and Ross (2012)	USA	Developed	Positive
	Chen et al. (2018)	USA	Developed	Positive
	Østergaard et al. (2011)	Denmark	Developed	Positive
	Torchia et al. (2011)	Norway	Developed	Positive
	Teruel et al. (2013)	Spain	Developed	Positive
	Díaz-García et al. (2013)	Spain	Developed	Positive
	Dai et al. (2019)	China	Developing	Positive
	Ritter-Hayashi et al. (2019)	Bangladesh, Egypt, Ghana, India, Kenya, Malawi,  Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Yemen and Zambia	Developing	Positive
	Attah-Boakye et al. (2020)	21 emerging economies	Developing	Positive
Board gender diversity and CSR	Williams (2003)	USA	Developed	Positive
	Bernardi and Threadgill (2010)	USA	Developed	Positive
	Hafsi and Turgut (2013)	USA	Developed	Positive
	Boulouta (2013)	USA	Developed	Positive
	Fadli et al. (2019)	Jordan	Developing	Positive
	Ghaleb et al. (2021)	Jordan	Developing	Positive
	Barako and Brown (2008)	Kenya	Developing	Positive
	Setó-Pamies (2015)	22 countries included in the 2011 Global 100		Positive
	Kazempour et al. (2018)	Iran	Developing	Positive
	Giannarakis et al. (2020)	51 countries (The Thomson Reuters Global Food & Beverages Price Return Index for 2017)	Developed	Positive

Source: Scopus database.

Recent Research Trends in Board Gender Diversity (Bibliometric Analysis)

Bibliometric analysis has been performed to dig deeper into investigating the trend in the existing literature on board gender diversity and various critical aspects of company operations. To conduct this study, the relevant papers were drawn from the Scopus database. To extract the relevant papers, the keywords such as board gender diversity, women on board, female directors, boardroom gender diversity, firm performance, decision-making, risk-taking, innovation, corporate social responsibility, CSR and firm performance were used. In the beginning, 654 articles were drawn from the Scopus database. Then we further applied some filters like time duration (from 2000 to 2022), subject areas (Business Management and Accounting, Social Sciences, Economics, Econometrics, Finance and Decision Sciences) and source type. For our studies, we only consider journal articles. Finally, 406 articles were shortlisted that fulfilled the selection criteria. Out of 406 journal articles, 393 were research articles and 13 were literature review papers. Out of the 406 journal articles, 359 of them were published, and 47 of them were still in the process of being published.

Citation Analysis

A publication’s relevance is determined by the number of citations it receives. The citation analysis measures the ‘popularity’ of a publication by looking at how many times it has been referenced in other works of literature (Ding & Cronin, 2011; Grover & Bhullar, 2021; Tahamtan et al., 2016).

Table 2 acknowledges the impactful countries that contribute the most to publishing quality research on board gender diversity. The left portion of the table demonstrates that Spain contributes the most by publishing 46 research articles, followed by the UK (44) and the USA (41). Out of 10 countries, 40% of companies are Asian countries, whereas 60% of the countries with the highest number of publications are from the Western side of the world. The right side of the table shows the impactful countries with the highest number of citations on their research articles on the theme of board gender diversity, and it demonstrates a very surprising and contradictory view as compared to the left side of the table. It shows that in terms of citations, the UK (4,370), the USA (4,318) and Australia (3,091) are among the top three countries with the maximum number of citations. But on the contrary, to find the countries with the most impactful publications, when we calculated the average number of citations per document, the results were surprising. The findings show that Belgium is the country that publishes only 5 research studies on board gender diversity but receives 383 citations per document. It is higher than any other country, which publishes more articles but receives fewer citations. It can be inferred that Belgium conducts the most impactful studies that are generally referred to by many global researchers. In the case of the USA (41), the UK (44) and Spain (46), which publish the most articles, the average number of citations per article is lower in the USA (105), the UK (99) and Spain (41) than in Belgium. The results further infer that no Asian country produces impactful studies with considerable citations per article. This is confirmed by the table, as no Asian country stands among the top 10 countries with the maximum citations.

Table 2.

Top 10 Countries with Maximum Publications and Citations.

S. No.	Maximum Publications		Maximum Citations
S. No.	Country Name	No. of  Publication	Countries Name	Citations (Publications)	Avg. Citation per Publication (No. of Citation / No. of Publication)
1	Spain	46	UK	4,370 (44)	99
2	UK	44	USA	4,318 (41)	105
3	USA	41	Australia	3,091 (30)	103
4	China	38	Belgium	1,917 (5)	383
5	Malaysia	38	Spain	1,899 (46)	41
6	Australia	30	Canada	731 (11)	66
7	Italy	26	China	536 (38)	14
8	Pakistan	25	New Zealand	478 (19)	25
9	India	22	Portugal	406 (5)	81
10	France	21	Italy	396 (26)	15

Source: Vosviewer output.

The above Table 3 shows the impactful organisations that do the most research and publish the most research articles on the theme of board gender diversity. University of Utara Malaysia affiliation authors write the most articles (13), followed by Universidad de Salamanca (11) and COMSATS University Islamabad (10). A lot of articles are written by people who study at these universities.  A higher percentage of the universities are from Europe, and only three universities are from the Asian continent. The other side of the table shows the impactful organisations with the highest number of citations on their research articles on the theme of board gender diversity, and it demonstrates a very surprising and contradictory view as compared to the left side of the table. It shows that in terms of citations, the Centre for Economic Policy Research, UK, the European Corporate Governance Institute, Belgium, the London School of Economics and Political Science, London and UQ Business School, Australia, all published only one article but received 1.827 citations for that one article. It shows the impact of the research conducted by these organisations. These studies produced significant results and were used by many other research scholars for citations in their own studies based on the number of female directors on corporate boards. No Asian organisation got any position in the top 10 organisations. Even out of the 10, 4 Asian universities produced the most publications on this research issue.

Table 3.

Top 10 Universities with Publications and Citations.

S. No.	University Name	No. of  Publication	University Name	Citations  (Publications)	Avg. Citation per Publication (No. of Citation / No. of Publication)
1	Universiti Utara Malaysia	13	Centre for Economic Policy Research, UK	1,827 (1)	1,827
2	Universidad de Salamanca	11	European Corporate Governance Institute, Belgium	1,827 (1)	1,827
3	COMSATS University Islamabad	10	London School of Economics and Political Science, London	1,827 (1)	1,827
4	Dongbei University of Finance and Economics	8	UQ Business School, Australia	1,827 (1)	1,827
5	Universidad Jaume I	7	Stirling University	812 (1)	812
6	University of Otago	7	Polytechnic University	812 (1)	812
7	University of Southampton	6	Lehigh University, USA	741 (1)	741
8	Sapienza Università di Roma	6	Pace University, USA	741 (1)	741
9	La Rochelle Business School	6	Spears School of Business, Oklahoma	707 (1)	707
10	College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia	6	Loyola University, Maryland, USA	707 (1)	707

Source: Authors’ compilation.

Table 4 summarises the most influential papers (in terms of citations) on the theme of board gender diversity. The results reveal that the paper entitled ‘Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance’ authored by Adams and Ferreira (2009) has emerged as the most influential paper, as this paper was cited by 1,827 studies. The paper studied directors’ level data of S&P midcaps and S&P small caps companies for seven years from 1996–2003. They studied 8,253 firm-years of data on 1,939 companies. The study found that board gender composition has a positive impact on the effectiveness of board performance. The greater the number of female directors on corporate boards, the greater the likelihood of increased corporate monitoring. The next most influential study (812 citations) was done by Campbell and Mínguez-Vera in the segment of board gender diversity. The authors investigated the influence of the number of female board members on the performance of a firm in the context of Spain. They calculated the board’s gender diversity by applying the Blau index and the Shannon index, and firm performance was measured by Tobin’s Q. The study reveals that an increase in female presence in corporate boards does not have any negative impact on the shareholder’s value. Moreover, investors gave more value to those companies whose boards had a significant percentage of female directors. The study further emphasised the balanced proportion of male and female directors on the corporate board structure. The top five influential studies on board gender diversity have attracted more than 500 citations due to their seminal work. The rest of the 5 studies in the top 10 were also used in more than 250 studies about the relationship between board gender diversity and other business operations. It is important to note that, out of the 10 most important papers, only 2 from each journal made the top 10. Five from the Journal of Business Ethics and two from the Journal of Corporate Finance and Corporate Governance: An International Review made the top 10. The researchers can use these findings to determine the most important article and the most relevant and reputable journal in the field that published the top 10 cited articles on board gender diversity (Figure 2).

Table 4.

Top 10 Authors and Journals with Maximum Citation.

S. No.	Authors	Citations	Journals	Ranking/ Publishers	Citations
1	Adams, R. B., & Ferriera, D.	1,827	Journal of Business Ethics	A/Springer	3,833
2	Minguez Vera, A.	950	Journal of Financial Economics	A*/Elsevier	1,827
3	Post, C.	899	Corporate Governance-An International Review	A/Wiley-Blackwell	1,614
4	Terjesen, S.	866	Journal of Corporate Finance	A*/Elsevier	887
5	Cambell, K.	812	Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management	C/Wiley-Blackwell Publishing	729
6	Bear, S., & Rehman, N.	741	Corporate Governance	C/Emerald	597
7	Carter, D. A., Disouza, F., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G.	707	Journal of Management and Governance	C/Springer	556
8	Sealy, R., & Singh, V.	655	Business Strategy and the Environment	A/Wiley-Blackwell Publishing	402
9	Farrell, K.	520	Sustainability (Switzerland)	SSCI/MDPI	282
10	Hersch, L.	509	Gender in Management	C/Emerald	223

Source: Authors’ compilation.

Bibliographic Coupling

In the bibliographic coupling technique, two articles citing the same study are coupled because a high degree of mutual reference suggests a similar intellectual capital between both studies (Khanra et al., 2021).

Table 6 acknowledges the findings of the authors’ bibliographic coupling analysis. This analysis technique is used for mapping active authors in a research field for a more realistic picture of the current state of its research activities (Zhao & Strotmann, 2008). Influential authors who contributed significantly to this field and recognised their publication source with the significance of their work. The highest link strength indicates the most research similarities with other authors. The data cited in the above table show that Pucheta-Martinez is the most influential author, followed by Sial and Bel-Oms. The link strength of these authors is higher than that of other authors. In the context of journals, the Corporate Governance journal has the most linkage strength and can be termed the most influential journal in terms of bibliographic coupling.

Table 6.

Top 10 Authors and Journals.

S. No.	Authors Name	Total Link Strength	Journals	Total Link Strength
1	Pucheta-Martinez, M. C.	38,855	Corporate Governance	36,901
2	Sial, M. S.	28,083	Journal of Business Ethics	30,000
3	Bel-Oms, I.	24,444	Sustainability	28,618
4	Cherian, J.	24,145	Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management	22,723
5	Dang, R.	23,503	Journal of Management Governance	20,586
6	Tilt, C.	20,939	Business Strategy and the Environment	19,143
7	Valls Martinez, M. D. C.	20,636	Gender in Management	16,158
8	Huanti, I.	18,786	International Journal of Finance and Economics	9,058
9	Hossain, M.	18,778	Corporate Governance:  An International Review	8,636
10	Gallego-Alvarez, I.	18,334	Applied Economics	8,528

Source: Authors’ compilation.

Discussion

In this study, we present a thorough account of how research on board gender diversity affected the various critical firms’ progress through time, as well as a description of the most significant and fruitful authors, institutions, countries and sources throughout history. This review study will serve as a firm foundation for future meta-analyses on this topic, which will be developed on the basis of the findings of this paper. Four hundred and six articles have been studied in this paper that were downloaded from the Scopus database published during the tenure from 2000 to 2022. The results show that major prime journals showed an interest in publishing studies on board gender diversity. Belgium has emerged as the country that produces the most impactful research on board gender diversity. Most of the studies explore the impact of female board members on firm performance, risk-taking, decision-making, innovation and CSR activities.  Major studies consider companies in general industries for their research. Very limited studies have explored their research on the banking sector, and in the banking sector, Indian content is still untapped. No significant studies have been conducted to measure the effect of board gender diversity on the Indian banking sector. Being an emerging global economic power, it is imperative to study the Indian banking sector in this aspect.

Future Directions

Although significant studies have been conducted in developed nations to ascertain the impact of gender diversity on various business domains, those studies in developing nations remain scanty. The Indian economy, being a developing one, also finds itself in the category of very limited research. A detailed classification based on the industry sector may also reveal better insights.

Finally, the present study contributes as a directory for future academics, guiding them through the identification of key documents, institutions, countries and journals, as well as the conclusions of recent articles and review studies, among other things. It provides an opportunity for less experienced scholars to concentrate their efforts in this area. It also provides a beneficial service by providing interested readers with more comprehensive access to the bibliographic analysis as well as potential research scopes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conf licting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Pritpal Singh Bhullar

Deepak Tandon

References

Abdullah

S. N.

, & Ismail

(2013). Gender, ethnic and age diversity of the boards of large Malaysian firms. Journal of Management , 38, 27–40.

Abdullatif

, Mohmmad

, & Zakzouk

(2018). The effect of gender diversity on the financial performance of Jordanian banks. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal , 22(2), 1–11.

Abou-El-Sood

(2018). Corporate governance and risk taking: The role of board gender diversity. Pacific Accounting Review . https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-03-2017-0021

Adams

, & Ferreira

(2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics , 94, 291–309.

Adams

R. B.

, & Funk

(2009). Beyond the glass ceiling: Does gender matter? SSRN Electronic Journal , 58(1172). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1475152

Adusei

, Akomea

S. Y.

, & Poku

(2017). Board and management gender diversity and financial performance of microfinance institutions. Cogent Business & Management , 4(1), 1–23.

Ahern

K. R.

, & Dittmar

A. K.

(2012). The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 127, 137–197.

Ararat

, Aksu

, & Tansel Cetin

(2015). How board diversity affects firm performance in emerging markets: Evidence on channels in controlled firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review , 23, 83–103.

Arnaboldi

, Casu

, Gallo

, Kalotychou

, & Sarkisyan

(2020). Gender diversity and bank misconduct. Journal of Corporate Finance , 71(C), 101834.

10.

Arora

, & Kumar

(2016). Women on boards: A gap analysis of India vis-a-vis world. Research paper, ICSI Chartered Secretary , 61–67.

11.

Atif

, Liu

, & Huang

(2019). Does board gender diversity affect corporate cash holdings? Journal of Business Finance & Accounting , 46, 1003–1029.

12.

Attah-Boakye

, Adams

, Kimani

, & Ullah

(2020). The impact of board gender diversity and national culture on corporate innovation: A multi-country analysis of multinational corporations operating in emerging economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120247

13.

Barako

D. G.

, & Brown

A. M.

(2008). Corporate social reporting and board representation: Evidence from the Kenyan banking sector. Journal of Management and Governance , 12, 309–324.

14.

Bear

, Rahman

, & Post

(2010). The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics , 97(2), 207221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0505-2

15.

Berger

A. N.

, Kick

, & Schaeck

(2013). Executive board composition and bank risk taking. Journal of Corporate Finance . https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2013.11.006

16.

Bernardi

R. A.

, & Threadgill

V. H.

(2010). Women directors and corporate social responsibility. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies , 15, 15–21.

17.

Bin Khidmat

, Ayub Khan

, & Ullah

(2020). The effect of board diversity on firm performance: Evidence from Chinese listed companies. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance , 13(1), 9–33.

18.

Biswas

P. K.

, Roberts

, & Stainback

(2021). Does women’s board representation affect non-managerial gender inequality? Human Resource Management , 60(4), 659–680.

19.

Bøhren

Ø.

, & Staubo

(2016). Mandatory gender balance and board independence. European Financial Management , 22(1), 3–30.

20.

Boučková

(2015). Management accounting and agency theory. Procedia Economics and Finance , 25, 5–13.

21.

Boulouta

(2013). Hidden connections: The link between board gender diversity and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics , 113(2), 185–197.

22.

Bouteska

& Mili

(2021). Women’s leadership impact on risks and financial performance in banking: Evidence from the Southeast Asian Countries. Journal of Management Governance . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-021-09594-6

23.

Chakrabarty

, & Bass

A. E.

(2014). Corporate governance in microfinance institutions: Board composition and the ability to face institutional voids. Corporate Governance: An International Review , 22(5), 367–386.

24.

Chandani

, & Mabood

(2018). The effect of women director on banks performance: Evidence from Pakistan. Independent Journal of Management & Production , 9(3), 958–983.

25.

Chatjuthamard

, Jiraporn

, & Lee

S. M.

(2021). Does board gender diversity weaken or strengthen executive risk-taking incentives? PLoS ONE , 16(10), e0258163.

26.

Chen

, Leung

W. S.

, & Evans

K. P.

(2018). Female board representation, corporate innovation and firm performance. Journal of Empirical Finance , 48, 236–254.

27.

Dai

, Byun

, & Ding

(2019). The direct and indirect impact of gender diversity in new venture teams on innovation performance. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice , 43(3), 505–528.

28.

Daily

C. M.

, Certo

S. T.

, & Dalton

D. R.

(1999). A decade of corporate women: Some progress in the boardroom, none in the executive suite. Strategic Management Journal , 20(1), 93–99.

29.

Dankwano

R. N.

, & Hassan

(2018). Impact of gender diversity on Indian firm’s financial performance. International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics , 5(5), 319–341.

30.

Darmadi

(2011). Board diversity and firm performance: The Indonesian evidence. Corporate Ownership and Control , 8(3), 19–26.

31.

Dezso

C. L.

, & Ross

D. G.

(2012). Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strategic Management Journal , 33(9), 1072–1089.

32.

Díaz-García

, González-Moreno

, & Jose Saez-Martinez

(2013). Gender diversity within R&D teams: Its impact on radicalness of innovation. Innovation , 15(2), 149–160.

33.

Ding

, & Cronin

(2011). Popular and/or prestigious? Measures of scholarly esteem. Information Processing and Management , 47(1), 80–96.

34.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

(1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review , 14, 57–74.

35.

Elamer

, Ntim

C. G.

, & Abdou

H. A.

(2020). Islamic governance, national governance, and bank risk management and disclosure in MENA countries. Business & Society , 59(5), 914–955.

36.

Elamer

A. A.

, Ntim

C. G.

, Abdou

H. A.

, Zalata

A. M.

, & Elmagrhi

(2019). The impact of multi-layer governance on bank risk disclosure in emerging markets: The case of Middle East and North Africa. Accounting Forum , 43(2), 246–281.

37.

Endraswati

(2018). Gender diversity in board of directors and firm performance: A study in Indonesia Sharia banks. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research , 7(1), 299–311.

38.

Faccio

, Marchica

, & Mura

(2016). CEO gender, corporate risk-taking, and the efficiency of capital allocation. Journal of Corporate Finance , 39, 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.02.008

39.

Fadli

A. A.

, Sands

, Jones

, Beattie

, & Pensiero

(2019). Board gender diversity and CSR reporting: Evidence from Jordan. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal , 13(3), 29–52.

40.

Fama

E. F.

, & Jensen

M. C.

(1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics , 26, 301–325.

41.

Fehr-Duda

, De Gennaro

, & Schubert

(2006). Gender, financial risk, and probability weights. Theory and Decision , 60(2), 283–313.

42.

García-Izquierdo

A. L.

, Fernández-Méndez

, & Arrondo-García

(2018). Gender diversity on boards of directors and remuneration committees: The influence on listed companies in Spain. Frontiers in Psychology , 9, 1351. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01351

43.

García-Meca

, García-Sánchez

I.-M.

, & Martínez-Ferrero

(2015). Board diversity and its effects on bank performance: An international analysis. Journal of Banking and Finance , 53(1), 202–214.

44.

García-Sánchez

I.-M.

, Martínez-Ferrero

, & García-Meca

(2017). Gender diversity, financial expertise and its effects on accounting quality. Management Decision , 55(2), 347–382.

45.

Ghaleb

B. A. A.

, Qaderi

S. A.

, Almashaqbeh

, & Qasem

(2021). Corporate social responsibility, board gender diversity and real earnings management: The case of Jordan. Cogent Business and Management , 8(1), 1883222.

46.

Giannarakis

, Sariannidis

, & Konteos

(2020). The effect of corporate governance characteristics on environmental performance: The case of food and beverage sector. Open Journal of Business and Management , 8, 1988–2005. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2020.85122

47.

Gregory

, Jeanes

, Tharyan

, & Tonks

(2013). Does the stock market gender stereotype corporate boards? Evidence from the market’s reaction to directors’ trades. British Journal of Management , 24(2), 174–190.

48.

Grover

K. L.

, & Bhullar

P. S.

(2021). The nexus between risk factor disclosures and short-run performance of IPOs – Evidence from literature. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development , 17(4), 907–921.

49.

Gul

F. A.

, Hutchinson

M. R.

, & Lai

K. M. Y.

(2013). Gender-diverse boards and properties of analyst earnings forecasts. Accounting Horizons , 27(3), 511–538.

50.

Gulamhussen

M. A.

, & Santa

S. F.

(2015). Female directors in bank boardrooms and their influence on performance and risk-taking. Global Finance Journal . https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.gfj.2015.11.002

51.

Hafsi

, & Turgut

(2013). Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance: Conceptualization and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics , 112(3), 463–479.

52.

Hampel

S. R.

(1998). Committee on corporate governance: Final report . Gee & Co. Ltd.

53.

Haung

, & Kisgen

D. J.

(2013). Gender and corporate finance: Are male executives overconfident relative to female executives? Journal of Financial Economics , 108(3), 822–839.

54.

Hillman

A. J.

, Canella

A. A.

, & Paetzold

R. L.

(2000). The resource de-pendency role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies , 37, 235–255.

55.

Hillman

A. J.

, Withers

M. C.

, & Collins

B. J.

(2009). Resource dependence theory a review. Journal of Management , 35, 1404–1427.

56.

Hussain

M. A.

, Abdul Hadi

A. R.

, & Suryanto

(2017). Corporate governance and firm performance: Evidence from CIDB Malaysia. American Journal of Research Communication , 5(12), 1–21.

57.

Hutchinson

, Mack

, & Plastow

(2015). Who selects the ‘right’ directors? An examination of the association between board selection, gender diversity and outcomes. Accounting & Finance , 55(4), 1071–1103.

58.

Ionascu

, Ionascu

, Sacarin

, & Minu

(2018). Women on boards and financial performance: Evidence from a European emerging market. Sustainability , 10(5), 1–18.

59.

Jagsi

, Moran

J. M.

, Kessler

M. L.

, Marsh

R. B.

, Balter

J. M.

, & Pierce

L. J.

(2007). Respiratory motion of the heart and positional reproducibility under active breathing control. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics , 68(1), 253–258.

60.

Jensen

, & Meckling

(1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics , 3, 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X

61.

Jensen

M. C.

(1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeover. American Economic Review , 76, 323–329.

62.

Jindal

, & Jaiswall

(2015). Board diversity and firm performance influenced by ownership concentration: Evidence from India. Indian Institute of Management Calcutta. Working Paper Series (WPS No. 765).

63.

Kazempour

, Kashanipour

, Yazdifar

, & Hamidizadeh

(2018). Explaining the mutual relationship between board gender diversity and corporate social responsibility using the simultaneous equations system. International Journal of Finance and Managerial Accounting , 3(11). http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/5013

64.

Khanra

, Dhir

, Parida

, & Kohtamäki

(2021). Servitization research: A review and bibliometric analysis of past achievements and future promises. Journal of Business Research , 131(5), 151–166.

65.

Larcker

D. F.

, & Tayan

(2013). Pioneering women on boards: Pathways of the first female directors. Case Study, Stanford Closer Look Series.

66.

Lenard

M. J.

, Yu

, York

A. E.

, & Wu

(2014). Impact of board gender diversity on firm risk. Managerial Finance , 40(8), 787–803.

67.

Levi

, Li

, & Zhang

(2014). Director gender and mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Corporate Finance , 28, 185–200.

68.

Liao

, Luo

, & Tang

(2015). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review , 47(4), 409–424.

69.

Loy

T. R.

, & Rupertus

(2022). How does the stock market value female directors? International evidence. Business & Society , 61(1), 117–154. 000765032094983.

70.

Marimuthu

, & Kolandaisamy

(2009). Ethnic and gender diversity in boards of directors and their relevance to financial performance of Malaysian companies. Journal of Sustainable Development , 2(3), 139–148.

71.

Miller

T. L.

, & Triana

M. D.

(2009). Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity: Firm performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies , 46(5), 755–786.

72.

Mohsni

, Otchere

, & Shahriar

(2021). Board gender diversity, firm performance and risk-taking in developing countries: The moderating effect of culture. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money , 73, 101360.

73.

Mori

(2014). Directors’ diversity and board performance: Evidence from East African microfinance institutions. Journal of African Business , 15(2), 100–113.

74.

Mukarram

S. S.

, Ajmal

, & Saeed

(2018). Women directors’ propensity towards risk in technology firms. Corporate Governance (Bingley) , 18, 353–367.

75.

Mumtaz

, Rehan

M. F.

, Khan

Q. I.

, & Zaidi

(2021). Board gender diversity, firm performance and risk-taking: The case of non-financial firms of Pakistan. Journal of Economics , 3(3), 354–367.

76.

Munira

(2020). Gender diversity in the boardroom and the firm financial performance of DSE listed companies in Bangladesh. Global Disclosure of Economics and Business , 9(2), 89–96.

77.

Nadeem

, Suleman

, & Ahmed

(2019). Women on boards, firm risk and the profitability nexus: Does gender diversity moderate the risk and return relationship? International Review of Economics and Finance , 64, 427–442.

78.

Nielsen

, & Huse

(2010). Women directors’ contribution to board decision-making and strategic involvement: The role of equality perception. European Management Review , 7(1), 16–29.

79.

Nguyen

, Locke

, & Reddy

(2015). Does boardroom gender diversity matter? Evidence from a transitional economy. International Review of Economics & Finance , 37, 184–202.

80.

Ntim

C. G.

(2015). Board diversity and organizational valuation: Unravelling the effects of ethnicity and gender. Journal of Management & Governance , 19(1), 167–195.

81.

Oldford

, Ullah

, & Hossain

T. A.

(2020). A social capital view of women on boards and their impact on firm performance. https://www-emerald-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/insight/0307-4358.htmh

82.

Østergaard

C. R.

, Timmermans

, & Kristinsson

(2011). Does a different view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on innovation. Research Policy , 40(3), 500–509.

83.

Owen

A. L.

, & Temesvary

(2018). The performance effects of gender diversity on bank boards. Journal of Banking and Finance , 90(C), 50–63.

84.

Perrault

(2015). Why does board gender diversity matter and how do we get there? The role of shareholder activism in deinstitutionalizing old boys’ networks. Journal of Business Ethics , 128(1), 149–165.

85.

Pfeffer

, & Salancik

G. R.

(2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective . Stanford Business Books.

86.

Poletti-Hughes

, & Briano-Turrent

G. C.

(2019). Gender diversity on the board of directors and corporate risk: A behavioural agency theory perspective. International Review of Financial Analysis , 62(C), 80–90.

87.

Ritter-Hayashi

, Vermeulen

, & Knoben

(2019). Is this a man’s world? The effect of gender diversity and gender equality on firm innovativeness. PLoS ONE , 14(9), e0222443.

88.

Roberts

, McNulty

, & Stiles

(2005) Beyond agency conceptions of the work of the non-executive director: Creating accountability in the boardroom. British Journal of Management , 16, S5–S26.

89.

Saidat

, Seaman

, Silva

, Al-Haddad

, & Marashdeh

(2019). Female directors, family ownership and firm performance in Jordan. International Journal of Financial Research , 11(1), 206–219.

90.

Setó-Pamies

(2015). The relationship between women directors and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , 22, 334–345.

91.

Shehata

, Salhin

, & El-Helaly

(2017). Board diversity and firm performance: Evidence from the UK SMEs. Applied Economics , 49(48), 4817–4832.

92.

Sila

, Gonzalez

, & Hagendorff

(2016). Women on board: Does boardroom gender diversity affect firm risk? Journal of Corporate Finance , 36, 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2015.10.003.

93.

Solal

, & Snellman

(2019). Women don’t mean business? Gender penalty in board composition. Organization Science , 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1301

94.

Sun

, Liu

, & Lan

(2011). Does female directorship on independent audit committees constrain earnings management? Journal of Business Ethics , 99(3), 369–382.

95.

Tahamtan

, Safipour Afshar

, & Ahamdzadeh

(2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics , 107(3), 1195–1225.

96.

Tajfel

(1978). The achievement of inter-group differentiation. In Tajfel

(Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 77–100). Academic Press.

97.

Taylor

, & Greve

H. R.

(2006). Superman or the fantastic four knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal , 49, 723–740.

98.

Terjesen

, Aguilera

R. V.

, & Lorenz

(2016). Legislating a woman’s seat on the board: Institutional factors driving gender quotas for boards of directors. Journal of Business Ethics , 128(2), 233–251.

99.

Teruel

, Parra

M. D.

, & Segarra

(2013). Gender diversity and innovation in manufacturing and service firms. Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Working Paper.

100.

Torchia

, Calabro

, & Huse

(2011). Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics , 102(2), 299–317.

101.

Vishwakarma

(2017). Women on board and its impact on performance: Evidence from microfinance sector. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance , 10(1) 58–73.

102.

Westphal

J. D.

, & Milton

L. P.

(2000). How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Administrative Science Quarterly , 45(2), 366–398.

103.

Williams

R. J.

(2003). Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics , 42(1), 1–10.

104.

Yasser

Q. R.

(2012). Effects of female directors on firms performance in Pakistan. Modern Economy , 03, 817–825.

105.

Zhao

, & Strotmann

(2008). Evolution of research activities and intellectual influences in information science 1996–2005: Introducing author bibliographic-coupling analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 59(13), 2070–2086.

S. No.	Author	Document	Journal Name	Citation
1	Adams, R. B., & Ferriera, D.	Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance	Journal of Financial Economics	1,827
2	Campbell, K., & Mínguez-Vera, A.	Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial performance	Journal of Business Ethics	812
3	Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C.	The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation	Journal of Business Ethics	741
4	Carter, D. A., D’Souza, F., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G.	The gender and ethnic diversity of US boards and board committees and firm financial performance	Corporate Governance: An International Review	707
5	Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V.	Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda	Corporate Governance: An International Review	655
6	Farrell, K. A., & Hersch, P. L.	Additions to corporate boards: The effect of gender	Journal of Corporate Finance	495
7	Francoeur, C., Labelle, R., & Sinclair-Desgagné, B.	Gender diversity in corporate governance and top management	Journal of Business Ethics	392
8	Liu, Y., Wei, Z., & Xie, F.	Do women directors improve firm performance in China?	Journal of Corporate Finance	375
9	Boulouta, I.	Hidden connections: The link between board gender diversity and corporate social performance	Journal of Business Ethics	279
10	Rao, K., & Tilt, C.	Board composition and corporate social responsibility: The role of diversity, gender, strategy and decision-making	Journal of Business Ethics	277

Board Gender Diversity and the Indian Banking Sector: A Bibliometric Analysis

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Resource Dependence Theory

Behavioural Agency Theory

Social Identity Theory

Literature Review

Systematic Literature Review on Board Gender Diversity and Company Critical Issues.

Recent Research Trends in Board Gender Diversity (Bibliometric Analysis)

Citation Analysis

Top 10 Countries with Maximum Publications and Citations.

Top 10 Universities with Publications and Citations.

Top 10 Documents with Maximum Citations.

Top 10 Authors and Journals with Maximum Citation.

Bibliographic Coupling

Top 10 Authors and Journals.

Discussion

Future Directions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conf licting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References