Institutional Complementarities and Gender Diversity on Boards: A Configurational Approach

Corporate Governance: An International Review

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 406-427

  Iannotta, Michela ^a   Gatti, Mauro ^a   Huse, Morten ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Configurational Approach; Corporate Governance; Qualitative Comparative Analysis; Women on Boards

Indexed keywords

EID: 84949293733     PISSN: 09648410     EISSN: 14678683     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/corg.12140     Document Type: Article

References (101)

1. Acker, J. 1992. Gendered institutions: From sex roles to gendered institutions, Contemporary Sociology, 21: 565–569.
2. Adams, R. B. & Kirchmaier, T. 2013. Making it to the top: From female labor force participation to boardroom gender diversity. ECGI Finance Working Paper, 347/2013.
3. Adams, S. M. & Flynn, P. M. 2005. Local knowledge advances women's access to corporate boards, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13: 836–846.
4. Aguilera, R. V. & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. 2004. Codes of good governance worldwide: What is the trigger?, Organization Studies, 25: 415–443.
5. Aguilera, R. V., Filatotchev, I., Gospel, H., & Jackson, G. 2008. An organizational approach to comparative corporate governance: Costs, contingencies, and complementarities, Organization Science, 19: 475–492.
6. Aguilera, R. V. & Jackson, G. 2003. The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants, Academy of Management Review, 28: 447–465.
7. Ahern, K. R. & Dittmar, A. K. 2012. The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127: 137–197.
8. Ahlering, B. & Deakin, S. 2007. Labor regulation, corporate governance, and legal origin: A case of institutional complementarity?, Law & Society Review, 41: 865–908.
9. Alon, A. 2013. Complexity and dual institutionality: The case of IFRS adoption in Russia, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21: 42–57.
10. Amable, B. 2000. Institutional complementarity and diversity of social systems of innovation and production, Review of International Political Economy, 7: 645–687.
11. Amable, B. 2003. The diversity of modern capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Amable, B., Ernst, E., & Palombarini, S. 2005. How do financial markets affect industrial relations: An institutional complementarity approach, Socio-Economic Review, 3: 311–330.
13. Aoki, M. 2001. Toward a comparative institutional analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Armstrong, J. & Walby, S. 2012. Gender quotas in management boards. Brussels: European Parliament.
15. Aschcraft, K. L. 1999. Managing maternity leave: A qualitative analysis of temporary executive succession, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 240–280.
16. Bailey, K. 1994. Methods of social research, 4th edn. New York: Free Press.
17. Bergstø, K. 2013. Women mean business: Why and how Norway legislated gender balance on the boards of listed companies. In S. Machold, M. Huse, K. Hansen, & M. Brogi (Eds.), Getting women on to corporate boards – A snowball starting in Norway. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
18. Brogi, M. 2013. Italy's lessons learnt from Norway. In S. Machold, M. Huse, K. Hansen, & M. Brogi (Eds.), Getting women on to corporate boards – A snowball starting in Norway. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
19. Burri, S. & Aune, H. 2013. Sex discrimination in relation to part-time and fixed-term work: The application of EU and national law in practice in 33 European countries. Brussels: European Union.
20. Campbell, J. L. 2011. The US financial crisis: Lessons for theories of institutional complementarity, Socio-Economic Review, 9: 211–234.
21. Connell, R. W. 1987. Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
22. Council of Europe Family Policy Database. 2009. Reconciliation of work and family life. Available at: www.coe.int/familypolicy/database (accessed April 30, 2009).
23. Crouch, C. 2005. Complementarity and fit in the study of comparative capitalisms. In G. Morgan, R. Whitley, & E. Moen (Eds.), Changing capitalisms? Internationalization, institutional change, and systems of economic organization: 167–189. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. De Anca, C. 2008. Women on corporate boards of directors in Spanish listed companies. In S. Vinnicombe, V. Singh, R. Burke, D. Bilimoria, & M. Huse (Eds.), Women on corporate boards of directors: International research and practice: 96–107. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
25. Deeg, R. 2007. Complementarity and institutional change in capitalist systems, Journal of European Public Policy, 14: 611–630.
26. Denis, D. K. & McConnell, J. J. 2003. International corporate governance, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 38: 1–36.
27. Denzau, A. T. & North, D. C. 1994. Shared mental models: Ideologies and institutions, Kyklos, 47: 3–31.
28. Doldor, E., Vinnicombe, S., Gaughan, M., & Sealy, R. 2012. Gender diversity on boards: The appointment process and the role of executive search firms. Equality and Human Rights Commission Research report 85.
29. Esping-Andersen, G. 1990. The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.
30. Esping-Andersen, G. 1999. Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31. Eszter, S. 2013. Part-time work in Europe. Available at: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2011/working-conditions-law-and-regulation/part-time-work-in-europe (accessed August 11, 2013).
32. European Commission. 2012a. Women and men in decision-making. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-decision-making/database/index_en.htm (accessed August 31, 2015).
33. European Commission. 2012b. Women in economic decision-making in the EU: Progress report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
34. European Commission. 2013. National factsheets: Gender balance on boards. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/womenonboards/womenonboards-factsheet (accessed January 2013).
35. European Commission. 2014. Database on women and men in decision-making: Methodology. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/database/wmid_methodology_dec_2014.pdf (accessed August 31, 2015).
36. EU-SILC. 2012. Childcare arrangements. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00185&plugin=1 (accessed September, 2014).
37. European Union. 2010. Directive 2010/18/EU Implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC. Official Journal of the European Union: L68/13–L68/20.
38. Ferreira, D. 2014. Board diversity: Should we trust research to inform policy?, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23: 108–111.
39. Fiss, P. C. 2007. A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations, Academy of Management Review, 32: 1180–1198.
40. Fiss, P. C. 2011. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research, Academy of Management Journal, 54: 393–420.
41. Garcìa-Castro, R., Aguilera, V. R., & Ariño, M. A. 2013. Bundles of firm corporate governance practices: A fuzzy set analysis, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21: 390–407.
42. Grandori, A. & Furnari, S. 2008. A chemistry of organization: Combinatory analysis and design, Organization Studies, 29: 459–485.
43. Grosvold, J. 2011. Where are all the women? Institutional context and the prevalence of women on the corporate boards of directors, Business and Society, 50: 531–555.
44. Grosvold, J. & Brammer, S. 2011. National institutional systems as antecedents of female board representation: An empirical study, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19: 116–135.
45. Höpner, M. 2005. What connects industrial relations and corporate governance? Explaining institutional complementarity, Socio-Economic Review, 3: 331–358.
46. Huse, M. & Seierstad, C. 2014. Getting women on to corporate boards: Consequences of the Norwegian gender balance law, The European Financial Review, 37–39.
47. International Labor Organization. 2010. Maternity at work: A review of national legislation. Findings from the ILO Database of Conditions of Work and Employment Laws. Geneva: ILO. Available at: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_124442.pdf (accessed August 31, 2015).
48. Jackson, G. 2005. Toward a comparative perspective on corporate governance and labour management. RIETI Discussion Paper Series 04-E-023.
49. Jackson, G. & Deeg, R. 2008. Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business, Journal of International Business Studies, 39: 540–561.
50. Judge, W. Q., Douglas, T. J., & Kutan, A. M. 2008. Institutional antecedents of corporate governance legitimacy, Journal of Management, 34: 765–785.
51. Judge, W., Li, S., & Pinsker, R. 2010. National adoption of international accounting standards: An institutional perspective, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18: 161–174.
52. Kang, H., Chen, G., & Gray, S. J. 2007. Corporate governance and board composition: Diversity and independence of Australian boards, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15: 194–207.
53. Kang, N. & Moon, J. 2012. Institutional complementarity between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: A comparative institutional analysis of three capitalisms, Socio-Economic Review, 10: 85–108.
54. Kogut, B. & Ragin, C. C. 2006. Exploring complexity when diversity is limited: Institutional complementarity in theories of rule of law and national systems revisited, European Management Review, 3: 44–59.
55. Lorber, J. 1994. Paradoxes of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
56. Mandel, H. & Semyonov, M. 2006. A welfare state paradox: State interventions and women's employment opportunities in 22 countries, American Journal of Sociology, 11: 1910–1949.
57. Mandel, H. & Shalev, M. 2009. How welfare states shape the gender pay gap: A theoretical and comparative analysis, Social Forces, 87: 1873–1912.
58. Margherita, A., O'Dorchai, S., & Bosch, J. 2009. Reconciliation between work, private and family life in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/5705547/KS-78-09-908-EN.PDF/6180b5e6-e482-4d5f-a681-6a9bce05d733?version=1.0 (accessed August 31, 2015).
59. Martin, P. Y. 2004. Gender as social institution, Social Forces, 82: 1249–1273.
60. Mayer, K. U. 2009. Whose lives? How history, societies, and institutions define and shape life courses, Research in Human Development, 1: 161–187.
61. Milgrom, P. & Roberts, J. 1995. Complementarities and fit strategy, structure and organizational change in manufacturing, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19: 179–208.
62. Misra, J. & Moller, S. 2005. Familialism and welfare regimes: Poverty, employment, and family policies. Working Paper, 399, Luxembourg Income Study.
63. MISSOC. 2014. Comparative tables database. Available at: http://www.missoc.org/MISSOC/INFORMATIONBASE/COMPARATIVETABLES/MISSOCDATABASE/comparativeTableSearch.jsp (accessed August 31, 2015).
64. Moss, P. (Ed.) 2014. 10th International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research 2014. London: International Network on Leave Policies and Research. Available at: http://www.leavenetwork.org/fileadmin/Leavenetwork/Annual_reviews/2014_annual_review_korr.pdf (accessed August 31, 2014).
65. Neale, W. C. 1988. Institutions. In M. Tools (Ed.), Foundations of institutional thought, vol. 1, : 227–256. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
66. Nelson, T. & Levesque, L. L. 2007. The status of women in corporate governance in high-growth, high-potential firms, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 31: 209–232.
67. North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
68. North, D. C. 1991. Institutions, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5: 97–112.
69. Ntim, C. G. & Soobaroyen, T. 2013. Corporate governance and performance in socially responsible corporations: New empirical insight from a neo-institutional framework, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21: 468–494.
70. Nugent, J. B. & Lin, J. Y. 1995. Institutions and economic development. In H. Chenery, T. N. Srinivasan, & J. Behrman (Eds.), Handbook of development economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
71. OECD. 2012. Family database. Available at: www.oecd.org/social/family/database (accessed August 31, 2015).
72. Orloff, A. S. 1993. Gender and the social rights of citizenship: The comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states, American Sociological Review, 58: 303–328.
73. Orloff, A. S. 1996. Gender in the welfare state, Annual Review of Sociology, 22: 51–78.
74. Payne, G. & Payne, J. 2004. Key concepts in social research. London: Sage Publications.
75. Ragin, C. C. 2000. Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
76. Ragin, C. C. 2002. Préface. In G. De Meur & B. Rihoux (Eds.), L'Analyse qualiquantitative comparée (AQQC-QCA): Approche, techniques et applications en sciences humaines: 11–14. Louvain-la-Neuve: Academia-Bruylant.
77. Ragin, C. C. 2006. Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and courage, Political Analysis, 14: 291–310.
78. Ragin, C. C. 2008a. Re-designing social inquiry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
79. Ragin, C. C. 2008b. User's guide to fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis. Available at: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~cragin/fsQCA/download/fsQCAManual.pdf (accessed August 31, 2015).
80. Ragin, C. C. 2009. Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). In B. Rihoux & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques: 87–121. London: Sage Publications.
81. Ragin, C., Drass, K., & Davey, S. 2006. Fuzzy-Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis 2.0. Tucson, AZ: Department of Sociology, University of Arizona.
82. Ragin, C. C. & Rihoux, B. 2004. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): State of the art and prospects, Qualitative Methods, 2: 3–13.
83. Rediker, K. & Seth, A. 1995. Boards of directors and substitution effects of alternative governance mechanisms, Strategic Management Journal, 16: 85–99.
84. Rihoux, B. 2006. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related systematic comparative methods: Recent advances and remaining challenges for social science research, International Sociology, 21: 679–706.
85. Schneider, C. Q. & Wagemann, C. 2012. Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
86. Scott, J. 1990. A matter of record: Documentary sources in social research. Cambridge: Polity.
87. Scott, W. R. 1987. The adolescence of institutional theory, Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 493–511.
88. Seierstad, C., Warner-Søderholm, G., Torchia, M., & Huse, M. 2015. Increasing the number of women on boards: The role of actors and processes, Journal of Business Ethics. DOI:10.1007/s10551-015-2715-0.
89. Singh, V. & Vinnicombe, S. 2004. Why so few women directors in top UK boardrooms? Evidence and theoretical explanations, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12: 479–488.
90. Teigen, M. 2012. Gender quotas on corporate boards: On the diffusion of a distinct national policy reform. In F. Engelstad & M. Teigen (Eds.), Firms, boards and gender quotas: Comparative perspectives: 115–146. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
91. Terjesen, S., Aguilera, R. V., & Lorenz, R. 2014. Legislating a woman's seat on the board: Institutional factors driving gender quotas for boards of directors, Journal of Business Ethics, 50: 177–186.
92. Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. 2009. Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17: 320–327.
93. Terjesen, S. & Singh, V. 2008. Female presence on corporate boards: A multi-country study of environmental context, Journal of Business Ethics, 83: 55–63.
94. Thomsen, H. & Urth, H. 2010. Costs and benefits of maternity and paternity leave. Brussels: European Parliament.
95. Toomey, C. 2008. Quotas for women on the board: Do they work? The Sunday Times, June 8.
96. Weimer, J. & Pape, J. C. 1999. A taxonomy of systems of corporate governance, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 7: 152–166.
97. Williams, J. 2000. Unbending gender: Why work and family conflict and what to do about it. New York: Oxford University Press.
98. Williams, J. C. 2005. The glass ceiling and the maternal wall in academia, New Directions for Higher Education, 2005: 91–105.
99. World Economic Forum. 2013. The Global Gender Gap Report. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
100. Zattoni, A. & Cuomo, F. 2008. Why adopt codes of good governance? A comparison of institutional and efficiency perspectives, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16: 1–15.
101. Zattoni, A., Pedersen, T., & Kumar, V. 2009. The performance of group-affiliated firms during institutional transitions: A longitudinal study of Indian firms, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17: 510–523.