Board Gender Quotas: Exploring Ethical Tensions from A Multi-Theoretical Perspective

Business Ethics Quarterly

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 23-65

  Terjesen, Siri ^a   Sealy, Ruth ^b  

^a NORWEGIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Norway)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Affirmative Action; Board; Corporate Governance; Directors; Gender; Quota

Indexed keywords

EID: 84978029394     PISSN: 1052150X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/beq.2016.7     Document Type: Review

References (257)

1. Adams, R. B., Ferreira, D. 2009. Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94: 291-309.
2. Adams, R. B., de Haan, J., Terjesen, S., van Ees, H. 2015. Board diversity: Moving the fi eld forward. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23 (2): 77-82.
3. Agle, B. R., Donaldson, T., Freeman, R. E., Jensen, M. C., Mitchell, R. K., Wood, D. J. 2008. Dialogue: Toward superior stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2): 153-190.
4. Aguilera, R. V., Cuervo-Cazurra, A. 2004. The spread of codes of good governance worldwide: What's the trigger? Organization Studies, 25 (3): 415-443.
5. Aguilera, R. V., Jackson, G. 2003. The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28 (3): 447-365.
6. Aguilera, R. V., Judge, W. E., Terjesen, S. 2015. Corporate governance deviance: A middle range theory. Working paper.
7. Ahern, K. R., Dittmar, A. K. 2012. The changing of the boards: The impact on fi rm valuation of mandated female board representation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127 (1): 137-197.
8. Albrecht, G. H. 2003. How friendly are family friendly policies? Business Ethics Quarterly, 13 (2): 177-192.
9. Andorfer, V. A., Liebe, U. 2013. Consumer behavior in moral markets. On the relevance of identity, justice beliefs, social norms, status, and trust in ethical consumption. European Sociological Review, 29 (6): 1251-1265.
10. Armstrong, J., Walby, S. 2012. Gender quotas in management boards. European Parliament.
11. Arnardóttir, A. A., Sigurjonsson, O. 2014. Corporate board selection practices in the wake of gender quota legislation in Iceland. Working paper.
12. Arnardóttir, A., Sigurjónsson, O. 2015. Board selection in times of gender quotas. Working paper presented at Conference on Gender Equality, Reykjavik, Iceland.
13. Arnold, D. G. 2012. Global justice and international business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23 (1): 125-143.
14. Arnórsdóttir, R. E. 2012. Gender quotas on corporate boards in Iceland: Attitudes within the Icelandic business community. MSc dissertation, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen.
15. Ashforth, B. E., Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14: 20-39.
16. Arya, B., Salk, J. E. 2006. Cross-sector alliance learning and effectiveness of voluntary codes of corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16 (2): 211-234.
17. Atewologun, D., Sealy, R. 2014. Experiencing privilege at ethnic, gender and senior intersections. J ournal of Managerial Psychology, 29 (4): 423-439.
18. Bacchi, C. L. 1996. The politics of affi rmative action: Women, equality and category politics. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
19. Banerjee, S. B. 2010. Governing the global corporation: A critical perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20 (2): 265-274.
20. Barnard, J. W. 2006. More women on corporate boards: Not so fast. William & Mary Journal of Women & Law, 13 (3): 703-726.
21. Battilana, J. 2006. Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals' social position. Organization, 13 (5): 653-676.
22. Becker, G. S. 1975. Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education. New York: NBER.
23. Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., Zeldich, M., Jr. 1972. Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37 (3): 241-255.
24. Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z. 1977. Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation-states approach. pp. 91-134. Elsevier.
25. Bergstø, K. 2013. Women mean business: Why and how Norway legislated gender balance on the boards of listed companies. In Machold, S., Huse, M., Hansen, K., Brogi, M. (Eds.), Getting women on corporate boards: A snowball starting in Norway: 21-23. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
26. Bertrand, M., Black, S. E., Jensen, S., Lleras-Muney, A. 2014. Breaking the glass ceiling? The effect of board quotas on female labor market outcomes in Norway. Working paper no. w20256, NBER, New York.
27. Besley, T., Folke, O., Persson, T., Rickne, J. 2013. Gender quotas and the crisis of the mediocre man: Theory and evidence from Sweden. Working paper no. 985, IFN.
28. Bilimoria, D., Piderit, S. 1994. Board committee membership: Effects of sex-based bias. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (6): 1453-1477.
29. Bilimoria, D., Wheeler, J. V. 2000. Women corporate directors: Current research and future directions. Women in Management: Current Research Issues, 2: 138-163.
30. BoardEx. 2015. Authors' calculations from data. August 1.
31. Bøhren, ∅., Staubo, S. 2014. Does mandatory gender balance work? Changing organizational form to avoid board upheaval. Journal of Corporate Finance, 28 (1): 152-168.
32. -. 2015. Mandatory gender balance and board independence. European Financial Management. DOI: 10.1111/eufm.12060.
33. Bolsø, A., Bjørkhaug, H., Sørensen, S. 2013. Gender-balanced corporate boards. In Machold, S. et al. (Eds.), Getting women on corporate boards: A snowball starting in Norway: 136-137. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
34. Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A. 2015. Agency theory and bounded self-interest. Academy of Management Review. doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0420.
35. Bourdieu, P. 1993. The fi eld of cultural production. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
36. Bourez, V. 2005. Women on boards: Moving beyond tokenism. European Professional Women's Network.
37. Branson, D. M. 2012. An Australian perspective on a global phenomenon: Initiatives to place women on corporate boards of directors. Legal Studies Research Paper Series.
38. Branson, R. 2012. Richard Branson on why we need more women on boards. Entrepreneur. http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/224476.
39. Brogi, M. 2013. Italy's lessons learnt from Norway. In Machold, S. et al. (Eds.), Getting women on corporate boards: A snowball starting in Norway: 187-190. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
40. Bromley, P., Powell, W. W. 2012. From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. Academy of Management Annals, V (I): 1-48.
41. Buchanan, J. M., Tullock, G. 1962. The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
42. Cabo, R. de M., Terjesen, S., Gimeno, R., Escot, L. 2015. The Spanish quota: A missed opportunity? Working paper.
43. Carrasco, A., Francoeur, C., Labelle, R., Laffarga, J., Ruiz-Barbadillo, E. 2015. Appointing women to boards: Is there a cultural bias? Journal of Business Ethics, 129 (2): 429-444.
44. Casey, C., Skibnes, R., Pringle, J. K. 2011. Gender equality and corporate governance: Policy strategies in Norway and New Zealand. Gender, Work, and Organization, 18 (6): 613-630.
45. Catalyst. 2015. Quick take: Women on boards. http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/womenboards .
46. Chatman, J. A., O'Reilly, C. A. 2004. Asymmetric reactions to work group sex diversity among men and women. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (2): 193-208.
47. Choudhury, B. 2015. Gender diversity on boards: Beyond quotas. European Business Law Review, 26 (1): 229-243.
48. Clayton, S. D., Tangri, S. S. 1989. The justice of affi rmative action. In Blanchard, F. A., Crosby, F. (Eds.), Affi rmative action in perspective: 177-192. New York: Springer.
49. Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital and the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: S95-120.
50. Collier, J., Roberts, J. 2001. An ethic for corporate governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11 (1): 67-71.
51. Connelly, B. L., Tihanyi, L., Crook, T. R., Gangloff, K. A. 2014. Tournament theory: Thirty years of contests and competitions. Journal of Management, 40 (1): 12-43.
52. Dahlerup, D. 2002. Three waves of feminism in Denmark. In Griffi n, G., Braidotti, R. (Eds), Thinking differently: A reader in European women's studies: 341-350. London and New York: Zed.
53. Dahlerup, D. (Ed.). 2013. Women, quotas and politics. London: Routledge.
54. Dahlerup, D. 2015. About quotas. In Quota project: Global database of quotas for women. http://www.quotaproject.org.
55. Dahlerup, D., Freidenvall, L. 2005. Quotas as a 'fast track' to equal representation for women: Why Scandinavia is no longer the model. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7 (1): 26-48.
56. Dale-Olsen, H., Schøne, P., Verner, M. 2013. Diversity among Norwegian boards of directors: Does a quota for women improve fi rm performance? Feminist Economics, 19 (4): 110-135.
57. Davies, M. 2011. Women on boards. London: GEO/BIS. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/women-on-boards-review.
58. Dawkins, C. 2015. Agonistic pluralism and stakeholder engagement. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25 (1): 1-28.
59. de Anca, C., Gabaldon, P. 2014. The media impact of board member appointments in Spanish-listed companies: A gender perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 122 (3): 425-438.
60. Dhir, A. A. 2015. Challenging boardroom homogeneity: Corporate law, governance & diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61. DiMaggio, P. 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. In Zucker, L. (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations culture and environment: 3-21. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
62. DiMaggio, P. J., Powell, W. (Eds.). 1991. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
63. Doh, J. 2012. Corporate social strategy: Stakeholder engagement and competitive advantage. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22 (4): 776-778.
64. Doldor, E., Sealy, R., Vinnicombe, S. Forthcoming. Accidental activists: Headhunters as marginal diversity actors in institutional change towards more women on boards. Human Resource Management Journal.
65. Donaldson, T., Preston, L. E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20 (1): 65-91.
66. Dubbink, W. 2005. Democracy and private discretion in business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15 (1): 37-66.
67. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice towards female leaders. P sychological Review, 109 (3): 573-598.
68. Economist. 2014. The spread of gender quotas for company boards. May 25.
69. Eesley, C. E., DeCelles, K., Lenox, M. 2015. Through the mud or in the boardroom: Examining activist types and their strategies in targeting fi rms for social change. SSRN working paper. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=2574046.
70. Eesley, C., Lenox, M. J. 2006. Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal, 27 (8): 765-781.
71. Elstad, B., Ladegård, G. 2010. Women on corporate boards: Key influencers or tokens? Journal of Management and Governance, 16 (4): 595-615.
72. Ely, R. J. 1994. The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2): 203-238.
73. -. 1995. The power in demography: Women's social constructions of gender identity at work. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (3): 589-634.
74. Engelstad, F., Teigen, M. 2012. Firms, boards and gender quotas: Comparative perspectives. Bingley: Emerald.
75. European Commission, 2012. Available at. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/other-institutions/good-practices/review-seminars/seminars-2012/decision-making-en.htm.
76. Eurosif. 2014. European SRI study. http://www.eurosif.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Eurosif-SRI-Study-20142.pdf. Accesed December 1, 2015.
77. Fagan, C., González Menéndez, M. 2012. Conclusions. In Women on corporate boards and in top management: European trends and policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
78. Feldman, M. S., Bell, J., Berger, M. T. 2004. Gaining access: A practical and theoretical guide for qualitative researchers. Lanham, MD: Rowman Altamira.
79. Ferreira, D. 2015. Board diversity: Should we trust research to inform policy? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 32 (2): 108-111.
80. Fisher, D. H., Fowler, S. B. 1995. Imagining moral leadership in business: Image, identity and difference. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5 (1): 29-42.
81. Foust-Cummings, H. 2013. Research and considerations regarding women on boards. In Machold, S. et al. (Eds.), Getting women on corporate boards: A snowball starting in Norway: 60-63. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
82. Francoeur, C., Labelle, R., Sinclair-Desgagné, B. 2008. Gender diversity in corporate governance and top management. Journal of Business Ethics, 81 (1): 83-95.
83. Freeman, R. E. 1984. Stakeholder management: Framework and philosophy. Mansfi eld, MA: Pitman.
84. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C. 2007. Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven: Yale University Press.
85. Freidenvall, L., Dahlerup, D., Skjeie, H. 2006. The Nordic countries: An incremental model. In Dahlerup, D. (Ed.), Women, quotas and politics: 55-82. Oxford and New York: Routledge.
86. Fullinwider, R. K. 1980. The reverse discrimination controversy: A moral and legal analysis. Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy. College Park: University of Maryland.
87. Gabaldon, P., de Anca, C., Mateos de Cabo, R., Gimeno, R. 2015. Searching for women on boards: An analysis from the supply and demand perspective. Corporate Governance: International Review, forthcoming.
88. Gilbert, D. U., Rasche, A. 2007. Discourse ethics and social accountability: The ethics of SA 8000. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17 (2): 187-216.
89. González Menéndez, M. C., Martínez González, L. 2012. Spain on the Norwegian pathway: Towards a gender-balanced presence of women on corporate boards. In Fagan, C. et al. (Eds.), Women on corporate boards and in top management: European trends and policy: 169-197. Chippenham: Palgrave-MacMillan.
90. Goodman, J., Arenas, D. 2015. Engaging ethically: A discourse ethics perspective on social shareholder engagement. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25 (2): 163-189. doi: 10.1017/beq.2015.8.
91. Goodpaster, K. E. 2010. Business ethics: Two moral provisos. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20 (4): 740-742.
92. Goodstein, J. D., Wicks, A. C. 2007. Corporate and stakeholder responsibility: Making business ethics a two-way conversation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17 (3): 375-398.
93. Gopalan, S., Watson, K. 2015. An agency theoretical approach to corporate board diversity. San Diego Law Review, 52 (1): 1-66.
94. Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6): 1360-1380.
95. Gray, T. 2015. Quota mechanics in Panama, 1999-2014: Se obedece, pero no se cumple. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 34 (3): 289-304.
96. Guillaume, Y. R. F., Dawson, J. F., Woods, S. A., Sacramento, C. A., West, M. A. 2013. Getting diversity to work at work: What we know and what we still don't know. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86: 123-141.
97. Håpsnes, T., Buvik, M. P. 2013. Evaluation of NHO's Female Future program: A leadership development program with expertise and resources in center. SINTEF Research Center.
98. Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A. 2010. Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1): 58-74.
99. Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C. 2013. Stakeholder theory, value, and fi rm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23 (1): 97-124.
100. Harvey, B., Schafer, A. 2001. Managing relationships with environmental stakeholders: A study of UK water and electricity utilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 30 (3): 243-260.
101. Haslam, S. A. 2004. Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. Sage: London.
102. Heidenreich, V. 2013. Consequences of the Norwegian gender quota regulation for public limited company boards. In Machold, S. et al. (Eds.), Getting women on corporate boards: A snowball starting in Norway: 119-125. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
103. Heilman, M. E., McCullough, W., Gilbert, D. 1996. The other side of affi rmative action: Reactions of nonbenefi ciaries to sex-based preferential selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (4): 346-358.
104. Hess, D. 2007. Social reporting and new governance regulation: The prospects of achieving corporate accountability through transparency. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17 (3): 453-476.
105. -. 2008. The three pillars of corporate social reporting as new governance regulation: Disclosure, dialogue, and development. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18 (4): 447-482.
106. Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A., Paetzold, R. L. 2000. The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies, 37 (2): 235-256.
107. Hillman, A. J., Nicholson, G., Shropshire, C. 2008. Directors' multiple identities, identifi cation, and board monitoring and resource provision. Organization Science, 19 (3): 441-456.
108. Hoel, M. 2008. The quota story: Five years of change in Norway. In Vinnicombe, S. et al. (Eds.), Women on corporate boards of directors: 79-87. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
109. Holst, E., Kirsch, A. 2015. Executive board and supervisory board members in Germany's large corporations remain predominantly male. DIW Economic Bulletin, 5(4): 35-47.
110. Htun, M. 2004. Is gender like ethnicity? The political representation of identity groups. Perspectives on Politics, 2 (3): 439-458.
111. Huse, M., Seierstad, C. 2013. Getting women on corporate boards: Consequences of the Norwegian gender balance law. European Financial Review, December/January: 37-39.
112. Huse, M. 2012. The 'golden skirts': Lessons from Norway about women on corporate boards. In Gröschl, S., Takagi, J. (Eds.), Diversity quotas, diverse perspectives: The case of gender: 11-23. Surrey, UK: Gower Publishing.
113. -. 2013a. The political process behind the gender balance law. In Machold, S. et al. (Eds.), Getting women on corporate boards: A snowball starting in Norway: 9-16. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
114. -. 2013b. Characteristics and background of the Norwegian women directors. In Machold, S. et al. (Eds.), Getting women on corporate boards: A snowball starting in Norway: 69-77. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
115. Huse, M., Nielsen, S., Hagen, I. M. 2009. Boards of directors, codetermination and women directors: Societal and business case CSR illustrations from Norway. Journal of Business Ethics, 89 (4): 581-597.
116. Husted, B. W., Allen, D. B. 2011. Corporate social strategy: Stakeholder engagement and competitive advantage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
117. Ingley, C. B., Van der Walt, N. T. 2003. Board confi guration: Building better boards. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Effective Board Performance, 3 (4): 5-17.
118. Institute of Business Ethics. 2011. Business ethics and board diversity, Issue 21. http://www.ibe.org.uk/userassets/briefi ngs/ibe-briefi ng-21-business-ethics-and-board-diversity.pdf.
119. Jensen, M. C. 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. B usiness Ethics Quarterly, 12 (2): 235-56.
120. Joecks, J., Pull, K., Vetter, K. 2013. Gender diversity in the boardroom and fi rm performance: What exactly constitutes a "critical mass?" Journal of Business Ethics, 118 (1): 61-72.
121. Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31 (2): 386-408.
122. Jonsdottir, T. 2010. The impact of gender demography on male and female role interpretations and contributions: A qualitative study of non-executive directors of Icelandic boards. Cranfi eld University thesis.
123. Jonsdottir, T., Singh, V., Terjesen, S., Vinnicombe, S. M. 2015. Directors' identity in pre-and post-crisis Iceland: Effects of board life stage and gender. Gender in Management: An International Review, 30 (7): 572-594.
124. Kakabadse, N. K., Figueroa, C., Nicolopoulou, K., Hong Yang, J., Kakabadse, A. P, & Ozbilgin, M. F. 2015. Gender diversity and board performance: Women's experiences and perspectives. Human Resource Management, 54 (2): 265-281.
125. Kanter, R. M. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
126. Karam, C. M., Jamali, D. 2013. Gendering CSR in the Arab Middle East: An institutional perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23 (1): 31-68.
127. Kesner, I. F. 1988. Directors' characteristics and committee membership: An investigation of type, occupation, tenure and gender. Academy of Management Journal, 31 (1): 66-84.
128. Kim, T. W., Monge, R., Strudler, A. 2015. Bounded ethicality and the principle that "ought" implies "can." Business Ethics Quarterly, 25 (3): 341-361. doi: 10.1017/beq.2015.25.
129. King, B. G. 2008. A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. A dministrative Science Quarterly, 53 (3): 395-421.
130. King, A. A., Lenox, M. J. 2000. Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry's responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (4): 698-716.
131. Klandermans, B., Staggenborg, S. (Eds.). 2002. Methods of social movement research. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
132. Klettner, A., Clarke, T., Boersma, M. 2014. Strategic and regulatory approaches to increasing women in leadership: Multi-level targets and mandatory quotas as levers for cultural change. Journal of Business Ethics, 122 (1): 145-165.
133. Kogut, B., Colomer, J., Belinky, M. 2014. Structural equality at the top of the corporation: Mandated quotas for women directors. Strategic Management Journal, 35 (6): 891-902.
134. Konrad, K. M., Kramer, V., Erkut, R. S. 2008. The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics, 37 (2): 145-164.
135. Kozlowski, S. W., Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Klein, K. J., Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 3-90. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
136. Kwon, S. W., Adler, P. S. 2014. Social capital: Maturation of a fi eld of research. Academy of Management Review, 39 (4): 412-422.
137. Labelle, R., Francoeur, C., Lakhal, F. 2015. To regulate or not to regulate: Early evidence on the means used around the world to promote gender diversity in the boardroom. Gender, Work & Organization, 22 (4): 339-363.
138. Lau, D. C., Murnighan, J. K. 1998. Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 325-340.
139. Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., Leca, B. 2011. Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20 (1): 52-58.
140. Leavitt, K. N., Mitchell, T. R., Peterson, J. G. 2010. Theory pruning: Strategies to reduce our dense theoretical landscape. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4): 644-667.
141. Levinthal, D. A., March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (S2): 95-112.
142. Lewis, P., Simpson, R. 2012. Kanter revisited: Gender, power and (in)visibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14 (1): 141-158.
143. Løyning, T. 2011. Kjønnskvotering, kvinner og styrenettverk. Tidsskrift for kjønnsforskning, 35 (3): 180-198.
144. Lyness, K. S., Heilman, M. E. 2006. When fi t is fundamental: Performance evaluation and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (4): 777-785.
145. Machold, S. 2013. Institutionalizing women's representation on boards: An introduction to the advocacy movement. In Machold, S. et al. (Eds.), Getting women on corporate boards: A snowball starting in Norway: 27-36. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
146. Machold, S., Hansen, K. 2013. Policy approaches to gender diversity on boards: An introduction to characteristics and determinants. In et al. (Eds.), Getting women on corporate boards: A snowball starting in Norway: 167-178. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
147. Machold, S., Huse, M., Hansen, K., Brogi, M. (Eds.). 2013. Getting women on to corporate boards: A snowball starting in Norway. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
148. Mahoney, J., Thelen, K. 2010. Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
149. Matsa, D. A., Miller, A. R. 2013. A female style in corporate leadership? Evidence from quotas. A merican Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5: 136-169.
150. May, D. R., Chang, Y. K., Shao, R. 2015. Does ethical membership matter? Moral identifi cation and its organizational implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (3): 681-694.
151. Mayhew, K. 2013. Government and business: An introduction. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 29 (2): 249-260.
152. McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., Zald, M. N. (Eds.). 1996. Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
153. McFarland, L. A., Ployhart, R. E. 2015. Social media: A contextual framework to guide research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (6): 1653-1677.
154. McNamee, S. J., Miller, R. K. J. 2004. The meritocracy myth. Lanham, MD: Rodman & Littlefield.
155. McKinsey & Company, Inc. 2008. Women matter 2: Female leadership, a competitive edge for the future. France. http://www.mckinsey.com/Features/Women-Matter.
156. Meier, P. 2013. Quotas, quotas everywhere: From party regulations to gender quotas for corporate management boards. Another case of contagion. Representation, 49 (4): 453-466.
157. Meyer, J. B., Rowan, B. 1991. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In Powell, W., DiMaggio, P. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 41-62. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
158. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., Wood, D. J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identifi cation and salience: Defi ning the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22 (4): 853-886.
159. Mitchell, R. K., Weaver, G. R., Agle, B. R., Bailey, A. D., Carlson, J. 2015. Stakeholder agency and social welfare: Pluralism and decision making in the multi-objective corporation. A cademy of Management Review. doi: 10.5465/amr.2013.0486.
160. Mollerstrom, J. 2015. Quotas and cooperation. Harvard University working paper.
161. Morris, A. D. 1992. Frontiers in social movement theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.
162. Nahapiet, J., Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. A cademy of Management Review, 38 (2): 242-266.
163. NHO. 2013. Female Future. https://www.nho.no/Prosjekter-og-programmer/Female-Future/. Last accessed December 5, 2015.
164. Nielsen, S., Huse, M. 2010. Women directors' contributions to board decision-making and strategic involvement: The role of equality perception. European Management Review, 7 (1): 16-29.
165. Noon, M. 2010. The shackled runner: Time to rethink positive discrimination? Work, Employment & Society, 24 (4): 728-739.
166. North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
167. Nygaard, K. 2011. Forced board changes: Evidence from Norway. Norwegian School of Economics. Department of Economics Discussion Paper 5.
168. O'Connell, L. L., Stephens, C. U., Betz, M., Shepard, J. M., Hendry, J. R. 2005. An organizational fi eld approach to corporate rationality: The role of stakeholder activism. B usiness Ethics Quarterly, 15 (1): 93-111.
169. O'Reilly C. A. III, Caldwell, D. F., Barnett, W. P. 1989. Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34 (1)21-37
170. OECD. 2015. Women and men in OECD countries. http://www.oecd.org.
171. Oswick, C., Noon, M. 2014. Discourses of diversity, equality and inclusion: Trenchant formulations or transient fashions? British Journal of Management, 25 (1): 23-39.
172. Pache, A. C., Santos, F. 2010. When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to confl icting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35 (3): 455-476.
173. Pacheco, D., York, J. G., Dean, T. J., Sarasvathy, S. D. 2010. The coevolution of institutional entrepreneurship: A tale of two theories. Journal of Management, 36 (4): 974-1010.
174. Pande, R., Ford, D. 2012. Gender quotas and female leadership: A review. Background paper for the World Development Report. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/9120.
175. Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., De Colle, S. 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4 (1): 403-445.
176. Pathan, S., Faff, R. 2013. Does board structure in banks really affect their performance? Journal of Banking & Finance, 37 (5): 1573-1589.
177. Perrault, E. 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.
178. Peters, K., Ryan, M. K. 2010. Fitting in and getting on: Understanding career motivation in male and female surgeons. London: Royal College of Surgeons.
179. Peters, K., Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A. 2014. Marines, medics and machismo: Lack of fi t with masculine occupational stereotypes discourages men's participation. British Journal of Psychology. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12106.
180. Pfeffer, J., Salancik, G. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
181. Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C. 2003. What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13 (4): 479-502.
182. Piaget, J. 1926. The language and thought of the child. New York: Harcourt.
183. Piekkari, R., Oxelheim, L., Randøy, T. 2015. The silent board: How language diversity may influence the work processes of corporate boards. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23 (1): 25-41.
184. Pollach, I. 2012. Taming textual data: the contribution of corpus linguistics to computeraided text analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 15 (2): 263-287.
185. Portes, A. 2014. Downsides of social capital. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (52): 18407-18408.
186. Post, C., Byron, K. 2015. Women on boards and fi rm fi nancial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal. doi: amj.2013.0319.
187. Reding, V. 2012. The route to more women on supervisory boards: An intelligent quota instead of infl exible requirement. Speech to the European Commission. November 27.
188. -. 2013. Winning the board game: Europe's economy needs more women in business. In Machold, S. et al. (Eds.), Getting women on corporate boards: A snowball starting in Norway: 201-209. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
189. Reskin, B. 1998. The realities of affi rmative action. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
190. Roberts, H. 2014. Cable: Gender quotas useful 'nuclear deterrent'. HR Magazine, 8 July.
191. Robin, D., Babin, L. 1997. Making sense of the research on gender and ethics in business: A critical analysis and extension. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7 (4): 61-90.
192. Rosenblum, D. 2009. Feminizing capital: A corporate imperative. Berkeley Business Law Journal, 6 (1): 55-95.
193. Rousseau, D. M., Fried, Y. 2001. Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. J ournal of Organizational Behavior, 22 (1): 1-13.
194. Ruef, M., Scott, W. R. 1998. A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43 (4): 877-904.
195. Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A. 2007. The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management Review, 32 (2): 549-572.
196. Santana, A. 2012. Three elements of stakeholder legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 105 (2): 257-265.
197. Schein, V. E. 1975. Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (3): 340-344.
198. -. 2007. Women in management: Reflections and projections. Women in Management Review, 22 (1): 6-18.
199. Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G. 2007. Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32 (4): 1096-1120.
200. Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., Matten, D. 2009. Introduction to the special issue: Globalization as a challenge for business responsibilities. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19 (3): 327-347.
201. Schreck, P., van Aaken, D., Donaldson, T. 2013. Positive economics and normativistic fallacy: Bridging the two sides of CSR. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23 (2): 297-329.
202. Scott, J. 2012. Social network analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
203. Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
204. Sealy, R. 2010. Changing perceptions of meritocracy in senior women's careers. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 25 (3): 184-197.
205. Sealy, R., Doherty, N. 2012. Women in fi nance: A springboard to corporate board positions? London: Association of Chartered and Certifi ed Accountants.
206. Sealy, R., Turner, C., Pryce, P., Vinnicombe, S. 2015. Women on boards: Progress following the 2012 Corporate Governance Code. Cranfi eld, UK: Cranfi eld School of Management.
207. Seierstad, C. 2015. Beyond the business case: The need for both utility and justice rationales for increasing the share of women on boards. Corporate Governance: An International Review. doi: 10.1111/corg.12117.
208. Seierstad, C., Opsahl, T. 2011. For the few not the many? The effects of affi rmative action on presence, prominence, and social capital of women directors in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27: 44-54.
209. Seierstad, C., Warner-Søderholm, G., Torchia, M., Hues, 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.
210. Selznick, P. 1994. The moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley: UC Press.
211. Seo, M. G., Creed, W. D. 2002. Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 222-247.
212. Shah, S. K., Corley, K. G. 2006. Building better theory by bridging the quantitativequalitative divide. Journal of Management Studies, 43 (8): 1821-1835.
213. Sheridan, A., Ross-Smith, A., Lord, L. 2014. Institutional influences on women's representation on corporate boards: An Australian case study. Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: An International Journal, 33 (2): 140-159.
214. Sigurjonsson, T. O., Arnardóttir, A. A., Vaiman, V., Rikhardsson, P. 2015. Managers' views on ethics education in business schools: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 130 (8): 1-13.
215. Simpson, R., Ross-Smith, A., Lewis, P. 2010. Merit, special contribution and choice-how women negotiate between sameness and difference in their organizational lives. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 25 (3): 198-207.
216. Singh, V., Point, S., Moulin, Y. 2015. French supervisory board gender composition and quota threat: Changes from 2008 to 2011. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 30 (7): 551-571.
217. Singh, V., Point, S., Moulin, Y., Davila, A. 2015. Legitimacy profi les of women directors on top French company boards. Journal of Management Development, 34 (7): 803-820.
218. Singh, V., Terjesen, S., Vinnicombe, S. 2008. Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: How do men and women differ? European Management Journal, 26 (1): 48-58.
219. Smith, A. 2014. German boardrooms to face legal quotas for women. N ewsweek. http://www.newsweek.com/german-boardrooms-face-legal-quotas-women-287372.
220. Smith, W. K., Gonin, M., Besharov, M. L. 2013. Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23 (3): 407-444.
221. Smith, W. K., Besharov, M. L., Wessels, A. K., Chertok, M. 2012. A paradoxical leadership model for social entrepreneurs: Challenges, leadership skills, and pedagogical tools for managing social and commercial demands. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11 (3): 463-478.
222. Son Hing, L.S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P. 2002. Meritocracy and opposition to affi rmative action: making concessions in the face of discrimination. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 83 (3): 493-509.
223. Sørensen, S. ∅. 2013. Likestilling uten kjønn? En studie av hvordan kjønnskvotering til bedriftsstyrer ble montert som politisk reform. PhD thesis, NTNU.
224. Stansbury, J. 2009. Reasoned moral agreement: Applying discourse ethics within organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19 (1): 33-56.
225. Staubo, S. 2010. Do female directors increase board independence? Mimeo, Oslo: Norwegian School of Management.
226. Storvik, A., Teigen, M. 2010. Women on board: The Norwegian experience. Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation.
227. Strøm, R. ∅. 2015. Gender discrimination before mandated quotas? Evidence from Norway: 1989-2002. S candinavian Journal of Management, 31 (3): 303-315.
228. Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20 (3): 571-610.
229. Sweigart, A. 2012. Women on board for change: The Norway model of boardroom quotas as a tool for progress in the United States and Canada. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, 32 (4): 81-105.
230. Szydlo, M. 2015. Gender equality on the boards of EU companies: Between economic effi ciency, fundamental rights and democratic legitimisation of economic governance. European Law Journal, 21 (1): 97-115.
231. Syed, J., Van Buren, H. J. 2014. Global business norms and Islamic views of women's employment. B usiness Ethics Quarterly, 24 (2): 251-276.
232. Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup confl ict. In Austin, W. G., Worchel, S. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations: 33-47. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
233. Tatli, A., Vassilopoulou, J., Özbilgin, M. 2013. An unrequited affi nity between talent shortages and untapped female potential: The relevance of gender quotas for talent management in high growth potential economies of the Asia Pacifi c region. International Business Review, 22 (3): 539-553.
234. Teigen, M. 2002. Kvotering til styrevev: mellom offentlig regulering og privat handlefrihet. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning, 1: 73-104.
235. -. 2010. Presentation at European Commission. Brussels, Belgium. April 26.
236. -. 2011. Gender quotas on corporate boards. In Niskanen, K., (Ed.), Gender and power in the Nordic countries: 87-109. Oslo: NIKK.
237. -. 2012a. Gender quotas on corporate boards: On the diffusion of a distinct national policy reform. Comparative Social Research, 29 (1): 115-146.
238. -. 2012b. Gender quotas for corporate boards in Norway: Innovative gender equality policy. In Fagan, C. et al. (Eds.), Women on corporate boards and in top management: European trends and policy: 70-90. Chippenham: Palgrave-MacMillan.
239. -. 2015a. Kjønnsbalanse i styre og ledelse av norsk næringsliv. In Teigen, M. (Ed.), Virkninger av styrekvotering i norsk næringsliv. Oslo: Gyldendal.
240. Teigen, M. (Ed.). 2015b. Virkninger av kjønnskvotering i norsk næringsliv. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk. http://www.socialresearch.no/Publications/Reports/2015/2015-0022.
241. Teigen, M., Wängnerud, L. 2009. Tracing gender equality cultures: Elite perceptions of gender equality in Norway and Sweden. Politics & Gender, 5 (1): 21-44.
242. Terjesen, S., Aguilera, R., Lorenz, R. 2015. 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.
243. Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., Singh, V. 2009. Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3): 320-337.
244. Tienari, J., Holgersson, C., Merilaïnen, S., Hoök, P. 2009. Gender, management and market discourse: The case of gender quotas in the Swedish and Finnish media. Gender, Work, and Organization, 16 (4): 501-521.
245. Torchia, M., Calabrò, A., Huse, M. 2011. Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics, 102 (2): 299-317.
246. van Prooijen, A., Ellemers, N. 2015. Does it pay to be moral? How indicators of morality and competence enhance organizational and work team attractiveness. British Journal of Management, 26 (2): 225-236.
247. van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., Spears, R. 2012. On conviction's collective consequences: Integrating moral conviction with the social identity model of collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51 (1): 52-71.
248. Vaiman, V., Sigurjonsson, T. O., Davidsson, P. Á. 2011. Weak business culture as an antecedent of economic crisis: The case of Iceland. Journal of Business Ethics, 98 (2): 259-272.
249. Vasi, I. B., King, B. G. 2012. Social movements, risk perceptions, and economic outcomes: The effect of primary and secondary stakeholder activism on fi rms' perceived environmental risk and fi nancial performance. American Sociological Review, 77 (4): 573-596.
250. Velkova, I. 2015. Quotas for women on corporate boards: The call for change in Europe. Hamburg: Anchor.
251. Vinnicombe, S., Doldor, E., Sealy, R., Pryce, P., Turner, C. 2015. The Female FTSE board report 2015: Putting the UK progress into a global perspective. Cranfi eld, UK: Cranfi eld University.
252. Virtanen, A. 2012. Women on the boards of listed companies: Evidence from Finland. Journal of Management and Governance, 16 (4): 571-593.
253. Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and Motivation. Chichester: Wiley.
254. 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.
255. White, T. I. 1992. Business, ethics, and Carol Gilligan's "two voices". Business Ethics Quarterly, 2 (1): 51-61.
256. Withers, M. C., Corley, K., Hillman, A. J. 2012. Stay or leave: Director identities and voluntary exit from the board during organizational crisis. Organization Science, 23 (3): 835-850.
257. Wood, D. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16 (4): 691-718.