click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
CorpG Gender
Corporate Governance
| Section | Key Point | Points |
|---|---|---|
| S1 P1 | Introduction | -1OF governenace debates of the past 15 years - norm arguements about fairness and substantive claims that GD boards govern more effectively - UK TB, Norway mand quota model (40%) - improved 2011 12.5%-43% but exect and ceo pipelines remain male domin |
| S2 P1 i | TIMELINE Davies Review (2011) | 1) Initial target set of 25% for female rep on FTSE 100 boards by 2015 2) Rejected mandatory quotas - geniune > more authentic and sustainable compared to statutory compulsion 3) Was achieved by 2015 |
| S2 P1 ii | Hampton Alexander Review (2016) | 1) Raised to 33% rep FTSE 350 boards ans enior leaderships by 2020 2) It was the first time its gone beyond board and to executive |
| S2 P1 iii | FTSE Women Leader Review (2025) | 40% target by Dec 2025 and was ahieved 43% across FTSE 350 with NEDs included -HOWEVER its reported by Review and FT Times that they are still a small minority due to the voluntary appraoch |
| S3 P1 | Theorectical Frameworks (RAH) | 1) Resource Dependence Theory 2) Agency Theory 3) Human Capital Theory |
| S3 P2 | Resource Dependence Theory | -Argues that boards primary function is to link the firm to external res - network, inforamtion, expertise and legitimacy - Females which built careers from different career paths from different trajectories will have more disctinct external resouces |
| S3 P3 | Agency Theory | -Benefits through the monitoring channel > more diverse = more effective 1) reduce likelihood of group think 2) empirically ask more challenging questions 3) attendance rate 4) greater independence from managemetn pressure |
| S3 P4 | Human Capital Theory | Brings distincy qualifications - functional exp and sec exp backed by higgs review 2003. |
| S4 P1 Empirical Evidence | Meta-Analysis (Post and Byron, 2015) | -140 studies pos corr between FeD and account based perf measures -Relationship between FeD and market based no sig impact -acc perf was linked stroner when shareholder protections >> better env supports shareholder oversights -improved moinotring beh |
| S4 P2 | Political Capital Perspective (Yang and Konrad, 2015) | - ability for female directors to acquire and deploy influence within board dynamics - 47% studies report pos financial perf -21%- null - Most consistent findings - better CSR and Transparency 61% pos- better ESG disclosure and lower earnings manage |
| S4 P3 | Uk Specific Evidence | (Brahma et al., 2021) - International Finance and Economics> sig pos rel between FeD and firm performance >> stronger executive roles (human deploment factor is cruicial (Carter et al.,2003) - evidence of pos asscoation between diversitty and Tobin's Q |
| S5 P1 | Key Benefits | -Better monitor -meeting attendence -Improved CSR and ESG perf -reduced earnigns manage -stronger link between CEO pay and company perf - brings broader stakeolder legitimacy (bettter when mixed consumer base > better gender equality (hire and pay) |
| S6 P1 Challenges | Glass Cliff (Ryan and Hasiami, 2005) | Female directors are often put in precarious positions > higher risk of failture or company crisis > suppresses performance which could mislead studies linking females with company failures |
| S6 P2 i | Critical Mass | Suggests that governenace only materialises once it reaches approx => 3 directors, below this they face pressures which limits their ability to contruibute |
| S6 P2 ii | Tokenism | Suggests that they are there for compliance reasons (diversity targets) rather than sepecfic skills- wasting human captital and resouces for the purpose of a positive headline |
| S7 | Yong and Konrad (2025) | building alliances and gaining instituitional backing is the key for mediating variable for them to make an impact. |