Seminar: Gender Board Diversity through Ownership Networks

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks
Environment matters
HubertMarekDrkowski
FAME|GRAPE
June 5, 2024
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 1 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Policy maker inclusion dilemma
•Most of the ﬁrms do not have women on boards(Drazkowski et al. 2024)
•At least, slightly more women bolster the ﬁrm performance(?)
⇒Policy makers want to promote diversity
•“Let’s impose quotas on boards in listed ﬁrms”
•“Will it ripple? Is there a mechanism? ”
•“Let’s award ﬁrms promoting diversity”
•“Is it genuine?”
Measurement medium: ﬁrms’ ownership networks
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 2 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
1
Problem (ﬁlling the void)
2
Data (GBDD and ownership)
3
Methods (panel linear model)
4
Results
5
Discussion (feel invited)
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 3 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
1
Problem (ﬁlling the void)
2
Data (GBDD and ownership)
3
Methods (panel linear model)
4
Results
5
Discussion (feel invited)
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 4 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
What are the mechanics of gender diversity spillovers?
In ﬁrm - horizontal (supervisory→executive)
•+positive(Matsa and Miller 2011,Cook and Glass 2015,Gould et al. 2018,Guldiken et al. 2019,Kirsch and Wrohlich 2020)
•−no eﬀect, replacement, negative(Farrell and Hersch 2005,Smith and Parrotta 2018,Bertrand et al. 2018,Garcia-Blandon et al.
2023,Maida and Weber 2022,Fleischer 2022,Schoonjans et al. 2023)
•Visibility matters(Drazkowski et al. 2023),Power might matter(Bozhinov et al. 2021)
In ﬁrm - vertical (higher↓lower ranks)
•+positive(Bossler et al. 2020,Kunze and Miller 2017)
Ownership network stream ?
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 5 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
What is the role of visibility and environment scrutiny?
Tokenism
•Critical mass theory(Torchia et al. 2011,Joecks et al. 2013,Jia and Zhang 2013,Schwartz-Ziv 2017)
•Desired number or share of women(Konrad et al. 2008,Chang et al. 2019,Schoonjans et al. 2023)
•No such thing(Morikawa 2016,von Essen and Smith 2023)
•Great heterogeneity, positive trends(Drazkowski and Tyrowicz 2024)
Visibility
•CSR-washing(Pope and Wæraas 2016,Sterbenk et al. 2022)
•Visible ﬁrms behave diﬀerently(Chang et al. 2019,Drazkowski et al. 2023)
Ownership network iceberg ?
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 6 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Abstract
Questions
1
Are there gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks?
2
Is there a tip of an iceberg diversity on the ownership network level?
3
Are the spillovers conditional on the environment?
•Is there a conformity “sticky ﬂoor”?
•Does local scrutiny shape subsidiary diversity practices?
Descriptive answers
1
Yes
2
Yes
3
Yes (kind
of)
•Yes
•No
Contributions
•Novel data
•Managers and networks
•Corporate Europe
•New perspective on old questions
•Answers - descriptive
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 7 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Literature
•In ﬁrm spillovers ...
•Tokenism ...
•Personal networks matter a lot in job search(Granovetter 1973,1995,Holzer 1988,Montgomery 1991,Mortensen and
Vishwanath 1994,Hensvik and Skans 2016,Kramarz and Skans 2014,Dustmann et al. 2016,Brown et al. 2016,von Essen and Smith 2023)
•Men and women have diﬀerent personal networks(Zhu and Westphal 2014,Doldor and Vinnicombe 2015,O’Neil et al.
2011,Ibarra 1992,O’Neil et al. 2011,?,Fernandez and Sosa 2005,Brown et al. 2016,Marmaros and Sacerdote 2002,Casella and Hanaki 2006,
Hensvik and Skans 2016,Bjerk 2008,Owen et al. 2021,Lalanne and Seabright 2022,Adams and Ferreira 2009,Zimmerman 2019,Michelman
et al. 2022,von Essen and Smith 2023)
•Directors level network topology change in gender perspectiveGrauet al. (2020)
•Voluntary measures rise the proximity of women on boards to other board directors(Mateos de Cabo et al.
2022)
•Mandatory policies position them as pivotal connectors among(Seierstad and Opsahl 2011,Mateos de Cabo et al.
2022), Strøm (2019)
•Strategy and corporate culture spill in the ownership network(Leonavičien˙e and Burinskien˙e 2022,Lee et al. 2022,
Guo and Zheng 2021,Pehrsson 2017)
•Cultural environment diﬀerences may play a role in gender diversity spillovers(20 ﬁrms, Scandinavia
- Japan)(Kemper et al. 2019)
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 8 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
1
Problem (ﬁlling the void)
2
Data (GBDD and ownership)
3
Methods (panel linear model)
4
Results
5
Discussion (feel invited)
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 9 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Managers - sample
•GBDD(Drazkowski et al. 2024)
•Gender attributed
•Corporate bodies: managerial (executive)∪supervisory (non-executive) positions⊆boardroom (boards)
•Time given
•Ought to have boards, at least 2 people, join with networks sample
Table 1:Sample descriptives
•
# of unique obs.# of ﬁrm/person-years.
Firms 2,421,247 8,920,469
Listed 9,145 47,664
People 8,739,302 27,610,247
Men 6,667,682 21,340,294
Women 1,988,946 5,987,913
Total 8,656,628 27,328,207
Women % in total attributed 22.98 21.91
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 10 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Ownership - construction
•Subsidiaries=aﬃliated, but̸=branches
•Direct and indirect%of ownership(use direct)
•Cannot assert all the links(sampling bias?)
•Not all companies have managers(sampling bias?)
•Imperfect time (validity date, diﬀerent moments)(use waves, interpolate)
•Qualitative links(use weights and indicators)
•Missing data(use weights and indicators, interpolate)
Table 2:Missing information
Adjacency measureMissing information
direct indicator 22%
direct point 38%
min(direct) 36%
total indicator 0%
total point 62 %
min(total) 23 %
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 11 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Data universe
•only waves 2010, 2016, 2020
•84,010,829 edge - year obs.
•8,623,272 unique children
•5,778,283 unique parents
•2006 - 2020, heavy peak in 2014
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 12 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Ownership - sample
•Parents: 1,593,648
•subsidiaries: 1,899,92
Table 3:Quantiles for Degree, In-Degree, and Out-Degree for direct connections
QuantileDegreeIn-DegreeOut-Degree
25% 2 1 1
50% 2 1 1
75% 3 1 2
90% 6 2 4
95% 11 3 8
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 13 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
1
Problem (ﬁlling the void)
2
Data (GBDD and ownership)
3
Methods (panel linear model)
4
Results
5
Discussion (feel invited)
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 14 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Panel data features
1
Firm ﬁxed eﬀects:
•Random eﬀects
•subsidiary∼in subsidiary variation, diﬀerences in parents across
•parent∼in parent variation, diﬀerences between subsidiaries across
•parent-subsidiary∼in pair variability
2
Controls
•Time ﬁxed eﬀects∼global shocks
•Industry ﬁxed eﬀects∼environment relative diversity
•HHI∼competetiveness dimension
•Board size∼direct inﬂuence on probability
3
Weighting
•Adjacency indicator or
•Point % ownership weights
•Normalize to subsidiaries equalized
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 15 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Q1: Are there spillovers in ownership networks?
•subsidiaryiin t
•Parentjin t-1
•A ton of ﬁxed eﬀects
GBDi,t∼GBDj,t−1+controlsi,t+controlsj,t−1+ϵi,j,t (1)
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 16 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Q2: Are there spillovers beyond the public eye?
1
Visibility across listed
GBDi,t∼GBDj,t−1
+privatei,t+privatei,t×GBDj,t−1
+publicj,t−1+publicj,t−1×GBDj,t−1 (2)
+privatei,t×publicj,t−1×GBDj,t−1
+controlsi,t+controlsj,t−1+ϵi,j,t
2
Sibling study (privatej,t−1=0,|ch(j)|>1)
GBDi,t∼GBDj,t−1
+privatei,t+privatei,t×GBDj,t−1 (3)
+controlsi,t+controlsj,t−1+ϵi,j,t
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 17 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Q3: Are there spillovers in ownership networks?
•ED∼leave one out GBD industry - year average→diﬀerence between parent and subsidiary
•e.g., “ED=GBD−j,t−1−GBD−i,t>0”,≡parent from a more diverse environment
1
Environemnt diﬀerences play a role?
GBDi,t=GBDj,t−1+EDi,j,t+EDi,j,t×GBDj,t−1+controlsi,t+controlsj,t−1+ϵi,j,t (4)
2
More diverse parents - doors heavier?
GBDi,t=GBDj,t−1+1(EDi,j,t≥0)×EDi,j,t+1(EDi,j,t≥0)×EDi,j,t×GBDj,t−1 (5)
+controlsi,t+controlsj,t−1+ϵi,j,t
3
More diverse subsidiaries - scrutiny motivating?
GBDi,t=GBDj,t−1+1(EDi,j,t≤0)×EDi,j,t+1(EDi,j,t≤0)×EDi,j,t×GBDj,t−1 (6)
+controlsi,t+controlsj,t−1+ϵi,j,t
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 18 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
1
Problem (ﬁlling the void)
2
Data (GBDD and ownership)
3
Methods (panel linear model)
4
Results
5
Discussion (feel invited)
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 19 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Testing presence of spillovers
Woman in management board int RE Subsidiary FE Parent FE Parent & subsidiary FE
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Panel A: weighted by direct ownership %
Woman in parent’s boardroom int−1 (β) 0.75*** 0.10*** 0.14*** 0.11***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
÷of ﬁrms w/ 1+ woman (Subsidiary) 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47
# of observations 3,501,992 3,274,224 3,340,739 3,236,418
# of ﬁrms (mother) 805,004 664,191 643,751 630,932
# of ﬁrms (Subsidiary) 1,012,959 785,191 878,938 778,526
Panel B: unweighted - all links equal
Woman in parent’s boardroom int−1 (β) 0.62*** 0.057*** 0.12*** 0.096***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
÷of ﬁrms w/ 1+ woman (Subsidiary) 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47
# of observations 3,696,594 3,460,667 3,527,196 3,417,196
# of ﬁrms (Parent) 827,415 682,626 658,017 644,536
# of ﬁrms (Subsidiary) 1,044,734 808,807 906,690 801,017
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 20 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Siblings test
Woman in management board int RE Daughter FE Mother FE Mother & daughter FE
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Panel A: Unweighted
Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 (β) 0.43*** 0.031** 0.23*** 0.0372**
(0.000) (0.004) (0.000) (0.007)
Private daughter 0.15*** -0.034 0.13*** -0.0277
(0.000) (0.410) (0.000) (0.572)
×Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 -0.32*** -0.023 -0.28*** -0.0256
(0.000) (0.069) (0.000) (0.109)
# of observations 68,051 61,825 67,890 61,749
Panel B: weighted by direct ownership %
Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 (β) 0.53*** 0.020 0.27*** 0.0164
(0.000) (0.268) (0.000) (0.376)
Private daughter 0.19*** -0.057 0.17*** -0.0588
(0.000) (0.310) (0.000) (0.410)
×Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 -0.40*** -0.0053 -0.30*** 0.000223
(0.000) (0.784) (0.000) (0.991)
# of observations 65,408 59,995 65,244 59,919
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 21 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Cross visibility test - joint
Woman in management board int RE Daughter FE Mother FE Mother & daughter FE
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Panel A: Unweighted
Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 (β) 0.14*** 0.014*** -0.011 0.047***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.430) (0.000)
Public mother -0.30*** -0.018** -0.15*** 0.0076
(0.000) (0.003) (0.000) (0.649)
×Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 0.43*** 0.034*** 0.23*** -0.010
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.427)
Private daughter -0.35*** -0.089*** -0.13*** -0.082***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.049)
×Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 0.50*** 0.047*** 0.14*** 0.054***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Public mother & Private daughter 0.54*** 0.035*** 0.26*** 0.046**
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.004)
×Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 -0.83*** -0.073*** -0.38*** -0.071***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
# of observations 3,514,085 3,286,663 3,353,032 3,247,942
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 22 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Cross visibility test - joint spillovers
Table 4:Predicted eﬀects of spilloverst−1
Panel A: Unweighted
Scenario RE DFE MFE M&D FE
Mother Public, Daughter Public 0.270 0.030 0.069 0.045
Mother Private and Daughter Public0.140 0.014 -0.011 0.047
Mother Private, Daughter Private0.290-0.028-0.001 0.019
Mother Public and Daughter Private0.130-0.050-0.041 -0.008
Panel B: Weighted
Scenario RE DFE MFE M&D FE
Mother Public, Daughter Public 0.410 0.034 0.080 0.044
Mother Private and Daughter Public0.240 0.016 -0.070 0.030
Mother Private, Daughter Private0.460 0.042 0.020 0.059
Mother Public and Daughter Private0.290 0.001 0.000 0.033
Notes: Constant not included
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 23 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Testing environment diﬀerences
Woman in management board int RE Daughter FE Mother FE Mother & daughter FE
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Panel A: Unweighted
Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 (β) 0.66*** 0.061*** 0.12*** 0.096***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Environment diﬀerence 0.0054 -0.010 -0.13*** -0.064***
(0.378) (0.189) (0.000) (0.000)
×Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 -1.30*** -0.10*** -0.36*** -0.001
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.970)
# of observations 3,511,578 3,284,153 3,350,517 3,245,418
Panel B: weighted by direct ownership %
Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 (β) 0.76*** 0.061*** 0.14*** 0.11***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Environment diﬀerence 0.016 -0.010 -0.046** -0.043**
(0.059) (0.189) (0.004) (0.001)
×Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 -0.83*** -0.10*** -0.33*** 0.012
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.546)
# of observations 3,499,622 3,284,153 3,338,361 3,234,029
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 24 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Testing environment diﬀerences
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 25 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Testing environment - conformity
Woman in management board int RE Daughter FE Mother FE Mother & daughter FE
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Panel A: Unweighted
Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 (β) 0.79*** 0.070*** 0.17*** 0.098***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Environment diﬀerence 1.21*** 0.091*** 0.32*** -0.0074
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.656)
×Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 -3.82*** -0.27*** -1.22*** -0.084***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
# of observations 2,662,573 2,417,982 2,479,954 2,380,263
Panel B: weighted by direct ownership %
Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 (β) 0.86*** 0.11*** 0.18*** 0.11***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Environment diﬀerence 1.35*** 0.044** 0.47*** -0.0082
(0.000) (0.002) (0.000) (0.000)
×Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 -3.28*** -0.16*** -1.21*** -0.030
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.218)
# of observations 2,653,171 2,408,564 2,470,360 2,371,645
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 26 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Testing environment - conformity
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 27 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Testing environment - scrutiny
Woman in management board int RE Daughter FE Mother FE Mother & daughter FE
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Panel A: Unweighted
Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 (β) 0.69*** 0.055*** 0.12*** 0.078***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Environment diﬀerence -1.64*** -0.13*** -0.69*** -0.12***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
×Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 2.75*** 0.14*** 0.81*** 0.12***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
# of observations 852,799 702,937 745,125 684,463
Panel B: weighted by direct ownership %
Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 (β) 0.78*** 0.14*** 0.14*** 0.094***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Environment diﬀerence -1.65*** -0.67*** -0.67*** -0.072*
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.014)
×Woman in mothers boardroom int−1 2.81*** 0.85*** 0.85*** 0.073*
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.047)
# of observations 850,245 742,594 742,594 682,394
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 28 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Testing environment - scrutiny
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 29 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Testing environment - the whole picture
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 30 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
1
Problem (ﬁlling the void)
2
Data (GBDD and ownership)
3
Methods (panel linear model)
4
Results
5
Discussion (feel invited)
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 31 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Concluding story
1
Policy makers want to know mechanics of GBD spillovers
2
We are ﬁrst to present them in ownership network medium
1
There is a correlation between parents’ and subsidiaries’ diversities in the network
2
Visible parents promote private subsidiaries much less than their public subsidiaries
3
Diverse parents promote subsidiaries much less in less diverse environments
4
Diverse - less diverse environment parents promote children diversity less - in more diverse environments
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 32 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
What in the future?
•Extension: eﬀect
•Network formation selection bias- structural model? instrument?
•Reﬂection problem
•Exogenous peer eﬀects- group indicator?
•Spillovers
•Management and supervisory division ... after theory
•Network regression :{ (computational constraints, no directed graph software)
•Tokenism on the ownership level (%,#)
•Personal networks?
•Network tools
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 33 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
The beginning ...
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 34 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Adams, R. B. and Ferreira, D.: 2009, Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and
performance,Journal of ﬁnancial economics94(2), 291–309.
Bertrand, M., Black, S. E., Jensen, S. and Lleras-Muney, A.: 2018, Breaking the Glass Ceiling? The Eﬀect of
Board Quotas on Female Labour Market Outcomes in Norway,The Review of Economic Studies
86(1), 191–239.
Bjerk, D.: 2008, Glass ceilings or sticky ﬂoors? statistical discrimination in a dynamic model of hiring and
promotion,The Economic Journal118(530), 961–982.
Bossler, M., Mosthaf, A. and Schank, T.: 2020, Are female managers more likely to hire more female managers?
evidence from germany,ILR Review73(3), 676–704.
Bozhinov, V., Joecks, J. and Scharfenkamp, K.: 2021, Gender spillovers from supervisory boards to management
boards,Managerial and Decision Economics42(5), 1317–1331.
Brown, C., Daly, A. and Liou, Y.-H.: 2016, Improving trust, improving schools: Findings from a social network
analysis of 43 primary schools in england,Journal of Professional Capital and Community1(1), 69–91.
Casella, A. and Hanaki, N.: 2006, Why personal ties cannot be bought,American Economic Review
96(2), 261–264.
Chang, E. H., Milkman, K. L., Chugh, D. and Akinola, M.: 2019, Diversity thresholds: How social norms,
visibility, and scrutiny relate to group composition,Academy of Management Journal62(1), 144–171.
Cook, A. and Glass, C.: 2015, Diversity begets diversity? the eﬀects of board composition on the appointment
and success of women CEOs,Social Science Research53, 137–147.
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 34 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Doldor, E. and Vinnicombe, S.: 2015, Womens pathways to the boardroom,Gender in Management: An
International Journal30(7).
Drazkowski, H. and Tyrowicz, J.: 2024, Gender tokenism in corporate boardrooms in europe,Working paper.
Drazkowski, H., Tyrowicz, J. and Terjesen, S.: 2023, Gender diversity spillovers and token women on boards in
corporate europe,Working Paper.
Drazkowski, H., Tyrowicz, J. and Zalas, S.: 2024, Gender board diversity across Europe throughout four decades,
Nature Scientiﬁc Dataforthcoming.
Dustmann, C., Glitz, A., Schönberg, U. and Brücker, H.: 2016, Referral-based job search networks,The Review
of Economic Studies83(2), 514–546.
Farrell, K. and Hersch, P.: 2005, Additions to corporate boards: The eﬀect of gender,Journal of Corporate
Finance11, 85–106.
Fernandez, R. M. and Sosa, M. L.: 2005, Gendering the job: Networks and recruitment at a call center,
American Journal of Sociology111(3), 859–904.
Fleischer, D.: 2022, Does gender diversity in supervisory boards aﬀect gender diversity in management boards in
Germany? An empirical analysis,German Journal of Human Resource Management36(1), 53–76.
Garcia-Blandon, J., Argilés-Bosch, J. M., Ravenda, D. and Castillo-Merino, D.: 2023, Direct and spillover eﬀects
of board gender quotas: Revisiting the Norwegian experience,Business Ethics, the Environment &
Responsibility32(4), 1297–1309.
Gould, J. A., Kulik, C. T. and Sardeshmukh, S. R.: 2018, Trickle-down eﬀect: The impact of female board
members on executive gender diversity,Human Resource Management57(4), 931–945.
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 34 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Granovetter, M.: 1995, Coase revisited: Business groups in the modern economy,Industrial and corporate change
4(1), 93–130.
Granovetter, M. S.: 1973, The strength of weak ties,American journal of sociology78(6), 1360–1380.
Guldiken, O., Mallon, M. R., Fainshmidt, S., Judge, W. Q. and Clark, C. E.: 2019, Beyond tokenism: How
strategic leaders inﬂuence more meaningful gender diversity on boards of directors,Strategic Management
Journal40(12), 2024–2046.
Guo, M. and Zheng, C.: 2021, Foreign ownership and corporate social responsibility: Evidence from china,
Sustainability13(2), 508.
Hensvik, L. and Skans, O. N.: 2016, Social networks, employee selection, and labor market outcomes,Journal of
Labor Economics34(4), 825–867.
Holzer, H. J.: 1988, Search method use by unemployed youth,Journal of labor economics6(1), 1–20.
Ibarra, H.: 1992, Homophily and diﬀerential returns: Sex diﬀerences in network structure and access in an
advertising ﬁrm,Administrative science quarterlypp. 422–447.
Jia, M. and Zhang, Z.: 2013, Critical mass of women on bods, multiple identities, and corporate philanthropic
disaster response: Evidence from privately owned chinese ﬁrms,Journal of Business Ethics118, 303–317.
Joecks, J., Pull, K. and Vetter, K.: 2013, Gender diversity in the boardroom and ﬁrm performance: What exactly
constitutes a critical mass?,Journal of business ethics118, 61–72.
Kemper, L. E., Bader, A. K. and Froese, F. J.: 2019, Promoting gender equality in a challenging environment:
The case of scandinavian subsidiaries in japan,Personnel Review48(1), 56–75.
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 34 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Kirsch, A. and Wrohlich, K.: 2020, More women on supervisory boards: Increasing indications that the eﬀect of
the gender quota extends to executive boards,DIW Weekly Report10(4/5), 44–49.
Konrad, A. M., Kramer, V. and Erkut, S.: 2008, The impact of three or more women on corporate boards,
Organizational dynamics37(2), 145–164.
Kramarz, F. and Skans, O. N.: 2014, When strong ties are strong: Networks and youth labour market entry,
Review of Economic Studies81(3), 1164–1200.
Kunze, A. and Miller, A. R.: 2017, Women helping women? evidence from private sector data on workplace
hierarchies,Review of Economics and Statistics99(5), 769–775.
Lalanne, M. and Seabright, P.: 2022, The old boy network: are the professional networks of female executives
less eﬀective than men’s for advancing their careers?,Journal of Institutional Economics18(5), 725–744.
Lee, H.-J., Yoshikawa, K. and Harzing, A.-W.: 2022, Cultures and institutions: dispositional and contextual
explanations for country-of-origin eﬀects in mnc ethnocentricstaﬃng practices,Organization Studies
43(4), 497–519.
Leonavičien˙e, E. and Burinskien˙e, A.: 2022, Accelerating cultural dimensions at international companies in the
evidence of internationalisation,Sustainability14(3), 1524.
Maida, A. and Weber, A.: 2022, Female leadership and gender gap within ﬁrms: Evidence from an italian board
reform,ILR Review75(2), 488–515.
Marmaros, D. and Sacerdote, B.: 2002, Peer and social networks in job search,European economic review
46(4-5), 870–879.
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 34 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Mateos de Cabo, R., Grau, P., Gimeno, R. and Gabaldón, P.: 2022, Shades of power: network links with gender
quotas and corporate governance codes,British Journal of Management33(2), 703–723.
Matsa, D. A. and Miller, A. R.: 2011, Chipping away at the glass ceiling: Gender spillovers in corporate
leadership,American Economic Review101(3), 635–39.
Michelman, V., Price, J. and Zimmerman, S. D.: 2022, Old boys clubs and upward mobility among the
educational elite,The Quarterly Journal of Economics137(2), 845–909.
Montgomery, J. D.: 1991, Social networks and labor-market outcomes: Toward an economic analysis,The
American economic review81(5), 1408–1418.
Morikawa, M.: 2016, What types of companies have female directors? evidence from japan,Japan and the World
Economy37, 1–7.
Mortensen, D. T. and Vishwanath, T.: 1994, Personal contacts and earnings: It is who you know!,Labour
economics1(2), 187–201.
O’Neil, D. A., Hopkins, M. M. and Sullivan, S. E.: 2011, Do women’s networks help advance women’s careers?
diﬀerences in perceptions of female workers and top leadership,Career Development International
16(7), 733–754.
Owen, A. L., Temesvary, J. and Wei, A.: 2021,Gender and Social Networks on Bank Boards, Divisions of
Research & Statistics and Monetary Aﬀairs, Federal Reserve Board.
Pehrsson, A.: 2017, Foreign subsidiaries competitive strategy: the impact of corporate support and local
competition,European Business Review29(6), 606–627.
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 34 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Pope, S. and Wæraas, A.: 2016, Csr-washing is rare: A conceptual framework, literature review, and critique,
Journal of Business Ethics137, 173–193.
Schoonjans, E., Hottenrott, H. and Buchwald, A.: 2023, Welcome on board? appointment dynamics of women
as directors,Journal of Business Ethicspp. 1–29.
Schwartz-Ziv, M.: 2017, Gender and board activeness: The role of a critical mass,Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis52(2), 751–780.
Seierstad, C. and Opsahl, T.: 2011, For the few not the many? the eﬀects of aﬃrmative action on presence,
prominence, and social capital of women directors in norway,Scandinavian Journal of Management
27(1), 44–54.
Smith, N. and Parrotta, P.: 2018, Why so few women on boards of directors? empirical evidence from danish
companies in 1998–2010,Journal of Business Ethics147(2), 445–467.
Sterbenk, Y., Champlin, S., Windels, K. and Shelton, S.: 2022, Is femvertising the new greenwashing? examining
corporate commitment to gender equality,Journal of Business Ethics177(3), 491–505.
Torchia, M., Calabrò, A. and Huse, M.: 2011, Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical
mass,Journal of business ethics102, 299–317.
von Essen, E. and Smith, N.: 2023, Network connections and board seats: are female networks less valuable?,
Journal of Labor Economics41(2), 323–360.
Zhu, D. H. and Westphal, J. D.: 2014, How directors’ prior experience with other demographically similar ceos
aﬀects their appointments onto corporate boards and the consequences for ceo compensation,Academy of
management journal57(3), 791–813.
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 34 / 34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Problem (ﬁlling the void) Data (GBDD and ownership) Methods (panel linear model) Results Discussion (feel invited) References
Zimmerman, S. D.: 2019, Elite colleges and upward mobility to top jobs and top incomes,American Economic
Review109(1), 1–47.
Gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks 34 / 34

Seminar: Gender Board Diversity through Ownership Networks

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

Seminar: Gender Board Diversity through Ownership Networks

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 4

Slide 5

Slide 6

Slide 7

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 30

Slide 31

Slide 32

Slide 33

Slide 34

Slide 35

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 38

Slide 39

Slide 40

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 45

Slide 46

Slide 47

Slide 48

Slide 49

Slide 50

Slide 51

Slide 52

Slide 53

Slide 54

Slide 55

Slide 56

Slide 57

Slide 58

Slide 59

Slide 60

Slide 61

Slide 62

Slide 63

Slide 64

Slide 65

Slide 66

Slide 67

Slide 68

Slide 69

Slide 70

Slide 71

Slide 72

Slide 73

Slide 74

Slide 75

Slide 76

Slide 77

7-10. STP + Branding and Product & Services Strategies.pptx