View in EDS

The Relevance of Board Diversity Features in a Weak Institutional Business Environment.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Relevance of Board Diversity Features in a Weak Institutional Business Environment.
Authors: Ashiru, Folajimi1,2 (AUTHOR) folajimi.ashiru@coventry.ac.uk, Adegbite, Emmanuel3,4 (AUTHOR), Ullah, Subhan3 (AUTHOR), Michael, Amir5 (AUTHOR), Pyper, Neil6 (AUTHOR)
Source: Business Strategy & the Environment (John Wiley & Sons, Inc). Jul2025, Vol. 34 Issue 5, p5299-5316. 18p.
Subject Terms: Diversity in the workplace, Gender nonconformity, Institutional environment, Dynamic capabilities, Investors, Decoupling (Organizational behavior)
Abstract: The board diversity literature continues to advance a simplistic but empirically unsubstantiated rhetoric of the board diversity accountability, economic benefits and its relationship with other firm characteristics. Yet, less is understood about which board diversity features actually matter for business decision‐making, especially in weak institutional business environments where policy–practice decoupling is prevalent. Therefore, proceeding from an institutional theory underpinning and a board diversity accountability mechanism–decision‐making argument, we explore via interviews, the perspectives of 27 professional investors on the relevance of diversity features for their decision‐making in the Nigeria banking environment. Our findings reveal four factors (1. denotation of experience and innovation; 2. dynamic capability enablers; 3. ideas rotation and stability; and 4. display of discipline and board independence) that explain why board age and tenure diversity are relevant arrangements for decision‐making in weak institutional environments. Also, we find four factors (1. ephemeral impositions; 2. tokenism; 3. no ethnic disparity in business opportunities; and 4. symbolic inclusivity) that explain why board gender and ethnicity diversity are irrelevant arrangements. Our findings provide very unusual insights into the (ir)relevance of board diversity in a weak institutional context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Business Strategy & the Environment (John Wiley & Sons, Inc) is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: GreenFILE
Description
Abstract:The board diversity literature continues to advance a simplistic but empirically unsubstantiated rhetoric of the board diversity accountability, economic benefits and its relationship with other firm characteristics. Yet, less is understood about which board diversity features actually matter for business decision‐making, especially in weak institutional business environments where policy–practice decoupling is prevalent. Therefore, proceeding from an institutional theory underpinning and a board diversity accountability mechanism–decision‐making argument, we explore via interviews, the perspectives of 27 professional investors on the relevance of diversity features for their decision‐making in the Nigeria banking environment. Our findings reveal four factors (1. denotation of experience and innovation; 2. dynamic capability enablers; 3. ideas rotation and stability; and 4. display of discipline and board independence) that explain why board age and tenure diversity are relevant arrangements for decision‐making in weak institutional environments. Also, we find four factors (1. ephemeral impositions; 2. tokenism; 3. no ethnic disparity in business opportunities; and 4. symbolic inclusivity) that explain why board gender and ethnicity diversity are irrelevant arrangements. Our findings provide very unusual insights into the (ir)relevance of board diversity in a weak institutional context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:09644733
DOI:10.1002/bse.4249