Keywords

1 Introduction to Gender Equality and Gender Diversity

Gender equality or gender egalitarianism, which differs from the concept of gender diversity, can be defined as “the degree to which an organization or society minimises gender role differences (while promoting gender equality)” (House et al. 2004). The expression has assumed considerable importance in the twenty-first century following the greater attention to the issues of equal treatment between genders and the removal of obstacles which, in fact, make it more difficult for one of the two genders to participate in economic, social, or political life in the society. Gender equality, one of the founding elements of the European Union (EU) politics, is mentioned in various community provisions, for example, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and in numerous treaties.Footnote 1 Diversity, in general terms, can be defined as “any significant difference that distinguishes one person from another” (Kreitz 2007); gender diversity, specifically, represents one of the dimensions of diversity and can be inserted among the so-called primary dimensions (which include, in addition to gender, age, sexual orientation, etc.), which are assumed to be static throughout the life of each individual, and the “secondary dimensions” (among which the level of education can be placed), which instead are characterized by a more or less marked variability over a lifetime (Loden and Rosener 1991).

The concept of gender diversity is intimately linked to the concepts of masculinity and femininity – which represent one of the six dimensions of the “national culture model”Footnote 2 proposed by the anthropologist Hofstede (1984, 2011) – which refer to gender roles (values) expected by an individual in a position of leadership within a society. Masculinity is associated with a more intense search for success and income and therefore for competitiveness, while femininity is associated with characteristics such as collaboration, modesty, and quality of life, as well as social acceptance. This distinction assumes peculiar characteristics in managerial contexts at country level. In fact, in countries with a stronger “masculine” connotation (e.g., the United States, Japan, Italy, etc.), there will be a greater orientation toward remuneration and professional ambition and status, while in those with a stronger “feminine” connotation (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc.), human relations and cooperation will prevail.

The concept of gender egalitarianism has its origins in Hofstede’s studies (1984, 2011) and was introduced for the first time by House et al. (2004). With this expression these authors indicate the level of equality between women and men within a society. In societies with a higher level of gender equality, women are given a more prominent role, which is manifested, for example, in a high number of women in the labor market and in positions of power, while in companies with a low level, women have less power, understood both in terms of leadership positions and the possibility of influencing decision-making processes (House et al. 2004).

The following are the most important definitions of gender equality, provided by authoritative international agencies such as (Table 1):

  • The European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), an agency of the European Union established in 2006 and operating since 2007, whose core purpose is the promotion of gender equality and the fight against gender discrimination

  • The European Council, a collective body that defines “priorities and general political guidelines”Footnote 3

  • The International Labor Organization (ILO), a specialized UN agency that “brings together representatives of governments, employers and workers from 187 Member States, to establish international standards, develop policies and establish programs aimed at promoting the dignity of work for all men and women in the world”

Table 1 Self-elaboration based on the aforementioned international agencies
Full size table

Some of these agencies also deal with the measurement of gender equality at the national level, developing indexes able to explain the differences existing between the various countries of the world or the European Union. Some of these are indicated and analyzed below:

  • Gender Equality Index (GEI), an indexFootnote 4 that uses six key sectors (or core domains): work, money, knowledge of time, power, and health, with the addition of two satellite domains (violence and intersectional inequalities).Footnote 5 The index is composed of 31 indicators, and it measures gender equality in 28 European countries.

  • United Nations Gender Inequality Index (UN GII), which measures inequalities in the fields of health, education, and the labor market.

  • Global Gender Gap Report of the World Economic Forum, which measures inequalities at national level in the economic, political, educational, and health fields.

  • Gender Equity Index of Social Watch.Footnote 6 Like the previous indexes, it measures the gap between women and men in the most important fields of society (economy, politics, education).

The aforementioned institutions, in addition to providing the indicated indexes, also offer useful databases and statistics on gender equality. Among the official databases, it is useful to mention the Report on Equality Between Women and Men in the EU,Footnote 7 prepared annually by Eurostat, the statistical office of the EU.

For the purposes of this study, it is important to underline the importance of the domain of power, which analyzes gender equality in three distinct subdomains: political, social, and economic. The first measure is the increase in the number of women in the main political bodies (ministries, parliaments, regional councils); the second in the research, media, and sports sectors; and the last one on the boards of directors of listed companies and central banks.

2 Legislation on Gender Diversity and Gender Equality in Europe

The EU, through its own institutions (parliament, commission, and council), has always placed the concepts of diversity and gender equality on the boards of directors and in the boards of statutory auditors of companies at the center of its main objectives, considering them fundamental for the growth, the development, and the competitiveness of the entire community.

Gender equality, as well as being one of the most important principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EUFootnote 8 (2000), is also indicated in two important treaties of the European Union: the Maastricht Treaty (articles 2 and 3)Footnote 9 and the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (articles 8 and 153).Footnote 10 In the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, gender equality (article 23) and the prohibition of discrimination based on sex (article 21)Footnote 11 are of particular relevance.

Diversity is mentioned in the Green Paper – Corporate governance in financial institutions and remuneration policies of the European Commission (2011), in which its importance is emphasized as a precondition to facilitate discussions and qualitative improvement of decisions, both within the boards of directors and within the boards of auditors.

It also states that the main positive effect of the female presence within them is given by the increase in the number of talents that companies have at their disposal for upper management.Footnote 12

The Action Plan of the European Commission (2012) also states that diversity is essential to prevent group thinking,Footnote 13 which generates a uniform thought within the decision-making and control bodies, without taking into consideration the possibility that potential heterogeneous thoughts and/or ideas exist within it (Rose 2011).

On the basis of a range of actions, the EU has therefore identified some areas on which to act to improve gender equity. In the European Strategy for Equality for 2010–2015,Footnote 14 followed by the European Pact for Gender Equality 2011–2020 of the European Council, for example, five areas of relevanceFootnote 15 have been identified, among which the equality in decision-making assumes a central importance. Within the latter, three additional priority objectives are outlined that Member States are called upon to pursue, both in the planning phase and in the implementation phase of gender policiesFootnote 16:

  • Bridging gender gaps in employment and social protection, including the gender pay gap

  • Promote a better balance between professional and private life for women and men and broaden women’s participation in the labor market

  • Fighting all forms of violence against women

The precursor document of the Strategy for Equality is the 2010 Women’s Charter, which underlines the continued commitment of the European Commission to promote and ensure gender equality. This Charter identifies five areas of action:

  • Economic independence

  • Equal pay for women and men

  • Representation of women in the decision-making processes and in the positions of power

  • Women’s dignity and integrity and the end of gender-based violence

  • Actions to be implemented beyond the borders of the European Union

The five abovementioned areas are symmetrical to the five priority objectives defined by the Strategy for Equality Between Women and Men.

In the European Pact for Gender Equality 2011–2020, the commitment of the Member States in the areas identified by the previous documents is reaffirmed, such as in the reduction of differences in work, education, and social protection, the reconciliation of work and family life, the representation of women in decision-making processes, and the fight against gender-based violence.

Another of the EU’s key measures is the Europe Strategy 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth (2010), adopted to promote growth and employment of the Member States. Among the main objectives, there is the female employment and, therefore, the greater participation of women in the world of work. The state of implementation of the policies implemented by the individual Member States is monitored every 6 months, and it is for this reason that the term “European semester” has been introduced to indicate that process of alignment of economic and budgetary policies with the objectives and the standards defined at EU level.Footnote 17

2.1 Legislation on Gender Diversity and Gender Equality in Italy

In the Italian legal system, gender equality finds a primary place in the Constitution, in articles 3, 37, 51, and 117.Footnote 18 In 2006, the National Code of Equal Opportunities between men and women was approved (Legislative Decree 198/2006),Footnote 19 in which 11 laws concerning equal opportunities were grouped together in a single text.

Despite numerous regulatory efforts, both at European and national level, female presences in decision-making roles are currently still very low. In accordance with the aforementioned European directives, the Italian legislator has implemented an important tool (already adopted by many other countries) to rebalance the numerical gap between genders: the quota system (in Italy known as “pink quotas”). The latter were introduced by the Law no. 120/2011, commonly known as Golfo-Mosca Law,Footnote 20 included in the Consolidated Law on Financial Intermediation (TUF) in the Legislative Decree no. 58/1998.

The provisions contained in the law are mandatory for the boards of directors and the boards of auditors of the Italian listed companies and unlisted public companies.Footnote 21 Furthermore, the law has a peculiarity that distinguishes it from other European laws on gender equality, as it has a limited duration in time (the mandatory quotas, in fact, will cease in 2023, leaving companies with freedom of choice in deciding the composition of their corporate governance bodies). The Golfo-Mosca Law does not speak explicitly of men or women, using the formula “less represented gender,” in such a way as to guarantee an effective gender equality even in the case in which in the two corporate governance boards, men are in numerical minority (contrary to the current trend, which sees women in the minority, although the increase following the introduction of the law).

It requires that the board of directors and the board of auditors have such a composition that the least represented gender is at least 20% of the total of its members (target set for 2012) and, subsequently (target set for 2015), at 33% of the same. The obligation is required for three consecutive termsFootnote 22; once lapsed, the individual companies will have, in relation to gender, complete freedom to choose the composition of their aforementioned corporate governance bodies.

The forms of control over the fulfillment differ depending on whether they are listed companies or unlisted public companies. For the former, in fact, the National Commission for Companies and the Stock Exchange (CONSOB) is responsible, while the control over the latter is delegated to the Prime Minister, who can delegate responsibility to the Minister of Equal Opportunities.

For the listed companies, the procedure to be implemented to ensure effective compliance is as follows:

  • CONSOB orders compliance within 4 months.

  • Once this period of non-compliance has elapsed, CONSOB can impose a pecuniary sanction on the company (up to one million euros if the breach concerns the board of directors, while up to 200,000 euros if it concerns the board of auditors), which is defined a further period of time (3 months) for the fulfillment.

  • Once the 3 months have elapsed, the defaulting company will see the bodies concerned removed (board of directors and/or board of auditors).

For unlisted public companies, the procedure is as follows:

  • The company communicates the composition of the body that was renewed within 15 days from the appointment or replacement.

  • If the chairperson (or the delegated authority) notes that the company is in default, the law provides for two separate warnings to comply, each lasting 60 days.

  • After these two periods (of a total duration of 4 months), the board of directors and/or the board of auditors cease.

For the listed companies, there is a pecuniary sanction, while for the non-listed public company, this sanction is not envisaged.Footnote 23

The legislator’s sensitivity toward the issue of gender equality has also affected Italian public bodies, with the protection of Law no. 56/2014, known as the Delrio Law, which states that “in the city councils of municipalities with a population greater than 3,000 inhabitants, neither sex can be represented in less than 40 percent.”Footnote 24

With regard to the listed companies, the Corporate GovernanceFootnote 25 Committee approved in 2006 (making some changes over the years, up until the most recent of 2018) the Corporate Governance Code. This document is not mandatory for the companies, and they can join it on a voluntary base. On a long-term perspective, it invites them to apply the rules of the Golfo-Mosca Law also when this one will lapse. The Committee invites the company to apply the provisions of the aforementioned law with those they consider the most suitable instruments.Footnote 26

2.2 The Introduction of Gender Quotas in the EU Member States

The gender quotas have been introduced in many countries for just over 15 years. There are two types of them: the so-called soft quotas and the binding quotas (also called hard quotas).Footnote 27 The first nation to introduce them voluntarily was Norway (2003)Footnote 28; the goal was to bring the percentage of each gender to at least 40% by 2008.Footnote 29 Despite the good results achieved,Footnote 30 however, the law became mandatory, starting in 2006, providing for a percentage of women equal to 40% of the members of the board of directors (Leszczynska 2018).

A study of Kogut et al. (2014) reiterates the importance of the mandatory introduction of gender quotas, as this would be able to create a critical mass within the board so that, once the law will lapse, the number of women would still be high enough and, therefore, fair with respect to that of men.Footnote 31 Table 2 shows the mandatory gender quotas in the boards of directors of the EU listed companies.

Table 2 Mandatory gender quota regulation in the boards of directors of the EU listed companies by country
Full size table

3 Gender Equality in Companies

Numerous studies in the literature have shown that gender equality (here understood in a broad sense), if spread throughout the company organization, brings benefits to the latter.Footnote 32 However, aspects related to the country effect, which shows conflicting results, should not be underestimated. On the one hand, in fact, there are studies showing that gender equality is able to exert a positive influence on the number of women (and therefore on gender diversity) within the boards of directors (Adams and Kirchmaier 2013, 2016), while on the other hand, there are studies that affirm that the same relationship is negative (Tyrowicz and Mazurek 2017). Women have always faced more problems than men within the labor market and, in particular, within top management (such as boards of directors); from this situation a clear discrepancy emerges between the achievement of gender equality and the positions they held in these bodies, which see women in a net minority with regard to senior management (Pereira and Salaris 2019).

The dynamics within the boards of directors are influenced by the gender of its members (male or female), a characteristic that also influences their cognition and behavior (Huse and Grethe Solberg 2006). Gender equality is an important tool for creating value on boards of directors, but it is not always used to gain a competitive advantage (Huse 2018).

One of the most in-depth analyses of the causes leading to a missing and/or weak gender equality is the one provided by Gabaldon et al. (2016). They identify the barriers to gender equality by using two different points of view, through the adoption of a supply/demand perspective, which sees women on the supply side and companies on the demand side. On the supply side, there are gender differences in values and behavior, identification in expectations of gender role, and conflicts between work and family; on the demand side, instead, discrimination based on gender, the distorted perception of women’s contribution within the board of directors, and the institutional environment are identified. The authors, in addition to the aforementioned barriers to gender equality, state that the effectiveness of the tools to fight them plays a major role. Among the useful tools to improve the role of women on the supply side, the study indicates mentoring, sponsorship,Footnote 33 the so-called role models (behavior models), and the preparation of databases containing a certain number of candidates for leadership positions. Among those on the demand side, instead, we find the shares (voluntary and not voluntary), gender policies (voluntary and not voluntary), self-regulatory codes, and governance codes.

Many studies try to explain if the numerical presence of women allows companies to improve their performances, but from the analysis of the literature emerges, for the moment, just a single study that has tried to measure gender equality in the companies in a direct way (Tominc et al. 2017). Furthermore, the study in question is not specifically addressed to board members, but to managers, in the general meaning of the term.Footnote 34 It would be useful, therefore, to check the level of perceived gender equality by the members of the boards of directors.

A medium/high level of gender equality is already present in many companies in the world, as shown by a study conducted on Norwegian companies (Dale-Olsen et al. 2013). Norway, in fact, was the first country in the world to introduce gender quotas on boards of directors; similarly, Italy has also introduced legislation with the same characteristics, with the aim of re-establishing a balance between the two genders in decision-making positions (Rigolini and Huse 2017).

According to the study of Pastore and Tommaso (2016) on the presence of women on the boards of Italian listed companies, the number of women CEOs has declined from 3.2% in 2013 to 2.6% in 2015, despite the introduction of the Golfo-Mosca Law,Footnote 35 although there is a small increase in absolute terms. These authors say that the quotas, by themselves, are not sufficient in order to increase the number of women in the top positions of the companies (the CEO, in this case), stating that further elements should be taken into consideration such as cultural change and a real knowledge of female potential, as essential elements for an optimal functioning of the board.

The article by Solimene et al. (2017) highlighted the fact that the aforementioned law was effective in increasing the number of women on boards, but not their real power. The authors state that the law introduced a more formal than substantive gender balance, indicating as a future element of research the measurement of the effects of gender equality on the performance of the companies’ subject to quotas.

In line with the previous study, the work of De Vita and Magliocco (2018) analyzes the Italian banking sector, verifying the effects of the Golfo-Mosca Law in the decision-making bodies of the companies. The results, according to the words of the two authors, show a clear dichotomy between listed and unlisted banking companies: the former present a satisfactory increase in the number of women in the main decision-making bodies (especially in the boards of directors), while the unlisted ones have decidedly lower values ​(well over half) compared to the first ones (26% against 11%). In banking companies, therefore, women are underrepresented; the study also highlights the total absence of women among listed companies (a figure that indicates a weak effectiveness of the Law in favoring the breaking of the glass ceiling) and their greater participation in non-executive roles.

In one of the most recent reports on the current status of quotas, published in January 2018 by Cerved, entitled “Women at the top of Italian companies,” the number of women CEOs in listed companies is still very low (only 18 at the end of 2017, or 7.9% of the total of CEOs); for unlisted companies there was a very slow but gradual increase over time (10.3% against 9.1% in 2008). The report, while affirming that the highest number of women CEOs in unlisted companies should be linked to demographic trends, assumes that the Golfo-Mosca Law may have had indirect effects on unlisted companies.

According to the Report of the European Commission (2016), the figures for women CEOs of the largest listed European companies would be higher than those of Italian listed companies (4.3% against 2.6%). In the latter, in fact, female presences have increased, but the same has not happened for the upper management (CEO and/or chairperson).

The study of Tominc et al. (2017) analyzed the perceived gender equality by managers (considering only the medium/large Slovenian companies) revealing the existence of deep differences between male and female managers. The latter, in particular, show a lower level in the perception of equality on many points (e.g., the fairness of remuneration and the ability to influence the organization), reaching the maximum difference on the point concerning the decision-making process. Among the other variables considered by the study for measuring perceived gender equality, there are job satisfaction, job position, and career and, finally, the perception of work-family conflicts.

The level of female participation within economic contexts is a very reliable indicator of the degree of progress of gender policies adopted by a government or a company (Campbell and Bohdanowicz 2018).

In a study on the role of women on the boards of Norwegian companies (Nielsen and Huse 2010), with reference to their contribution in decision-making processes and their strategic involvement, the two authors noted the importance (in negative terms) of women’s perception as “inadequate” members, a factor that would limit their potential contribution to decision-making processes.

4 Gender Diversity Within the Boards of Directors: The Relationship with the Performances

Gender is one of the most important demographic attributes, as well as one of the most easily observed (Erhardt et al. 2003) and most studied in the literature (Hillman 2015). Adams et al. (2015) distinguish three groups of diversity: the so-called task-related diversity (which includes, e.g., the educational and functional background), non-task-related diversity (which includes more objective variables, such as gender, age, race, etc.), and structural diversity (e.g., the degree of independence of the board of directors and the CEO duality). In studies related to non-task-related diversity, which includes many demographic variables, it is often assumed that the latter are able to deeply influence the members of the board of directors, in relation to characteristics such as their knowledge, their behavior, their decision-making process, and, last but not least, the company’s performance (Forbes and Milliken 1999).

The literature about the link between gender diversity on boards of directors and performances shows widely divergent results. Three recent reviews (Kirsch 2017; Post and Byron 2015; Pletzer et al. 2015) indicate that many studies identify a positive (or non-existent) relationship between gender diversity on board and performance. One of the most recent reviews (Cabrera-Fernández 2016) has analyzed the various studies on the subject, noting the presence of positive, negative, or neutral results. In fact, other studies have identified a negative relationship between an increase in gender diversity and performance (Adams and Ferreira 2009). This last study, while demonstrating that the female presence improves the functioning of the boards, shows a negative relationship between the presence of women within the boards and the value of companies, measured through Tobin’s Q.Footnote 36 The authors, therefore, while not demonizing the presence of women, affirm that a greater number of women board members would be more appropriate in societies characterized by a weak governance, as they would be able to exercise a greater control activity.

The link between the characteristics of the board members and the performances is not easy to understand, also because gender represents only one of their numerous characteristics (Johnson et al. 1996; Withers et al. 2012). Furthermore, the diversity within the board is influenced by other variables, such as the size of the company, the sector which it belongs to, and other characteristics related to corporate governanceFootnote 37 (Carter et al. 2003).

Furthermore, gender studies are mainly focused on Northern Europe, while few analyses have been conducted with reference to Southern Europe (Paoloni and Demartini 2016).

Despite numerous studies (Amore et al. 2014; Ararat et al. 2015; Campbell and Mínguez-Vera 2008; Carter et al. 2003; Erhardt et al., 2003; Francoeur et al. 2008; García-Meca et al. 2015; Isidro and Sobral 2015; Joecks et al. 2013; Liu et al. 2014; Low et al. 2015; Lückerath-Rovers 2013; Mahadeo and Soobaroyen 2012; Nguyen et al. 2015; Ntim 2015; Reguera-Alvarado et al. 2017; Salloum et al. 2017; Smith et al. 2006; Terjesen et al. 2016) identifying a positive relationship between them, other show a negative relationship (Adams and Ferreira 2009; Bøhren and Strøm 2010; Shrader et al. 1997) or a non-existent relationship between them (Carter et al. 2010; Chapple and Humphrey 2013; Farrell and Hersch 2005; Gregory-Smith et al. 2014; Miller and del Carmen Triana 2009; Randøy et al. 2006; Rose 2007). Some studies also show bivalent relationships (Bonn et al. 2004; Dobbin and Jung 2011).Footnote 38 Table 3 shows the previous studies classified by author, nationality of the companies, performance indicators, and value of the relationship.

Table 3 Studies about the relationship between gender diversity in the board of directors and performances
Full size table

Pletzer et al. (2015) also confirm that a greater presence of women within the boards of directors is neither linked to a higher nor to a lower performance. These results corroborate those studies that associated greater diversity with better performance. However, the study states that gender diversity should be promoted for ethical purposes, regardless of company performance.

Other studies have instead shown that it is not so much the presence of one or more women on boards to influence the value of the company, but it is the fair balance between men and women (understood in terms of greater gender diversity) to play a key role (Campbell and Mínguez-Vera 2008). Four studies on Italian companies have identified different results.

The one of Amore et al. (2014) analyzes Italian family businesses over the decade 2000–2010 and shows that when they are led by a woman CEO, there is an improvement in operating profitability as the number of women on the board increases.Footnote 39

The study of Ferrari et al. (2016) covers a period of 8 years (2007–2014) and focuses on the Italian listed companies. It identifies positive results both in relation to stock returns (at the time of the election with quotas) and to stock prices (with the quotas, in fact, the volatility of the share prices is reduced).

Gordini and Rancati (2017) cover a period of 4 years (2011–2014), and they also find, as in the previous study, two different results: a positive relationship between the percentage of women and Tobin’s Q and a nonsignificant relationship between the presence of one or more women and company performance.

The most recent Italian study (Bruno et al. 2018) identifies a positive relationship between gender diversity and various performance indicators (ROA, ROE, ROIC, and ROS) following the introduction of quotas in listed companies and focuses on a time span of 9 years (2008–2016), which makes it possible to analyze the so-called instant reform effect (i.e., the effect immediately after the entry into force of the Golfo-Mosca Law) and the follow-up effect (the effect after the entry into force). The study identifies a critical mass (between 17% and 20%) after which the share of women positively impacts performance.

4.1 How Many Women? The Relationship Between Gender Quotas and Performance

One of the most important studies on gender diversity within groups (and, in the case, the boards of directors) is the one of Kanter (1977), who introduced the concept of tokenism. This term refers to the fact that the very small number of women has a negative effect on performance. This happens because minorities become victims of discriminatory behavior, invalidating their ability to influence the decision-making process of the group as a whole.

Konrad et al. (2008) affirm that the presence of women is “normalized” when it reaches the threshold (critical mass) of at least three members within the board of directors; the study indicates that the contribution that women are able to make becomes more effective when three or more women are part of it, because in this way they are able to “speak and give their contribution more freely”.

An important factor to be taken into consideration is the level of perception (and the related opinion) on the part of the individuals affected by the mandatory quotas. In this regard, a study was carried out on the perception of gender quotas by directors (Wiersema and Mors 2016), who noted that they are perceived negatively in the countries where they have not yet been adopted (e.g., in the USA and Denmark), while in those in which they are already in force, there has been an evolution of opinions following their introduction (from negative to positive, as happened in Norway). From the interviews carried out emerges, in particular, the theme of meritocracy, which would be damaged by the imposition of quotas. In countries that adopt quotas, on the other hand, there would be greater satisfaction for the increase in diversity within the boards and for the considerable improvements in the selection processes of directors.

Other studies (Moeykens and Everaert 2011) state that women on boards and gender diversity do not have negative effects on corporate profits and that “the only argument for the increase of gender diversity is of social and ethical nature.” The appointment of more women would therefore be appropriate, but the question “competent manager or token?” remains open (Burgess and Tharenou 2002).

Gender quotas objectively represent a great opportunity for studying diversity within the boards: imposing that a given number of women (or, as required by Italian legislation, the least represented gender) is at least equal to a certain percentage on the total, a group of entities (companies) are created that have the same characteristics, at least in percentage terms.

5 Research Approach and Results

The results obtained from the previous studies, in the literature review, taking into consideration the context factors, allow to formulate the following research question:

RQ1: In spite of the fact that almost all Italian listed companies have reached the minimum threshold imposed by the law (20%), there will still be differences in perceived gender equality between men and women.

Normally, regulatory measures are perceived negatively by managers (Carpenter and Golden 1997); it would be interesting to verify, therefore, if the negative perception of the law is able to influence perceived gender equality by women, as well as their differences compared to men. Given the fact that in Italy gender equality has been imposed by lawFootnote 40 (even for a limited period of time), it could be perceived as an obstacle within the organization and could lead to possible negative consequences at the expense of women board members.

A recent Italian study made by Bruno et al. (2018) analyzed the relationship between gender diversity and various performance indicators (ROA, ROE, ROIC, and ROS) after the introduction of gender quotas in Italian listed companies. The results indicate that there is a critical mass for these boards, between 17% and 20%, after which there is a positive impact on performance. This result confirms the original theories of critical mass, indicating that once a certain threshold is exceeded, the number of women is able to exert greater influence on boards of directors and, in particular, in the decision-making process. The study offers considerable insights for the preparation of the present research, and its development, both theoretical and empirical, constitutes a solid basis.

The working in progress research is based on the design of the development of quantitative and qualitative information on the perceived gender equality by the board members of the Italian listed companies, assuming that there will be significant differences between men and women directors.

The analysis will be carried out sending a questionnaire to all the board of directors of the Italian listed companies. Given the fact that it was not possible to obtain the board members’ personal emails, the email containing the questionnaire will be sent to the Investor relator of the company or, in those cases we did not have his/her email, to the general mail of the company. We will not consider those companies which do not have an IR contact or a general email. The present work aims to measure the perceived gender equality by the members of the boards of directors of the Italian listed companies, verifying the possible presence of differences between men and women. The companies involved are 229. The date to be taken into consideration, relating to the extraction of data, is that of June 9, 2019. The composition of the totality of the boards of directors considered refers to that date. The characteristics of listed companies are as follows:

  • They are existing and are listed on the Milan Stock Exchange on June 9, 2019.

  • They are equipped with a functioning board of directors (e.g., listed companies whose board of directors has expired are therefore excluded).

  • Make available, at their official website or other official sites, the data and information of their BoD members.

The final sample, therefore, consists of 225 listed companies, and the total number of board members is 2241. The sources used in this research include various official sites such as Consob, Borsa Italiana, and Il Calepino dell’Azionista and some databases (AIDA, Amadeus). The questionnaire is based on two studies which also used questionnaires for measuring gender equality: Tominc et al. (2017) and Nielsen and Huse (2010). We have conducted a pre-test at the end of August 2019, sending the questionnaire to ten companies. We received a total of 20 responses from a total of 83 board members (response rate 24%). In September 2019 we will send it to all the Italian listed companies, and we will elaborate the data from the answers. We will use a PCA (principal component analysis), a multivariate technique that analyzes a data table in which observations are described by several inter-correlated quantitative dependent variables (Mishra et al. 2017). Tables from 4 to 8 analyze the 20 responses received (Tables 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8).

Table 4 Questionnaire replies: directors’ personal details
Full size table
Table 5 Questionnaire replies: boards of directors’ composition
Full size table
Table 6 Questionnaire replies: characteristics of the companies
Full size table
Table 7 Questionnaire replies: questions about gender equality in the board of directors
Full size table
Table 8 Questionnaire replies: total average answers, total average answers from men, total average answers from women
Full size table

6 Conclusions

From the literature review we carried out, few studies have emerged that have tried to directly measure the level of perceived gender equality within companies and, in particular, within the boards of directors, focusing the most attention on the link between the presence of a certain number of women within them and the related effect on company performance. From the study of Tominc et al. (2017), which measured the level of perceived gender equality by managers of Slovenian listed companies, we can foresee the existence of great differences between the two sexes (Slovenia is a country that has not adopted the gender quotas), by using their instrument for measuring perceived gender equality in the board of directors, with some adaptations. In light of the negative perception of regulatory measures on strategic issues or the crowd-outFootnote 41 phenomenon, it is conceivable to predict profound differences in terms of perceived gender equality between men and women within the Italian boards of directors of the Italian listed companies. This study could be useful for verifying a real and actual (not hypothetic) gender equality within the boards of directors of the abovementioned companies. However, it has two typical limits of the CAWI methodology: the self-selection and the presence of a double collaboration required to obtain the answers (first of all by the Investor relator and then by the board directors). However, from the first answers obtained, an interest and a high level of cooperation on the part of directors emerged, a factor that gives us an idea of how important gender equality is for them.