Abstract
Today, firms face joint pressures to increase the representation of women at the highest levels of their organizations, and to be more environmentally responsible. Still, the impact of these movements on firm performance is less clear. Through the lens of the Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) Cycle, this study looks at the impact of Board Gender Diversity (BGD) and Environmental Responsibility on Innovative Output as measured by patents. Using a longitudinal sample of the top-patenting firms at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, we find that both BGD and Environmental Responsibility lead to higher levels of Innovative Output, and BGD positively moderates the relationship between Environmental Responsibility and Innovative Output. This paper contributes to existing literature by highlighting the need to consider BGD and Environmental Responsibility at the same time when considering their implications on firm performance. We also expand the scope of the ASA Cycle to include overall firm performance with respect to innovation.
Publisher
Journal of Comparative International Management
Reference46 articles.
1. Abadi, H. H. N., & Pecht, M (2020). “Artificial intelligence trends based on the patents granted by the united states patent and trademark office”, IEEE Access, 8, 81633-81643.
2. Arts, S., Hou, J., & Gomez, J. C (2021). “Natural language processing to identify the creation and impact of new technologies in patent text: Code, data, and new measures”, Research Policy, 50(2), 104144.
3. Antoncic, D. M (2021). “Is ESG investing contributing to transitioning to a sustainable economy or to the greatest misallocations of capital and a missed opportunity?”, Journal of Risk Management in Financial Institutions, 15(1), 6–12.
4. Benn S, Kramar R (2011). “Editorial: Introduction and interviews. Educating for sustainability and CSR: What is the role of business schools?”, Journal of Management & Organization, 17(5), 574–582.
5. Burke L, Logsdon JM (1996). “How corporate social responsibility pays off.”, Long Range Planning, 29(4), 495–502.