Next Article in Journal
Antialgal Effects of Nonanoic and Palmitic Acids on Microcystis aeruginosa and the Underlying Mechanisms
Previous Article in Journal
Optimizing Semantic Segmentation of Street Views with SP-UNet for Comprehensive Street Quality Evaluation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 3
10.3390/su17031211
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Board Diversity and Environmental Disclosure: A Review, Current Insights, and Emerging Trends

by
Bikun Xu
*,
Noriza Mohd Jamal
,
Yue Liu
and
Taher Ben Yahya
Faculty of Management, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Skudai Johor 81310, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(3), 1211; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031211
Submission received: 1 January 2025 / Revised: 29 January 2025 / Accepted: 31 January 2025 / Published: 2 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
As the challenges of environmentally friendly development continue to intensify, the governance mechanisms of environmental disclosure have become particularly important. Although studies have explored the governance determinants of environmental disclosure, there is a lack of a comprehensive overview in the existing literature that addresses board diversity. To fill this gap, this study provides an in-depth analysis of board diversity that promotes environmental disclosure by systematically reviewing 74 relevant papers from the Scopus database. In addition to utilizing qualitative content analysis based on a systematic literature review, this study distinguishes and identifies board diversity factors influencing environmental disclosure through quantitative bibliometric analysis using a descriptive analysis. The results not only summarize the key findings of the existing literature but also suggest directions for future research, providing new perspectives that could aid in understanding and improving board diversity in environmental disclosure. Furthermore, this study identifies a number of challenges in practice, such as the difficulties that may be encountered in collecting and validating accurate environmental data. The study highlights the importance of board diversity for better environmental disclosure and suggests future research directions. Policymakers and management are urged to promote board diversity to improve environmental disclosure, which can enhance a company’s performance and societal value.

1. Introduction

In recent years, institutions, governments, and business stakeholders have shown heightened awareness regarding environmental preservation and corporate sustainability. In response to this growing pressure, many organizations have begun to integrate environmental reporting into their corporate sustainability strategies. The United Nations Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative (SSEI) indicates that each of the major corporations must publish their environmental performance by 2030.
Environmental disclosure (ED) serves as an effective mechanism for governments to promote collective environmental accountability. It communicates non-financial information mostly via narrative descriptions [1]. The clarity of such narratives influences the practicality of environmental communication and determines message content. Consequently, an increasing number of stakeholders anticipate that businesses will operate with greater transparency, ethics, and responsibility, leading to a considerable rise in corporate environmental disclosure. These evolving expectations have prompted companies to actively build their brands by improving their environmental disclosure.
Board diversity (BD) reflects the inclusion of individuals from varied backgrounds, encompassing, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, age, gender, and professional experience. The rationale for the promotion of board diversity is that it results in higher standards of judgment, more innovation, and better company performance [2,3]. Diverse boards are more inclined to draw on an increased variety of viewpoints and concepts, leading to more robust discussions and ultimately better outcomes for the company [4,5]. Board diversity stimulates green innovation by channeling funding towards sustainable technologies and the development of eco-designed items [6]. Previous reviews have focused mainly on analyzing board diversity using different research methods [7,8], and there have also been studies regarding the board of directors’ impact on firm innovation [9] and business transformation [10]. This study contrasts previous research by focusing on the effects of BD on ED, which is essential in understanding how the board may improve its corporate management and clarify its commitment to the environment.
Barriers to achieving board diversity can include unconscious bias in the hiring process, a lack of diverse networks to find board candidates, and resistance to change among existing board members. However, more companies and investors are recognizing that board diversity is not only a societal issue but also a business requirement. In reaction to this heightened awareness, certain companies have instituted diversity programs aimed at augmenting the representation of women and minorities on their boards. Organizations that emphasize board diversity are more adept in addressing the challenges of a constantly evolving business landscape and generate enduring value for their stakeholders and society as a whole.
One area where board diversity is proven to have a considerable impact is the transparency of environmental reports. Organizations that feature diverse boards tend to demonstrate a greater tendency to engage in environmental reporting [11]. A diverse board draws on a wider range of perspectives and experiences in order to more thoroughly comprehend environmental issues and propose effective solutions [12,13,14]. Furthermore, a diverse board enhances the credibility of environmental reports. Stakeholders are likely to trust and value the information provided in an environmental report that has been reviewed and approved by a diverse group of directors who bring different perspectives and expertise to the board.
Moreover, board diversity can help companies to identify novel potential for creativity and development in sustainability. By uniting individuals with varied experiences and expertise, companies can better develop new solutions to environmental issues and capitalize on emerging market trends. In short, board diversity significantly influences a company’s approach regarding environmental reporting. By fostering a culture of inclusion and openness, diverse boards can drive better decision making, increase credibility, and open new opportunities for sustainable growth [15,16].
This study aims to enhance the existing studies on the correlation between BD and ED by offering a historical overview, examining the implications of this internal governance mechanism on ED, and analyzing its evolution over time. Hence, this study proposes to address all of the following questions.
RQ1. Which articles, journals, and authors hold the most significant influence in the BD-ED research field?
RQ2. What are the main streams of research covering past and current topics in the literature related to the BD-ED relationship?
RQ3. What are the board diversity factors that influence ED research?
RQ4. What are the main theories involved in the literature related to the BD-ED relationship, and how have these theories evolved over time?
RQ5. What are the prospective research avenues in the BD-ED research field?

2. Methodology

A systematic literature review (SLR) is conducted on previous empirical studies. The academic publications were sourced from the Scopus database and subjected to a dual-layer analysis, specifically bibliometric analysis and content analysis based on a systematic literature review (SLR).
A systematic review is a literature review aimed at identifying, assessing, and synthesizing the most reliable evidence essential to a specific research issue to deliver relevant and evidence-based conclusions [17,18]. It is considered the best (“gold standard”) method of synthesizing the findings of various studies investigating the same question. The systematic literature review process and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) are widely utilized screening tools for the selection of the most appropriate studies [19]. Content analysis involves a careful, thorough, and systematic evaluation of certain materials to find patterns, themes, biases, and implications within the subject of research [20,21].
This study utilized a content analysis grounded in a systematic literature review methodology to gather data from noteworthy articles. The purpose of this review was to analyze the BD-ED relationship by understanding how various studies discuss environmental disclosure and analyzing the different effects of BD on ED. Different keywords (i.e., “board diversity”, “board characteristics”, “director diversity”, “board of director”, “board gender”, “female”, “corporate governance”, “environmental disclosure”, and “environmental information”) were used to search for appropriate articles in the Scopus database. Data were collected from the Scopus database, a comprehensive and extensive multidisciplinary journal abstract indexing database that provides reliable bibliometric analyses and systematic reviews [22,23]. It is widely used in academic research as it provides rich access to content that can be filtered by year, source, document type, region, country, and language [24].
The article search and retrieval process was completed in July 2024. A total of 1168 articles were screened. The screening process was mainly based on “inclusion” and “exclusion” criteria. The scope of article screening was limited to the fields of economics, econometrics, finance, business, management, and accounting. The investigation concentrated primarily on papers published in English. A total of 516 publications were included in the assessment, which was followed by the determination of the eligibility of these 516 papers. This was accomplished through a rigorous manual examination. The titles and abstracts of each study were meticulously examined in relation to board diversity variables influencing environmental disclosure. In conclusion, a total of 74 papers satisfied the inclusion criteria for this study. This study was adjusted to cover a specific time frame that was extended to include data from 1995 to June 2024. We chose to conduct our study from 1995 because, during the initial rough screening process, the first paper on board-related measures and ED was published in the Scandinavian Journal of Management in 1997 [25], and approximately 30 years appeared to be a logical and sufficient time period for the purpose of our study. It is also noteworthy that this study did not consider articles written in other languages and focused only on articles written in English. In addition, adding other relevant keywords to the screening process or criteria might have resulted in different research samples. The personal biases of the authors may also have affected the research sample. Table 1 shows the data collection procedures.
This study was designed based on two well-established literature review techniques, namely bibliometric analysis (BA) and content analysis (CA) based on a systematic literature review (SLR). Bibliometrics is a method of quantitatively analyzing scientific data, and it has recently gained popularity in management and social sciences research [26,27]. While pinpointing areas for additional research, BA uncovers growing trends in articles, journal performance, and collaborative dynamics. The Bibliometrix tool in Rstudio was utilized to perform the following analyses: major trends, citation analysis, keyword analysis, and thematic map analysis. An SLR focuses on the qualitative analysis of papers collected through bibliometric analysis, thus enabling an exhaustive analysis of the BD-ED research area. Moreover, a content analysis was conducted on the final sample of 74 papers to assess the influence of BD on ED. It examined the correlations among structural, demographic, and cognitive diversity in environmental disclosure and included moderating variables and theories essential to the BD-ED research domain. Figure 1 summarizes the literature review and PRISMA processes.

3. Results

This study used two methods to analyze past research on board diversity and environmental disclosure: bibliometric analysis for a descriptive analysis and content analysis based on a systematic literature review.

3.1. Descriptive Analysis

The Bibliometrix tool in Rstudio was utilized to conduct a descriptive analysis of the BD-ED research (Section 3.1), and the results of the quantitative analysis were used to answer RQ1 and RQ2. We assessed the sample of 74 documents based on the following steps: an overview, citation analysis, keyword analysis, and thematic map analysis.

3.1.1. Overview

Figure 2 summarizes the main characteristics of the 74 studies, which were generated through a performance analysis. BD-ED research has been conducted by a worldwide community of researchers over a 30-year span, averaging 2.47 articles and with a growth rate of 8.9% per year (see Figure 2). No relevant literature was found in 1995 and 1996. The year 2015 had the highest number of citations, with a high average of 47.28 citations per article. Figure 3, which presents an analysis of the publication and citation patterns, demonstrates that there has been increasing interest in this research area, as indicated by the fifty percent rise in the publishing rate between the years 2021 and 2024. It is clear that the scientific community considers this topic of great interest and is beginning to devote continuous attention to it, as the number of citations remained essentially constant after 2015.
To further analyze the author and collaboration networks, the 15 most productive authors were selected and mapped according to the respective institutions and countries using a Sankey diagram (see Figure 4). This revealed a comprehensive network of authors affiliated with multiple relevant institutions across different countries. The most influential authors were Manurung, Hapsari, Jibril, Hardika, and Maigoshi, who were affiliated with Bayero University and Kano State Polytechnic. The data regarding country collaborations in Figure 5 demonstrate that the countries producing the most results are the United Kingdom (UK), Indonesia, the United States (US), Canada, Nigeria, and China. Although some countries appear to be less connected (e.g., Poland, Italy, and Sweden), the BD-ED connection is recognized as an international and globally distributed study field, as demonstrated by this analysis.

3.1.2. Citation Analysis

Table 2 presents the citation analysis of the 74 journals. Traditional citation analysis relies on the total number of citations (TC) attributed to the author, article, or publication source. The TC index indicates that the author who is referenced the most is Tang Q, with a substantial 957 citations. Nevertheless, the citation count varies with the publishing date, bringing bias into this method. To mitigate the effect of the overall citations, the following metrics were added: “h index”, “g index”, and “m index”. The citation analysis results (see Table 2) show that Djajadikerta H.G. is the most cited author, with two publications (h index = 2; g index = 2; m index 0.22; TC = 126). Meanwhile, the second most cited author is Elleuch Lahyani, with two publications (h index = 2; g index = 2; m index = 0.50; TC = 39).
Table 2 presents the top ten countries that made the most significant contributions to the BD-ED research subject. The three most cited countries are Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It is notable that the top five countries in the list are developed countries. The considerable impact of developed countries underscores the increasing attention of policymakers regarding the effects of board diversity on environmental information. Among the 74 articles, Business Strategy and the Environment, Meditari Accountancy Research, and the Accounting Research Journal are the three most cited journals in the BD-ED research field.
Table 3 lists a number of influential articles in BD-ED research. These articles have a wide-ranging impact and high status in academia, as evidenced by their high numbers of citations. The paper titled “Gender Diversity, Board Independence, Environmental Committee, and Greenhouse Gas Disclosure”, published in The British Accounting Review, is the most cited work in the field. This paper has accumulated 890 citations and an annual citation rate of 89.00, further highlighting its importance.

3.1.3. Keyword Analysis

Figure 6 shows the frequency or importance of the keywords through different font sizes. Several key themes can be observed, such as “sustainable development”, “corporate social responsibility”, “climate change”, “women status”, “corporate strategy”, and “corporate governance”, which may be the focus of this research area. Figure 7 illustrates a trend map of the themes, which collects keywords that recur frequently in each year’s sample. The dots in Figure 7 indicates the keyword’s frequency of occurrence, with larger dots indicating a higher attention, while the line shows the trend of keywords reflecting attention over time. Some of the content is noteworthy, with representative keywords from earlier contributions relating to director characteristics (e.g., directors on boards, environmental committees, and women directors). While terms related to “board diversity” and “environmental disclosure” emerged around 2010, their overlap with environmental concepts began in 2018. More related terms have emerged in recent years (e.g., “sustainability reporting”, “board diversity”, “audit committee”, “environmental disclosure”, “gender diversity”, “carbon emissions (disclosure)”, “director characteristics”, “corporate governance”, “environmental reporting”). Specifically, “environmental disclosure” is a relevant keyword that appeared frequently in 2022.

3.1.4. Thematic Map Analysis

A BD-ED thematic map is shown in Figure 8. The relevance (centrality) and development (density) of topics are plotted on the x- and y-axes. When the themes discussed were plotted on this map, four quadrants were obtained. The first quadrant includes themes that are highly relevant but less developed (i.e., basic themes). It can be observed in Figure 8 that “corporate governance”, “board of directors”, and “environmental reporting” can be categorized as basic themes. Although less developed, these themes are highly relevant and offer considerable scope for future research. The second quadrant includes highly relevant and developed themes (i.e., motor themes). This category is relatively well developed and critical in building the research field. The theme mapping shows that two themes fall into this category. The first theme concerns “gender diversity”, “board diversity”, “environmental committees”, and “environmental disclosure”, while the second theme involves “legitimacy theory”, “emerging economies”, and “corporate environmental disclosure”. The themes in the third quadrant, although more developed, are less relevant in the research field and referred to as niche themes. Examples of these are “gender”, “carbon emissions (performance)”, and “board size”. Quadrant four includes emerging themes or declining themes. A theme is considered an emerging theme if its centrality and density intersect; otherwise, it falls beyond such classification. This study found that the themes “ESG disclosure, sustainable development” and “environmental disclosure, board characteristics, sustainability reporting” were close to the intersection; hence, they are considered emerging themes.

3.2. Content Analysis

The notion of board diversity is complex and can be implemented in various manners depending upon the particular context and study inquiry [8,36,37]. It encompasses structural, demographic, and cognitive components that, when integrated, function as a pathway to improve an organization’s capacity to foresee and address external demands and prospects. Accordingly, it is essential to adopt a detailed and contextualized methodology when assessing and analyzing board diversity. Recent research has classified board diversity into many constructs (structural diversity, demographic diversity, and cognitive diversity), which cannot be measured directly but can be established by describing the indicators [38,39]. Environmental disclosure functions as a transparent mechanism of conveying effective environmental policy to stakeholders. The disclosure of a company’s environmental performance, policies, and practices is a part of it. By releasing this information, companies can demonstrate their dedication to sustainable development and their endeavors to minimize their environmental footprints.
In the BD-ED research area, researchers may investigate the influence of various dimensions of BD on ED within an extensive framework, encompassing the board structure, individual director attributes, and cognitive processes. This highlights the interaction with internal governance structures and the external environment. This study identified the board diversity factors affecting ED and the theories involved using a content analysis approach to BD-ED research (Section 3.2), and the results of the qualitative analysis were used to answer RQ3 and RQ4. In addition, this study performed the synthesis of the board diversity measures affecting environmental disclosure based on a framework developed inductively (see Figure 9).

3.2.1. Structural Diversity and Environmental Disclosure

Structural diversity reflects the variability in board structures, e.g., board independence, CEO duality, and board size [40]. Agency theory and resource dependence theory explain how companies can influence stakeholders and reduce agency costs through resource selection and board oversight, thus establishing a link between BD and ED [41,42].
In the BD-ED research field, board independence (n = 38) and the board size (n = 33) are the frequently investigated structural attributes of the board. Scholars usually analyze both aspects together as board characteristics and have determined that the board size and board independence positively affect ED [42,43,44]. This suggests that the board size and board independence can enhance corporate transparency and environmental disclosure. However, scholars have also argued that the effect of the board size on ED is insignificant [11] and that there is no significant impact between board independence and ED [5,33,45].
Many scholars have considered committees under the board (e.g., audit committees, environmental committees, and sustainability committees) as important variables in BD-ED research. Nevertheless, no significant link has been reported between the existence of environmental committees and ED [32,46]. Audit committee characteristics are found to be significant determinants of environmental disclosure. Audit committee independence and the frequency of meetings are associated with ED, and board independence strengthens the correlation between audit committee independence and the frequency of meetings and ED [47,48]. The establishment of a corporate social responsibility (CSR) committee [49], the board size, and the sustainability committee positively affect the extent of ED [42].

3.2.2. Demographic Diversity and Environmental Disclosure

Demographic diversity includes demographic (observable) and cognitive (unobservable) structures [3,4,8]. Gender is a prominent aspect of demographic diversity that has garnered increased interest from both academic and regulatory spheres [50,51]. There is a strong correlation between the presence of female directors and environmental disclosure [32,50,52]. This indicates that, if there is gender diversity, it contributes positively to the board’s effectiveness in managing stakeholder relationships and promotes the implementation of sustainability practices, as well as greater transparency in environmental reporting.
Age is the second most important research attribute. Older board members positively affected ED, while relatively younger board members limited ED [53]. Furthermore, the extent of ED is highest when the board members average 60 years old [54]. The average board member is 55 to 60 years old and more environmentally conscious, and, because this age group is more cautious, responsible, experienced, and wise, these factors favor decisions that increase the value of the company. Some scholars have also claimed that board diversity (e.g., Muslim directors) has a significant relationship with ED [12]. Board independence and national diversity significantly contribute to enhancing ED [5]. International directors from various countries can make more informed decisions, offering fresh insights due to their unique global expertise.

3.2.3. Cognitive Diversity and Environmental Disclosure

Cognitive diversity refers to the variations in experience, expertise, qualifications, and education among board members [8]. The ability to acquire resources and adapt to the external environment, according to resource dependence theory, depends upon the diversity and experience of the board of directors, implying that a more senior board can leverage a broader array of resources for the organization [55,56]. On the other hand, with regard to the upper echelons theory, the principles and cognitive frameworks of directors have an influence on the leadership capabilities of the organization [53,56], with the education level being strongly correlated with cognitive performance. This suggests that highly educated board members are superior in their ability to understand complex issues and make decisions.
Some researchers claim that board members’ overseas study experience has a positive effect on ED [57] and directors’ education levels have no correlation with ED [54]. Some scholars have included committee members’ professional knowledge, such as financial knowledge, in their studies but found a specific relationship with environmental disclosure [29,48,55]. However, CEOs with a background in the legal field are strongly correlated with the extent of ED [58]. A substantial percentage of directors with financial and industrial expertise adversely impacts ED [15]. These findings seem to suggest that factors like background knowledge, learning experience, and education levels may be intertwined with board diversity and influence directors’ attitudes to ED. Moreover, some scholars have found that the directors with multiple directorships significantly increase the ED level [28,59]. Board members serving on multiple boards can demonstrate their expertise, gain knowledge through cross-company interactions, and promote the breadth and depth of environmental disclosure.

3.2.4. Moderators Between Board Diversity and Environmental Disclosure

We acknowledged prior studies regarding the influence of BD on ED and identified many elements that may alter the strength of the relationship between BD and ED (Figure 10). Environmental committees enhance the positive impact of BD on ED by providing expertise and oversight. This ensures that board decisions take environmental factors into account and improves the disclosure quality and transparency [60]. The CEO’s power and influence may moderate the BD-ED relationship. When CEOs have greater power over environmental and institutional issues, they may either promote or hinder the impact of BD on ED [51]. For example, a pro-sustainability CEO may place greater value on the perspectives and expertise brought by gender diversity on the board, thereby promoting greater environmental disclosure. Gender has also been used as a moderating variable by scholars in BD-ED research. The gender diversity of board members may affect their perceptions and approaches to environmental issues. The study suggests that female board members may exhibit greater concern for environmental issues and push companies to adopt more environmentally friendly policies and measures [53,61]. Gender diversity may enhance the board’s discussions of and attention to environmental issues, which in turn may influence the company’s environmental disclosure.
External environmental governance mechanisms, such as environmental protection agencies or regulators, may influence boards’ decision making and disclosure practices [62]. The regulatory intensity and policy orientation of these administrators may moderate the BD-ED relationship. Conversely, the role of policymakers in environmental disclosure cannot be ignored. The rules and standards that they set can have an impact on the disclosure behavior of boards [63]. Board diversity may affect environmental disclosure differently in different policy environments. Additionally, scholars have studied institutional strength as a moderating variable but found no significant impact on the BD-ED relationship [64].
Furthermore, it has been argued that media attention and the coverage of environmental issues may influence the disclosure behavior of the directors [28]. Negative media coverage may force companies to enhance their level of environmental disclosure to maintain their public image. To summarize, these moderating variables indirectly affect the extent and quality of ED by influencing the processes involved in the board’s decision making and the company’s strategic direction. They force board diversity to play a crucial role in enhancing environmental responsibility and transparency, especially in the context of strict laws and demanding markets. The interactions between board diversity and these moderating variables may produce different results in different contexts, and further empirical research is needed to verify these relationships. Figure 10 illustrates a conceptual model that describes and represents the moderating variables involved in the BD-ED research field.

3.2.5. Theories in the BD-ED Research Field

This study also summarized the theories involved in BD-ED research across the 74 articles. Figure 11 demonstrates the frequency with which the theories covered in the BD-ED studies appeared from 2012 to 2024. Among the most widely used theories are agency theory, stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, and resource dependence theory. Agency theory suggests that the independence of the board can enhance the monitoring strength. It contributes to the board management level, which may subsequently influence the environmental responsibility and disclosure behavior of the company [41,65,66]. Stakeholder theory emphasizes that corporations not only act for their personal benefit but also provide rewards to those who influence and are influenced by the corporation, including the disclosure of environmental information [67,68,69].
Legitimacy theory suggests that businesses engage in many social initiatives, including environmental disclosure, in order to gain social acceptance and support to show that they care about environmental issues [69,70,71]. This theory also states that companies may choose to engage in environmental disclosure due to social pressure and expectations to demonstrate their social responsibility and transparency [5,12,29]. Resource dependence theory points out the dependence of the business on additional sources and the methods used to enhance its effectiveness and sustainability through the acquisition and retention of these resources [42,64]. From this theoretical perspective, board members are viewed as being able to bring key resources, such as knowledge, connections, and legitimacy. These resources are essential for the company to implement a stakeholder-oriented strategy.
Moreover, in recent years, scholars have included more theories in BD-ED research. The upper echelons theory posits that strategic decisions and performance are shaped by the beliefs and background of the top executives [53]. Meanwhile, information asymmetry theory posits that company insiders (e.g., managers) have more information than outside investors [70]. To reduce this information gap and enhance market trust in companies, companies need to engage in increased disclosure, including that of environmental information. Human capital theory highlights the role of an individual’s education, skills, and experience in enhancing the value of the company [33].
Human capital theory underlines an individual’s education, abilities, and experience affected by organizational value [51,71]. At the board level, female directors might demonstrate heightened awareness of environmental and social concerns, pressing for increased corporate environmental transparency. These theories provide different perspectives to understand how board diversity influences environmental disclosure decisions and practices. Through the application of these theories, researchers can delve deeper into how boards of directors shape corporate environmental transparency and responsibility through their characteristics and behaviors.

4. Discussion and Further Research Agenda

This study systematically reviewed 74 articles related to board diversity and environmental disclosure through bibliometric analysis. The results showed that this area has received extensive attention from international research networks over the past 30 years, with an average of 2.47 articles published annually and an 8.9% growth rate. This indicates the scientific community’s attention to this research topic. The citation analysis shows that Tang Q is the most cited author, while Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom are the major countries contributing to this field. Business Strategy and the Environment is the journal that has published the most cited studies in BD-ED research. The keyword analysis revealed that themes like “sustainability”, “corporate social responsibility”, and “climate change” are the focus of this research area. The trend maps showed that terms related to board diversity and environmental disclosure began to appear around 2010 and overlapped with environmental concepts in 2018, indicating the evolution of the research themes. The thematic map analysis revealed the basic themes (e.g., “corporate governance”, “board of directors”, and “environmental reporting”), motor themes (e.g., “gender diversity, board diversity, environmental committees, and environmental disclosure”), niche themes (e.g., “ESG disclosure, sustainability, gender, board size”), and emerging themes (e.g., “sustainability disclosure quality”).
The content analysis explored how different dimensions of board diversity (structural, demographic, and cognitive) affect environmental disclosure. It showed that board independence, gender diversity, and background expertise are favorably correlated with environmental disclosure, but this relationship may be affected by the external environment and moderating variables (e.g., CEO power, gender, external regulators). Structural diversity refers to the variability in the board composition, including characteristics like independence, dual CEO positions, and the board size. Studies have shown that board independence and the board size have a significant impact on ED, implying that structural diversity contributes to corporate transparency and environmental responsibility. However, there are also studies indicating that the board size and independence do not exert a substantial influence on ED, suggesting that further research is needed to clarify these relationships.
Moreover, demographic diversity covers visible characteristics, such as gender, age, and ethnicity. Female board members are positively correlated with ED, suggesting that gender diversity may promote companies to adopt more transparent environmental information practices. Research on age suggests that senior board members are likely to exhibit greater concern about environmental issues, while board members averaging between 55 and 60 years of age perform better in environmental disclosure. Cognitive diversity pertains to the variations in the education, expertise, and background of directors, which can influence environmental disclosure by bringing a broader array of resources and the capacity to adjust to the external environment. While some studies have reported that the education level and overseas experience are positively related to environmental disclosure, others have identified no definitive correlation between background expertise and ED.
This study also analyzed the moderating factors in BD-ED research. Environmental committees may amplify the beneficial effect of BD on ED, which may be facilitated or hindered by the CEO’s power. Gender diversity has also been identified as a moderating variable, where female directors may exhibit a heightened awareness of environmental concerns and promote increased environmental transparency. BD-ED research has also addressed various theories, notably agency theory, stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, and resource dependence theory. These theories provide different perspectives from which to understand how board diversity affects environmental disclosure decisions and practices. For example, agency theory emphasizes the significance of board independence in improving the effectiveness of management oversight, while legitimacy theory and resource dependence theory explain the link between BD and ED from the perspectives of social practices and access to external resources, respectively. Table 4 highlights the emerging gaps in the current research and suggests directions for future research while answering RQ5.
The current studies mainly focus on non-financial listed companies and ignore industry differences; future research should consider the specificity of particular industries. The results of this study may not apply broadly to companies within the financial sector, which have different operating regulations [66]. Studies could also consider moderating factors in the link between BD and ED, such as the cultural context, governance mechanisms, disclosure content, and the macroeconomic/institutional environment. They could also be extended to different countries and market environments to examine the effects of BD on the quality and efficiency of ED. Finally, future research could further explore how board diversity affects companies’ long-term commitment to environmental responsibility and their quest for social recognition and incentives.

5. Conclusions and Limitations

A systematic analysis of 74 pertinent papers extracted from the Scopus database from 1995 to 2024 was conducted in this study to investigate the correlation between environmental disclosure and board diversity. A comprehensive bibliometric technique was employed using citation analysis, keyword analysis, and thematic map analysis. The findings shed light on the expanding literature in BD-ED research and reveal the leading articles, notable authors, prominent journals, influential countries, and popular research themes that are actively contributing to the field.
This study determined that the board structure, demography, and cognitive diversity influence environmental disclosure, as derived from the content analysis of BD and ED. Specifically, several indicators of BD, including board independence, gender diversity, and areas of competence, exhibit a positive relationship with ED. Diverse boards are more inclined to foster transparent communication regarding corporate environmental responsibility. This study also identified that elements such as the environmental committee, the CEO’s authority, and external regulators may serve as moderating variables affecting this association. The findings underscore the significance of BD in improving transparency regarding corporate environmental responsibility. This study advises policymakers and corporate oversight to acknowledge the significance of board diversity in enhancing environmental disclosure and to adopt strategies to encourage diversity among board directors. For instance, the independence of the board can be improved by formulating relevant policies to encourage the participation of women and minority groups. The relationship between BD and ED can be further investigated by examining the ways in which different factors, like cultural differences, governance procedures, and the macroeconomic and institutional settings, influence the relationship.
These findings provide better resources, market intelligence, environmental information, and credibility by linking businesses to a wide range of external players. Companies can establish trust with the public, consumers, and investors by providing comprehensive information regarding their environmental relevance. This transparency can also assist companies in identifying areas for development and in motivating those within the organization to mitigate their environmental impacts. Environmental disclosure can also help companies to comply with regulatory requirements and stay ahead of emerging environmental regulations. By proactively disclosing environmental information, companies can demonstrate their compliance with environmental laws and regulations and their commitment to environmental stewardship. Despite the many benefits of environmental disclosure, there are some challenges associated with this practice. Companies may experience difficulties in collecting and verifying accurate environmental data, especially with complex supply chains and operations.
From a practical standpoint, this study provides a path toward pragmatic recommendations on how to incorporate board diversity into greater holistic environmental management. By promoting board diversity, companies can better manage their environmental responsibilities, identify opportunities for improvement, and build trust with stakeholders. In addition, the future research directions proposed in this study reflect the challenges facing BD-ED research, thus providing useful insights for academics and company managers to address the future of directorship evolution and environmentally sustainable management.
Nonetheless, this review is the first to discuss board diversity as a focal point for environmental disclosure research. It identifies the most relevant authors in this topic and the themes that are of the greatest interest to these authors, thus pointing to new directions for future research. This study also presents some limitations: first of all, articles written in other languages were not taken into consideration in this study; instead, the focus was on those written in English. Moreover, we only used the Scopus database, which is a sufficiently comprehensive database, although other databases could be added to expand the sample in the future. Despite using as many search terms as possible, it is possible that some other BD-ED-related articles were missed. Additionally, other software (e.g., CiteSpace 6.3.1) could have been chosen to perform descriptive statistics to complement or confirm our research findings. The authors’ personal biases may also have affected the study sample.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.X.; writing—original draft preparation, B.X. and Y.L.; writing—review and editing, N.M.J., Y.L. and T.B.Y.; supervision, N.M.J. and T.B.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
BDBoard Diversity
EDEnvironmental Disclosure
SLRSystematic Literature Review
BABibliometric Analysis
CAContent Analysis

References

  1. Akhter, F.; Hossain, M.R.; Elrehail, H.; Rehman, S.U.; Almansour, B. Environmental Disclosures and Corporate Attributes, from the Lens of Legitimacy Theory: A Longitudinal Analysis on a Developing Country. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2023, 32, 342–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Liao, L.; Luo, L.; Tang, Q. Gender Diversity, Board Independence, Environmental Committee and Greenhouse Gas Disclosure. Br. Account. Rev. 2015, 47, 409–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, Y.; He, C. Board Diversity and Corporate Innovation: Evidence from Chinese Listed Firms. Int. J. Financ. Econ. 2023, 28, 1092–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bernile, G.; Bhagwat, V.; Yonker, S. Board Diversity, Firm Risk, and Corporate Policies. J. Financ. Econ. 2018, 127, 588–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fathia, E.L. Corporate Board Diversity and Carbon Disclosure: Evidence from France. Account. Res. J. 2022, 35, 721–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mohy-ud-Din, K. ESG Reporting, Corporate Green Innovation and Interaction Role of Board Diversity: A New Insight from US. Innov. Green Dev. 2024, 3, 100161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Khatib, S.F.A.; Abdullah, D.F.; Elamer, A.; Yahaya, I.S.; Owusu, A. Global Trends in Board Diversity Research: A Bibliometric View. Meditari Account. Res. 2023, 31, 441–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Behlau, H.; Wobst, J.; Lueg, R. Measuring Board Diversity: A Systematic Literature Review of Data Sources, Constructs, Pitfalls, and Suggestions for Future Research. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2023, 31, 977–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sierra-Morán, J.; Cabeza-García, L.; González-Álvarez, N.; Botella, J. The Board of Directors and Firm Innovation: A Meta-Analytical Review. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 2024, 27, 182–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. De Enrique Arnau, L.; Pinillos-Costa, M.J. Board of Directors and Business Transformation: A Bibliometric Analysis. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2024, 33, 212–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rouf, M.A.; Al-Faryan, M.A.S. Does Corporate Governance Affect Environmental Reporting? PSU Res. Rev. 2022, 8, 514–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Latif, R.A.; Yahya, N.H.; Mohd, K.N.T.; Kamardin, H.; Ariffin, A.H.M. The influence of board diversity on environmental disclosures and sustainability performance in malaysia. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2020, 10, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Buallay, A.; Alhalwachi, L. Board Gender Diversity and Environmental Disclosure: Evidence from the Banking Sector. J. Chin. Econ. Foreign Trade Stud. 2022, 15, 350–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kumari, P.S.R.; Makhija, H.; Sharma, D.; Behl, A. Board Characteristics and Environmental Disclosures: Evidence from Sensitive and Non-Sensitive Industries of India. Int. J. Manag. Finance 2022, 18, 677–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Al-Qahtani, M.; Elgharbawy, A. The Effect of Board Diversity on Disclosure and Management of Greenhouse Gas Information: Evidence from the United Kingdom. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2020, 33, 1557–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sari, M.P.; Dewi, S.R.K.; Raharja, S.; Dinanti, A.; Rizkyana, F.W. Good Corporate Governance as Moderation on Sustainability Report Disclosure. J. Gov. Regul. 2023, 12, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kraus, S.; Breier, M.; Lim, W.M.; Dabić, M.; Kumar, S.; Kanbach, D.; Mukherjee, D.; Corvello, V.; Piñeiro-Chousa, J.; Liguori, E.; et al. Literature Reviews as Independent Studies: Guidelines for Academic Practice. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2022, 16, 2577–2595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kalia, A.; Gill, S. Corporate Governance and Risk Management: A Systematic Review and Synthesis for Future Research. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 2023, 20, 409–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021, 134, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Vespestad, M.K.; Clancy, A. Exploring the Use of Content Analysis Methodology in Consumer Research. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 59, 102427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Latino, M.E.; De Lorenzi, M.C.; Corallo, A.; Petruzzelli, A.M. The Impact of Metaverse for Business Model Innovation: A Review, Novel Insights and Research Directions. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2024, 206, 123571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pizzi, S.; Caputo, A.; Corvino, A.; Venturelli, A. Management Research and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Bibliometric Investigation and Systematic Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 124033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Khaw, T.Y.; Amran, A.; Teoh, A.P. Factors Influencing ESG Performance: A Bibliometric Analysis, Systematic Literature Review, and Future Research Directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 448, 141430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Patel, S.K.; Jhalani, P. Formulation of Variables of Environmental Taxation: A Bibliometric Analysis of Scopus Database (2001–2022). Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 26, 7687–7714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Halme, M.; Huse, M. The Influence of Corporate Governance, Industry and Country Factors on Environmental Reporting. Scand. J. Manag. 1997, 13, 137–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ninkov, A.; Frank, J.R.; Maggio, L.A. Bibliometrics: Methods for Studying Academic Publishing. Perspect Med. Educ. 2021, 11, 173–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rupley, K.H.; Brown, D.; Marshall, R.S. Governance, Media and the Quality of Environmental Disclosure. J. Account. Public Policy 2012, 31, 610–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Peters, G.F.; Romi, A.M. Does the Voluntary Adoption of Corporate Governance Mechanisms Improve Environmental Risk Disclosures? Evidence from Greenhouse Gas Emission Accounting. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 125, 637–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ben-Amar, W.; McIlkenny, P. Board Effectiveness and the Voluntary Disclosure of Climate Change Information. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2015, 24, 704–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zahid, M.; Rahman, H.U.; Ali, W.; Khan, M.; Alharthi, M.; Imran Qureshi, M.; Jan, A. Boardroom Gender Diversity: Implications for Corporate Sustainability Disclosures in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tingbani, I.; Chithambo, L.; Tauringana, V.; Papanikolaou, N. Board Gender Diversity, Environmental Committee and Greenhouse Gas Voluntary Disclosures. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2020, 29, 2194–2210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Baalouch, F.; Ayadi, S.D.; Hussainey, K. A Study of the Determinants of Environmental Disclosure Quality: Evidence from French Listed Companies. J. Manag. Gov. 2019, 23, 939–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Meng, X.H.; Zeng, S.X.; Tam, C.M.; Xu, X.D. Whether Top Executives’ Turnover Influences Environmental Responsibility: From the Perspective of Environmental Information Disclosure. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 114, 341–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Argento, D.; Grossi, G.; Persson, K.; Vingren, T. Sustainability Disclosures of Hybrid Organizations: Swedish State-Owned Enterprises. Meditari Account. Res. 2019, 27, 505–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hafsi, T.; Turgut, G. Boardroom Diversity and Its Effect on Social Performance: Conceptualization and Empirical Evidence. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 112, 463–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zattoni, A.; Leventis, S.; Van Ees, H.; De Masi, S. Board Diversity’s Antecedents and Consequences: A Review and Research Agenda. Leadersh. Q. 2023, 34, 101659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Aggarwal, R.; Jindal, V.; Seth, R. Board Diversity and Firm Performance: The Role of Business Group Affiliation. Int. Bus. Rev. 2019, 28, 101600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Velte, P. Does Sustainable Board Governance Drive Corporate Social Responsibility? A Structured Literature Review on European Archival Research. J. Glob. Responsib. 2023, 14, 46–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Farag, H.; Mallin, C. The Impact of the Dual Board Structure and Board Diversity: Evidence from Chinese Initial Public Offerings (IPOs). J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 139, 333–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Emmanuel, O.; Uwuigbe, U.; Teddy, O.; Tolulope, I.; Akpevwenoghene Eyitomi, G. Corporate Diversity and Corporate Social Environmental Disclosure of Listed Manufacturing Companies in Nigeria. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2018, 16, 229–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pinheiro, A.B.; Oliveira, M.C.; Freitas, G.A.D.; García, M.B.L. Board attributes and environmental disclosure: What is the nexus in liberal economies? Rev. Adm. Empres. 2023, 63, e2021-0446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Elsayih, J.; Tang, Q.; Lan, Y.-C. Corporate Governance and Carbon Transparency: Australian Experience. Account. Res. J. 2018, 31, 405–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nuskiya, M.N.F.; Ekanayake, A.; Beddewela, E.; Meftah Gerged, A. Determinants of Corporate Environmental Disclosures in Sri Lanka: The Role of Corporate Governance. J. Account. Emerg. Econ. 2021, 11, 367–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Manurung, D.T.H.; Hardika, A.L.; Hapsari, D.W.; Christian, F. The Affecting Factors of Greenhouse Gases Disclosure. Environ. Manag. 2020, 21, 121–127. [Google Scholar]
  46. Chakraborty, R.; Dey, S.K. The Effects of Corporate Governance Mechanisms on Voluntary Corporate Carbon Disclosures: Evidence from the Emerging Economy. J. Econ. Adm. Sci. 2023; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jeroh, E. An Assessment of the Internal Determinants of the Environmental Disclosure Practices of Firms across Sub-Saharan Africa. Ekon. Horizonti 2020, 22, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jibril, R.S.; Isa, M.A.; Maigoshi, Z.S.; Hamid, K.T. Audit Committee Attributes, Board of Director’s Independence and Energy Disclosure for Environmental Sustainability in Nigeria. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2024, 16, 391–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Raimo, N.; De Nuccio, E.; Vitolla, F. Corporate Governance and Environmental Disclosure through Integrated Reporting. Meas. Bus. Excel. 2022, 26, 451–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fabrício, S.A.; Ferreira, D.D.M.; Rover, S. Female Representation on Boards of Directors and Environmental Disclosure: Evidence of the Brazilian GHG Protocol Program. Gend. Manag. 2022, 37, 619–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fan, P.; Qian, X.; Wang, J. Does Gender Diversity Matter? Female Directors and Firm Carbon Emissions in Japan. Pac.-Basin Financ. J. 2023, 77, 101931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Charumathi, B.; Rahman, H. Do Women on Boards Influence Climate Change Disclosures to CDP?—Evidence from Large Indian Companies. Australas. Account. Bus. Financ. J. 2019, 13, 5–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Muniandy, B.; Jahangir Ali, M.; Huang, H.; Obeng, V.A. Board Generational Cohorts, Gender Diversity and Corporate Environmental and Social Disclosures: Evidence from China. J. Account. Public Policy 2023, 42, 107066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fernandes, S.M.; Bornia, A.C.; Nakamura, L.R. The Influence of Boards of Directors on Environmental Disclosure. Manag. Decis. 2018, 57, 2358–2382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wang, J.; Sun, J. The Role of Audit Committees in Social Responsibility and Environmental Disclosures: Evidence from Chinese Energy Sector. Int. J. Discl. Gov. 2022, 19, 113–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Dobija, D.; Arena, C.; Kozłowski, Ł.; Krasodomska, J.; Godawska, J. Towards Sustainable Development: The Role of Directors’ International Orientation and Their Diversity for Non-financial Disclosure. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2023, 30, 66–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Le, H.N.M.; O’Connell, B.T.; Safari, M. The Influence of Overseas Study and Work Experience on Corporate Environmental Disclosures: Evidence from Vietnam. Meditari Account. Res. 2022, 30, 524–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Said, R.; Omar, N.; Nailah Abdullah, W. Empirical Investigations on Boards, Business Characteristics, Human Capital and Environmental Reporting. Soc. Responsib. J. 2013, 9, 534–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ong, T.; Djajadikerta, H.G. Corporate Governance and Sustainability Reporting in the Australian Resources Industry: An Empirical Analysis. Soc. Responsib. J. 2018, 16, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gerged, A.M.; Chijoke-Mgbame, A.M.; Konadu, R.; Cowton, C.J. Does the Presence of an Environmental Committee Strengthen the Impact of Board Gender Diversity on Corporate Environmental Disclosure? Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2023, 32, 2434–2450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Shoham, A.; Almor, T.; Lee, S.M.; Ahammad, M.F. Encouraging Environmental Sustainability through Gender: A Micro-foundational Approach Using Linguistic Gender Marking. J. Organ. Behav. 2017, 38, 1356–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Driss, H.; Drobetz, W.; El Ghoul, S.; Guedhami, O. The Sustainability Committee and Environmental Disclosure: International Evidence. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2024, 221, 602–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Haladu, A.; Salim, B.B. Board Characteristics and Sustainability Reporting: Environmental Agencies’ Moderating Effects. Int. J. Econ. Financ. Issues 2016, 6, 1525–1533. [Google Scholar]
  64. Jibril, R.S.; Isa, M.A.; Maigoshi, Z.S. Corporate Board Gender, Institutional Strength and Energy Disclosure in Nigeria. J. Chin. Econ. Foreign Trade Stud. 2022, 15, 316–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Campanella, F.; Serino, L.; Crisci, A.; D’Ambra, A. The Role of Corporate Governance in Environmental Policy Disclosure and Sustainable Development. Generalized Estimating Equations in Longitudinal Count Data Analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 28, 474–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Dewi, L.G.K.; Wiagustini, N.L.P.; Rahyuda, H.; Sudana, I.P. Sustainability Context and Industry Profile on the Effect of Gender Diversity on Firm Value. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 2023, 11, 1343–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ofoegbu, G.N.; Odoemelam, N.; Okafor, R.G. Corporate Board Characteristics and Environmental Disclosure Quantity: Evidence from South Africa (Integrated Reporting) and Nigeria (Traditional Reporting). Cogent Bus. Manag. 2018, 5, 1551510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pucheta-Martínez, M.C.; Gallego-Álvarez, I.; Bel-Oms, I. Board Structures, Liberal Countries, and Developed Market Economies. Do They Matter in Environmental Reporting? An International Outlook. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2019, 28, 710–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wahyuningrum, I.F.S.; Agustina, L.; Jati, K.W.; Amal, M.I.; Sriningsih, S. A Slight Look Environmental Disclosure Score Trends during COVID-19 Outbreak: What’s Driver the Environmental Disclosure in Indonesian Mining and Manufacturing Companies. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2024, 14, 160–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Egbunike, A.P.; Tarilaye, N. Firm’s specific attributes and voluntary environmental disclosure in nigeria: Evidence from listed manufacturing companies. Acad. Account. Financ. Stud. J. 2017, 21, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  71. Oware, K.M.; Iddrisu, A.-A.; Worae, T.; Ellah Adaletey, J. Female and Environmental Disclosure of Family and Non-Family Firms. Evidence from India. Manag. Res. Rev. 2022, 45, 760–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 01211 g001
Figure 1. Flow chart of review on BD-ED research.
Figure 1. Flow chart of review on BD-ED research.
Sustainability 17 01211 g001
Sustainability 17 01211 g002
Figure 2. Main features of the sample.
Figure 2. Main features of the sample.
Sustainability 17 01211 g002
Sustainability 17 01211 g003
Figure 3. Growth in publications and citations.
Figure 3. Growth in publications and citations.
Sustainability 17 01211 g003
Sustainability 17 01211 g004
Figure 4. Relevant authors, affiliations, and countries.
Figure 4. Relevant authors, affiliations, and countries.
Sustainability 17 01211 g004
Sustainability 17 01211 g005
Figure 5. Country collaborations.
Figure 5. Country collaborations.
Sustainability 17 01211 g005
Sustainability 17 01211 g006
Figure 6. Word cloud of keywords.
Figure 6. Word cloud of keywords.
Sustainability 17 01211 g006
Sustainability 17 01211 g007
Figure 7. Trend topics.
Figure 7. Trend topics.
Sustainability 17 01211 g007
Sustainability 17 01211 g008
Figure 8. Thematic map of authors’ keywords.
Figure 8. Thematic map of authors’ keywords.
Sustainability 17 01211 g008
Sustainability 17 01211 g009
Figure 9. Framework to cluster board diversity measurements in BD-ED research.
Figure 9. Framework to cluster board diversity measurements in BD-ED research.
Sustainability 17 01211 g009
Sustainability 17 01211 g010
Figure 10. Major results of the literature review.
Figure 10. Major results of the literature review.
Sustainability 17 01211 g010
Sustainability 17 01211 g011
Figure 11. Theories used in previous studies on the BD-ED relationship.
Figure 11. Theories used in previous studies on the BD-ED relationship.
Sustainability 17 01211 g011
Table 1. Procedures for data collection.
Table 1. Procedures for data collection.
Procedure for Data CollectionDetails
Search field“article title, abstract, keywords”
Search dateJuly 2024
Search period1995–2024
Number of initial samples1168
Search subject area, publication stage, source typeNo limits
Number of final samples74
Table 2. Most cited authors, countries, and sources.
Table 2. Most cited authors, countries, and sources.
Most Cited AuthorsMost Cited CountriesMost Cited Sources
AuthorhgmTCNP CountryTCAC SourcehgmTCNP
Djajadikerta HG220.221262 Australia1025256.20 BSE550.503765
Elleuch Lahyani220.50392 USA507169.00 MAR330.50863
Hapsari DW220.2942 UK35571.00 ARJ220.29782
Hardika AL220.2942 Canada214107.00 AABF220.221082
Isa MA220.67102 Finland194194.00 CGB230.40823
Jibril RS220.67102 Pakistan132132.00 CSREM220.50592
Maigoshi ZS220.67102 Nigeria10517.50 IJEEP230.40233
Manurung DTH220.2942 China10150.50 JAPP220.152902
Merello P220.40532 Qatar9431.30 JAAR220.67172
Tang Q220.209572 Italy7926.30 JBE220.173082
h: h index, g: g index, m: m index, TC: total citations, NP: net publications, AC: average citations, BSE: Business Strategy and the Environment, MAR: Meditari Accountancy Research, ARJ: Accounting Research Journal, AABF: Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, CGB: Corporate Governance (Bingley), CSREM: Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, IJEEP: International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, JAPP: Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, JARR: Journal of Applied Accounting Research, JBE: Journal of Business Ethics.
Table 3. Top 10 most globally cited articles on BD-ED research.
Table 3. Top 10 most globally cited articles on BD-ED research.
No.TitleAuthorsSourceDOITCTC per Year
1Gender Diversity, Board Independence, Environmental Committee, and Greenhouse Gas Disclosure[2]The British Accounting Review10.1016/j.bar.2014.01.00289089.00
2Governance, Media, and the Quality of Environmental Disclosure[28]Journal of Accounting and Public Policy10.1016/j.jaccpu-pol.2012.09.00228521.92
3Does the Voluntary Adoption of Corporate Governance Mechanisms Improve Environmental Risk Disclosures? Evidence from Greenhouse Gas Emission Accounting[29]Journal of Business Ethics10.1007/s10551-013-1886-922020.00
4Board Effectiveness and the Voluntary Disclosure of Climate Change Information[30]Business Strategy and the Environment10.1002/bse.184020120.10
5The Influence of Corporate Governance, Industry, and Country Factors on Environmental Reporting[25]Scandinavian Journal of Management10.1016/S0956-5221(97)00002-X1946.93
6Boardroom Gender Diversity: Implications for Corporate Sustainability Disclosures in Malaysia[31]Journal of Cleaner Production10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.11868313226.40
7Board Gender Diversity, Environmental Committee, and Greenhouse Gas Voluntary Disclosures[32]Business Strategy and the Environment10.1002/bse.249512925.80
8A Study of the Determinants of Environmental Disclosure Quality: Evidence from French Listed Companies[33]Journal of Management and Governance10.1007/s10997-019-09474-012420.67
9Whether Top Executives’ Turnover Influences Environmental Responsibility: From the Perspective of Environmental Information Disclosure[34]Journal of Business Ethics10.1007/s10551-012-1351-1887.33
10Sustainability Disclosures of Hybrid Organizations: Swedish State-Owned Enterprises[35]Meditari Accountancy Research10.1108/MEDAR-07-2018-03627212.00
Table 4. Emerging gaps and proposed future directions.
Table 4. Emerging gaps and proposed future directions.
Emerging GapProposed Future Directions
Cultural Background/Values
  • Future research could cover more factors that affect environmental disclosure, such as industry-specific factors and cultural differences.
  • Selection of directors whose personal attributes reflect their culture, norms, and values.
  • Future research could incorporate cross-cultural and cross-industry comparative analyses.
  • Future research could delve into other factors that may influence the BD-ED relationship, such as corporate culture and external environmental pressures.
Governance Mechanisms/Board Attributes
  • Future research could examine external governance mechanisms or institutional governance mechanisms.
  • Future research could choose other endogenous (e.g., academic background, environmental awareness, financial expertise, and foreign directorship) and exogenous (e.g., sustainability committee) attributes.
  • Future research could analyze executive compensation, shareholder rights, and national legal issues over a longer time period.
Disclosure Content/Disclosure Quality
  • Future research could consider the quality of ED or the timeliness of disclosure and analyze the variety of impacts of ED (e.g., monetary vs. non-monetary information).
  • Research could analyze other qualitative features, such as the tone of the disclosure information.
  • Considering the specific motivations and reasons behind a company’s ED information, future research could identify why certain items are disclosed the least.
  • Future research could consider whether ED provides long-term benefits to stakeholders and how companies can gain social recognition and incentives by investing in these programs.
Macroeconomic/Institutional Environment
  • Future research could be generalized to different contexts; existing studies are restricted to samples of listed companies and specific environments because of the differences in economic development, internal policies, and governance in different countries.
  • Future research could consider other factors that can potentially influence ED, such as the impact of the macroeconomic and policy environment.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xu, B.; Jamal, N.M.; Liu, Y.; Yahya, T.B. Board Diversity and Environmental Disclosure: A Review, Current Insights, and Emerging Trends. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1211. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031211

AMA Style

Xu B, Jamal NM, Liu Y, Yahya TB. Board Diversity and Environmental Disclosure: A Review, Current Insights, and Emerging Trends. Sustainability. 2025; 17(3):1211. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031211

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xu, Bikun, Noriza Mohd Jamal, Yue Liu, and Taher Ben Yahya. 2025. "Board Diversity and Environmental Disclosure: A Review, Current Insights, and Emerging Trends" Sustainability 17, no. 3: 1211. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031211

APA Style

Xu, B., Jamal, N. M., Liu, Y., & Yahya, T. B. (2025). Board Diversity and Environmental Disclosure: A Review, Current Insights, and Emerging Trends. Sustainability, 17(3), 1211. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031211

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop