The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Women directors, firm performance, and firm risk: A causal perspective
Open accessAbstract
Norway was the first of ten countries to legislate gender quotas for boards of publicly traded firms. There is considerable debate and mixed evidence concerning the implications of female board representation. In this paper, we explain the main sources of biases in the existing literature on the effects of women directors on firm performance and review methods to account for these biases. We address the endogeneity problem by using a difference-in-differences approach to study the effects of women directors on firm performance with specific consideration of the common trend assumption, and we explicitly distinguish between accounting-based (i.e., operating income divided by assets, return on assets) and market-based (i.e., market-to-book ratio and Tobin's Q) performance measures in the Norwegian setting. The control group are firms from Finland, Sweden, and Denmark. We further extend the analysis of causal effects of women directors to firm risk. Our results imply a negative effect of mandated female representation on firm performance and on firm risk.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779
How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?
Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2004) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355304772839588 · Cited by 10,641
Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511811241 · Cited by 8,092
Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.109.3.573 · Cited by 7,300
Financial Ratios As Predictors of Failure
Beaver, W. H. (1966) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.2307/2490171 · Cited by 4,882
Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis
Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367 · Cited by 3,723
On making causal claims: A review and recommendations
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010 · Cited by 2,441
Empirical Strategies in Labor Economics
Angrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (1999) · Handbook of Labor Economics · doi:10.1016/s1573-4463(99)03004-7 · Cited by 1,628
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2010) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.24.2.3 · Cited by 1,566
The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses
IOANNIDIS, J. P. A. (2016) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12210 · Cited by 1,483
Cited by
Khatib, S. F. A., Abdullah, D. F., Elamer, A. A., & Abueid, R. (2021) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.2665 · Cited by 322
Crisis leadership: A review and future research agenda
Wu, Y. L., Shao, B., Newman, A., & Schwarz, G. (2021) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101518 · Cited by 280
Metadata
- Authors
- Yang, P., Riepe, J., Moser, K., Pull, K., & Terjesen, S.
- Venue
- The Leadership Quarterly
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-10
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 101297
- ISSN
- 1048-9843 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2951046369
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 46.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Women directors, firm performance, and firm risk: A causal perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.05.004
- The paper
- Yang, P., Riepe, J., Moser, K., Pull, K., & Terjesen, S. (2019). Women directors, firm performance, and firm risk: A causal perspective. The Leadership Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.05.004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
