Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,680

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Women Directors on Corporate Boards: A Review and Research Agenda

Terjesen, Siri, Sealy, Ruth, Singh, Val·2009·Corporate Governance: An International Review

Abstract

Manuscript Type: Review Research Question/Issue: This review examines how gender diversity on corporate boards influences corporate governance outcomes that in turn impact performance. We describe extant research on theoretical perspectives, characteristics, and impact of women on corporate boards (WOCB) at micro, meso, and macro levels: individual, board, firm, and industry/environment. Research Finding/Results: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive review of WOCBs, incorporating and integrating research from over 400 publications in psychology, sociology, leadership, gender, finance, management, law, corporate governance, and entrepreneurship domains. In addition, we organized our findings to provide a new lens enabling the field to be readily examined by level and by theoretical perspective. The review indicates that WOCB research is about improving corporate governance through better use of the whole talent pool's capital, as well as about building more inclusive and fairer business institutions that better reflect their present generation of stakeholders. Theoretical Implications: With only one in 10 papers addressing theoretical development, the predominant perspectives are human and social capital theories and gender schema at the individual level; social identity, token, and social networks theories at board level; resource dependency, institution, and agency theories at the firm level; and institutional, critical, and political theories at the environmental level. We provide a short synopsis of findings at each level, and conclude with an outline of fruitful directions for future research. Practical Implications: There are increasing pressures for WOCBs from diverse stakeholders, such as the European Commission, national governments, politicians, employer lobby groups, shareholders, Fortune and FTSE rankings, best places for women to work lists, as well as expectations from highly qualified women who are likely to leave if they see no women board members. Rationales generally draw on the business case; however, the moral justice case is also used by those who seek a fairer gender balance in all aspects of society. From our review, the “Impact” section charts the effect of WOCB at all four levels of analysis.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00742.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 1,680

Metadata

Authors
Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V.
Venue
Corporate Governance: An International Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-05
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
320-337
ISSN
  • 0964-8410 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8683
OpenAlex
W2070970562
Cited by
1,680
References
3
FWCI
78.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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 on Corporate Boards: A Review and Research Agenda. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00742.x
The paper
Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2009). Women Directors on Corporate Boards: A Review and Research Agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00742.x

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.