CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Gender Diversity and InequalityCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingGender Politics and Representation

A importância da diversidade de gênero nos conselhos de administração para a promoção da responsabilidade social corporativa

Open access
Silveira, Alexandre Di Miceli da, Donaggio, Angela Rita Franco·2020·DESC - Direito, Economia e Sociedade Contemporânea
DOI 10.33389/desc.v2n2.2019.p11-42
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Este artigo analisa o impacto da diversidade de gênero nos conselhos de administração sobre a responsabilidade social corporativa por meio da consolidação de sua literatura. Esta questão é relevante por abordar temas caros aos direitos humanos, tais como o empoderamento feminino e seus impactos para a promoção de um ambiente social mais justo e mais responsável do ponto de vista ambiental. A análise agregada de dezenas de trabalhos empíricos mostra que a maior diversidade de gênero nos conselhos está relacionada a diversos impactos positivos, tais como: melhores indicadores de responsabilidade social corporativa, melhor reputação ética e social, maior conformidade às leis e normas, e melhor qualidade dos relatórios divulgados pelas empresas. A conclusão geral deste trabalho é que a diversidade de gênero na alta gestão deve ser vista como prioridade por dois motivos principais. De um lado, por contribuir diretamente com os Princípios de Empoderamento das Mulheres da ONU. Do outro, por contribuir indiretamente para a promoção dos Princípios do Pacto Global, particularmente para aqueles relacionados ao meio ambiente e ao combate à corrupção

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 · 10.33389/desc.v2n2.2019.p11-42

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Estudios previos, como el de Silveira (2020), vinculan una mayor equidad de género con una mejor valoración ética, social y con un impacto positivo en el desempeño organizacional.

    “Este hallazgo coincide con estudios previos, como el de Silveira (2020), que vinculan una mayor equidad de género con una mejor valoración ética, social y con un impacto positivo en el desempeño organizacional.”

    From Responsabilidad social corporativa y equidad de género en el entorno digital (2025) · cites this paper as Silveira (2020)

    La introducción y la síntesis de estudios relacionan una mayor presencia de mujeres en los consejos con una mejor reputación ética y social y mejores prácticas de responsabilidad social corporativa. Sin embargo, el artículo se centra en la diversidad de género en los consejos, no en la equidad de género en general. También advierte que los resultados sobre desempeño financiero son mixtos y que la evidencia sobre desempeño social debe interpretarse como asociación, no como impacto causal demostrado. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 108 · Cited by 8

Research works printed but not linked: 118

  1. ABBOTT, L., PARKER, S., PRESLEY, T. (2012). Female Board Presence and the Likelihood of Financial Restatement. Accounting Horizons 26(4), 607-629.
  2. ADAMS, R., FUNK, P. (2012). Beyond the glass ceiling: Does gender matter? Management Science, 58(2), 219-235.
  3. AGARS, M. D. (2004). Reconsidering the impact of gender stereotypes on the advancement of women in organizations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 103-111.
  4. AGUILERA, R., JACKSON, G. (2003). The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants, Academy of Management Journal, 28: 447-465.
  5. AKAAH, I. P. (1989). Differences in research ethics judgments between male and female. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(5), 375-381.
  6. ARLOW, P. (1991). Personal characteristics in college students' evaluations of business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 10: 63-69.
  7. BACKHAUS, K. B., STONE, B. A., HEINER, K. (2002). Exploring the relationship between corporate social performance and employer attractiveness. Business & Society, 41(3), 292-318.
  8. BASELGA-PASCUAL, L., TRUJILLO-PONCE, A., VÄHÄMAA, E., VÄHÄMAA, S. (2014). Ethical Reputation of Financial Institutions: Do Board Characteristics Matter? Journal of Business Ethics, 1-22.
  9. BEAR, S., RAHMAN, N., POST, C. (2010). The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 207-221.
  10. BEN-AMAR, W., CHANG, M., & MCILKENNY, P. (2015). Board gender diversity and corporate response to sustainability initiatives: Evidence from the carbon disclosure project. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-15.
  11. BERNARDI, R., ARNOLD, D. (1997), "An examination of moral development within public accounting by gender, staff level, and firm", Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 653-668.
  12. BETZ, M., O'CONNELL, L. SHEPARD, J. (1989), "Gender differences in proclivity for unethical behavior", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 321-324.
  13. BEUTEL, A., MARINI, M. (1995). Gender and Values. American Sociological Review 60:436-48.
  14. BILIMORIA, D., PIDERIT, S. (1994) Board committee membership: Effects of sex-based bias, Academy of Management Journal, 37(6):1453-77.
  15. BORKOWSKI, S. C., UGRAS, Y. J. (1998). Business students and ethics: A meta-analysis. journal of Business Ethics, 17(11), 1117-1127.
  16. BOULOUTA, I. (2013). Hidden Connections: The Link Between Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Business Ethics. 113: 185-197. desc.facamp.com.br | DESC -Direito, Economia e Sociedade Contemporânea | Campinas | Vol. 2, n. 2 | Jul/Dez 2019
  17. BRAMMER, S., MILLINGTON, A., & PAVELIN, S. (2009). Corporate reputation and women on the board. British Journal of Management, 20(1): 17-29.
  18. BURGESS, Z., THARENOU, P. (2002). Women board directors: Characteristics of the few. Journal of Business Ethics, 37(1), 39-49.
  19. BURGESS, Z., FALLON, B. 2003. A longitudinal study of women directors in Australia, Women in Management Review, 18: 359-368.
  20. BYRON, K., POST, C. (2016). Women on Board of Directors and Corporate Social Performance: A Meta- Analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review. Forthcoming. DOI: 10.1111/corg.12165 · DOI
  21. CARLSON, R. (1972). Understanding women: Implications for personality theory and research. Journal of Social Issues, 28: 17-32.
  22. CHOI, T. H., JUNG, J. (2008). Ethical commitment, financial performance, and valuation: An empirical investigation of Korean companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 447-463.
  23. CUMMING, D., LEUNG, T., RUI, O. (2012). Gender diversity and securities fraud. Working paper available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2154934 · DOI
  24. DAILY, C. M., CERTO, S. T., DALTON, D. R. (2000). The future of corporate women: Progress toward the executive suite and the boardroom? In R. J. Burke & M. C. Mattis (Eds.), Women on corporate boards of directors: International challenges and opportunities (pp. 11-23). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  25. DAVIDSON, D., FREUDENBURG, W. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available literature. Environment and Behavior, 28(3), 302-339.
  26. DAWSON, L. M. (1997). Ethical differences between men and women in the sales profession. Journal of Business Ethics, 16: 1143-1152.
  27. DIAMANTOPOULOS, A., SCHLEGELMILCH, B., SINKOVICS, R., BOHLEN, G. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research 56: 465-480.
  28. DONKER, H., POFF, D., ZAHIR, S. (2008). Corporate values, codes of ethics, and firm performance: A look at the Canadian context. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 527-537.
  29. ______, CARLI, L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
  30. ______, KARAU, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.
  31. ______, KARAU, S., MAKHIJANI, M. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 125-145.
  32. ______, JOHNSON, B. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108: 233-256.
  33. ______, JOHANNESEN-SCHMIDT, M., VAN ENGEN, M. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591.
  34. EISENBERG, N., MILLER, P. A. (1987). Empathy and prosocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91-119.
  35. FERRELL, O. C., SKINNER, J. S. (1988). Ethical behavior and bureaucratic structure in marketing research organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 103-109.
  36. FINKELSTEIN, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation, Academy of Management Journal, 35: 505-538.
  37. FISCHER, K., KHOURY, N. (2007). The impact of ethical ratings on Canadian security performance: Portfolio management and corporate governance implications. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 47, 40-54.
  38. FODIO, M. I., OBA, V. C. (2012). Boards' gender mix and extent of environmental responsibility information disclosure in Nigeria: An empirical study. European Journal of Business and Management, 4(14), 163-169.
  39. Paul. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  40. GARCIA-SANCHEZ, I., RODRIGUEZ-DOMINGUEZ, L., FRIAS-ACEITUNO, J. (2015). Board of directors and ethics codes in different corporate governance systems. Journal of Business Ethics. 131: 681-698.
  41. GILLIGAN, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  42. GLASS, C., COOK, A., INGERSOLL, A. R. (2015). Do women leaders promote sustainability? Analyzing the effect of corporate governance composition on environmental performance, Business Strategy and the Environment. DOI:10.1002/bse.1879. · DOI
  43. GLICK, P., FISKE, S. T. (1999). Gender, power dynamics, and social interaction. In M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber and B. B. Hess (Eds.), Revisioning gender, Vol. 5: 365-398. Oxford, England: AltaMira Press.
  44. GROYSBERG, B., BELL, D. (2013). Dysfunction in the boardroom. Harvard Business Review, 91(6), 89-97. desc.facamp.com.br | DESC -Direito, Economia e Sociedade Contemporânea | Campinas | Vol. 2, n. 2 | Jul/Dez 2019
  45. GUL, F., SRINIDHI, B., & NG, A. (2011). Does board gender diversity improve the informativeness of stock prices? Journal of Accounting and Economics. 51: 314-338.
  46. GUTEK, B. A., MORASCH, B. (1982). Sex ratios, sex-role spillover and sexual harassment of women at work. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 55-74.
  47. HAFSI, T., TURGUT, G. (2013). Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance: Conceptualization and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 463-479.
  48. HATCH, C., STEPHEN, S. (2015). Gender Effects on Perceptions of Individual and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Applied Business and Economics. 17(3): 63-71.
  49. HARRIGAN, K. R. (1981). Numbers and positions of women elected to corporate boards, Academy of Management Journal, 24: 619-625.
  50. HEILMAN, M., CHEN, J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men's and women's altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 431-441.
  51. HILLMAN, A. (2015). Board diversity: Beginning to unpeel the onion. Corporate Governance: An International Review. 23(2): 104-107.
  52. HILLMAN, A. J., CANNELLA, A. A., Jr., HARRIS, I. C. (2002). Women and racial minorities in the boardroom: How do directors differ? Journal of Management, 28: 747-763.
  53. HO, S., LI, A., TAM, K., ZHANG, F. (2015). CEO Gender, Ethical Leadership, and Accounting Conservatism. Journal of Business Ethics. 127: 351-370.
  54. IBRAHIM, N., ANGELIDIS, J. (2009). The relative importance of ethics as a selection criterion for entry-level public accountants: Does gender make a difference? Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 49-58.
  55. ISIDRO, H., SOBRAL, M. (2015).The Effects of Women on Corporate Boards on Firm Value, Financial Performance and Ethical and Social Compliance. Journal of Business Ethics. 132: 1-19.
  56. JAIN, T., JAMALI, D. (2016). Looking Inside the Black Box: The Effect of Corporate Governance on Corporate Social Responsibility. Corporate Governance. Forthcoming. DOI:10.1111/corg.12154. · DOI
  57. JAFFEE, S., HYDE, S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703-726.
  58. KODINSKY, R., TIMOTHY M., DANIEL S., HENKEL, E. (2010). Attitudes about Corporate Social Responsibility: Business Student Predictors. Journal of Business Ethics 91:167-81.
  59. KONRAD, A. M., KRAMER, V., ERKUT, S. (2008) Critical mass: The impact of three or more women on corporate boards, Organizational Dynamics, 37(2): 145-64.
  60. KRISHNAN, G., PARSONS, L. (2008). Getting to the Bottom Line: An Exploration of Gender and Earnings Quality. Journal of Business Ethics 78, 65-76.
  61. LABELLE, R., GARGOURI, R., & FRANCOEUR, C. (2010). Ethics, diversity management, and financial reporting quality. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), 335-353.
  62. LIAO, L., LUO, L., TANG, Q. (2014). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. British Accounting Review. 49: 409-424.
  63. LOE, T., FERRELL, L., MANSFIELD, P. (2000). A Review of Empirical Studies Assessing Ethical Decision Making in Business. Journal of Business Ethics 25:185-204.
  64. LU, W., CHAU, K. W., WANG, H., PAN, W. (2014). A decade's debate on the nexus between corporate social and corporate financial performance: a critical review of empirical studies 2002-2011. Journal of Cleaner Production, 79, 195-206.
  65. LUND, D. B. (2008). Gender differences in ethics judgment of marketing professionals in the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(4), 501-515.
  66. MAINIERI, T., BARNETT, E., VALDERO, T., UNIPAN, J., OSKAMP, S. (1997), "Green buying: The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior", The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 137 No. 2, pp. 189-204.
  67. MALLIN, C., MICHELON, G. (2011). Board reputation attributes and corporate social performance: An empirical investigation of the U.S. Best Corporate Citizens. Accounting and Business Research, 41(2), 119-144.
  68. MARQUIS, C., LEE, M. (2013). Who is governing whom? Executives, governance, and the structure of generosity in large U.S. firms. Strategic Management Journal, 34(4), 483-497.
  69. MASON, E. S., MUDRACK, P. E. (1996). Gender and ethical orientation: A test of gender and occupational socialization theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 15: 599-604.
  70. MATTINGLY, J.E., BERMAN S.L. (2006). Measurement of corporate social action. Business & Society 45(1): 20-46.
  71. MIETHE, T. D., ROTHSCHILD, J. (1994). Whistleblowing and the control of organizational misconduct. Sociological Inquiry, 643(3), 322-347.
  72. NIELSEN, S., HUSE, M. (2010). The contribution of women on boards of directors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(2), 136-148.
  73. O'FALLON, M., BUTTERFIELD, K. (2005). A Review of the Empirical Ethical Decision-Making Literature: 1996-2003. Journal of Business Ethics 59:375-413.
  74. PELLED, L. H., EISENHARDT, K. M., XIN, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1-28.
  75. PETERSON, C., PHILPOT, J. (2007). Women's roles on U.S. Fortune 500 boards: Director expertise and committee memberships. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(2), 177-196.
  76. PERSONS, O. (2015). Corporate Governance Characteristics of Most Admired Companies. International Journal of Business and Social Science. 6(3): 11-18.
  77. POST, C., RAHMAN, N., RUBOW, E. (2011). Green governance: Boards' of directors composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 50(1), 189-223.
  78. POST, C., BYRON, K. (2015). Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1546-1571.
  79. POST, C., RAHMAN, N., MCQUILLEN, C. (2015). From Board Composition to Corporate Environmental Performance Through Sustainability-Themed Alliances. Journal of Business Ethics. 130:423-435.
  80. RAO, K. K., TILT, C. A., LESTER, L. H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental reporting: An Australian study. Corporate Governance, 12(2), 143-163.
  81. RAGINS, B., SUNDSTROM, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal perspective, Psychological Bulletin, 105: 51-88.
  82. RAYTON, B. A., BRAMMER, S. J., MILLINGTON, A. I. (2015). Corporate social performance and the psychological contract. Group & Organization Management, 40(3), 353-377.
  83. REUBEN, E., SAPIENZA, P., ZINGALES, L. (2014). How stereotypes impair women's careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(12), 4403-4408.
  84. REUBEN, E., REY-BIEL, P., SAPIENZA, P., ZINGALES, L. (2012). The emergence of male leadership in competitive environments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 111-117.
  85. RIDGEWAY, C. L. 2001. The emergence of status beliefs: From structural inequality to legitimizing ideology. In J. T. Jost and B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relation: 257-277. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  86. ______, SMITH-LOVIN, L. (1999). The gender system and interaction, Annual Review of Sociology, 25: 191-126.
  87. ROSE, C. (2007). Does female board representation influence firm performance? The danish evidence. Corporate Governance, 15(2), 404-413.
  88. ROTHSCHILD, J., MIETHE, T. D. (1999). Whistle-blower disclosures and management retaliation: The battle to control information about organizational corruption. Work & Occupations, 26(1), 107-128.
  89. RUDMAN, L. A., GLICK, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743-762.
  90. RUDMAN, L. A., GLICK, P. (2012). Social psychology of gender. New York: Guilford Press.
  91. RYAN, M., HASLAM, S. (2005) The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions, British Journal of Management, 16: 81-90.
  92. SEIERSTAD, C. (2015). Beyond the Business Case: The Need for Both Utility and Justice Rationales for Increasing the Share of Women on Boards. Corporate Governance: An International Review. 23: 1-16.
  93. SHRADER, C., BLACKBURN, V., ILES, P. (1997) Women in management and firm value: An exploratory study, Journal of Managerial Issues, 9: 355-72.
  94. SILVEIRA, A. M., DONAGGIO, A. R. F., SICA, L. P. P. P, RAMOS, L. O. (2013). Women's participation in senior management positions: gender social relations, law and corporate governance. Disponível em: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2508929.
  95. SIMGA-MUGAN, C., DALY, B. A., ONKAL, D., KAVUT, L. (2005). The influence of nationality and gender on ethical sensitivity: An application of the issue-contingent model. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(2), 139-159.
  96. SLOTE, M. (2007). The ethics of care and empathy. New York: Routledge.
  97. SINGH, V., TERJESEN, S., VINNICOMBE, S. (2008). Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: How do women and men differ. European Management Journal. 26(1): 48-58.
  98. SRINIDHI, B., GUL, F., TSUI, J. (2011). Female directors and earnings quality. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(5), 1610-1644.
  99. STEFFENSMEIER, D., SCHWARTZ, J., ROCHE, M. (2013). Gender and Twenty-First-Century Corporate Crime: Female Involvement and the Gender Gap in Enron-Era Corporate Frauds. American Sociological Review. 78(3): 448-476.
  100. STURMER, S., SNYDER, M., OMOTO, A. M. (2005). Prosocial emotions and helping: The moderating role of group membership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 532-546.
  101. SUNDARASEN, S., JE-YEN T., RAJANGAM, N. (2016). Board Composition and Corporate Social Responsibility in an Emerging Market. Corporate Governance. 16(1): 35-53. DOI 10.1108/CG-05- 2015-0059 · DOI
  102. TERJESEN, S., SEALY, R. SINGH, V. (2009). Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review. 17: 320-337.
  103. TORCHIA, M., CALABRÒ, A., HUSE, M. (2011). Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics, 102: 299-317.
  104. VALENTINE, S. R., RITTENBURG, T. L. (2004). Spanish and American business professionals' ethical evaluations in global situations. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(1), 1-14.
  105. VERMEIR, I., VAN KENHOVE, P. (2008). Gender differences in double standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 281-295.
  106. WALLS, J., BERRONE, P., PHAN, P. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link? Strategic Management Journal, 33: 885-913.
  107. WEEKS, W. A., MOORE, C. W., MCKINNEY, J. A., LONGENECKER, J. G. (1999). The effects of gender and career stage on ethical judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 20(4), 301-313.
  108. WEBB, E. (2004). An examination of socially responsible firms' board structure. Journal of Management and Governance, 8(3), 255-277.
  109. WILLIAMS, R. (2003). Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(1): 1-10.
  110. WOOD, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691-718.
  111. ______. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review, International Journal of Management Reviews, 12: 50-84.
  112. ______, EAGLY, A. H. (2009). Gender identity. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 109-125). New York: Guilford Press.
  113. WRIGHT, E. O., BAXTER, J., BIRKELUND, G. E. 1995. The gender gap in workplace authority: A cross-national study, American Sociological Review, 60: 407-435.
  114. ZELECHOWSKI, D., BILIMORIA, D. (2006). Characteristics of CEOs and boards with women inside | p. 11 -42 | https://doi.org/10.33389/desc.v2n2.2019.p11-42 desc.facamp.com.br | DESC -Direito, Economia e Sociedade Contemporânea | Campinas | Vol. 2, n. 2 | Jul/Dez 2019 · DOI
  115. directors. Corporate Board: Roles, Duties and Composition, 2(2), 14-21.
  116. ZHANG, J., ZHU, H., DING, H. (2013). Board composition and corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation in the post Sarbanes-Oxley era. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 381-392.
  117. Foi consultor da OCDE, professor da USP durante dez anos e vice-presidente da Sociedade Brasileira de Finanças. Autor de mais de 50 trabalhos científicos sobre governança, foi agraciado com dezenas de prêmios, incluindo o Prêmio "Personalidade do Ano" 2018 concedido pela Associação Brasileira de Treinamento e Desenvolvimento do Paraná, prêmios IBGC Academia nos anos de 2014, 2013, 2011, 2009 e 2003, e o Revelação em Finanças do IBEF 2006. SOBRE A AUTORA: Angela Rita Franco Donaggio Doutora em Direito Comercial pela Universidade de São Paulo (FD-USP), aprovada cum laude, Mestra em Direito dos Negócios e Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social por FGV Direito SP e Bacharela em Direito pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica Paulo (PUC-SP). em Harvard Law School em Cornell Law School. -graduação SP em Direito, Gênero e Identidade. Professora Assistente em Direito Comercial (PAE) da Universidade de São Paulo -USP (2013).
  118. Coautora dos livros: "A Sociedade Anônima e a Democracia na América do Sul: Regulação e Governança Corporativa" (FGV Direito SP, 2016); "Estado, Empresa e Liberdade: Textos em homenagem ao Professor Antonio Angarita" (Quartier Latin, 2016); "A Regulação Brasileira do Mercado de Capitais" (Saraiva, 2015); "Mercado de capitais Brasileiro II -Doutrina, Cases & Materiais" (Quartier Latin, 2015); "Corporate Governance in Emerging Markets" (Springer, 2014); "Governança Corporativa e Ofertas Públicas Iniciais no Brasil" (Direito GV, 2013); "Estado e empresa: uma relação imbricada" (Direito GV, 2013); "Empresas Familiares: Governança Corporativa, Governança Familiar e Governança Jurídica" (Saraiva, 2010); "Direito Societário: Estratégias Societárias, Planejamento Tributário e Sucessório" (Saraiva, 2009). Coautora do "Women in Business Leadership Boost ESG Performance: Existing Body of Evidence Makes Compelling Case" (International Finance Corporation, 2019), do "Modelo de Regimento Interno do Conselho de Administração do IBGC" (IBGC, 2008) e do "OECD Country Report -The Role of Institutional Investors in Promoting Corporate Governance in Brazil" (OECD, 2007).

Authors
Silveira, A. D. M. D., & Donaggio, A. R. F.
Affiliations
  • Fundação Escola de Comércio Álvares Penteado (BR)
  • Centro Universitário FACAMP (BR)
ORCID
Silveira, Alexandre Di Miceli da
Venue
DESC - Direito, Economia e Sociedade Contemporânea
Publisher
Revista DESC - Direito Economia e Sociedade Contemporanea
Published
2020-02-21
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
11-42
ISSN
2596-0318 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.33389/desc.v2n2.2019.p11-42
OpenAlex
W3006754382
Cited by
8
References
108
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 6
FWCI
2.14
Type
journal article
Language
pt
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • DESC - Direito Economia e Sociedade Contemporânea (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DESC - Direito Economia e Sociedade Contemporânea (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Politics and Representation
Keywords
gender diversity, board of directors, corporate social responsibility, women's empowerment, UN Global Compact, corporate governance, corporate reputation, legal compliance, corporate reporting quality, anti-corruption

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