Gender Diversity in Audit Committees from an Environmental, Social and Governance Perspective

Gender Diversity in Audit Committees from an Environmental, Social and Governance Perspective

Cristiano Melo Reinaldo*., Francisco Roberto Pinto

State University of Ceará, Brazil

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9020277

Received: 14 February 2025; Accepted: 18 February 2025; Published: 18 March 2025

ABSTRACT

Literature published in high-impact journals addressing Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) disclosure has often focused on developed economies, although emerging markets represent a significant proportion of companies worldwide, there is still no scientific consensus on the relationship between the presence of women on boards and ESG disclosure. This research aims to verify whether there is an influence of women’s participation (gender diversity), in the audit committee, in the disclosure of ESG information with 294 regulated and non-regulated companies in [B]3 with financial information in the reference form and in the Thomas Reuters and Economática® database, referring to the years from 2013 to 2022, applying descriptive statistics and an econometric model with panel data for data processing. The results of this study offer important contributions to the discussion related to the role of women in social, environmental and governance (ESG) disclosures by providing new evidence from companies listed in [B]3, from the perspective of Agency Theory, concerned with risks to reputation, image and meeting the demand of investors concerned with issues of sustainability, inclusion and diversity. The research contributes to the understanding that female representation is a determining aspect in the probability of occurrence of those disclosures, and if associated with a longer term of office, they can contribute to the occurrence and expansion of ESG disclosures in these institutions. It is suggested that further investigations into the presence of women in other governance mechanisms, or executive levels of organizations.

Keywords: Gender diversity, audit committee, ESG disclosure.

INTRODUCTION

The minority participation of women in relation to men in the corporate governance structure of companies, as well as in senior positions, is the focus of several national and international studies (Birindelli et al. 2018; Coluccia et al. 2019; Qureshi et al. 2020; Buallay et al. 2020; Prudêncio et al. 2021). The results obtained for the most distinct scenarios indicate that, regardless of developed or developing economies, the representation of women in the governance structure is substantially lower than that of men (Brugni et al. 2018; Silveira, & Donaggio, 2019; Prudêncio et al. 2021). However, increasing gender diversity tends to have a positive impact on companies’ organizational performance, as it provides a greater diversity of ideas and individual characteristics that favor the decision-making process (Ntim & Soobaroyen, 2013; Coluccia et al. 2019; Wasiuzzaman & Mohammad, 2020). Although empirically there is no consensus on the effective improvement in disclosure performance social, environmental and governance (ESG) as a consequence of the presence of women in corporate decision-making processes, although some previous studies indicate that gender diversity in companies favors the achievement of these objectives (Silveira, & Donaggio, 2019; Albitar et al. 2020; Qureshi et al. 2020).

Studies have hypothesized that specific configurations of governance mechanisms could create greater environmental awareness in organizations. Gender diversity in committees (governance or audit), the presence of independent members, the existence of an environmental committee, the size of the board, the independence of members, the results and size of organizations are mechanisms tested in the literature as characteristics that can favor the social performance of companies as well as environmental performance (Cucari, Esposito De Falco & Orlando, 2017; Bravo et al. , 2019).

The acronym ESG only emerged in 2005, in the report “ Who Cares Wins ”, the result of an initiative led by the United Nations (UN), which proposed guidelines and recommendations on how to address environmental, social and governance issues in asset management, securities brokerage services and research related to the topic; however, the theoretical basis and conceptual justification of most ESG studies , academic or otherwise, were based on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), according to several studies (Drucker, 2017; Chiudini, Cunha, & Marques, 2018; Ponte et al. 2019; Garcia et al. 2021). However, CSR gave way to Social and Environmental Responsibility (SER). Although the concept of ESG is not new, in recent years it has gained considerable prominence worldwide. Such factors are essential for innovation, productivity and market growth strategies, as well as for risk management, for the value of companies and mainly for organizational responsibilities.

Another point to be observed in the field of corporate sustainability is the relationship between the company’s true ESG performance and what it discloses through reports, known as disclosure. Whether regarding explanatory factors, ESG performance (Lourenço & Branco, 2013; Garcia, Mendes-Da-Silva, & Orsato, 2017; Miralles-Quirós, Miralles-Quirós, & Gonçalves, 2018), or the level of ESG disclosure as a whole (Mcbrayer, 2018). There are also studies focused solely on the environmental dimension of disclosure, whether mandatory (Barth et al., 1997; Chen, Cho, & Patten, 2014; Leal, Costa, Oliveira, & Rebouças, 2018) or voluntary (Cormier & Magnan, 2015; Cormier, Magnan, & Velthoven, 2005; Kim, Ryou, & Yang, 2020). However, some studies highlight a gap between what is disclosed and what is actually implemented in both the social and environmental spheres and in corporate governance policies. This practice is known as greenwashing and aims to deceive stakeholders into believing that the company adopts a firm stance on socio-environmental issues, when, in reality, it lacks ethical and sustainable practices (Fatemi; Glaum; Kaiser, 2018; Eliwa; Aboud; Saleh, 2019).

Given the context presented, the following research question arises as a guiding point: What is the influence of gender diversity in the audit committee on the disclosure of ESG information of regulated and non-regulated companies listed in [B] ^3? The general objective is to verify whether there is an influence of gender diversity in the audit committee on the disclosure of ESG information of regulated and non-regulated companies in [B] ³ in the period from 2013 to 2022. Specifically, a search will be carried out through bibliometric examinations, regression analysis and touching on the discussion of Jensen and Meckling’s Agency Theory (1976), which places auditing as one of the main monitoring tools to regulate conflicts of interest and reduce agency costs.

Structurally, corporate governance constitutes a system of relationships through which companies are managed and monitored, and it is possible to perceive that there are internal and external governance mechanisms for monitoring management (Nascimento; Reginato, 2010; Rossetti; Andrade, 2014). Among the various applicable internal mechanisms, the Audit Committee (CA) stands out, recommended by different codes of good corporate governance practices around the world, guiding its constitution and maintenance with the purpose of improving the governance process (Beuren et al. 2013; Furuta; Santos, 2010). Thus, the audit committee consists of an internal corporate governance mechanism that assists in controlling the quality of financial statements and internal controls, aiming at the reliability and integrity of information, to protect the organization and all stakeholders (IBGC, 2017).

It is possible to verify existing research on the gender diversity of members of the board of directors or management council, with the argument that a board with “diverse” members can make better decisions due to the different points of view and contributions that each member can make to the business decisions of organizations, in how women differ from men, in terms of communication skills, personality, commitment and diligence, generating an improvement in the quality of discussions and an increase in the capacity, whether of the board of directors or committees, to provide better supervision of company reports (IBGC, 2017).

A study conducted by the International Labor Organization (ILO, 2019) with 13,000 companies in 70 countries, in which 451 Brazilian companies participated, concluded that only a quarter of Brazilian companies have a woman in leadership. The research shows that 69% of business structures have policies for equality, diversity, and inclusion in the workplace. However, the study shows a slow evolution in the rate of women’s presence in the Brazilian labor market: in the early 1990s, 43% of Brazilian women worked in companies, rising to 53% in 2018; in other words, in the last three decades, the growth was only 10 percentage points. Also, according to this study, more than 71% of companies reported that initiatives on diversity and gender equality improved their results. Of the companies that reported profit growth associated with gender diversity, 29% stated that they had an increase in profits between 10% and 15%, and 26.2% reported growth between 5% and 10%.

This argument is generally based on agency theory, as the board plays a significant role in resolving agency issues and ensuring a balance between shareholder interests and management (Coluccia, et al. 2019). However, there is little (minimal) research investigating the influence of other spheres of corporate governance, such as the fiscal council, the statutory board or the audit committee. Furthermore, the presence of women can reinforce mechanisms of engagement with stakeholders and increase the credibility of the various corporate reports, since they tend to adopt a relationship of trust more than men, thus contributing to the reduction of information asymmetry (Manetti; Toccafondi, 2012; Gul; Hutchinson; Lai, 2013).

Theoretical Basis

The explanatory basis of the agency theory adopted in this research is based on the classic approach of Jensen and Meckling (1976), considered seminal in governance studies, despite the relevance of previous works. After this work, numerous empirical studies and new theoretical models were developed that date back to historical reasons, involving mismanagement scandals in large multinational companies. An example of this is the Cadbury Committee report, prepared in 1992, in the United Kingdom, dealing with the causes of several events related to the opportunistic management of companies. One of the fundamental assumptions of the agency theory is that there is a conflicting relationship between the objectives of the parties that make up a set of contracts. The agency theory, in short, refers to the relationship between principal and agent, in which one-person (principal) hires another (agent) to perform something that involves the delegation of decision-making and authority. This gives rise to the agency relationship, defined as: “[…] a contract under which one or more persons (the principal(s)) employ another person (agent) to perform on their behalf a service that involves the delegation of some decision-making power to the agent” (Jensen & Meckling, 1976).

The concept of an Audit Committee (AC) emerged in 1940, initially suggested by the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The initial idea then received support from organizations such as the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which promoted several discussions on the subject. However, it was only in 1977 that the NYSE adopted a policy for Audit Committees; and its consolidation took place in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, in 2002, causing consequences for all foreign companies listed on American stock exchanges.

The Audit Committee performs some important functions, such as hiring the external auditor and advisors, monitoring internal complaints, and supervising internal audit activities (Caskey, Nagar, & Petacchi, 2010). Regarding the function of selecting and hiring independent auditors, Abbott and Parker (2000) found that companies with independent and active Audit Committees are more likely to employ an auditor who is an industry specialist, that is, they demand a higher quality of this service. In turn, Alkilani, Hussin, and Salim (2019) understand that the Audit Committee is designed to effectively improve the quality of financial reports and, thus, reduce the prospect of companies obtaining modified audit opinions; and seeks to assist in controlling the reliability and veracity of financial information, supporting the board of directors and providing greater security to shareholders (Colares; Alves; Miranda, 2020; Zhou; Owusu-Ansah; Maggina, 2018).

The Brazilian Institute of Corporate Governance (IBGC, 2017) asserts that the audit committee was created to oversee the process of preparing financial statements and, as corporate governance and its mechanisms gained greater visibility and effectiveness, other roles were assigned to this body, such as monitoring risk management processes and internal controls, as well as meeting demands related to internal auditing and independent auditing. Even so, it is recommended that there be gender diversity on the company’s Board of Directors to provide a plurality of ideas, thus valuing the characteristics of the members with richer debates and, therefore, better decision-making (Martins & Júnior, 2020;Santos, Santos, & Leite Filho, 2019; Silveira, & Donaggio, 2019; Martins & Junior, 2020; Prudêncio et al., 2021).

Previous studies generally indicate that greater gender diversity on boards is related to better corporate social responsibility indicators, better ethical and social reputation, greater compliance with laws and regulations, and better quality of reports disclosed ( Abbott & Parker, 2000; Abbott, Parker, Peters, & Raghunandan, 2003; Peleias, Segreti, & Costa, 2009; Furuta & Santos, 2010; Cunha, Pletsch, & Silva , 2015; Camargo & Flach, 2016; Silveira, & Donaggio, 2019). The central idea is that women can provide different points of view in discussions, which would improve decision-making processes, including ESG decisions and disclosure strategies. Therefore, more women (diversity) in the governance structure would increase the quality of the decision-making process and this would potentially have a positive impact on performance (Qureshi et al. 2020; Arzova & Bektur, 2020).

Many studies have shown the effective improvement in socio-environmental performance and disclosure as a consequence of the presence of women in decision-making processes and the premise that this gender diversity favors the achievement of ESG goals seems to be unanimous (Boulouta, 2013; Garcia, Mendes & Orsato, 2017; Birindelli et al. 2018; Bravo & Reguera-Alvarado, 2018, Coluccia, Fontana & Solimene, 2018; Buallay & Al-Ajmi, 2020; Qureshi et al. 2020; Albitar et al. 2020).

Lião et al. (2015) found a positive relationship between the percentage of women on boards of directors and environmental disclosure. Ben-Amar et al. (2017) investigated 541 Canadian companies between 2008 and 2014 and found that female board participation was positively related to voluntary disclosure of climate change information. Bravo and Reguera-Alvarado (2018) analyzed the link between female representation on audit committees and specific ESG disclosure attributes of 93 Spanish companies from 2012 to 2015. Using panel data, the authors found a positive association between gender diversity and the quality of ESG disclosure.

Gender diversity in board meetings can bring benefits, such as greater experience and training to the group, resulting in a diversification of views in decision-making or problem-solving, which may not occur in a homogeneous board of directors, causing groupthink (Low, Roberts & Whiting 2015). It is important to note that this review is not intended to be exhaustive, and considering as some of the most significant studies those ­that meet at least the following assumptions: i ) gender and racial diversification will enable more efficient management, making the board more independent; ii) diversification may minimize possible conflicts in the group and more complex decisions; iii) existing studies on the constructs of this research present effective theoretical consistency .

The literature has shown that gender diversity in the corporate governance structure of companies and, more specifically, in the board of directors, contributes to greater engagement and disclosure of ESG aspects (Buallay et al., 2020; Qureshi et al., 2020; Coluccia, Fontana & Solimene, 2019; W asiuzzaman & Mohammad, 2020). However, research has focused on analyzing only the composition of the board of directors to the detriment of the other components of the governance structure that may impact the relationship. There is little evidence that considers the representation and diversification of gender and race (together) in the other committees and their effects on ESG disclosure (Bravo & Reguera-Alvarado, 2018; Coluccia, Fontana & Solimene, 2019).

Based on the above and considering the role of the audit committee in monitoring risk management processes and internal controls, supervising and enhancing the quality of the information reported, it is expected that the degree of cooperation between the audit committee and the external auditor will be strengthened by the participation of gender diversity in the audit committee, since women appear to be more conservative and cautious, averse to risk. From this perspective, the following research hypotheses were raised:

H0: There is no positive association between the number of board members and levels of information disclosure.

H1: There is a positive association between the number of board members and the level of disclosure of ESG information.

H2: There is a positive relationship between the percentage of gender diversity in the governance structure and the ESG disclosure of Brazilian companies.

H3: Positive association between the proportion of independent members on the Board of Directors and the level of disclosure on ESG.

H4: There is a positive association between Differentiated Levels of Corporate Governance and the level of disclosure on ESG.

METHODOLOGY

This study is classified as descriptive, quantitative, documentary, involving descriptive statistics and an econometric model with panel data to achieve the objectives raised, having as population the companies listed on [B] ³ SA, composed of 294 companies, totaling 653 observations. For the sample, companies with a constituted audit committee and data available throughout the research period (2013 to 2022) were selected, excluding holding companies, given their differentiated characteristics in relation to the others, thus totaling 81 companies (see Table 1).

In view of these preliminary aspects, the analytical framework and methodological approach of this study are structured in two moments, summarized in Figure 1 and briefly explored below.

It is worth noting that these moments did not occur in a linear manner, as in this research, but involved a long process of “interobjectification” as described in the studies by Cefai (2003) and Zask (2004), where they state that the experience is then considered on two levels: at the level of observed reality, in which the actors and their environment are perceived from the perspective of interaction, and at the level of the empirical procedure itself, which configures (through the investigation) an interobjectification of knowledge between researcher(s) and investigated(s). However, due to the object of study proposed in this research, the path of RSA strategies was used, where the partitions of women in the audit committees are intrinsically related to the Environmental (E), Social (S), and Governance (G) axes.

Figure 1: Framework of the methodological path

Source: Prepared by the author, 2023.

The initial sample of this research included 81 companies from various sectors of the economy, listed in [B] ³ , which have audit committees as per Table 1, and which disclosed RSA at some point/year within the period proposed for this study in view of CVM Instruction No. 509, published in November 2011, which establishes rules regarding the implementation of statutory audit committees in organizations. To compose this sample, financial companies were excluded, a procedure also adopted by Ahmed and Henry (2012), due to the particularities in terms of structure of these organizations, and also because, since 2004, through Resolution No. 3,198, these companies comply with the standards issued by Bacen, therefore having different accounting standards and regulatory requirements.

Analyzing Table 1, it can be seen that the industrial goods, cyclical consumption and public utility sectors are the most representative in the study sample, with a share of 25.9%, 21.0% and 19.8%, respectively. The other sectors have less representation in relation to the total sample, ranging from 3% to 9.9%.

In order to study the issue of disclosure of Social and Environmental Responsibility (SER) of companies that have audit committees, the content analysis technique was initially used to investigate what information of an environmental nature is disclosed by these companies. A set of metrics composed of nine categories and 39 subcategories was used (GRI Report, 2013; Sousa et al. 2014).

Table 1: Number of companies in the sample sector.

Source: Data extracted from [B] ³ (2023).

Considering that this study aims to address the issue of environmental disclosure that is related to the RSA of companies that have audit committees, initially, the content analysis technique was used to investigate what information of an environmental nature is disclosed by companies listed in [B] ^3. Nevertheless, a set of metrics adapted from the work of Sousa et al. (2014) and the GRI Report (2013) was used, consisting of nine categories, which are:

• Environmental Policies (5).
• Environmental Management (3).
• Impacts of Products and Processes on the Environment (3).
• Mitigation, repair and compensation for damage to the Environment (7).
• Energy (3).
• Environmental Financial Information (6).
• Environmental Education and Research (2).
• Carbon Credit Market (4), and.
• Other Environmental Information (6).

The metrics thus total 39 subcategories, as shown in Table 2. The survey data refers to annual information and was extracted from publicly available and digital secondary sources. RSA data were collected from the Thomas Reuters database. Financial data were extracted from the Economática® database (to collect companies’ economic and financial data) and data on the composition of the Audit Committee were collected from item 12.7/8 of the Reference Form (FR) on the websites of [B] ³ and the Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM).

Table 2: Environmental information categories.

Source: Adapted from GRI (2013) and Sousa et al. (2014).

As companies disclose an item, value 1 (one) was associated; for items not disclosed, 0 (zero) was associated, thus constituting a dummy variable. Subsequently, the ratio between the total number of items disclosed by the companies and the total number of items that corresponded to the metric was calculated. In Table 3, it can be seen that the variable that corresponds to the disclosure of environmental information is the variable of interest in the research; gender diversity is an explanatory variable, the focus of this study, together with other characteristics of the committee, size and independence; the other variables are characterized as control variables, which, according to Appuhami and Tashakor (2017), are considered characteristics of organizations, which can influence the disclosure of information by a company (Hackston; Milne, 1996; Halme; Huse, 1997; Gray et al. 2001; Brammer; Pavelin, 2006; Murcia; Santos, 2009; Lu; Abeysekera, 2014; Chandok; Singh, 2017; Cormier; Fomezgutierrez, 2018).

Table 3: Variables used in the research

Source: Research data (2023).

The dependent variable of this study is socio-environmental disclosure, whose proxy used is the ESG score, which represents the market’s judgment on the environmental, social and governance disclosure presented by companies (Coluccia; Fontana Solimene, 2018). Disclosure scores measure the company’s transparency and range from 1 to 100, so that a higher score indicates more disclosure and transparency of information (Wasiuzzaman; Mohammad, 2020).

The methodology used to analyze the research hypothesis of this study was tested using the multiple linear regression model with panel data. The model is presented below:

DRSA = β0 + β1PDGN + β2TCAUDIT + β3ICAUDIT + β4TAM + β5GAF + β6ROA + β7NDGC + ε                                       (1)

Where:

ERSA = Evidence of Socio-Environmental Report (RSA).

PDGN = Participation in Gender Diversity in the Audit Committee.

TCAUDIT = Audit Committee Size.

CAUDIT = Independence of the Audit Committee.

TAM = Company Size.

GAF = Financial Leverage.

ROA = Return on Assets (ROA); and

NDGC = Differentiated Levels of Corporate Governance.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

To analyze the relationship between the characteristics of women’s participation in the Audit Committee in companies listed on [B] ³ , a descriptive data analysis was initially carried out, followed by an econometric analysis, in order to test the research hypothesis and verify the influence of the independent and control variables to identify their profile and behavior in the 81 companies studied.

Table 4: Variables used in the research

Source: Research data (2023).

In this table, it can be observed that the standard deviation of the variables TCAUDIT (1.25498) and TAM (1.39019) presented a greater dispersion of data around the mean, unlike the variable ROA (0.11402), which showed less dispersion. It can also be seen that the variables TCAUDIT and TAM presented the highest means, 3.52610 and 16.41174, respectively. In relation to the dependent variable, ERSA, the companies that have an audit committee evidenced a minimum of 13.31% of the items listed and investigated; the maximum was 89.91%.

The identification of the characteristics of the audit committees of the 81 companies in the sample took into account some quantitative aspects related to their members, such as the total number, the number of independent members, and the number of members with degrees in Accounting, Finance, and Auditing. Thus, it was possible to verify in Table 4 that only 21.49% of the companies have a committee composed of men and women, while the remaining 78.51% are composed only of men. This result coincides with that found by Thiruvadi and Huang (2011) regarding the 299 North American companies listed in the S&P Small Cap 600 in the 2003 fiscal year. Thiruvadi and Huang (2011) also found that a maximum of two women participated in the audit committees of 2.3% of the companies, a result similar to that found in this research, that is, a maximum of two women in 3% of the companies. It is worth noting that the presence of two women was observed on the audit committee of CCR SA, in the transport sector, regulated by ANTT, and on that of Paranapanema SA, in the metallurgy and steel sector, which is not regulated.

For the econometric analysis, the Chow (p-value = 0.0000), Hausman (p-value = 0.1356) and Breusch-Pagan (p-value = 0.0000) tests were used. Based on the values obtained, it was found that the best panel for the data is the random effects model. Next, the Wooldridge (p-value = 0.0000) and Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey (p-value = 0.0000) tests were performed to determine whether the model presented autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity problems, in that order. With the rejection of the hypotheses of absence of such problems, it was observed that the model is both autocorrelated and heteroscedastic, and, as a way to correct them, the regression model was performed on panel data, with random effects, the results of which are shown in Table 4 above.

Table 5: Result of the regression model and applied tests

Source: Research data (2023).

Regarding the PDGN variable, it was not significant (p-value = 0.21496 ), two proxies were considered with the potential to influence entities’ ESG disclosure reports : the percentage of female participation (women) in relation to the total number of members, and the minimum representation of three women (Cucari et al. 2017; Ben-Amar; Chang; Mcilkenny, 2017; Birindelli et al. 2018; Bravo; Reguera-Alvarado, 2018; Martins; Ventura, 2020).

The larger the size of the committee, the greater the variety of knowledge covered by its members, thus making the performance of the committee’s activities more effective, according to studies by Yang and Krishman (2005); Boulouta (2013); Cucari et al. (2017); Birindelli et al. (2018); Bravo and Reguera-Alvarado (2018); Qureshi et al. (2020); Wasiuzzaman and Mohammad (2020). It is possible to verify that according to Table 5, the TCAUDIT variable was not significant (p-value = 0.83388) considering the significance level of 5%, thus contradicting the findings of Manfroi and Cunha (2014) and Appuhami and tashakor (2017); Bravo and Reguera-Alvarado (2018); Qureshi et al. (2020). This result demonstrates that the size of the audit committee does not significantly influence the disclosure of environmental information, because the fact that the company discloses information related to environmental aspects is not driven by the number of members that make up its audit committee. This is also because there may be the possibility of an audit committee that is considered relatively small and, even so, having inherent actions for dealing with environmental issues and, consequently, their disclosure.

The result of the ICAUDIT variable was significant (p-value = 0.02150) considering the significance level of 5%, which demonstrates that the independence of the committee interferes in the environmental disclosure of the companies studied, a result similar to the studies by Carcello et al. (2006); Cunha et al. (2014); Madi, Ishak and Manaf (2014), who found a positive relationship between the variables. This can be explained, according to Allegrini and Greco (2011), because independent members ensure the quality and transparency of the reports, implying the reduction of information asymmetry. In addition, Lein (2002); Xie, Davidson III and Dadalt (2003); Krishnan and Yang (2005) Cooke and Hanifa (2005) argue that members external to the organization are seen as a monitoring mechanism, given that they ensure that companies are acting in a way that protects the interests of shareholders and other stakeholders , thus ensuring that they behave in a socially responsible manner.

Regarding the variable size, it can be observed that it is also statistically significant (p-value = 0.000), which clearly shows that the size of companies has a direct relationship with environmental disclosure. It can be observed that this result converges with the studies by Liu and Anbumozhi (2009), Huang and Kung (2010), Monteiro and Aibar-Guzmán (2010), Burgwal and Vieira (2014) and Chandok and Singh (2017) and Manta et al. , (2021), which present a positive relationship between the variables, assuming that, as large companies continually compete in a global economy with a significant number of stakeholders in their reports, they thus begin to disclose more environmental information, in response to the pressures suffered, and to legitimize themselves in the environment in which they operate (Lu; Taylor, 2018; Prates et al. 2019; Qureshi et al. 2020 ).

Regarding the GAF variable, it was found that it did not present statistical significance (p-value = 0.66462); this proves that the fact that companies are in debt has no influence on the disclosure of environmental information, which is in line with studies carried out by Huang and Kung (2010), Giannarakis, Konteos and Sariannidis (2014) and Chandok and Singh (2017). Creditors of a company, with greater financial leverage, become more influential and begin to demand greater corporate integrity and greater disclosure of information from these companies (Roberts, 1992; Huang; Kung, 2010).

In the ROA variable, it can be observed that it presented statistical significance (p-value = 0.02181), at a level of 5% it is considered negative, because the relationship between organizational performance and the disclosure of environmental information is negative. This is because companies with better performance tend to disclose less information, and the opposite is also true. A company’s financial performance also has a positive effect on voluntary disclosure in response to social demands (Helfaya; Moussa, 2017; Birindelli et al. 2018; Bektur; Arzova, 2020; Wasiuzzaman; Mohammad, 2020; Manta et al. 2021). It is natural to think that companies with better performance are more likely to invest economic resources in socio-environmental engagement activities and to get involved in the preparation and disclosure of voluntary information (Coluccia; Fontana; Solimene, 2018).

Last but not least, the NDGC variable did not obtain a statistically significant result (p-value = 0.36035), thus demonstrating that even if a company is included in one of the differentiated levels of corporate governance, it does not imply that it will disclose a significant number of environmental information in relation to those that are not classified in any of the levels of [B] ^3. It is justified considering that the disclosure of information can be used as a tool capable of reducing the political and social pressures faced by organizations, as stated by Patten (1991), being used as a channel through which they respond to the needs of their stakeholders regardless of whether or not they are part of one of the governance segments (Cho, Giordano-Spring and Rivièregiordano2018).

CONCLUSION

The results show that most audit committees are made up of men only; and there are no committees made up exclusively of women. These committees have a minimum of three and a maximum of seven members, with the vast majority having between three and five members, with at least one member being independent. In five companies studied, it was possible to verify that the majority of committee members had a background in Accounting, Finance or Auditing. The results of the comparison of characteristics such as participation of women (gender), size, independence of audit committee members and discretionary accruals between regulated and non-regulated companies – did not indicate significant differences between them.

Considering the percentage of women on the board, a dummy indicates the presence of a majority of just one woman, or even two, where the ideal would be to have three or more women on the board. This research resulted in the PDGN variable being a total of 21.49% (of this percentage, the number of companies with one or two women on the audit board totals 16.12% and with three women only 5.37% of the companies). Greater statistical significance was observed for one or more women, and the same significance decreased with the increase in the restriction, contradicting Konrad and Kramer (2008), where for North American companies, there is a “magic number” of at least three women on the board.

It is important to highlight that the results of this study cannot be interpreted as a cause-and-effect relationship, in which the greater the participation of gender diversity on boards, the greater or better the results of the organizations would be, because this study maintains the limitations of the various studies cited, of trying to find a positive relationship and not a causal relationship. The findings reveal that gender characteristics cannot, in isolation, guarantee or define whether companies will disclose more or less ESG information. Individual aspects such as professional experience, education and macroeconomic aspects, such as the country’s culture, can, together, be determinants of strategies and choices in senior management positions and can indeed be investigated in greater depth in future research. It is evident that, for the sample analyzed, female participation in the corporate governance structure of companies, measured by the proxies of this study, was not able to favor socio-environmental and governance (ESG) disclosure.

To highlight the need for gender diversity, it is worth noting that, in addition to the survey conducted by the International Labor Organization (ILO) in 2019, as previously presented, there is also the Panorama Mulher survey, conducted by the partnership between Talenses and Insper, in 2019, which consulted 532 companies headquartered in Brazil, North America, and Europe and showed that only 19% of leadership positions in Brazilian companies are held by women. Women occupy 26% of board positions, 23% in vice-presidency, 16% on boards, and only 13% occupy the presidency (Talenses & Insper, 2019). As the market increases its focus on the issue of gender diversity, several affirmative action policies have been instituted around the world (such as in Norway, France, Sweden, Finland, and New Zealand) to encourage increased gender diversity in governance (Deloitte, 2019). From the above, it can be seen that this context responds to the assumptions raised previously.

As limitations of this study, it can be observed that the number of companies that disclose their ESG scores is still relatively low, thus limiting a better analysis of the available data or in a joint intersectoral or intrasectoral manner. Another point to highlight as a limitation is the information disclosed in the reference forms, as there is missing and even inconsistent data, which also tends to limit the analysis.

The results of this study offer important contributions to the discussion related to gender and racial diversity that promote significant environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures by providing new evidence from companies listed on [B]³ , which, from the perspective of Agency Theory, are concerned with reputational and image risks and meeting the demand of investors concerned with sustainability, inclusion and diversity issues. In this sense, the representativeness highlighted in this study is a determining aspect in the probability of occurrence of those disclosures, and if associated with a longer tenure, can contribute to the occurrence and expansion of ESG disclosures by institutions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that future research focus on the implications of the constructions presented in other governance mechanisms, management positions at the executive level of organizations, in addition to their implications in aspects related to the disclosure of results or aspects that refer to the quality of the information disclosed that assist in the decision-making process of stakeholders. In addition, it is necessary to increase the number of studies on the participation of other diversities (black, indigenous, transgender) in the governance structure to analyze what impact it has on the decision-making process and/or organizational performance.

REFERENCES

1. Albitar, K., Hussainey, K., Kolade, N., & Gerged, A. M. (2020). ESG disclosure and firm performance before and after income tax. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 28(3), 429-444. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-09-2019-0108 .
2. Birindelli, G., Dell’atti, S., Iannuzzi, A.P., & Savioli, M. (2018). Composition and activity of the board of directors: Impact on ESG performance in the banking system. Sustainability, 10(12), 4699. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124699 .
3. Bravo, F., & Regueraÿalvarado, N. (2019). Disclosure for sustainable development: Environmental, social and governance reporting and gender diversity in the audit committee. Business Strategy and Environment, 28(2), 418-429. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2258 .
4. Brugni, TV, Fávero, LPL, Klotzle, MC, & Pinto, ACF (2018). Brazilian boards of directors: an analysis in light of reference forms. Advances in Scientific and Applied Accounting, 11(1), 146-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.14392/asaa.2018110108 .
5. Buallay, a., Hamdan, r., Barone, e., & Hamdan, (2020). Increasing female participation on boards: Effects on sustainability reporting. International Journal of Finance and Economics, 27(1), 111-124. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2141 .
6. Céfaï, D.; Pasquier, D. (2003). Les sens du public. PUF. GRI – Global Reporting Initiative. Implementation Manual.2013. Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Brazilian-Portuguese-G4-Part-wo.pdf . Accessed on: June 23, 2023.
7. Chen, J. C., Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2014). Initiating disclosure of environmental liability information: An empirical analysis of firm choice. Journal of Business Ethics, 125 (4), 681-692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1939-0 .
8. Colares, ACV; Alves, KC; Miranda, LTG Relationship between the characteristics of the audit committee and the independent audit of B3 publicly held companies. Revista Ambiente Contábil, v. 12, n. 1, 2020.
9. Coluccia, D., Fontana, S., & Solimene, S. (2019). The Presence of Female Directors on Boards: An Empirical Investigation of its Effects on CSR. In: Paoloni, P., Lombardi, R. (eds) Advances in Gender and Cultural Research in Business and Economics. IPAZIA 2018. (pp. 151-165). Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00335-7_10 .
10. Cucari, N., Esposito de Falco, S., & Orlando, B. (2018). Board diversity and environmental social governance: Evidence from Italian listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(3), 250-266. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1452 .
11. D eloitte, (2019). Women on the Board. Retrieved August 15, 2023, from < https://www2.deloitte.com/br/pt/pages/risk/articles/mulheres-no-conselho.html >
12. PF The Theory of the Business. Harvard Business Review Classics, 2017.
13. Eliwa, Y.; Aboud, A.; Saleh, A. ESG practices and the cost of debt: Evidence from EU countries. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, [sl], 2019.
14. Fatemi, A.; Glaum, M.; Kaiser, S. ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. Global Finance Journal, [sl], v. 38, p. 45–64, 2018.
15. Garcia, A.S., Mendes-Da-Silva, W., & Orsato, R. (2017). Sensitive industries produce better ESG performance: evidence from emerging markets. Journal of Cleaner Production, 150, 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.180 .
16. Garcia, EAR, Carvalho, GM, Boaventura, JMG, & Souza, JM, Filho. (2021). Determinants of corporate social performance disclosure: A literature review. Social Responsibility Journal, 17(4), 445-468.
17. IBGC, Brazilian Institute of Corporate Governance. (2017). Brazilian Institute of Corporate Governance. Guidelines on audit committees: best practices in advising the Board of Directors. Brazilian Institute of Corporate Governance, Institute of Independent Auditors of Brazil. São Paulo, SP: Ibgc/Ibracon, 88p.
18. Jensen, MC; Meckling, WH Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 3, no. 4, p. 305-360, 1976.
19. Kim, I., Ryou, J. W., & Yang, R. (2020). The color of shareholders’ money: Institutional shareholders’ political values and corporate environmental disclosure. Journal of Corporate Finance, 6.4https://doi:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101704
20. Lourenço, IC, & Branco, MC (2013). Determinants of corporate sustainability performance in emerging markets: the Brazilian case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 57, 134-141. https://doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.013 .
21. Low, D. CM; Roberts, H.; Whiting, R. (2015). H. Board gender diversity and firm performance: Empirical evidence from Hong Kong, South Korea, Malaysia, and Singapore. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2015.02.008
22. Mcbrayer, G. A. (2018). Does persistence explain ESG disclosure decisions? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25 (6), 1074-1086. https://doi:10.1002/csr.1521 .
23. Miralles-Quirós, MM, Miralles-Quirós, JL, & GONÇALVES, LMV (2018). The value relevance of environmental, social, and governance performance. The Brazilian case Sustainability, 10, https://doi:10.3390/su10030574 .
24. Ntim, C. G., & Soobaroyen, T. (2013). Corporate Governance and Performance in Responsible Corporations: New Empirical Insights from a Neo-Institutional Framework. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(5), 468-494. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12026 .
25. ILO, International Labour Organization. (2019). Women in leadership bring better performance to companies, says report. Available at: https:// un.org/pt/story/2019/05/1673361 . Accessed on: June 23, 2023.
26. Qureshi, M. A., Kirkerud, S., Theresa, K., & Ahsan, T. (2020). The impact of sustainability (environmental, social, and governance) disclosure and board diversity on firm value: The moderating role of industry sensitivity. Business Strategy and Environment, 29(3), 1199-1214. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2427
27. Silveira, ADM, & Donaggio, ARF (2019). The importance of gender diversity on boards of directors for promoting corporate social responsibility. DESC – Law, Economy and Contemporary Society, 2(2), 11-42 https://doi.org/10.33389/desc.v2n2.2019.p11-42 .
28. Talenses and Insper. (2019). Panorama Mulher. Available at: <http://online.fliphtml5.com/gbcem/bczq/#p=1>
29. Wasiuzzaman, S., & Wan Mohammad, W. M. (2020). Board gender diversity and transparency of environmental, social, and governance disclosure: Evidence from Malaysia. Managerial and Decision Economics, 41(1), 145-156. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3099 .
30. Zask, J. (2004). L’enquête sociale comme inter-objectivation . In: Karsenti, B.; Quéré, La Croyance et l’Enquête : Aux sources du pragmatisme. Paris. Ed. de l’EHESS.
31. Zhou, H.; Owusu-Ansah, S.; Maggina, A. Board of directors, audit committee, and firm performance: evidence from Greece. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, vol. 31, p. 20-36, 2018.