Framing the Gender Diversity Debate:
A Cross-National Study of Frame Variation
Research Master’s Thesis - Graduate School of Communication
Author: Lisanne Zethof Student number: 10172866
Research Master’s in Communication Science University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: mw. dr. C.L. ter Hoeven Date: 24-06-2016
Abstract
This study investigated the influence of cross-national factors, organizational factors and board factors on the framing of gender diversity in annual reports. The research contributes to the framing literature by taking a cross-national perspective on the gender diversity debate in which multi-level sources account for frame variation in corporate messages. Therefore, an automated content analysis was conducted of 1,560 annual reports covering 19 European countries between 2003-2014. Multi-level analyses show significant influences of time and gender pay gap on attention for gender diversity in annual reports. However, attention for gender diversity tends to be higher in countries with low gender pay gaps than in countries with high gender pay gaps but the effect diminishes as time increases. Moreover,
organizational factors and board diversity appeared not to impact the communication about gender diversity. Additionally, attention for gender diversity significantly influences the four framing strategies. Board diversity and time are only positively related to innovative framing and stakeholder framing of gender diversity in annual reports. Practitioners should pay close attention to the framing strategies as this is crucial in the meaning construction of gender diversity by key stakeholders and enables the organization to communicate the importance and value of increased diversity at the workplace.
Keywords
Framing, morality framing, economic framing, innovative framing, stakeholder framing, diversity management, gender diversity, corporate communication, board diversity, organizational size, industry
Introduction
On March 8th, International Women’s Day 2016 was celebrated worldwide. At this annual event women are recognized for their achievements regardless of their nationality, ethnicity, culture, financial status or political affiliation (UN, 2016). This year, the theme was “Planet 50-50 by 2030: Step it Up for Gender Equality” aiming to achieve gender equality and to empower all women. Equality between men and women is considered as a core EU value, objective and driver for economic growth (European Commission, 2015a). Although the position of women in Europe has undoubtedly improved in the past decades, women continue to experience more difficulty in finding a first job, earn less than men and are more likely to work part-time (OECD, 2012).
As a consequence, the European Union adopted several directives to combat discrimination on grounds of gender, ethnicity, age, disability, religion and sexual orientation, such as the Racial Equality Directive (2000) and the Employment Equality Directive (2000) (Lombardo & Rolandsen Agustín, 2012). Member states of the EU are obliged to transpose the directives into national law and to communicate the results imposed by the directives (EC, 2008). Moreover, the EU supports voluntary national initiatives promoting diversity management and equal opportunities, such as Diversity Charters (EC, 2014a). The implementation of different diversity initiatives across European organizations and national legislation might influence how gender diversity is perceived and communicated to key stakeholders (clients and customers) of the organization.
Although previous studies examined the multiple meanings of gender equality across Europe (Verloo & Lombardo, 2007), its impact in the boardroom (Campbell & M
ínguez-Vera, 2008), and the problems with implementing gender equality (e.g. Pascall & Lewis, 2004; Verloo, 2005), the role of communication in establishing and shaping ideas about gender diversity is largely neglected. Communication about diversity is argued to often
generate a positive image of the organization towards the outside world (Hofhuis, Van der Zee & Otten, 2015). By doing so, an organization can represent itself as a socially responsible institution, which offers equal opportunities to all employees and reduces discrimination (Cunningham & Melton, 2011). In addition, it enables organizations to communicate the importance of a gender diverse workplace as it may lead to different perspectives, enrich the pool of knowledge, strengthen the organizational reputation and improve the organizational performance (Bear, Rahman & Post, 2010; Ely & Thomas, 2001; Hofhuis et al., 2015). Therefore, this study attempts to explore how European organizations frame gender diversity in their corporate media with regard to their diversity policy.
The aim of this research is twofold. First, it is explored how corporate media frame gender diversity across Europe. Here, framing theory (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007) is applied to frame building processes used in corporate media among European countries. Second, this study discovers multiple explanatory variables which may explain variation in different frames used in corporate media (Bear et al., 2010; Hillman, Shropshire, Cannella, 2007). In order to analyse these processes, it is chosen to use an automated content analysis of corporate media (annual reports) of European organizations between 2003-2014.
This research contributes to theory in two ways. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first that seeks to unravel how European organizations frame gender diversity in their corporate media. Here, we build on existing gender diversity literature (e.g. Bernardi, Bean & Weippert, 2002; Campbell & Mínguez-Vera, 2008; Point & Singh, 2003; Point & Singh, 2006) and gender diversity framing literature (Austin, 2010; Verloo, 2007). Second, this study aims to provide explorative analyses in which different cross-national, organizational and board variables account for frame variation in corporate media across Europe. Previous research stated that literature about factors accounting for frame variation among framing studies is relatively scarce (Snow, Vliegenthart & Corrigall-Brown, 2007), especially within
the corporate literature (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). Therefore, this study aims to fill the research gap by exploring frame variation and construction over time and across European countries about an issue which involves and affects the entire labour market and society.
Theoretical Framework
The development of diversity management in organizations
Diversity was originally established to justify more inclusion of people who were traditionally excluded from schools, universities, organizations and other kinds of institutes (Herring, 2009). It is a characteristic of groups of two or more people and refers to
demographic differences of one sort or another among group members (McGrath, Berdahl & Arrow, 1996). The concept of diversity management was developed in the 1980s and
originates from the United States. Managing diversity is defined as “planning and implementing organizational systems and practice to manage people so that the potential advantages of diversity are maximized while its potential disadvantages are minimized” (Cox, 1994, p. 11). Shortly afterwards, diversity management became widespread across Europe. The expanding interest for diversity management in Europe was due to several factors.
To begin, the growing demographic diversity of the European workforce in both the private and public sector required a diversity policy to facilitate the recruitment, inclusion and retention of employees of diverse backgrounds (Wrench, 2007). In addition, it is stated that European organizations were forced to implement diversity management to offer a solution to the economic recession and globalization (Kandola & Fullerton, 1994). Third, the European Commissions’ directive to combat discrimination of Europe’s immigrants and ethnic
minorities led to increased attention for diversity management. A directive is a common goal achieved through legislation in which each European country is allowed to implement the directive in accordance with its own legal system and conditions. As European directives have
legal force on the subject of diversity management, these have a major influence on labour market interventions on the national level (Wrench, 2007).
The rise of women and ethnic minorities entering and remaining in the labour market was essential for the development of diversity management in Europe. This resulted in national legislation on equality and discrimination in Europe (Greene, Kirton & Wrench, 2005). For instance, the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) was adopted in 2000 by the EU to treat people as equals irrespective of their racial or ethnic origin and to prohibit discrimination regarding working conditions and access to employment and trainings (Wrench, 2007). After a few months, the Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC) was adopted to prohibit discrimination regarding gender, religion, belief, age, disability and sexual orientation in the field of employment (EC, 2008). Anti-discrimination directives caused the development of diversity management in Europe as they create the social, legal and organizational conditions for diversity management initiatives (Mor Barak, 2005).
Framing gender diversity in corporate media
Corporate communication is ascribed “as an integrative communication structure linking
stakeholders to the organization” (Van Riel & Fombrun, 2007). It focuses on the organization
as a whole and determines how an organization is presented to stakeholders, both internal and external (Cornelissen, 2014). One way organizations use corporate communication is to share corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives with their stakeholders (Reilly & Hynan, 2014). These initiatives contribute to the environmental, social and economic value of the organization. It enables organizations to build corporate image, to strengthen their relationship with stakeholders, to enhance stakeholders’ advocacy behaviours (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010) and to influence the organizational reputation (Carroll & McCombs, 2003).
organizations included gender equality in their CSR reports (Grosser, 2009). However, the way organizations represent gender equality and diversity in their corporate media outlets might differ. Consequently, this may lead to different perceptions of gender diversity which could influence how gender diversity is presented at the workplace. To explain different representations within the gender diversity debate, the study addresses framing theory.
Framing theory is one of the most widespread media theories within the social sciences
(e.g. Bateson, 1955/1972; Burke, 1937; Goffman, 1974; Scheufele, 1999). It assumes that how an issue is presented in news reports can have an influence on how the issue is
understood by the audience (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). In essence, framing involves the process of selection and salience which is defined as “selecting some aspects of a perceived
reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation” for the item described (Entman, 1993, p. 52).
The construction of the message (frame building) is affected by multiple actors interested in the shaping of frames. For instance, interest groups, policymakers and journalists are considered important influencers in shaping the volume and character of media messages about a particular issue (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). Similarly, organizations construe and shape corporate messages, which may affect the perceptions and decisions of stakeholders and influence the organizational image among stakeholders (Schultz, Kleinnijenhuis,
Oegema, Utz & Van Atteveldt, 2012).
Consequently, framing has become an important cornerstone to organizations (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). Framing is used in many areas of organizational research, ranging from research on decision-making in organizations (micro-level) to research on strategic framing (meso/organizational level) and studies of broad societal and institutional changes (macro-level) (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). At the organizational level, framing is often
conceptualized as a meaning-making process in which interpretations of stakeholders are shaped and directed by individual managers of the organization (Cornelissen, Holt & Zundel, 2011). When it comes to diversity, meaning construction could be managed and handled in several ways. Based on the following research, four motives are stated to increase diversity at the workplace: morality, economic, innovative and stakeholder motives.
Morality frame. First, it is stated organizations aim to increase diversity at the workplace
because it is morally and ethically the right thing to do (Cox, 1994). The underlying idea is that it is inhuman to exclude individuals on the sole grounds of gender or race regardless of their capabilities, and a gender diverse workforce may achieve an outcome that is more equitable to society (Brammer, Millington & Pavelin, 2007). Hence, organizations should consider equal opportunities for both women and men not as a means to an end but as a desirable end in itself (Brammer et al., 2007). Moreover, it implies the organization is a socially responsible institution which provides equal opportunities to different groups and reduces discrimination (Cunningham & Melton, 2011). Therefore, the idea that organizations aim to increase diversity at the workplace out of moral obligation is closely connected to the corporate social responsibility literature (Bear et al., 2010). Framing gender diversity in terms of moral/social responsibility, non-discrimination or equal opportunities may thus be seen as the morality frame.
Economic frame. Second, economic arguments for gender diversity arise from the fact
that organizations which fail to select the best potential employees could damage their financial performance (Campbell & Mínguez-Vera, 2008). Additionally, the EU considers gender diversity as an important driver for economic growth as women played a vital role in the employment across Europe (EC, 2016a). Moreover, diversity is perceived as beneficial for the overall productivity as well as the organizational- and economic performance of the organization (Glastra et al., 2000; Hofhuis et al., 2015). Accordingly, business teams in which
gender is equally distributed are stated to perform better than male-dominated teams in terms of sales and profits (Hoogendoorn, Oosterbeek & Van Praag, 2013). Framing gender diversity in terms of productivity, performance and economic growth may thus be seen as the economic
frame.
Innovative frame. Third, previous research has argued that the likeability of diverse
groups being more creative and innovative in completing their tasks is higher than among homogeneous groups (Van Knippenberg, de Dreu & Homan, 2004). The underlying
assumption is that diverse groups may have a broader range of task-relevant knowledge, skills and abilities and hold different opinions and perspectives on a particular task (Van
Knippenberg et al., 2004). Consequently, diverse groups entail a larger pool of resources, such as networks, perspectives, styles, knowledge and insights (Ely & Thomas, 2001) which is more likely to enhance problem-solving capabilities (Campbell & Mínguez-Vera, 2008). These divergent and refreshing perspectives may result in more creativity and innovative ideas and solutions (Cox & Blake, 2001) as these factors tend to vary systematically within demographic variables such as gender (Campbell & Mínguez-Vera, 2008). Framing gender diversity in terms of creativity, innovation, values, knowledge and skills may thus be seen as the innovative frame.
Stakeholder frame. Last, it is stated that organization’s markets and stakeholders are
inherently culturally diverse (Hofhuis et al., 2015). Hence, a diverse workforce is a valuable tool to gather knowledge about different groups in society (Ely & Thomas, 2001). Moreover, diversity at the workplace is a prerequisite for better understanding of the marketplace and the needs of diverse stakeholders within society (Campbell & Mínguez-Vera, 2008). Meaning construction of diversity enables organizations to build reputation among a broad range of stakeholders including customers, suppliers, competitors, bankers, and investors (Bear et al., 2010). Framing gender diversity in terms of understanding and serving the needs of
stakeholders may thus be seen as the stakeholder frame.
Motives and frames are highly connected. That is, motivational framing is argued to be a core framing task. It attempts to discover the construction of various vocabularies of different motives (Snow & Benford, 2000). Applied to this study, it is expected that organizations use four different framing strategies, each covering a particular motive which is characterized by its own specific terms, to represent gender diversity in corporate media. These frames could be influenced by several factors that account for frame variation. Therefore, the different factors on the national, organizational and board level which may account for variation in corporate media messages will now be discussed.
EUROPEAN AND NATIONAL LEVEL
Cross-national factors accounting for frame variation in corporate messages
Gender diversity has gained considerable attention in both academic literature and popular press for several reasons (e.g. Boulouta, 2012; Catalyst, 2016; Francoeur, Labelle & Sinclair-Desgagné, 2008; Hoogendoorn et al., 2013; Marquardt & Wiedman, in press; Terjesen, Sealy & Singh, 2009; Vinnicombe, Burke, Bilimoria & Huse, 2008). First, it is argued that a gender diverse workforce will result in a better organizational and financial performance of the organization (Francoeur et al., 2008). Second, gender diversity is argued to increase the competitive advantage of the organization compared to those with less gender diversity (Campbell & Mínguez-Vera, 2008) as it may bring new perspectives, innovation and better problem solving capabilities (Ali, Ng & Kulik, 2014). Last, the current underrepresentation of women on the board of directors and the introduction of gender quota in European countries resulted in increased attention for gender diversity issues (Boulouta, 2012; Hoogendoorn et al., 2013; Vinnicombe et al., 2008).
employment reached the highest level ever (64 percent) in 2014 in the EU (EC, 2015b). This resulted in more families depending financially on women. A trend which is also visible in the rates of women on organizations’ boards. Although women represent only 21 percent of board members of the largest companies in the EU, there has been a significant improvement (9 percentage points) over the last five years (EC, 2016a). The importance of more women entering the board of directors is illustrated in interviews with CEOs of the Fortune 1000 companies. Based on these, it appeared that women tend to have a positive impact on board decision-making if the board consists of at least three female members regardless of the board size (Konrad, Kramer & Erkut, 2008). At this critical mass, women tend to feel recognized as ‘real’ directors and do not experience the sense of isolation or ignorance anymore whereas the opposite occurred for solo women or two women on the board of directors. Female directors are said to offer different perspectives, to create a broader understanding of stakeholder’s needs, to play a direct role as network members, to stimulate more participative
communication among board members and to deliver a more collaborative approach to leadership resulting in improved communication between the management and the board (Bear et al., 2010; Konrad et al., 2008; Terjesen et al., 2009).
In order to stimulate gender equality and a gender diverse workforce in Europe, the EU set different objectives. For instance, the EU attempts to reach 75 percent of men and women (20-64 years) in employment in 2020 and to close the gender employment gap. Therefore, the European Commission set the objective of at least 40 percent representation for each gender among non-executive directors in publicly listed companies, except for small and medium organizations, by 2020 (EU, 2014b). This will affect roughly 5.000 companies of the 7.500 listed companies on stock exchanges in the EU. These companies are obliged to report the gender quota of the boards in their countries on annual basis. However, the EU also stimulates diversity initiatives which are on a voluntary basis. As a consequence, the internal- and
external communication about diversity initiatives appeared to differ among European countries. That is, only 56 percent of the Diversity Charter members¹ communicated about diversity activities to its stakeholders (EC, 2014a). The Diversity Charter is one of the most recent voluntary diversity initiatives of the EU. It consists of a short document which is voluntarily signed by either an organization or a public institution and aims to encourage the implementation and development of diversity policies (EC, 2016b).
The EU defined gender equality as the equal visibility, empowerment, responsibility and participation of both sexes in all spheres of public and private life (COE, 2016). Here, the extent to which gender equality is reached in the member states of the EU is shown in terms of payment (Figure 1). The gender pay gap appeared to vary significantly among EU member states. To be specific, the gender pay gap varied by 25.4 percentage points, ranging from 2.9 percent in Slovenia to 28.3 percent in Estonia (Eurostat, 2016). In general, countries with large gender pay gaps indicate a highly gender-segregated workforce in which the female employment is usually quite low compared to countries with small gender pay gaps (Kirton & Greene, 2015). Hence, organizations with larger gender pay gaps tend to have lower rates of women and consequently represent less gender diversity at the workplace. As the
aforementioned studies argued that increased gender diversity in the upper echelons of the organization may result into a number of positive effects on communication processes within the organization, the first hypothesis is conceptualized:
H1: Organizations in European countries with smaller gender pay gaps are more prone
to communicate about gender diversity in their annual reports compared to
organizations in European countries with larger gender pay gaps.
FIGURE 1
The unadjusted gender pay gap, 2014 (Eurostat, 2016)
because of the fact there is still an underrepresentation of women on the board of directors (Catalyst, 2016). Especially within the period 2003-2014 increased attention for gender diversity in Europe is expected. Since 2003, growing interest for combatting racism and discrimination in employment occurred as the Racial Equality Directive and the Employment Equality Directive were transposed into national legislation by 19 July and 2 December 2003 respectively (Wrench, 2003). As a result, ideas of diversity management spread from the US to Europe. Afterwards, the European Union set different objectives, adopted new directives and introduced gender quotas to further stimulate diversity at the workplace in Europe (EC, 2015b; Hoogendoorn et al., 2013). Hence, it is expected that the attention for gender diversity in corporate media of European organizations also increased compared to previous years.
H2: The attention for gender diversity in annual reports of European organizations
ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
Organizational factors accounting for frame variation in corporate messages
At the organizational level, two factors are believed to cause differences between frames in corporate media regarding the process of framing gender diversity.
Organizational size. First, the organizational size (i.e. the number of employees) is argued
to be an important predictor of gender diversity at the workplace (Hillman et al., 2007). That is, large organizations can offer more diversity as well as a variety of diversity training which may result in more gender diversity at the workplace (Hyland & Marcellino, 2002). Second, prior research found that the number of females on the board of directors is highly interrelated with the size of the organization (Kang, Cheng & Gray, 2007). As such, the likeability of large organizations representing more gender diversity at the workforce is higher than in small organizations. Third, large organizations are stated to be more visible to their stakeholders than small organizations. As a consequence, these organizations feel more pressure to conform to societal expectations about gender diversity among stakeholders (Hillman et al., 2007). Hence, large organizations are expected to feel a stronger urgency to communicate about gender diversity to its stakeholders compared to small organizations. We therefore hypothesize:
H3: Organizational size is positively related to the communication about gender diversity in
the annual reports of European organizations.
Industry type. Subsequent, the industry in which European organizations operate is
believed to influence how gender diversity is communicated in corporate media. Next to the organizational size, the number of females on the board of directors also appeared to be correlated with the industry of the organization (Kang et al., 2007). For instance, it appeared
consumer-oriented industries, such as consumer goods, manufacturing, retail, banking, utilities and media tend to have relatively high rates of women among the workforce
(Brammer et al., 2007). These industries are often characterized as being closely related to the final consumer. On the contrary, organizations which operate in producer-oriented industries such as resources, business services, construction and engineering tend to have relatively small rates of women among the workforce. These industries are isolated from the final consumer and often male-dominated. As a result, consumer-oriented industries appear to feel a stronger tendency to shape diversity at the workplace and to reflect diversity among their stakeholders compared to producer-oriented industries (Brammer et al., 2007). Therefore, we hypothesize:
H4a: European organizations which operate in consumer-oriented industries are more prone
to communicate about gender diversity compared to European organizations which operate
in producer-oriented industries.
In contrast, a previous study shows that especially organizations which operate in banking and finance industries appear to have boards which are “too big, too old, and too male” (Engen, 2002). Therefore, the urgency of the management to communicate about gender diversity to its stakeholders is expected to be less likely in financial industries compared to non-financial industries. Consequently, the following hypothesis is conceptualized:
H4b: European organizations which operate in financial industries are less prone to
communicate about gender diversity compared to non-financial industries.
BOARD LEVEL
composition (Campbell & Mínguez-Vera, 2008). It is argued that an increasing number of women on the board of directors enhances decision-making as different perspectives and issues lead to a broader range of outcomes (Daily & Dalton, 2003). Also, the representation of more women on the board of directors might stimulate participation and break down
communication barriers among board members (Bear et al., 2010). As a result, female directors feel less inhibited to voice their opinions while their male counterparts pay more attention to them. Moreover, the presence of pictures of the board of directors in annual reports is associated with a more diverse board (Bernardi et al., 2002). Hence, it could be argued that more gender diversity on the board of directors results in more transparency and visibility of gender diversity towards key stakeholders. Therefore, we expect:
H5: The representation of females on the board of directors in European organizations is
positively related to the frequency of communication about gender diversity in their annual
reports.
In sum, it is expected that the presented cross-national factors, organizational factors, and board factors will influence how different frames are communicated in the corporate media of European organizations. With regard to the limited scientific literature about framing factors accounting for variation in corporate messages concerning the gender diversity debate, this study takes an explorative approach. As a result, the following research question is
conceptualized:
RQ: How do cross-national factors, organizational factors and board factors account for
frame variation in morality framing, economic framing, innovative framing and stakeholder
Methods
In order to answer the research question, an automated content analysis is conducted on twelve years of corporate annual reports (2003-2014). It is chosen to use an automated content analysis because of the high reliability, low costs and possibility to analyse large amounts of data over a longer period of time (Aaldering & Vliegenthart, 2016). The sample of corporate media was derived from 130 organizations covering 19 European countries (see Appendix A).
Sample
The sample was constructed in three steps. First, organizations were selected on the basis of the largest stock market exchanges in Europe. Second, we selected eight organizations of each European country if they were listed on the stock market exchanges between 2003-2014. If organizations of a specific country were listed on the stock market exchanges for a shorter period of time, it was chosen to select only those listed for the longest period of time.
Eventually, all annual reports of the selected organizations were obtained from their corporate website. The sample of annual reports is as inclusive as possible given the fact that some annual reports were not available on the corporate website of some organizations (N = 167). The final sample consisted of 1,560 annual reports representing external corporate media in Europe. An overview of the construction of the final sample is provided in Appendix C.
Procedure
The measurement instrument was developed in two steps. In a first step, literature was selected on Google Scholar in which the main topics ‘diversity’ or ‘gender diversity’ were examined. Then, it was discovered which motives or goals were mentioned in relation to (gender) diversity in the selected literature². In addition, the theoretical basis for diversity goals and motives was expanded based on a subsample of random annual reports which was
extracted from the final sample. As a result, all obtained keywords were clustered and
classified into four frames: the morality frame, the economic frame, the innovative frame and the stakeholder frame. Next, a document was established in which all synonyms and related words to diversity and gender diversity were noted. For example, synonyms related to diversity consisted of words such as ‘dissimilarity’, ‘diversification’ and ‘distinctiveness’. Examples of synonyms related to gender diversity consisted of words such as ‘feminine’, ‘sex’ and ‘sexuality’. Then, the synonyms and keywords related to the frames were ordered and merged.
As a result, a series of Python scripts were written to analyse the four frames. Python is a programming language which is argued to be a very flexible and highly suitable application to conduct an automated content analysis (Trilling, 2016). For each frame, two or more search strings were created in order to measure all frames in one script. In each search string, the word ‘biodiversity’ was excluded to minimize the amount of irrelevant results. Also, the number of words between two search strings was limited to ten words and the scope of search results was limited to two sentences. For example, when ‘gender diversity’ in relation to ‘morally right’ was searched for, a maximum of ten words was allowed to exist between the words ‘morally’ and ‘right’, and only within two sentences. Additionally, keywords and synonyms that appeared to result in too many irrelevant results were removed from the script. Consequently, one script is created for gender diversity which is shown in Appendix B.
Dependent variables
Morality frame. The morality frame is constructed based on aforementioned studies
regarding the morality frame (e.g. Cox, 1994; Brammer et al., 2007 and Bear et al., 2010). In order to create search strings, several search lines³ were combined. To illustrate this, a search line representing morality specific terms was matched with a second line referring to
diversity, a third line presenting gender specific concepts and a fourth line in which particular words are excluded to avoid irrelevant results. For example, the first line
‘inclusion|inclusive|equal|equality|social responsibility’ matches the second line
‘diverse|diversit.{0,3}’, the third line ‘gender|wom.{0,2}|female.{0,2}|feminine.{0,3}|sex {0,6} and the fourth line ‘?!biodivers.{0,3}’. This means that this search string only produces results if, for example, inclusion is mentioned with diversity and gender but without
biodiversity. If a word ends with ‘.{0,3}’, it means that this word could end with three different characters. For instance, ‘woman’ and ‘women’ could both be produced because ‘wom.’ ends with ‘{0,2}’, representing two different characters. Other examples of morality specific words are ‘prejudice’, ‘equal’, ‘morally right’ and ‘fair’.
Economic frame. The economic frame is conceptualized based on economic related
motives for diversity. Also here, several search lines were matched to form a search string. To be specific, two search strings were conceptualized to cover the economic frame. Each search string consisted of four search lines. The first search line reflects economic specific terms which is matched with the second search line presenting diversity, the third line covering gender specific words and the fourth line presenting words which must be excluded. Examples of economic specific terms are ‘finance’, ‘performance’, ‘effectiveness’ and ‘competitive’. Here, results are obtained when, for example, finance is mentioned with diversity and females but without biodiversity. The second search string is equal to the first search string except for the first line. In the first line, we search for combinations between ‘business’ and ‘strategy’ or ‘perspectives’. A maximum of ten words between ‘business’ and ‘strategy’ or ‘perspectives’ is allowed.
for diversity at the workplace. The innovative frame consists of two search strings. Each search string covers four search lines. In addition, the structure of the economic frame is applied to the innovative frame. That is, the first line covers innovative specific words, followed by diversity related words in the second line, gender specific words in the third line and words which should be excluded from the results in the last line. Examples of innovative specific terms are ‘talent’, ‘knowledge’, ‘quality’, ‘creativity’, ‘flexibility’, ‘innovation’, ‘dynamic’, ‘perspectives’ and ‘skills’. For instance, when creativity occurs in the same, previous or next sentence with diversity, gender and without biodiversity, the innovative frame was found.
Stakeholder frame. The stakeholder frame is conceptualized based on stakeholder
motives for diversity at the workplace. In order to create the stakeholder frame, two search strings were established, each existing of four search lines. The first line specifies
stakeholder-related words, and continues with the second line covering diversity-related words, the third line representing gender specific terms and the fourth line containing
excluded terms. In the first search string, first search line, we attempted to find combinations of different stakeholder groups with stakeholder-related terms. Examples of stakeholder groups are ‘clients’, ‘customers’, ‘consumers’ and ‘society’. Examples of stakeholder-related terms are ‘mirror’, ‘value’, ‘understand’ and ‘reach’. For instance, when ‘understanding clients’ occurred in an annual report combined with diversity, women and without biodiversity, the stakeholder frame was found. In the second search string, first line, we searched for combinations of ‘customer’ or ‘consumer’ with ‘base’.
Attention gender diversity. Attention for gender diversity is measured based on two
diversity’, ‘women diversity’, ‘female diversity’ and ‘sex diversity’ mentioned in the annual reports. Second, the frequency of ‘board diversity’ in relation to gender, women, females, feminine or sex is counted. Added together, the two proxies constitute the measurement of ‘attention for gender diversity’.
TABLE 1
Descriptive statistics on frames and attention in annual reports (N)
N %
Morality frame 338 21.67 Economic frame 145 9.29 Innovative frame 232 14.87 Stakeholder frame 29 0.06 Attention gender diversity 394 25.25
Total 1560 100
Independent variables
Organizational size. In order to operationalize organizational size, we collected the
number of employees of each year within the research period (2003-2014) from all selected organizations. These could be obtained from the Orbis database. In this database,
comprehensive information on companies worldwide, on both listed and unlisted companies is available. Following Vaccaro, Jansen, Van den Bosch and Volberda (2012) we measured organizational size as the logarithm of the number of employees.
Industry type. In order to operationalize industry type, the four digit SIC code of each
organization was obtained. The SIC code serves as an indicator for the industry type in which the organization operates. The SIC code of each organization was obtained from the
Orbis database. Based on this code, organizations were classified into 12 industry types:
Agriculture, Natural resource, Petroleum, Construction, Finance, Manufacturing, Public administration, Services, Telecommunications, Trade, Transportation and Utilities. In a second step, we converted the industry types into two dummy variables.
Consumer (versus producer-oriented). The first dummy variable varies between
consumer-oriented organizations and producer-consumer-oriented organizations, in which consumer-consumer-oriented organizations is coded as 1 and producer-oriented organizations as 0. Consumer-oriented organizations consisted of the following industries: Manufacturing, Public Administration, Services, Telecommunications, Finance and Utilities. Producer-oriented organizations
consisted of the following industries: Agriculture, Natural Resource, Petroleum, Construction, Trade, Transportation and Industry.
Financial (versus non-financial). The second dummy variable varies between financial
organizations (Finance) and non-financial organizations (all others), in which Finance industries are coded as 1 and non-Finance industries as 0.
TABLE 2
Descriptive statistics on explanatory variables on the organizational level
M SD N % Organizational size 38339.55 53454.52 Industry: Finance 38 29.20 Industry: Consumer 74 56.90 Industry: Producer 18 13.90 Total number of organizations 130 100
selected organizations were coded by two coders. Therefore, we used the Orbis database. From this database, we obtained information about the board composition and demographic features of the board’s members. Next, we coded these aspects in Qualtrics as follows: the total number of executive board members, and the sex of each board member. If information about the executive board was not available of a particular organization, we relied on the information about the executive committee, the board of directors or the supervisory board. Following Campbell and Mínguez-Vera (2008), two proxies were used to measure board diversity. First, a dummy variable is created to differentiate between the presence of at least one woman on the board and no presence of women on the board. Second, the percentage of females on the board is calculated as the number of female directors divided by the total number of board directors.
TABLE 3
Descriptive statistics on explanatory variables on the board level
M SD N %
Board size 9.08 4.04
Board ≥1 women 87 66.90
Board diversity 14.27 13.57
Control variables
Time trend. Time trend is measured in years, varying from the first year of the research
period (1) to the last (12).
Gender pay gap. Gender pay gap refers to the difference between the average gross
hourly earnings of male and female employees as a monthly percentage of the male gross earnings (Eurostat, 2016). Here, data about gender inequalities in terms of payment among
member states of the EU are used as indicator for gender diversity across Europe. More specifically, the unadjusted gender pay gap is used which monitors the imbalances in wages between men and women across Europe (Eurostat, 2016). We controlled for missing time periods using data of the first available year. For example, when only data of the period 2007-2014 were available of a particular country, data of the year 2007 were also used for the period 2003-2006.
Analysis
In order to test our hypotheses and research question, multiple layers are used to structure the dataset. At the first level (macro), variation across years is taken into account. Here, we control for time and the influence of the gender pay gap in the research period 2003-2014. Second, at the meso level, organizational size and industry are considered as factors which vary across frames and attention for gender diversity. Lastly, at the micro level, board diversity explains variation across frames and attention. As a result, the dataset was aggregated on the yearly and organizational level. In case multiple annual reports were missing of the same organization, the particular organization was removed from the sample. Organizations of which only one annual report was missing were not removed from the sample (see Appendix C). Instead, data of the previous year was used to fill this gap. For example, when the information of the Belgian organization ‘Solvay’ year 2005 was
incomplete, data of ‘Solvay’ year 2004 were used. Given the hierarchical structure of the data, it is chosen to use multilevel modelling (Hox, Moerbeek & Van de Schoot, 2010). The
observations are hierarchically clustered within organizations and years. This means that the same time period occurs for each organization while simultaneously organizations of different countries appear within the same year. Consequently, it is chosen to use a multilevel design for linear regression with maximum likelihood estimation (MLE).
Results
In this section, the results of the analyses aiming to explain frame variation in gender diversity will be discussed. Results are presented according to the different levels of analyses: First, the analyses on the macro-level (national) are presented, pursued by the analyses on the meso-level (organizational) and micro-meso-level (board). The results attempting to explain frame variation in attention for gender diversity, morality framing, economic framing, innovative framing and stakeholder framing are summarized in Table 4. In addition, an interaction term between time and gender pay gap is added to the fixed part of the models. The development of the gender pay gap is expected to be highly interrelated with time as the EU gender equality policy has experienced important changes in the last decade due to developments in anti-discrimination policy which affected the framing of the subject (Lombardo & Rolandsen Agustín, 2012). Model 1 presents the factors accounting for variation in the attention for gender diversity. Intra-class correlations on the highest, national level show that this level accounts for 17 percent of the total variance, whereas 18 percent on the organizational level. Therefore, it is justified to use this model which applies to hypotheses 1 to 5.
First, the relationship between the gender pay gap and attention for gender diversity in annual reports will be discussed. Here, we address the first hypothesis which expects that European countries with smaller gender pay gaps are more likely to communicate about gender diversity in their annual reports compared to European countries with larger gender pay gaps (H1). As is shown in Table 4, there is a significant negative main effect of gender pay gap on attention for gender diversity: b = -.06, p < .001, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.00]. For each unit increase in the gender pay gap, the likelihood that organizations communicate about gender diversity decreases with 0.06, keeping all other variables constant. Hence, H1 may be accepted.
FIGURE 2
Attention for gender diversity in annual reports across Europe over time
more likely to increase over time (H2). However, we will first look at the attention for gender diversity over time in absolute numbers, presented in Figure 2. The line graph shows that the communication about gender diversity increased in the time period 2003-2014. Only between 2011 and 2012 the attention for gender diversity declined. The general trend of increased attention for gender diversity is also reflected in Table 4. That is, results show a positive significant main effect of time on attention for gender diversity: b = .14, p < .001, 95% CI [0.12, 0.16]. The frequency of communication about gender diversity increases with 0.14 percent per year. As a consequence, H2 may be accepted.
Third, the relationships between organizational size and industry type with attention for gender diversity are discovered. To start, it is predicted that the size of the organization is positively related to the communication about gender diversity in the annual reports of European organizations (H3). Indeed, organizations with higher rates of employees
communicate 0.08 percent more about gender diversity than organizations with smaller rates of employees. However, the relationship between organizational size and attention for gender
0 50 100 150 200 250 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Gender diversity
diversity appeared not to be significant: b = .08, p = .079, 95% CI [0.00, 0.10]. Therefore, H3 may be rejected.
In addition, two hypotheses are conceptualized to examine the relationship between the industry in which the organization operates and the attention for gender diversity in the annual reports of the organization. First, it is expected European organizations which operate in consumer-oriented industries are more prone to communicate about gender diversity in their annual reports compared to organizations which operate in producer-oriented industries (H4a). However, there is no significant relationship found between consumer (versus
producer) industry and attention for gender diversity: b = -.18, p = .438, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.20]. Precisely, producer-oriented organizations seem to communicate slightly more (0.18 percent) about gender diversity in their annual reports than consumer-oriented organizations. The second industry hypothesis expected that European organizations which operate in financial industries are less prone to communicate about gender diversity compared to non-financial industries (H4b). Also here, no significant relationship is found between financial industry (versus non-financial) and the communication about gender diversity: b = .11, p = .542, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.40]. Consequently, hypotheses H4a and H4b may be rejected.
Regarding the analysis on the board level, it is expected that the representation of females on the board of directors in European organizations is positively related to the frequency of communication about gender diversity in their annual reports (H5). Here, we look at the relationship between board diversity and attention for gender diversity. Apparently, board diversity is no significant source explaining variation in attention for gender diversity: b = 0, p = .905, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.00]. European organizations with more females on the board of directors do not communicate more frequently about gender diversity than European
organizations with less females on the board of directors. Therefore, H5 may be rejected. In addition, interaction effects are found between time and gender pay gap: b = 0, p < .05, 95%
TABLE 4
Multilevel models explaining frame variation of gender diversity across time and Europe
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Attention gender diversity Morality framing Economic framing Innovative framing Stakeholder framing B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE Time .14 .01*** .01 .01 .01 .00 .01 .00* .00 .00* Pay gap -.06 .02** .02 .01 .00 .00 -.00 .00 .00 .00 Size .08 .04 .02 .03 .00 .01 .01 .01 .00 .00 Consumer (versus producer) -.18 .23 .05 .17 -.07 .04 .08 .07 .02 .03 Finance (versus non-finance) .11 .18 .14 .13 -.01 .03 -.01 .05 -.01 .02 Board diversity -.00 .01 -.00 .00 .00 .03 .00 .00* .00 .00**
Time x Pay gap .00 .00* -.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Attention .44 .02*** .16 .01*** .31 .01*** .01 .00** Constant .79 .28** .12 .18 .09 .04* -.04 .06 .01 .03 Intercept level 3 .87 .18 .52 .12 .11 .04 .30 .07 .02 .01 Intercept level 2 .74 .06 .73 .06 .19 .02 .30 .03 .09 .00 Intraclass correlation level 3 0.17 0.14 0.06 0.12 0.02 Intraclass correlation level 2 0.18 0.24 0.13 0.15 0.25 ∆ Log likelihood 123.47 43.99 39.81 75.50 55.16 N level 3 19 19 19 19 19 N level 2 130 130 130 130 130 N level 1 1560 1560 1560 1560 1560
Unstandardized coefficients (B) are reported from cross-classified models using MLE estimation. Gender diversity attention, time, pay gap, size and board diversity are centred at their grand means.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
FIGURE 3
Interaction-effect between time and gender pay gap on attention for gender diversity.
Note. Scores on attention for gender diversity are standardized.
CI [0.00, 0.01]. As is shown in Figure 3, the effect of gender pay gap decreases as time progresses. In other words, the negative influence of the gender pay gap on the likelihood that organizations communicate about gender diversity became less pronounced across time.
We will now address the research question assessing the influence of cross-national factors, organizational factors and board factors on morality framing, economic framing, innovative framing and stakeholder framing over time and across Europe (RQ). First, an overview of the absolute prominence of the four frames is provided across time in Figure 4, and across European countries in Figure 5. As is shown in Figure 4, the attention for the four different frames appear to vary across time. From the beginning, the morality frame is used most frequently compared to other frames in absolute terms. Until the year 2005, economic, innovative and stakeholder frames are used almost equally to communicate about gender diversity. Afterwards, the focus has shifted to the innovative framing of gender diversity, while economic and stakeholder framing are paid less attention to.
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2
Low Time High Time
At tent io n g ender div er sit y
Low Pay gap High Pay gap
FIGURE 4
Attention for morality, economic, innovative and stakeholder frames over time
Especially, the stakeholder frame is used rarely compared to the other frames in the gender diversity debate. When looking at Europe, we see also quite some differences between countries (see Figure 4). In line with previous findings, morality framing and innovative framing seem to be used most often across Europe in absolute terms. Among France, Spain and the United Kingdom, morality frames appear to be most popular when communicating about gender diversity. In addition, innovative frames are most frequently used in France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Interestingly, in some countries none of the four frames is detected in any of their annual reports regarding gender diversity. Precisely, it seems that Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland either do not use a specific frame to communicate about gender diversity in their annual reports or do not communicate about gender diversity at all. However, one should note that these countries are not equally represented in terms of the number of organizations compared to other European countries (see Appendix A).
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
FIGURE 5
Attention for morality, economic, innovative and stakeholder frames across Europe
Next, the results of Model 2-5 are presented, which are controlled for attention for gender diversity (see Table 4). These models aim to provide deeper level analyses explaining frame variation in the four different frames. However, first intra-class correlations will be discussed. On the national level, intra-class correlations vary between 0.02 and 0.15. Hence, intra-class correlations on the highest, national level account for 2 percent till 15 percent of the total variance. In addition, intra-class correlations on the middle, organizational level vary between 0.13 and 0.25. Thus, this level accounts for 13 percent till 25 percent of the total variance. Consequently, this justifies our choice for applying multi-level modelling.
To begin, attention for gender diversity appeared to have a significant influence on all frames. Logically, the significant relation between attention and frames is found as the likeability of framing gender diversity strongly increases when the communication about gender diversity increases. More specifically, it means that when attention increases with one unit, European organizations frame gender diversity significantly more in terms of morality,
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Stakeholder Innovative Economic Morality
economics, innovation and stakeholder, keeping all other variables constant.
In Model 2, frame variation in the degree of portraying gender diversity in terms of
morality is explained. In Model 3, frame variation in the degree of portraying gender diversity in economic terms is explained. When looking at both models, it appears only attention has a significant influence on the morality framing and economic framing of gender diversity. Subsequent, Model 4 explains frame variation in the degree of portraying gender diversity in terms of innovation. First, time significantly influences innovative framing: b = .01, p < .05, 95% CI [0.00, 0.15]. Hence, when time increases with one year, organizations frame gender diversity 0.01 percent more in terms of innovation compared to the previous year. Second, it is shown that board diversity has a significant main effect on innovative framing: b = 0.00, p < .05, 95% CI [0.00, 0.01]. Controlling for other variables, there is a 0.004 higher chance of finding innovative framing of gender diversity in organizations with more women on the board of directors than in organizations with less women on the board of directors.
Finally, in Model 5, frame variation in the degree of portraying gender diversity in terms of stakeholder is explained. Time appears to have a significant influence on stakeholder framing:
b = 0.00, p < .05, 95% CI [0.00, 0.05]. As a result, the usage of stakeholder frames increases
with 0.003 percent in annual reports when time increases with one year. However, it is important to note that the effect of time on stakeholder framing is very small, and therefore the usage of stakeholder framing barely increases. Last, board diversity significantly influences stakeholder framing: b = 0.00, p < .01, 95% CI [0.00, 0.03]. Organizations representing more women on the board of directors, are 0.002 percent more likely to use stakeholder framing in the gender diversity debate compared to organizations with less women on the board of directors. Therefore, the difference of stakeholder framing usage between boards with more versus less women on the board of directors is very small.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to explore how European organizations frame gender diversity in their annual reports, and to account for factors that explain variation in these
representations over time and across European countries. The research extends current theory by demonstrating that European countries with higher gender pay gaps are less likely to communicate about gender diversity than European countries with smaller gender pay gaps. As expected, countries with large gender pay gaps represent a highly gender-segregated workforce in which the rates of female employees are usually quite small (Kirton & Greene, 2015). This finding suggests that countries with high gender pay gaps lack a number of benefits of women on communication processes in the workplace, such as diverging
perspectives, an enriched understanding of stakeholder’s needs and a more collaborative and participative approach to leadership (Bear et al., 2010; Konrad et al., 2008; Terjesen et al., 2009).
Second, attention for gender diversity increased over time. This finding was initially discovered in the absolute amount of attention paid to gender diversity. Except for the period 2011-2012, the attention for gender diversity increased over time. This general trend
supplements prior research as considerable attention for anti-discrimination in employment and racism occurred due to the transposition of EU directives into national legislation across Europe (Wrench, 2003). This led to heightened attention for diversity management in Europe which continued by cause of the adoption of new directives and the recent introduction of gender quotas by the EU (Hoogendoorn et al., 2013). However, one should note that the attention for gender diversity tends to be higher in countries with low gender pay gaps than in countries with high gender pay gaps but the effect diminishes as time increases. Arguably, this effect occurred due to the adoption of European legislation and directives such as the objective to reach 40 percent presence of the underrepresented sex among non-executive
directors of companies listed on stock exchanges by 2020 (EU, 2014b). Therefore, especially organizations in those countries with high gender pay gaps may feel increased pressure to meet new requirements of the EU regarding gender diversity, will pay more attention to the gender diversity debate and consequently communicate this to the outside world.
In contrast to our expectations, we found no support for the relationship between
organizational size, industry or board diversity with attention for gender diversity. It may be that the study included a relatively large sample of small organizations in terms of the number of employees and board diversity. Prior research argues that small organizations are under less scrutiny from the public, which may result in less urgency to represent gender diversity at the workplace as a whole, and in particular among the board of directors (Hillman et al., 2007). Moreover, the number of organizations in the producer-industry is fairly
underrepresented whereas more than half of the organizations is mirrored in the consumer-industry. Similarly, the finance/non-finance ratio is unbalanced resulting in an
underrepresentation of financial organizations. Arguably, producer-oriented organizations and financial organizations also experience increased pressure to conform to societal expectations resulting in more attention for diversity at the workplace. However, future research needs to investigate this possibility.
Regarding the descriptive framing analyses, we found that the absolute attention for morality framing is used most often, followed by innovative framing during the entire research period. This indicates that, when it comes to gender diversity, European
organizations mainly position themselves as socially responsible institutions which offer equal opportunities and combat discrimination (Cunningham & Melton, 2011). Moreover, organizations focus on attracting people with creative and innovative ideas, new perspectives and knowledge in the gender diversity debate (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Cox & Blake, 2001).
Although stakeholder framing is rarely used to represent gender diversity, organizations implemented all different frames more often in their annual reports over time.
Also, across Europe we found different usage of the four frames. Again, morality framing and innovative framing appeared to be used most frequently in the communication about gender diversity. In particular, French, Spanish, English and Dutch organizations highly represent morality and innovative framing in their annual reports. However, in Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, none of the four frames was detected in the annual reports of their organizations. This means that they either do not use a specific frame to communicate about gender diversity in their annual reports or do not communicate about gender diversity at all. Nonetheless, one should note that some countries are underrepresented in our sample due to missing annuals of organizations which may have affected our results.
In contrast to previous findings, multi-model analyses only indicate an increased use of innovative and stakeholder framing over time. Additionally, no significant relationship between time and morality framing and economic framing is found. Contradictory results might occur due to the fact we controlled for gender diversity attention. That is, attention for gender diversity appeared to significantly influence the usage of all four frames. Therefore, we should be careful with interpreting absolute numbers of the attention for the different frames since these are not controlled for gender diversity attention resulting in a skewed picture of reality.
Last, board diversity appeared to explain variance in innovative framing and stakeholder framing. This means that organizations with a higher representation of females on the board of directors focus more on innovative framing and stakeholder framing regarding gender diversity than organizations with lower rates of women on the board of directors. However, it could also be the case that innovative and stakeholder-oriented organizations are more
Theoretical implications
The results supplement previous literature on gender diversity and framing in several ways. First, the study provides insight into how European organizations use different frames to communicate about gender diversity in their annual reports. Prior research on representations of gender in diversity statements focussed on the relationship between diversity discourses and competitive advantages based on voluntary statements of companies on corporate websites (Point & Singh, 2006). Their results show only a few West-European organizations adopt gender diversity as a strategic resource. In addition, a small number of organizations framed gender diversity in terms of social justice whereas most organizations in West-Europe explained why gender diversity is important. This study extends this field by focussing on four different framing strategies to represent gender diversity in annual reports across both West-Europe and East-Europe. Especially innovative framing and stakeholder framing became more popular over time in Europe which indicates that gender diversity is described in terms of attracting new knowledge, experience, skills (Ely & Thomas, 2001) as well as in terms of serving customer’s needs and understanding stakeholders (Campbell & Mí nguez-Vera, 2008). Besides, this research suggests that the attention for gender diversity is highly related to the framing of the subject in annual reports.
Second, cross-level frame sources accounting for frame variation in corporate media across Europe are discovered in this study. That is, cross-national factors (gender pay gap and time), organizational factors (organizational size and industry) and board factors (board diversity) are included. Here we build on prior investigation in which the call for new research on frame factors accounting for variation in media regarding the same event or issue was stressed (Snow et al., 2007), especially within the corporate communication literature (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). In addition, this study enriches framing literature in the context of the gender diversity debate by taking a cross-national perspective and by including explanatory factors
on the macro-level (national), meso-level (organizational) and micro-level (board) attempting to explain frame variation in corporate messages over time.
Practical implications
This study provides certain practical implications for national, organizational and
individual actors. First, this research stresses the importance of closing the gender pay gap in Europe as this is related to the attention for the subject. Organizations may take advantage of increased gender diversity at the workplace as this is more likely to result into different perspectives, valuable knowledge, creativity and innovation which may further strengthen the organizational reputation and performance of the organization (Bear, Rahman & Post, 2010; Ely & Thomas, 2001; Hofhuis et al., 2015).
Moreover, although growing interest for innovative framing and stakeholder framing is discovered over time, emphasis should also be placed on the morality and economic motives for gender diversity. That is, when an organization presents itself as a socially responsible institution which aims to provide equal opportunities and to combat discrimination this could result in a more favourable image and reputation among stakeholders (Carroll & McCoombs, 2003; Cunningham & Melton, 2011; Du et al., 2010). In addition, emphasis on the economic importance of gender diversity at the workplace will be beneficial for the organizational and economic performance of the organization (Hofhuis et al., 2015).
Last, the positive relationship between gender diversity at the upper echelons of the organization and innovation, and the understanding of stakeholder’s needs is
proven. Organizations should therefore stimulate board diversity which may increase the innovative and creative capacities of the organization and the ability to better serve key stakeholders. Put it differently, innovative and stakeholder-directed organizations may have better opportunities to increase the board diversity at the workplace. This may bring new
perspectives and issues to the diversity board debate leading to a broader range of outcomes (Daily & Dalton, 2003).
Limitations and future research
Although our analyses show very promising results with respect to the role of framing and sources explaining frame variation in the representations of different frames across Europe and over time, there are some limitations. A first shortcoming appeared to be the validity of our measurement instrument. Initially, the total attention for gender diversity was supposed to cover the total attention of the four frames. However, morality framing appeared not to be covered to its full potential. That is, some search strings of the morality frame are not
included in the calculation of the total attention for gender diversity. For example, when ‘non-discrimination’ in relation to ‘gender’ occurred in one of the annual reports, the morality frame was found. However, the term ‘diversity’ is a prerequisite for total gender diversity attention. As a consequence, total attention for gender diversity is lower than expected. Despite we are convinced our measurement instrument is well-established and results are highly generalizable to the European situation regarding gender diversity, future research should aim to avoid this problem.
Second, this study included and analysed 130 organizations which is not representative for each separate European country. Moreover, due to the absence of multiple annual reports of several organizations, some countries are underrepresented in our sample. Also, in case one annual report was missing of the organization, data of the first available year were used. Undoubtedly, this may have affected our results and negatively impacted the generalizability of the results to the national level. Nevertheless, this study is a good start on which future research can build on.
2010; Bernardi et al., 2002). However, annual reports form only one aspect of this conceptual umbrella. Therefore, future research should also include other aspects of corporate media, such as financial reports, CSR reports and internal reports in order to establish a measure which might cover the broad concept corporate media to a greater extent.
Last, this research merely focussed on women and men whereas LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) communities are neglected within our conceptualization of gender diversity. It is argued that especially LGBT persons continually face prejudice and
discrimination in the workplace (Cunningham & Melton, 2011). Also, the EU recognizes discrimination, harassment and violence as a problem trans people experience across Europe (TGEU, 2015). Therefore, follow-up studies should include LGBT communities as part of the evolving gender diversity concept and discover how this aspect is framed within the gender diversity debate and whether there are different frames used for LGBT communities
compared to cisgender persons (e.g. those who identify with the sex/gender assigned at birth) in corporate media.
Moreover, future research should take a multi-method approach, in which both quantitative data of automated content analyses and rich qualitative data of interviews are combined. In addition to quantitative insights based on corporate media it would be interesting to conduct interviews with employees and directors of organizations to see how frames of gender diversity are constructed. For instance, how is meaning given to gender diversity and how is this translated to the corporate media of the organization? Which gender diversity frames are preferred in organizational communication and why? These questions might lead to enriching information about the underlying motives behind the framing of gender diversity in corporate communication.
Also, forthcoming research should aim to unravel the causal relationship between the framing of gender diversity and gender diversity at the workplace. This study shed light on
