The Influence of CEO’s Gender on Corporate Social
Responsibility
Master Thesis, MSc International Business and Management, University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 13, 2016 Marina Minasian Studentnumber: 2795817 Vlietwei 214 2361 KA, Warmond Tel.: 0641910999 e-mail: m.minasian@student.rug.nl Supervisor Mr. van Polen Co-Assessor Mr. de Vries
ABSTRACT
Table of Content
1. INTRODUCTION ... 3
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 6
2.1UPPER ECHELON THEORY ... 6
2.3CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) ... 9
2.4CSR AND GENDER ... 10
2.5HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT ... 12
3. RESEARCH METHODS ... 13
3.1RESEARCH STRATEGY ... 13
3.2SAMPLE AND DATA COLLECTION STRATEGY ... 14
4. RESULTS ... 15 5. DISCUSSION ... 19 5.1LIMITATIONS ... 22 REFERENCES ... 23 ARTICLES ... 23 ONLINE SOURCES ... 30 APPENDICE ... 31
1. Introduction
issue in management strategy, affecting the competitiveness of companies, (Kytle & Ruggie, 2005; Martinuzzi et al., 2010) and it is becoming an important tool to boost stakeholder’s confidence (Post et al., 2002).
Increasing diversity of CEO’s and other decision-making positions has caused higher priority for companies’ effect on social responsibility (Klenke, 2003). Diversity within corporate management and decision-making positions has therefore become a highly discussed topic (Arriola, 2010). Previous literature has shown the benefits of diversity on top management. It will bring more innovation, creativity and problem-solving abilities (Cox & Blake, 1991; Østergaard et al., 2011; European Commission 2003), lower recruitment, labour and training costs, better employee relations, making it easier to attract and hold on to employees
(Robinson & Dechant, 1997; Davidson & Fielden, 2004) and improve public image, increase marketplace understanding and gain more customer satisfaction (McEnrue, 1993).
In line with the popularity of diversity, since recent years there is a growing interest in increasing the presence of women corporate management and decision-making positions (European Commission 2012 & 2013; Terjesen & Singh, 2008; Francoeur et al. 2008). For many years, only a small minority of women have managed to achieve the position of CEO, especially in Fortune 500 companies. Women are often kept from key leadership roles such as CEO and out of the boardroom, because they are thought of as weak and non-competitive (Arriola, 2010; O’Connor, 2006). The last 20 years the number of female CEO’s has begun to grow (Fairchild, 2014; Ibrahim & Angelidis, 2011). The number of Fortune 500 women CEO’s has reached a historic high, while in 1998 one women led a Fortune 500 company, now there are 12 female CEO’s on the list (Fairchild, 2014). Previous literature shows that the presence of women on boards is considered beneficial to organizations; women create better corporate governance practices and their presence on boards translates into financial success (Jamali et al., 2007; Carter et al., 2003; Erhardt et al., 2003; Catalyst, 2008; Speedy, 2004). So why does gender diversity of CEO’s create different decisions? And why does this result in different firm performance? Firms do not make decisions, people do (Hilary, 2009). CEO’s are people with different demographics, backgrounds and experiences. Demographic
base of a CEO.Hambrick & Mason (1984) argued that the characteristics and demographics of managers influence the decisions that they make and therefore the actions adopted by the organizations that they lead. In addition to this Cannon (2012) refers that men behave
differently than women, and these behavioural differences often have an influential role in the workplace (Cannon, 2012). This is in line with the upper echelon theory, which states that the characteristics and demographics, such as the gender of senior management, can influence the decisions made and practices adopted by an organization (Hambrick & Mason, 1984).
Previous research about gender diversity comes with different perspectives and with different results on business performance. Some authors found positive effects of gender diversity on company performance, (Carpenter, 2002; Joshi & Roh, 2009), while other authors found no gender influence (Ferrier, 2001). The authors that found a positive effect of gender diversity on CSR strategy are mostly concluding that female’s have a positive effect on CSR strategies. Ibrahim & Angelidis (2011) found a positive relationship between female board members’ gender and their CSR orientation. Manner (2010) shows that observable CEO characteristics predict differences in corporate social performance, such as age, gender, and education. Post et al., (2010) showed the impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Fernandez-Feijoo et al. (2014) add an international component to previous research, where they point at the cultural differences; gender diversity gives differences in company performance, looking at country of origin differences.
Furthermore they concluded that in countries with a higher proportion of boards of directors with at least three women, the levels of CSR reporting are higher (Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2014). Even though several authors have discussed the positive impact of gender diversity on CSR performance of a company, none of these studies explains the direct effect of CEO’s gender on the company CSR rate.
In order to fill the research gap, this thesis will consider the gender of CEO’s and their influence on the firm’s corporate social responsibility. Therefore the main research question is: Does the gender of CEO’s influence the level of corporate social responsibility?
collection, the variables, and the methods used for the research. Finally, the research outcomes are presented, followed by the discussion and limitations.
2. Theoretical Background
This section provides the literature review, which gives collected information from different literature sources. First the Upper Echelons theory will be explained, followed by the explanation of gender differences influencing decision-making processes. Next to this, the CSR definition and the understanding of CEO gender will be given, followed by the influence CEO’s gender has on the CSR rate of a company. The final part of the theoretical background gathers the information from previous literature to introduce the hypothesis and conceptual model of this study.
2.1 Upper Echelon Theory
Upper Echelons theory, introduced by Hambrick & Mason (1984), states that the background and the characteristics of a manager influence’s the choices and performance within the company. Executives make choices through highly individualized lenses that are formed by the managers’ demographics, experiences, personalities, and values. It therefore influences decisions that are complex and have ambiguity about means and ends. This typifies many strategic choices; therefore organizational outcomes become reflections of executives themselves (Mischel, 1977).
These demographic and other observable characteristics of executives can often be used as indicators of their cognitive- and value based filters (Manner, 2010). For example, as Cannon (2012) mentions gender created differences in behaviour, that often has an influential role in the workplace. In addition, from the characteristics and demographics a strategic choice is made, which eventually leads to the performance of the company. This performance can for example be shown in its CSR investment (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Angelidis and Ibrahim (2004) confirm this the upper echelon theory by stating that in order to understand
organizations strategic processes there must be an understanding of the upper echelon characteristics.
Figure 1: Upper Echelon; decision making process
The theory of upper echelon is based on the premise of bounded rationality. Complex
information and uncertain situations are not objectively knowable but are interpretable (Cyert, & March, 1963). If we want to understand why organizations do the things they do, or why they perform the way they do, we must consider the biases and characters of their most powerful actors: their top executives, that is, their CEO’s (Hambrick, 2007)
The role of a CEO is to make everyday decisions for the best interest of the company. The CEO must steer the company to a certain strategic position. Zooming in the cognitive value base, there are two mechanisms playing part in the choices of the CEO. The first mechanism is the behavioural channelling; the CEO’s values may have a direct influence on the choice to make. After weighing available alternatives, facts, probabilities, and eventualities, the
executive selects a course of action that suits his or her values. The second mechanism is called the perceptual filtering; this occurs when values affect choices indirectly. Under this process, the CEO selectively searches for information that suits his or her values. With this executives see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear (Chin, Hambrick & Trevin, 2013). According to Cowan et al. (1984), gender provides differences between behavioural channelling and perceptual filtering. Their research indicates that men and women use different mechanism on strategies. They conclude that men use a direct power
Objective situation Upper echelon Characteristics and demographics (e.g. gender)
in line with the perceptual filtering (Cowan et al., 1984).
Applying the upper echelon theory on gender, various studies provide many differences between men and women. These differences lie in their cognitive framework, which results in the difference of decision-making outcomes (Huang, 2013). Compared to their male
counterparts, women are more likely to have a cognitive framework of feeling and emphasizing harmony (Hurst et al., 1989).
According to Celis et al. (2015) men and women have different leadership styles. Women are more participative, democratic and are more sharing than men, (Eagly & Carli 2003; Bear et al., 2010; Nielsen & Huse, 2010; Boulouta, 2013) and exhibit psychological characteristics that seem to make them more likely to listen to the claims of certain stakeholders (Zhang et al., 2013). Women are less economically oriented and more philanthropically driven than men (Ibrahim & Angelidis, 2011). These differences in leadership style has positive outcomes for women, where it enables women to inspire confidence among peers, cope with complex environments (Appold et al., 1998), share information and power, bring people together, respond to challenges (Hurst et al., 1989), increase the diversity in the team, enhancing information-processing capabilities (Carpenter, 2002), and providing the drive for change (Hambrick et al., 1996). However, women are not as big of risk-takers compared to men (Arriola, 2010).
Various studies point that a difference in work and educational level is also seen between men and women. Compared to male directors, female directors gain board experience with smaller firms, are less likely to have prior CEO or COO experience (Singh et al., 2008), are more likely to hold a doctoral degree (Hillman et al., 2002), have expert backgrounds outside of business, and bring different perspectives to the board (Hillman et al., 2002). Furthermore, men tend to achieve the role of CEO and directors more easily than women; they are also promoted at a faster rate than women (Arriola, 2010).
that a diverse group tends to analyse decisions more thoroughly. As a result, the potential for unethical decisions is reduced (Arfken et al., 2004).
2.3 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Corporate social responsibility, referred as CSR is defined as: ‘‘actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law’’
(McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). The general principal of CSR is that a company integrates “social values” into its decision-making, “so as to achieve positive and sustainable outcomes towards the business, environment and community at large” (Arriola, 2010). Some examples of CSR actions include going beyond legal requirements in adopting progressive human resource management programs, developing non-animal testing procedures, recycling, declining pollution, supporting local businesses, and embodying products with social attributes or characteristics (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). Simply put, the corporation must make “doing good” a part of their business plan (Nizam, 2010). The attitude to CSR is often explained in terms of four types of responsibilities for the corporation. The economic
responsibility referring to the amount of profitability; the legal responsibility, which means to tolerate the laws of society; the ethical responsibility to do what is right; and the philanthropic responsibility to contribute to various kinds of social purposes (Ibrahim & Angelidis, 2014) CSR goals and objectives are often conflicting or unclear as firms attempt to respond to various demands from diverse stakeholders, ranging from employees, customers, suppliers, media, NGO’s, and governments (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001; Ditlev-Simonsen and Midttun, 2011). But to whom should companies be accountable (Matten et al., 2003)? Barnett’s (2007) definition of CSR includes that corporations serve as a means of enhancing relationships with key stakeholders. According to the stakeholder theory the corporation has a responsibility to all those groups who are harmed by, or benefit from, the company and/or whose rights will be affected either positively or negatively (Grosser & Moon, 2005). To this extent all
According to Mattingly & Berman (2006) there are two factors reflecting positive CSR. The first construct is institutional strength; this is composed of positive actions toward the
community and diversity stakeholders. These include actions like charitable giving, volunteer programs, the promotion of women and minorities, and women and minority subcontracting. The second construct is technical strength, which is composed of positive actions toward consumers, stockholders, and employees. These include actions like products with social benefits, transparency in reporting social and environmental performance, and health and safety programs (Mattingly & Berman, 2006).
A large number of organizations are aware of the importance of ethical behaviour
(Berenheim, 1988). Some companies’ have developed codes of ethics, and are conducting training programs in this area. Moreover, directors have created a general agreement, regardless of their gender; corporations should be ethical in their behaviour and operate within the legal framework (Berenheim, 1988).
2.4 CSR and Gender
According to Waldman et al. (2006) it is the key decision-makers demographics, attributes and personal qualities that tend to have the biggest effect upon the extent and the results of a company’s CSR initiative. The key decision maker of the company is its CEO; They are responsible for formulating corporate strategy affecting to CSR (Waldman et al., 2006). The CEO is in a prime position to influence CSR strategy and practice (Waldman and Siegel, 2008). CSR is thus a strategic choice that allows firms to create shared value between managers’ personal interests and the social cause (Huang, 2013).
Managers can respond positively or negatively to CSR policies. According to McWilliams and Siegel (2001) managers respond positive to CSR, by investing different resources to promote CSR. On the other hand managers that are negative about CSR believe that such efforts are inconsistent with profit maximization and the interests of shareholders, whom they perceive to be the most important stakeholder (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001).
style that is crucial in CSR is the integrative complexity. Integrative complexity is described as evaluative differentiation, which refers to “the capacity and willingness to tolerate different points of view, to understand why people look at the same event in different ways, to confront trade-offs, and to appreciate interactive patterns of causation”. Therefore individuals can be described from simple (having low integrative complexity) to complex (having high integrative complexity). Integrative complexity is important in determining how CEO’s gather and process information from various stakeholders (Wong et al., 2011). In the study of Wong, Ormiston & Tetlock (2011) is shown that CEO’s with higher integrative complexity show higher level of CSR than do those characterized by lower levels of integrative complexity. Applying this to gender differences, a study by Myyry (2002) indicates that men and women have significant differences in their integrative complexity; women show a higher level of integrative complexity, while men are showing a lower level of integrative complexity.
Various studies confirm that there are differences between female and male responses on CSR. This difference is noticed due to the differences in treats and characteristics between men and women (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Cannon, 2012). Women are thought of as caregivers who will devote their lives to the needs of others and expend less energy on their own desires (O’Connor, 2006). According to Boulouta (2013) Women managers may have an influence on CSR strategy because they posses traits such as empathy, caring, greater concern for others and value relationships in community (Boulouta, 2013).
characteristics of CEO’s appear to influence CSR performance (Huang, 2013).
Board diversity is key when it comes to women representatives on decision-making positions. According to several studies, corporate philanthropy is greater among companies with more women on their boards (Manner, 2010). Ibrahim & Angelidis, (2011) found a positive relationship between female board members gender and their CSR orientation, while male board members are more concerned about economic performance. Bear et al. (2010) show the impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Women’s presence on boards translates into financial success (Celis et al., 2015). Jamali et al. (2007) mention that women at the board create better corporate governance practices. Research also suggests that firms with a higher percentage of female board members do in fact have a higher level of charitable giving (Wang & Coffey, 1992), more favourable work environments (Bernardi et al., 2006), and higher levels of environmental CSR (Post et al., 2011). Similarly, the broader perspective offered by women may help boards to better assess the needs of diverse stakeholders (Konrad & Kramer 2006; Jamali et al. 2007). The representation of women on boards is therefore considered beneficial to organizations and the contributing to better corporate governance practices (Jamali et al. 2007). In addition to this, Fernandez-Feijoo et al. (2014) concluded that in countries with a higher proportion of boards of directors with at least three women, the levels of CSR reporting are higher. Therefore, having more female directors may expose boards to CSR initiatives, and provide perspectives that can be helpful in addressing issues of CSR (Wang & Coffey, 1992)
Still, women are often kept from key leadership roles, such as CEO, and out of the
boardroom. The reason is that they are thought of as weak and non-competitive (O’Connor, 2006).
2.5 Hypothesis Development
In order to answer the main research question, does the gender of CEO’s influence the level of
corporate social responsibility? the upper echelon theory will be applied. Linking the upper
Hypothesis: Female CEO’s will give a higher CSR rate, compared to male CEO’s
This brings us the dependent variable as the CSR rate by the company. The independent variable is the CEO’s gender, which is defined as the CEO that occurs to be male or female. From this variable a conceptual model is developed:
Figure 2: Conceptual Model of Hypothesis
3. Research Methods
In this section the methodology will be explained. This will give an overview of how the research is conducted. First the overall research strategies will briefly discus the main components of this research, in which it highlights the type of research conducted. Second, the sample and data collection strategy will be given, where I elaborate on where the data of the sample for the research is found, and what type of analysis are conducted to test the hypothesis.
3.1 Research Strategy
To be able to explain the assumptions implemented in the research process the framework of constructionism will be used (Saunders et al., 2007). This states the use of already existing knowledge to acquire new knowledge to answer the main research question. This research is concerned with quantitative, secondary data. The data collection will be conducted using an archival research strategy (Saunders et al., 2007). No new first-hand data will be collected, so there is no need for the collection of primary data. From this we can say that the framework of this research has a descriptive design. Which includes data from a database or archival data
found in documents and reports (Saunders et al., 2007).
Hence, the research strategy is first to collect data, which is divided in three sets of data; list of companies, CSR rate, and CEO gender. Various resources collect these datasets independently. The data collected will have the statistical standards to use for further analysis, meaning that qualitative data needs to be coded before analysing. Further section will describe the sample and data collection strategy in more detail.
3.2 Sample and Data Collection Strategy
The dependent variable is the MNC’s CSR strategy. First I collected a list of company’s. For this study I have chosen the Fortune 500 list. This list consists of the largest companies with the highest revenues. According to Huang (2013) firm size has an influence on CSR performance, because larger corporations have a better transparency. To add the international component I have used the Global Fortune 500 list. These are the top 500 company’s all over the world. Including countries such as USA, China, UK, Netherlands and so on. On the website of Fortune the top 500 can be found. I have collected all the top global 500 companies from the Fortune website and listed in a sheet. To this list the CEO’s name is added.
Next is to collect data on CSR rate of the fortune 500 companies. Data collection about the companies’ CSR rate is collected through the website and database of CSRhub. Every company of the fortune 500 has a certain CSR score on the CSRhub. These scores are consisting of community, employees, environment, and governance. For my study I used the average score of all four categories. CSRhub is used due to its clear, easy and informative access to CSR rates of companies.
rates were not given. After deleting all the companies with missing data, the total sample is 402 companies.
CSRhub only has CSR rates on the present time of a company. The list of CEO names from the fortune 500 list also indicated the CEO at the present time. Therefore time framework for this study is the present time. In which I took a snapshot in April 2016 when I started collecting the data.
The data collected from the CSRhub has the following meaning: a number of 0 indicates no CSR performance; a number of 100 meaning the highest level of CSR performance. The data collected from LexisNexis is qualitative data; male or female. This data is coded before analysing. When it is found that a CEO is male the number 0 is attached; when it is found that the CEO is female, the number 1 will be attached.
Now there are three types of datasets to analyse: company name, CSR rate, and CEO gender. The data is put into Excel for a clear overview. After data collection and coding of the data, the next step is to enter the data of the variables in a statistical computer system SPSS. To look at the relationship between CEO’s gender and companies CSR score, first the descriptive statistics are conducted. The descriptive statistics gives an insight of the correlations of the independent variables. After the descriptive statistics the ANOVA analysis are conducted, to show if male or female CEO’s score high on CSR rate.
4. Results
The statistical analyses answer the main research question: does the gender of CEO’s influence the level of corporate social responsibility? In order to do this, the hypothesis “Female CEO’s will give a higher CSR rate, compared to male CEO’s” is tested.
To add the international aspect the global 500 list is used. The companies used for this research, which where listed in the global 500 list, have their headquarters’ in various countries. In total they are located in 36 countries. These include the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand Turkey, UK, United Arab Emirates, USA, Venezuela. The list of countries and the amount of companies located at the countries can be found in Appendix B. The majority of firms are from the USA (30,1%), followed by Japan (11,4%) and China (9,7%).
From the 402 companies, there are 390 male CEO’s, and 12 female CEO’s. Giving a percentage of 97% male CEO’s, and 3% female CEO’s.
The CSR rate’s, vary between 30 and 90. The lowest CSR rate of the sample is 30, and the highest is 90. Low number of CSR rate indicates that the company scores low according to CSRhub on their community, employees, environment, and governance. A high number on CSR rate indicates that the company scores high according to CSRhub on their community, employees, environment, and governance. From the total sample, 76% of the firms, which is a total of 307 companies, have a CSR rate lying between 51 and 66. The CSR rates have a total mean of 58, and are normally distributed. Due to the fact that 76% of the companies have a CSR rate surrounding the mean, there is no skewness, as shown in figure 3.
The male CEO’s shows the same results as the total sample, as their CSR rates are also normally distributed, and show no skewness, as seen in figure 4.
Figure 4: the CSR rates of male and female CEO’s
While the CSR rates of the male CEO’s are normally distributed. The CSR rates of the female CEO’s only appear between the CSR rates of 48 and 68. Therefore female CEO’s are not present in de CSR high range (69 till 90) and low range (30 till 47), indicated in table 1.
Table 1. CSR scores for total sample, male and female CEO’s CSR
Score
Total
Male/Female Male Female
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1 2 4 4 9 11 19 21 13 14 21 17 29 20 4 6 2 1 2 1
Total Male/Female Distribution
36 2 2 0 38 2 2 0 41 1 1 0 42 4 4 0 44 1 1 0 45 4 4 0 46 8 8 0 47 9 9 0 48 8 7 1 49 11 11 0 50 8 7 1 51 19 18 1 52 13 12 1 53 21 20 1 54 19 19 0 55 13 13 0 56 21 21 0 57 14 14 0 58 22 21 1 59 21 20 1 60 19 19 0 61 17 16 1 62 24 22 2 63 29 28 1 64 16 16 0 65 20 20 0 66 19 19 0 67 4 4 0 68 10 9 1 69 6 6 0 70 7 7 0 71 2 2 0 72 1 1 0 73 1 1 0 74 1 1 0 75 2 2 0 81 1 1 0 90 1 1 0 Total 402 390 12
The descriptive statistics are shown in table 2. This table shows the correlation between CSR rate and CEO gender. The correlation table indicates that an increase in CSR rate 1 has a negative relationship with CEO gender 2 (r =.27, p< .05). However the results are not significant.
Table 2: Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlation
Variables S.D. 1 2
1 CSRrate 7.4 1 -
2 CEO gender 0.2 -0.27 1
p<0.05
(M = 56.82, SD = 1.93). However the results are not significant, F (1.401) = 0.289, P > 0.5. Due to the insignificant results I do not have enough evidence to support nor reject the hypothesis.
Table 3: Level of CSR per gender
Gender: M (SD)
Male 58.04 (7.43)
Female 56.82 (1.93)
Note. N = 402
5. Discussion
The aim of this research was to examine if CEO gender influences the CSR rate of a
company. For this thesis I have analysed the relationship between CEO’s gender of Fortune 500 companies and the company’s CSR rate. According to previous literature and in line with the upper echelon theory, women should generate a higher rate of CSR, this is due to their characterises and traits (Carpenter, 2002; Joshi & Roh, 2009; Ibrahim & Angelidis, 2011; Manner, 2010). The differences lie in their cognitive framework, which results in the
difference of decision-making outcomes (Huang, 2013). Compared to their male counterparts, women are more likely to have a cognitive framework of feeling and emphasizing harmony (Hurst et al., 1989). Previous research confirms that women and the participants of women on the board of directors score higher on CSR performance (Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2014; Post et al., 2010). However non of these researches has focused on the direct effect of gender on the CSR rate.
In line with previous literature I expected for my research that female CEO’s are more concerned about CSR issues, and that companies with female CEO’s would score higher in CSR rate compared to the companies with male CEO’s. The hypothesis to be tested is, “Female CEO’s will give a higher CSR rate, compared to male CEO’s”. The hypothesis should provide an answer to the main research question: Does the gender of CEO’s influence
the level of corporate social responsibility? For the analyses, data is collected from different
rates are from the dataset of the CSRhub; and the CSR gender is mostly found on LexisNexis. To add an international component the global fortune 500 is used. The headquarters of the companies of the sample are located in 36 different countries, indicating that the companies are very international, and divers. Fernandez-Feijoo et al. (2014) show the importance of the international component in studying CSR rates and gender diversity.
The total sample of the study is 402 companies; all of the companies are provided with data as in a CSR rate and CEO gender. To find support for the hypothesis, the mean of the CSR rate for female CEO’s should be higher compared to the mean of CRS rate for male CEO’s. After the one-way ANOVA analysis the result show that male CEO’s score a higher CSR rate compared to female CEO’s. The mean of the male CSR rate is 58.04 and for female CSR rate is 56.82. This would indicate that the hypothesis is not true, and that male CEO’s score higher in their CSR rate. This is in line with previous research, where it is several times confirmed that female CEO’s should score higher in CSR due to their characteristics and treats
(Carpenter, 2002; Joshi & Roh, 2009; Ibrahim & Angelidis, 2011; Manner, 2010). However the results of my research are not significant, therefore the hypothesis cannot be confirmed nor rejected. Even though the results are not significant, it shows that there is no direct link between female CEO’s and a higher CSR rate. Instead male CEO’s score higher on CSR rate; the results show a different outcome than expected. From the theoretical background and my results I can answer the main research question as following: CEO gender does influence the level of corporate social responsibility, however previous literature concludes that female CEO should contribute to a higher CSR rate, while this thesis concludes that male CEO’s contribute to a higher CSR rate.
position within the organization. According to Arriola (2010), because so few women have achieved significant roles of leadership within corporations, such as CEO and members of the board of directors, some researches assume that women are more likely to “go along” with the rest of the board in order to be friendlier. The effect may therefore be that the factors of social responsibility the women would normally care about are largely extinguished (Arriola, 2010). The second reason indicates that the voice of female CEO’s may not be heard. Researches have confirmed that the presence of a single female director may not be sufficient, because minority group members may find it more difficult to voice their opinions and be heard (Brewer & Kramer, 1985; Kanter, 1977; Lord & Saenz, 1985; Nemeth, 1986). Therefore, even tough the female CEO wants to create higher levels of CSR, she is not able to perform this due to their minority position being a disadvantage of getting heard.
As Arriola (2010) concludes is that women are often kept from key leadership roles such as CEO and out of the boardroom, because they are thought of as weak and non-competitive (Arriola, 2010; O’Connor, 2006), and therefore they are a minority group. However as the number of women on a board increases, communication barriers come down and the minority voice becomes more assertive (Konrad et al., 2008; Kramer et al., 2006). In addition to this according to Bear et al. (2010) as the number of female directors increases, so does the firm’s CSR, suggesting that the contributions women bring to the board in this area are more likely to be considered by the board (Bear et al., 2010). Therefore within time, when there are more female CEO’s the outcome to my study should show different results, where female CEO may score a higher CSR rate compared to male CEO’s.
The third reason for the results is the effect of larger firms on the supply chain efficiency. For this study I have used the fortune 500 list, indicating the largest companies around the world, with the highest revenues. The reason to choose for the fortune 500 list is due to the
The final reason is in line with the research of Krishnan & Park (2005) that the upper echelon theory is not sufficient enough in measuring the influence of female CEO’s relationship on CSR rates, due to the fact that they also have to deal with the organization ideologies. Even though the female CEO’s has the characteristics and the ability to increase the CSR strategy of the company, they will not succeed because they have to stay in line with the organizations beliefs, and vision (Krishnan & Park, 2005).
5.1 Limitations
There are a number of limitations to this study. First this study only takes the influence of one CEO on the CSR rate; the impact of other people within the organization and board of
directors is not taken into account. The shareholders and the board of directors may influence the CEO’s decision making, this is in line with the study of Krishnan & Park (2005). They conclude in their study that top management teams do influence company performance. Indicating that not only the CEO is responsible for decision-making outcomes, but the characteristics of the entire top management team is. Therefore for further research the composition of the board of directors can be taken into account.
The second limitation is the lack of other variables influence on the CSR rate. As the upper echelon theory suggest, the background and the characteristics of a manager influence’s the choices and performance within the company (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). As gender is one of the variables, there are also other values that can influence the CSR rate, such as age, financial position, career experience, education, and socioeconomic roots (Wiersema & Bantel, 1992). These variables may have a strong correlation to CSR rate, which could mean that the influence of gender on CSR is not noticed. Therefore for further research the
correlation of other variables, should also be taken into account.
Third limitation covers the sample size. The sample used for this study is small to gain significant results; only the fortune 500 companies’ are used, which gave a sample of 402. From this only 3% were female and 97% male. Due to the fewer amount of female CEO’s, it is difficult to make a comparison between male and female CEO’s. Using a broader sample with more women will give better comparison between male and female CEO’s on the CSR rate.
headquarters of the companies’ are located in 36 countries. The cultural factors are not taken into account. Fernandez-Feijoo et al. (2014) showed in their study that when doing research on CSR strategies, the focus should not only be on the promotion of CSR polies among companies, but also the change between countries. For further research taking the country differences into account will broaden the influence on the CSR rate (Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2014).
References
ArticlesAppold, S.J., Siengthai, S., & Kasarda, J.D. The employment of women managers and professionals in an emerging economy: gender inequality as an organizational practice.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(3): 538 – 65
Arfken, D.E., Bellar, S.L., & Helms, M.M. 2004. The ultimate glass ceiling revisited: the presence of women on corporate boards. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(2): 177–186 Arriola, E.R. 2010. Woman, Law and the Global Economy: Do Woman CEO’s Lead More Socially Responsible Companies?
Barnett, M. (2007) Stakeholder Influence Capacity and the Variability of Financial Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 794–816
Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C. 2010. The Impact of Board Diversity and Gender
Composition on Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Reputation. Journal of Business
Ethics, 97:207–221
Bernardi, R.A., & Threadgill, V.H. 2010. Women directors and corporate social
responsibility. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 15(2): 15– 21
Boulouta, I. 2013. Hidden connections: the link between board gender diversity and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2): 185– 197
Brewer, M. B. & R. M. Kramer: 1985. The Psychology of Intergroup Attitudes and Behavior.
Annual Review of Psychology. 36: 219–243
Carpenter, M.A. 2002. The implications of strategy and social context for the relationship between top management team heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management
Journal, 23: 275–284
Carroll, A.B. 1999. Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct.
Business and Society, 38(3): 268–95
Carter, D.A., Simkins, B.J. & Simpson, W.G. 2003. Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Review, 38(1): 33–53.
Catalyst. 2008. Advancing women leaders: the connection between women board directors and women cor-porate officers. New York: Catalyst.
de Celis I.L.R., Velasco-Balmaseda, E., de Bobadilla, S.F., del Mar, M., Almeida, A., & Intxaurburu-Clemente, G. 2015.Does having women managers lead to increased gender equality practices in corporate social responsibility? Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(1): 91-110
Chin, M.K., Hambrick, D.C. & Trevin, K. 2013. Political Ideologies of CEOs: The Influence of Executives’ Values on Corporate Social Responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2): 197–232
of power strategies. Journal of personality and social psychology, 6: 1391-1398
Cox, T.H. & Blake, S. 1991. Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational competitiveness. The Executive: 5(3): 45–56.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Davidson, M.J. & Fielden, S.L. 2004. Individual Diversity and Psychology in Organizations.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Ditlev-Simonsen C., Midttun A. 2011. What motivates managers to pursue corporate responsibility? A survey among key stakeholders. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 18: 25–38
Erhardt, N.L., Werbel, J.D. & Shrader, C.B. 2003. Board of director diversity and firm financial perfor- mance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(2): 102–111. European Commission. 2012. Women in economic decision-making in the EU: progress report. A Europe 2020 initiative.
European Commission. 2003. Women in industrial research: a wake-up call for European industry. Women in Industrial Research.
Fairchild, C. 2014. Number of Fortune 500 women CEOs reaches historic high. Fortune
500
Ferrier WJ. 2001. Navigating the competitive landscape: The drivers and consequences of competitive aggressiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 858–877
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. 1990. What’s in a Name? Reputation Building and Corporate Strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 233–258
Francoeur, C., Labelle, R. & Sinclair-Desgagne, B. 2008. Gender diversity in corporate governance and top management. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1): 83–95.
Freeman, E. R. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Perspective. Pitman
Publishing Inc.
Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., & O’Brien, G. 2002. Environment, economy and society: Fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 10: 187–196
Grosser, K., & Moon, J. 2005. The role of corporate social responsibility in gender mainstreaming. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(4): 532-554
Hambrick, D.C., & Mason, P.A. 1984. Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 193-206
Hambrick, D.C. 2007. Upper Echelons Theory: An Update. Academy of Management
Review: 32(2): 334–343.
Hambrick, D.C., Cho, T.S., & Chen, M.J. 1996. The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative science quarterly, 41: 659 – 84 Harris, R. G. 1979. The potential effects of deregulation upon corporate structure, merger behavior, and organizational relations in the rail freight industry. Public Interest Economics
Center.
Hilary, G. 2009. Does Religion Matter in Corporate Decision Making in America? Journal of
Financial Economics, 93(3): 455-473
Huang, S.K. 2013. The Impact of CEO Characteristics on Corporate Sustainable
Development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20: 234– 244.
Hurst, D.K., Rush, J.C., & White, R.E. 1989. Top management teams and organizational renewal. Strategy Manage Journal, 10: 87–105
Ibrahim, N.A., & Angelidis, J.P. 2011. Effect Of Board Members Gender On Corporate Social Responsiveness Orientation. Journal of Applied Business Research, 10(1) Jamali, D., Safieddine, A., & Daouk, M. 2007. Cor-porate governance and women: an empirical study of top and middle women managers in the Lebanese banking sector.
Corporate Governance, 7(5): 574– 585.
Joshi, A. & Roh, H. 2009. The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 599–627.
Kanter, R. M. 1977. Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5): 965–990
Klenke, K. 2003. Gender influences in decision-making processes in top management teams. Management Decision, 41(10): 1024 - 1034
Konrad, A., & Kramer, V.W. 2006. How many women do boards need? Harvard Business
Review, 84(12): 22–24
Krishnan, H.A., & Daewoon, P. 2005. A few good women on management teams. Journal of
Business Research, 58: 1712-1720
Kytle, B., & Ruggie, J.G. 2005. Corporate social responsibility as risk management: A model for multinationals. Harvard University
Lee, M.P. 2011. Configuration of external influences: The combined effects of institutions and stakeholders on corporate social responsibility strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 102: 281–298
Lord, C. G., & D. S. Saenz. 1985. Memory Deficits and Memory Surfeits: Differential Cognitive Consequences of Tokenism for Tokens and Observers. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 49: 918–926
Manner, M.H. 2010. The Impact of CEO Characteristics on Corporate Social. Journal of
Business Ethics, 93:53–72
Matten, D., Crane, A., & Chapple, W. 2003. Behind the Mask: Revealing the True Face of Corporate Citizenship, Journal of Business Ethics 45 (1): 109–20
Martinuzzi, A., Gisch-Boie, S., & Wiman, A. 2010. Does Corporate Responsibility Pay Off? Exploring the links between CSR and competitiveness in Europe’s industrial sectors.
Research Institute for Managing Sustainability
Mattingly, J., & Berman, S. 2006. Measurement of Corporate Social Action: Discovering Taxonomy in the Kinder Lyndenberg Domini Ratings Data. Business & Society, 45(1): 20–46 McEnrue, M.P. 1993. Managing diversity: Los Angeles before and after the riots.
Organizational Dynamics, 21(3): 18–29
Mischel, W. 1977. The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology: 217–247. Myyry, L. 2002. Everyday value conflicts and integrative complexity of thoughts.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43: 385–395
Nemeth, C. J. 1986. Differential Contributions of Majority and Minority Influence.
Psychological Review, 93(1): 23–32
O’Connor, M.A. 2006. Woman Executives in Gladiator Corporate Cultures: The Behavioral Dynamics of Gender, Ego, and Power. Mayland Law Review, 65(2): 465-503
Østergaard, C.R., Timmermans, B. & Kristinsson, K. 2011. Does a different view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on innovation. Research Policy, 40(3): 500–509
Post, J.E., Preston, L.E., & Sauter-Sachs, S. 2004. Redefining the Corporation: Stakeholder Management and Organizational Wealth. Administrative science quarterly, 49(1): 145 Robinson, G. & Dechant, K. 1997. Building a business case for diversity. Academy of
Management Executive, 11(3): 21–31
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. 2007. Research Methods for Business Students.
Pearson, 6
Singh, V., Terjesen, S., & Vinnicombe, S. 2008. Newly Appointed Directors in the
Boardroom: How Do Women and Men Differ, European Management Journal, 26(1): 48– 58
Speedy, B. 2004. Diverse view: women directors are good for the bottom line. The
Sprengel, D.C., & Busch, T. 2011. Stakeholder engagement and environmental strategy - the case of climate change. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20: 351–364
Terjesen, S. and Singh, V. 2008. Female presence on corporate boards: a multi-country study of environ- mental context. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(1): 55–63
Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. S. 2008. Defining the Socially Responsible Leader. The
Leadership Quarterly, 19:17–131
Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D.S., & Javidan, M. 2006. Components of CEO Transformational Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8): 1703–1725
Wang, J., & Coffey, B.S. 1992. Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of
Business Ethics, 11(10): 771–778
Wiersema M., & Bantel, K. 1992. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 91–121
Zhang, J.Q., Zhu, H., & Ding, H. 2013. Board composition and corporate social
responsibility: an empirical investigation in the post Sarbanes-Oxley era. Journal of Business
Ethics, 114(3): 381–392
Online sources
Cannon, D. 2012. How Men and Women Differ in the Workplace.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/05/25/How-Men-and-Women-Differ-in-the-Workplace. The Fiscal Times: 9-06-2016
Charles, A. 2010. Opinion : When Women Rule the C-Suite,
Explanation Of The Concept Of Research Onion Psychology Essay.
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/explanation-of-the-concept-of-research-onion-psychology-essay.php?cref=1. UKessays: 5-05-2016
APPENDICE
Appendix A. Total sample of Fortune 500, CSR rate, Country, CEO name and Gender.
Rank Company CSR Country CEO Gender
1 Wal-Mart Stores 53 USA C. Douglas McMillon Male
2 Sinopec Group 53 China Wang Yupu Male
3 Royal Dutch Shell 60 Netherlands Ben van Beurden Male 4 China National Petroleum 49 China Wang Yilin Male 5 Exxon Mobil 55 USA Rex W. Tillerson Male
6 BP 58 UK Robert W. Dudley Male
7 State Grid 71 China Shu Yinbiao Male
8 Volkswagen 60 Germany Martin Winterkorn Male
9 Toyota Motor 56 Japan Akio Toyoda Male
10 Glencore 56 Switzerland Ivan Glasenberg Male
11 Total 64 France Patrick Pouyanné Male
12 Chevron 56 USA John S. Watson Male
13 Samsung Electronics 58 South Korea Oh-Hyun Kwon Male 14 Berkshire Hathaway 38 USA Warren E. Buffett Male
15 Apple 57 USA Timothy D. Cook Male
16 McKesson 52 USA John H. Hammergren Male 17 Daimler 63 Germany Dieter Zetsche Male 18 Industrial & Commer. Bank of China China Yi Huiman Male
19 EXOR Group Italy John Elkann Male
20 AXA 66 France Henri de Castrie Male
21 General Motors 58 USA Mary T. Barra Female
22 E.ON 62 Germany Johannes Teyssen Male
23 Phillips 66 47 USA Greg C. Garland Male 24 General Electric 60 USA Jeffrey R. Immelt Male
25 ENI 63 Italy Claudio Descalzi Male
26 Gazprom 53 Russia Alexey B. Miller Male
27 Ford Motor 60 USA Mark Fields Male
28 Petrobras 53 Brazil Aldemir Bendine Male 29 China Construction Bank 55 China Zhang Jianguo Male
30 CVS Health 58 USA Larry J. Merlo Male
31 Hon Hai Precision Industry 48 Taiwan Terry Gou Male
32 Allianz 64 Germany Oliver Bäte Male
33 AT&T 59 USA Randall L. Stephenson Male 34 Valero Energy 46 USA Joseph Gorder Male 35 UnitedHealth Group 54 USA Stephen J. Hemsley Male 36 Agricultural Bank of China 51 China Liu Shiyu Male 37 China State Construction Engineering 42 China Guan Qing Male 38 Japan Post Holdings 47 Japan Taizo Nishimuro Male 39 PDVSA 41 Venezuela Eulogio Del Pino Male 40 Trafigura Beheer Netherlands Jeremy Weir Male
41 Verizon 59 USA Lowell C. McAdam Male
52 Costco 49 USA W. Craig Jelinek Male
53 HP 65 USA Dion J. Weisler Male
54 Kroger 54 USA W. Rodney McMullen Male
55 China Mobile Communications 57 China Li Yue Male
56 BMW 65 Germany Harald Krüger Male
57 SK Holdings 50 South Korea Dae-Sik Cho Male 58 Credit Agricole 62 France Philippe Brassac Male 59 Nissan Motor 59 Japan Carlos Ghosn Male
60 SAIC Motor 36 China Chen Zhixin Male
61 JP Morgan Chase 56 USA James Dimon Male
62 Tesco 60 UK David J. Lewis Male
63 Siemens 64 Germany Joe Kaeser Male
64 Carrefour 62 France Georges Plassat Male 65 Nippon Tel. & Tel. 61 Japan Hiroo Unoura Male 66 Express Scripts Holding 50 USA Timothy C. Wentworth Male 67 Banco Santander 63 Spain Jose Antonio Alvarez Male 68 Petronas 50 Malaysia Wan Zulkiflee Wan Ariffin Male
69 Enel 66 Italy Francesco Starace Male
70 Nestlé 63 Switzerland Paul Bulcke Male 71 China Railway Engineering 49 China Yao Guiqing Male 72 China National Offshore Oil 47 China Yang Hua Male 73 GDF Suez 63 France Gerard Mestrallet Male 74 Prudential plc 62 UK Michael A. Wells Male
75 Statoil 64 Norway Eldar Saetre Male
76 BASF 66 Germany Kurt W. Bock Male
77 Noble Group 53 China Yusuf A. Alireza Male 78 Électricité de France 63 France Jean-Bernard Levy Male 79 China Railway Construction 51 China Meng Fengchao Male 80 Bank of America Corp. 58 USA Brian T. Moynihan Male 81 HSBC Holdings 59 UK Stuart T. Gulliver Male
82 IBM 62 USA Virginia M. Rometty Female
83 Marathon Petroleum 46 USA Gary R. Heminger Male 84 Cardinal Health 54 USA George S. Barrett Male 85 Boeing 57 USA Dennis A. Muilenburg Male 86 Citigroup 59 USA Michael L. Corbat Male 87 China Development Bank 62 China Zheng Zhijie Male 88 Amazon.com 42 USA Jeffrey P. Bezos Male 89 Hitachi 55 Japan Hiroaki Nakanishi Male 90 Wells Fargo 59 USA John G. Stumpf Male 91 ING Group 63 Netherlands Ralph Hamers Male 92 JX Holdings 52 Japan Yukio Uchida Male 93 PTT 60 Thailand Pailin Chuchottaworn Male 94 China Life Insurance 53 China Yang Mingsheng Male
95 Microsoft 66 USA Satya Nadella Male
96 Ping An Insurance 52 China Ma Mingzhe Male
97 Metro 63 Germany Olaf G. Koch Male
98 Legal & General Group 68 Germany Nigel Wilson Male 99 Hyundai Motor 53 South Korea Mong-Koo Chung Male 100 Procter & Gamble 60 USA David S. Taylor Male 101 Home Depot 54 USA Craig A. Menear Male 102 Deutsche Telekom 60 Germany Timotheus Höttges Male 103 Munich Re 65 Germany Nikolaus von Bomhard Male 104 Archer Daniels Midland 47 USA Juan R. Luciano Male
105 Sinochem 66 China Liu Deshu Male
106 Airbus Group 65 Netherlands Thomas Enders Male
107 China FAW Group China Xu Ping Male
108 ArcelorMittal 61 Luxembourg Lakshmi N. Mittal Male 109 Dongfeng Motor Group 51 China Zhu Fushou Male 110 SoftBank Group 49 Japan Masayoshi Son Male 111 Deutsche Post 63 Germany Frank Appel Male 112 Itaú Unibanco Holding 60 Brazil Roberto Egydio Setubal Male 113 China Southern Power Grid China Zhao Jianguo Male
114 Walgreens 74 USA Stefano Pessina Male
115 China Resources National China Qiao Shibo Male
116 Sony 62 Japan Kazuo Hirai Male
117 Target 58 USA Brian C. Cornell Male
118 Johnson & Johnson 65 USA Alex Gorsky Male
119 Indian Oil 62 India B. Ashok Male
120 Anthem 52 USA Joseph R. Swedish Male
121 MetLife 54 USA Steven A. Kandarian Male 122 Zurich Insurance Group 62 Switzerland Martin Senn Male
124 Alphabet 58 USA Larry Page Male
125 Marubeni 54 Japan Fumiya Kokubu Male
126 Banco do Brasil 58 Brazil Alexandre Corrêa Abreu Male 127 State Farm Insurance Cos. 70 USA Michael L. Tipsord Male
128 Peugeot 68 France Carlos Tavares Male
129 Groupe Auchan 63 France Vianney Mulliez Male 130 Pertamina 68 Indonesia Dwi Soetjipto Male 131 Panasonic 56 Japan Kazuhiro Tsuga Male 132 Mitsubishi Corp. 48 Japan Ken Kobayashi Male 133 Freddie Mac 49 USA Donald H. Layton Male 134 Groupe BPCE 67 France François Pérol Male
135 Comcast 51 USA Brian L. Roberts Male
136 Vodafone Group 65 UK Vittorio Colao Male 137 U.S. Postal Service 68 USA Megan Brennan Female 138 Nippon Life Insurance Japan Yoshinobu Tsutsui Male 139 BHP Billiton 62 Australia Andrew Mackenzie Male 140 Telefonica 64 Spain Cesar Alierta Izuel Male
141 PepsiCo 63 USA Indra K. Nooyi Female
142 Dai-ichi Life Insurance 56 Japan Koichiro Watanabe Male 143 China Post Group China Li Guohua Male 144 China North Industries China Yin Jiaxu Male 145 Lloyds Banking Group 61 UK Antonio Horta-Osorio Male
146 Tewoo Group China Wang Yuzhu Male
147 AEON 50 Japan Motoya Okada Male
148 Finatis France NB
149 United Technologies 58 USA Gregory J. Hayes Male
150 Bosch 56 Germany Volkmar Denner Male
151 Louis Dreyfus Commodities 48 Netherlands Claude Ehlinger Male
152 AIG 47 USA Peter D. Hancock Male
153 Unilever 66 UK/Netherlands Paul Polman Male
154 RWE 63 Germany Peter Terium Male
155 America Movil 46 Mexico Daniel Hajj Aboumrad Male 156 Pacific Construction Group China Yan Hao Male 157 Toshiba 62 Japan Masashi Muromachi Male 158 Reliance Industries 54 India Mukesh D. Ambani Male 159 Aviation Industry Corp. of China China Tan Ruisong Male 160 China Telecommunications 53 China Wang Xiaochu Male 161 Tokyo Electric Power 38 Japan Naomi Hirose Male
162 POSCO 61 South Korea Oh-Joon Kwon Male
163 Aegon 66 Netherlands Alexander R. Wynaendts Male 164 Deutsche Bank 59 Germany Jürgen Fitschena Male 165 China Communications Construction 49 China Liu Qitao Male 166 CNP Assurances 66 France Frederic Lavenir Male 167 Novartis 64 Switzerland Joseph Jimenez Male
168 UPS 59 USA David P. Abney Male
169 Dow Chemical 63 USA Andrew N. Liveris Male
170 Aetna 55 USA Mark T. Bertolini Male
171 Wesfarmers 90 Australia Richard J.B. Goyder Male
172 Bunge 57 USA Soren W. Schroder Male
173 Intesa Sanpaolo 65 Italy Carlo Messina Male 174 People's Insurance Co. of China China Wu Yan Male 175 LG Electronics 62 South Korea Bon-Joon Koo Male
176 Lowe's 51 USA Robert A. Niblock Male
177 Sberbank 53 Russia Herman O. Gref Male 178 Bayer 62 Germany Marijn E. Dekkers Male 179 ThyssenKrupp 57 Germany Heinrich Hiesinger Male 180 ConocoPhillips 57 USA Ryan M. Lance Male 181 Woolworths 61 Australia Grant O’Brien Male
182 Intel 66 USA Brian M. Krzanich Male
183 Energy Transfer Equity 48 USA John W. McReynolds Male 184 Seven & I Holdings 56 Japan Toshifumi Suzuki Male 185 Banco Bradesco 61 Brazil Luiz Carlos Trabuco Cappi Male 186 CITIC Group 46 China Chang Zhenming Male 187 Caterpillar 52 USA Douglas R. Oberhelman Male 188 Repsol 67 Spain Josu Jon Imaz San Miguel Male
189 Roche Group 65 Switzerland NB
190 Bank of Communications 50 China Peng Chun Male
191 Renault 66 France Carlos Ghosn Male
196 Shenhua Group China Ling Wen 197 Deutsche Bahn 65 Germany Rüdiger Grube Male 198 China Minmetals 56 China He Wenbo Male 199 Orange 62 France Stephane Richard Male
200 Vinci 64 France Xavier Huillard Male
201 Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group 53 Japan Nobuyuki Hirano Male
202 JBS 52 Brazil NB
203 ACS 57 Spain Florentino Perez Rodriguez Male 204 Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal 48 Japan Kosei Shindo Male 205 SSE 62 UK Alistair Phillips-Davies Male
206 Itochu 54 Japan Masahiro Okafuji Male
207 Beijing Automotive Group China Xu Heyi Male 208 A.P. Møller-Mærsk A/S 52 Denmark Nils Smedegaard Andersen Male 209 SABIC 58 Saudi Arabia Yousef Abdullah Al-Benyan Male 210 Hyundai Heavy Industries 51 South Korea Kil-Seon Choi Male
211 Pfizer 59 USA Ian C. Read Male
212 Manulife Financial 56 Canada Donald A. Guloien Male
213 Mitsui 50 Japan Tatsuo Yasunaga Male
214 Walt Disney 58 USA Robert A. Iger Male 215 Schlumberger 56 USA Paal Kibsgaard Male
216 Humana 59 USA Bruce D. Broussard Male
217 Centrica 65 UK Iain Conn Male
218 Baosteel Group 65 China Xu Lejiang Male 219 International Petroleum Investment
United Arab Emirates
Suhail Mohamed Faraj Al
Mazrouei Male
220 Enterprise Products 36 USA A.J. Teague Male 221 Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria 65 Spain Francisco González Rodríguez Male
222 Rio Tinto Group 59 UK Sam Walsh Male
223 OMV Group 69 Austria Rainer Seele Male 224 China Huaneng Group China Cao Peixi Male 225 Cisco Systems 70 USA Charles H. Robbins Male 226 Anheuser-Busch InBev 60 Belgium Carlos Brito Male 227
China United Network
Communications 57 China Chang Xiaobing Male 228 Huawei Investment & Holding 66 China Ren Zhengfei Male
229 Sysco 55 USA William J. DeLaney Male
230 Ingram Micro 51 USA Alain Monie Male
231 Lenovo Group 62 China Yang Yuanqing Male
232 Coca-Cola 63 USA Muhtar Kent Male
233 Continental 59 Germany Elmar Degenhart Male 234 Shandong Weiqiao Pioneering China Zhang Shiping Male 235 China Merchants Bank 58 China Tian Huiyu Male 236 LyondellBasell Industries 52 Netherlands Bhavesh V. Patel Male 237 Lockheed Martin 61 USA Marillyn A. Hewson Female
238 FedEx 51 USA Frederick W. Smith Male
239 HeBei Iron & Steel Group China Yu Yong 240 Aluminum Corp. of China 54 China Ge Honglin Male 241 Sanofi 63 France Olivier Brandicourt Male 242 Kia Motors 53 South Korea Hyoung-Keun Lee Male 243 Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group 49 Japan Koichi Miyata Male 244 Bouygues 63 France Martin Bouygues Male 245 Johnson Controls 65 USA Alex A. Molinaroli Male 246 UniCredit Group 61 Italy Federico Ghizzoni Male 247 Amer International Group China Wang Wenyin Male 248 Royal Ahold 64 Netherlands Dick Boer Male 249 Plains GP Holdings USA Greg L. Armstrong Male 250 World Fuel Services 47 USA Michael J. Kasbar Male
251 Fujitsu 64 Japan Tatsuya Tanaka
252 Wilmar International 52 Singapore Kuok Khoon Hong Male
253 Power China China Yan Zhiyong Male
254 Tata Motors 63 India Cyrus P. Mistry Male
255 CHS 51 USA Carl M. Casale Male
256 MS&AD Insurance 54 Japan Yasuyoshi Karasawa Male 257 American Airlines Group 54 USA W. Douglas Parker Male 258 Greenland Holding Group China Zhang Yuliang Male
259 Merck 64 USA Kenneth C. Frazier Male
260 State Bank of India 48 India Arundhati Bhattacharya Female 261 Christian Dior 60 France Bernard Arnault Male
262 Best Buy 60 USA Hubert B. Joly Male
263 Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Japan Akio Negishi Male 264 Shanxi Coking Coal Group China Wu Huatai
266 National Australia Bank 66 Australia Andrew Thorburn Male
267 KDDI 59 Japan Takashi Tanaka Male
268 Volvo 60 Sweden Jan Gurander Male
269 Commonwealth Bank 63 Australia Ian M. Narev Male 270 China National Bldg. Materials Group China Song Zhiping Male 271 Industrial Bank 46 China Li Renjie Male
272 COFCO China Yu Xubo Male
273 Delta Air Lines 56 USA Edward H. Bastian Male 274 Jiangsu Shagang Group China Shen Wenrong Male
275 Honeywell International 51 USA David M. Cote Male
276 Sinopharm 53 China She Lulin Male
277 HCA Holdings 51 USA R. Milton Johnson Male 278 Goldman Sachs Group 57 USA Lloyd C. Blankfein Male
279 Tesoro 49 USA Gregory J. Goff Male
280 Bharat Petroleum 57 India S. Varadarajan Male 281 China Minsheng Banking 55 China Hong Qi 282 Jardine Matheson 30 China Ben Keswick Male
283 Iberdrola 65 Spain NB
284 ABB 64 Switzerland Ulrich Spiesshofer Male 285 Lufthansa Group 55 Germany Carsten Spohr Male 286 Liberty Mutual Insurance Group 68 USA David H. Long Male
287 Weston Canada W. Galen Weston Male
288 Sinomach 65 China Ren Hongbin
289 Credit Suisse Group 58 Switzerland Tidjane Thiam Male
290 Tokio Marine Holdings 60 Japan Tsuyoshi Nagano 291 Mitsubishi Electric 54 Japan Masaki Sakuyama Male 292 Talanx 53 Germany Herbert K. Haas Male
293 Denso 59 Japan Koji Arima Male
294 United Continental Holdings 51 USA Oscar Munoz Male 295 DZ Bank 67 Germany Wolfgang Kirsch Male 296 Shanghai Pudong Devel. Bank China Ji Xiaohui Male 297 New York Life Insurance 75 USA Theodore A. Mathas Male 298 Power Corp. of Canada 56 Canada Paul Desmarais Male 299 Royal Bank of Canada 61 Canada David McKay Male
300 Oracle 59 USA Safra A. Catz Female
301 Sainsbury's 63 UK Michael Coupe Male
302 GS Caltex 70 South Korea Jin-Soo Huh male 303 Royal Bank of Scotland Group 61 UK Ross McEwan Male 304 Bohai Steel Group China Lv Chunfeng 305 Alimentation Couche-Tard 45 Canada Brian P. Hannasch Male 306 Morgan Stanley 57 USA James P. Gorman Male 307 Idemitsu Kosan 52 Japan Takashi Tsukioka Male 308 UBS Group 60 Switzerland Sergio P. Ermotti Male 309 GlaxoSmithKline 68 UK Andrew Witty Male 310 Poste Italiane Italy Francesco Caio Male
311 Tyson Food inc. 46 USA Donnie Smith Male
312 Vale 58 Brazil Murilo Pinto de Oliveira Ferreira Male 313 Swiss Re 66 Switzerland Michel M. Liès 314 Edeka Zentrale Germany Markus Mosa Male 315 Jizhong Energy Group China Wang Sheping Male
316 CPC 62 Taiwan Paul Lie-Way Chen Male
317 Suncor Energy 63 Canada Steve W. Williams Male 318 Magna International 53 Canada Donald J. Walker Male 319 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 55 Japan Shunichi Miyanaga Male 320 Nationwide 70 USA Stephen S. Rasmussen Male 321 China National Aviation Fuel Group China Sun Li
322 SNCF 73 France Guillaume Pepy Male
323 Deere 57 USA Samuel R. Allen Male
324 DuPont 62 USA Ellen Kullman Female
325 American Express 56 USA Kenneth I. Chenault Male 326 China Metallurgical Group China Guo Wenqing Male
327 Hindustan Petroleum 51 India Nishi Vasudeva Female
328 China Pacific Insurance 54 China Huo Lianhong Male 329 Hanwha 45 South Korea Jae Hong Park Male 330 Westpac Banking 68 Australia Brian Hartzer Male 331 Achmea 81 Netherlands Willem A.J. van Duin Male 332 Korea Gas 57 South Korea Jong-Ho Lee Male
333 Allstate 58 USA Thomas J. Wilson Male
334 Canon 63 Japan Fujio Mitarai Male
335 Standard Life 63 UK Keith Skeoch Male
338 Cigna 55 USA David M. Cordani Male 339 Zhejiang Materials Industry Group China Wang Tingge 340 Bridgestone 53 Japan Masaaki Tsuya Male 341 Datong Coal Mine Group China Zhang Youxi 342 CEFC China Energy China Chen Qiutu 343 China Guodian China Qiao Baoping Male 344 Xinxing Cathay International China Liu Mingzhong Male
345 China Huadian China Li Qingkui Male
346 Ecopetrol 56 Colombia Juan Carlos Echeverry Male 347 Hyundai Mobis 58 South Korea Chung Myung-Chul Male 348 Mondelez International 53 USA Irene B. Rosenfeld Female 349 TIAA-CREF USA Roger W. Ferguson Male 350 Sumitomo 66 Japan Kuniharu Nakamura Male
351 Enbridge 61 Canada Al Monaco Male
352 INTL FCStone 47 USA Sean M. O'Connor Male 353 PKN ORLEN Group 58 Poland Dariusz Jacek Krawiec Male
354 Jiangxi Copper 49 China Li Baomin
355 Pegatron 53 Taiwan Jian-Jong Cheng Male 356 Massachusetts Mutual Life USA Roger W. Crandall Male 357 Toronto-Dominion Bank 70 Canada Bharat Masrani Male 358 Shanxi LuAn Mining Group China Li Jinping Male 359 Telecom Italia 64 Italy Marco Patuano Male
360 DirecTV 58 USA Michael D. White Male
361 Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings 55 Japan Hitoshi Ochi Male 362 Guangzhou Automobile Industry Group China Zeng Qinghong Male
363 Ericsson 65 Sweden Hans Vestberg Male
364 Henan Energy & Chemical China Chen Xiang'en Male 365 Air France-KLM Group 65 France Alexandre de Juniac Male 366 China Electronics China Rui Xiaowu Male 367 Schneider Electric 68 France Jean-Pascal Tricoire Male 368 Australia & New Zeal. Bnkg Australia Michael R.P. Smith Male 369 Halliburton 54 USA David J. Lesar Male 370 Gas Natural Fenosa 66 Spain Rafael Villaseca Marco Male 371 China Shipbuilding Industry 42 China Hu Wenming Male 372 Sumitomo Life Insurance Japan Masahiro Hashimoto Male 373 Shandong Energy Group 75 China Bu Changsen Male 374 Accenture 65 Ireland Pierre Nanterme Male 375 Twenty-First Century Fox 48 USA James R. Murdoch Male 376 Veolia Environnement 63 France Antoine Frerot Male
377 3M 64 USA Inge G. Thulin Male
378 CFE Mexico Enrique Ochoa Reza Male
379
Shanxi Jincheng Anthracite Coal
Mining China He Tiancai
380 Shaanxi Yanchang Petroleum China He Jiuchang Male 381 Koç Holding 57 Turkey Levent Çakiroglu Male 382 Jinneng Group China Zhu Xiaoming Male 383 Sears Holdings 55 USA Edward S. Lampert Male 384 Kansai Electric Power 48 Japan Makoto Yagi Male 385 Royal Philips 67 Netherlands Frans A. van Houten Male 386 General Dynamics 50 USA Phebe N. Novakovic Female 387 Fresenius 53 Germany Ulf M. Schneider Male 388 Publix Super Markets 62 USA Todd Jones Male 389 Quanta Computer 59 Taiwan Barry Lam Male 390 China Nonferrous Metal Mining China Zhang Keli Male 391 China Energy Engineering China Wang Jianping Male 392 China Datang 71 China Chen Jinhang Male 393 Formosa Petrochemical 47 Taiwan Chen Bao Lang 394 Rabobank 70 Netherlands Wiebe Draijer Male
395 L'Oreal 69 France Jean-Paul Agon Male
396 Sompo Japan Nipponkoa 56 Japan Kengo Sakurada Male 397 Migros Group Switzerland Herbert Bolliger Male 398 Philip Morris International 54 USA Andre Calantzopoulos Male 399 Mapfre Group 63 Spain Antonio Huertas Mejías Male 400 Kailuan Group China Zhang Wenxue 401 Coop Group 72 Switzerland Joos Sutter Male 402 Shougang Group 45 China Zhang Gongyan Male 403 China Power Investment China Lu Qizhou Male 404 VTB Bank 51 Russia Andrey Leonidovich Kostin Male 405 Phoenix Pharmahandel Germany Oliver Windholz Male
406 Unipol 56 Italy Carlo Cimbri Male
