IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i19p5491-d273407.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and the Salience of Publicly Disclosing Demographic Data in American Environmental Nonprofits

Author

Listed:
  • Dorceta E. Taylor

    (School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115, USA)

  • Sophia Paul

    (School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115, USA)

  • Ember McCoy

    (School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115, USA)

Abstract

There has been a scholarly interest in the demographic characteristics of American environmental organizations since the 1960s, but until recently there was no readily available way of knowing the composition of the staff or board of these institutions as few revealed any of their demographic data publicly. For the past five years, there has been a high-profile campaign to get environmental nonprofits to disclose their demographic data. This paper examines 12,054 small, medium-sized, and large environmental organizations to find out how many of them have released diversity data on GuideStar. The article also examines how the state in which organizations are located, region of the country, urban or rural setting, organizational typology, amount of revenue, size of the staff, size of the board, gender of the chief executive officer (CEO), race of the CEO, and the year of completion of the GuideStar profile influenced the disclosure of diversity data. The researchers collected financial data from Internal Revenue Service tax forms and diversity data from GuideStar. The study found that 3.7% of the nonprofits studied divulged diversity data. However, organizations in the Pacific and Mid-Atlantic regions were most likely and nonprofits in the South least likely to report diversity data. Urban nonprofits were more likely to divulge diversity data than those located in the suburbs or in the rural areas. The highest level of reporting was in Washington, D.C. In addition, environmental justice organizations were more likely to disclose diversity data than other types of organizations. The larger the staff and the higher the revenue, the more likely it is that the organization divulged its diversity data. Organizations with female CEOs were more likely to reveal diversity data than male-headed nonprofits. Environmental organizations with ethnic/racial minority CEOs were also more likely to disclose demographic data than organizations with white CEOs.

Suggested Citation

  • Dorceta E. Taylor & Sophia Paul & Ember McCoy, 2019. "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and the Salience of Publicly Disclosing Demographic Data in American Environmental Nonprofits," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-38, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5491-:d:273407
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5491/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5491/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yiming Zhuang & Xinyue Chang & Younggeun Lee, 2018. "Board Composition and Corporate Social Responsibility Performance: Evidence from Chinese Public Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-12, August.
    2. Dominik Dienes & Patrick Velte, 2016. "The Impact of Supervisory Board Composition on CSR Reporting. Evidence from the German Two-Tier System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, January.
    3. Rondinelli, Dennis A. & Berry, Michael A., 2000. "Environmental citizenship in multinational corporations: social responsibility and sustainable development," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 70-84, February.
    4. Harold Andrew Patrick & Vincent Raj Kumar, 2012. "Managing Workplace Diversity," SAGE Open, , vol. 2(2), pages 21582440124, April.
    5. Dorceta E. Taylor, 2018. "Racial and ethnic differences in the students’ readiness, identity, perceptions of institutional diversity, and desire to join the environmental workforce," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 8(2), pages 152-168, June.
    6. Liao, Lin & Luo, Le & Tang, Qingliang, 2015. "Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 409-424.
    7. Agneta Sundström & Zahra Ahmadi & Kristina Mickelsson, 2019. "Implementing Social Sustainability for Innovative Industrial Work Environments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-16, June.
    8. Cletus Helen Eboh & Mahmood Nor Asiah & Umar Abubakar & Ibrahim Ahmed Doko, 2018. "Prospects and Challenges of Workplace Diversity in Modern Day Organizations: A Critical Review," HOLISTICA – Journal of Business and Public Administration, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 35-52, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shuchi Pahuja & Anita Agrawal, 2023. "Board Attributes and Corporate Social Responsibility: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Perspectives," Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, , vol. 16(1), pages 108-138, June.
    2. Giuliana Birindelli & Stefano Dell’Atti & Antonia Patrizia Iannuzzi & Marco Savioli, 2018. "Composition and Activity of the Board of Directors: Impact on ESG Performance in the Banking System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Claudio Nuber & Patrick Velte, 2021. "Board gender diversity and carbon emissions: European evidence on curvilinear relationships and critical mass," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 1958-1992, May.
    4. Ajab Khan & H. Kent Baker, 2022. "How board diversity and ownership structure shape sustainable corporate performance," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(8), pages 3751-3770, December.
    5. María‐Florencia Amorelli & Isabel‐María García‐Sánchez, 2021. "Trends in the dynamic evolution of board gender diversity and corporate social responsibility," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 537-554, March.
    6. Jaime Guerrero-Villegas & Leticia Pérez-Calero & José Manuel Hurtado-González & Pilar Giráldez-Puig, 2018. "Board Attributes and Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: A Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    7. Junhui Wang & Jerry Sun, 2022. "The role of audit committees in social responsibility and environmental disclosures: evidence from Chinese energy sector," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(1), pages 113-128, March.
    8. Eugenio Zubeltzu‐Jaka & Igor Álvarez‐Etxeberria & Eduardo Ortas, 2020. "The effect of the size of the board of directors on corporate social performance: A meta‐analytic approach," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 1361-1374, May.
    9. Mariasole Bannò & Emilia Filippi & Sandro Trento, 2023. "Women in top echelon positions and their effects on sustainability: a review, synthesis and future research agenda," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(1), pages 181-251, March.
    10. Eduardo Ortas & Igor Álvarez & Eugenio Zubeltzu, 2017. "Firms’ Board Independence and Corporate Social Performance: A Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-26, June.
    11. Ghazi Zouari & Kawther Dhifi, 2021. "The impact of board characteristics on integrated reporting: case of European companies," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(1), pages 83-94, March.
    12. María del Carmen Valls Martínez & Salvador Cruz Rambaud & Isabel María Parra Oller, 2019. "Gender policies on board of directors and sustainable development," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1539-1553, November.
    13. Lu, Yun & Ntim, Collins G. & Zhang, Qingjing & Li, Pingli, 2022. "Board of directors’ attributes and corporate outcomes: A systematic literature review and future research agenda," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    14. Omaima A.G. Hassan & Peter Romilly, 2018. "Relations between corporate economic performance, environmental disclosure and greenhouse gas emissions: New insights," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(7), pages 893-909, November.
    15. Shujun Chao & Shanyong Wang & Haidong Li & Shu Yang, 2023. "The power of culture: Does Confucian culture contribute to corporate environmental information disclosure?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 2435-2456, September.
    16. Trinh, Vu Quang & Trinh, Hai Hong & Nguyen, Thi Hong Hanh & Vo, Xuan Vinh, 2023. "Board gender diversity and firm-level climate change exposure: A global perspective," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(PB).
    17. Katia Furlotti & Tatiana Mazza & Veronica Tibiletti & Silvia Triani, 2019. "Women in top positions on boards of directors: Gender policies disclosed in Italian sustainability reporting," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 57-70, January.
    18. Ghafoor, Abdul & Šeho, Mirzet & Sifat, Imtiaz, 2023. "Co-opted board and firm climate change risk," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    19. Hanen Khemakhem & Paulina Arroyo & Julio Montecinos, 2023. "Gender diversity on board committees and ESG disclosure: evidence from Canada," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(4), pages 1397-1422, December.
    20. Wang, Fangjun & Sun, Junqin & Liu, Yang Stephanie, 2019. "Institutional pressure, ultimate ownership, and corporate carbon reduction engagement: Evidence from China," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 14-26.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5491-:d:273407. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.