This study analyzes how the presence and the composition of nomination committees could influence innovation. Specifically, we focus on the committee size, the frequency of meetings, and the presence of independent and female members. Innovation is measured by (1) the firm’s ability to produce innovations such as new or improved products/processes and the number of patents, and (2) innovation expenditures (R&D spending and the number of scientists and experts per R&D teams). This study is drawn on firms listed on the SBF120 index, between 2002 and 2016. It provides the following results: First, the presence of nomination committees is negatively associated with the number of patent applications and the number of scientists and engineers in R&D teams. Furthermore, most of the nomination committee’s attributes (such as the presence of independent and women members) have no significant association with innovation proxies. We show, also, that large nomination committees are prone to increase innovation income (such as the R&D expenditures and the number of scientists and experts per R&D teams) as well as the number of filed patents. Turning to the committee functioning provides evidence that the frequency of meetings could reduce asymmetric information regarding innovation projects and lead to an increase of R&D expenses. This article brings practical insights to board structures issues. This study contributes to the current debate on how boards should be organized, specifically; the nomination committees. It shows that boards should pay attention to the nomination committee features as they could undermine innovation projects, specifically in innovation-sensitive industries.

This study examines the role of the Corporate Social Responsibility Committee (CSRC) in the adoption of strategic Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) projects that surpass regulatory requirements and basic stakeholder expectations. Our results demonstrate that the establishment of CSRCs enhances all strategic CSR mechanisms, particularly business reputation, stakeholder interaction, risk mitigation, and innovation. Additionally, strategic CSR practices exhibit a strong correlation with CSRC attributes and organizational characteristics. Specifically, the size of the CSRC is positively associated with all dimensions of strategic CSR. Furthermore, CEO membership is likely to impede risk mitigation and innovation capacity, whereas board chair membership enhances business reputation, stakeholder communication, and innovation potential. In terms of gender diversity, female CSRC members show a greater concern for business reputation and associated risks. Regarding committee functioning, increased meeting frequency has the potential to enhance various aspects of strategic CSR.

This paper studies non-compliant firms with gender legislation and why some businesses are taking the risk of not binding the gender quotas. It is conducted on firms listed on the SBF120 index, after the introduction of the gender law of Copé and Zimmermann, in 2011.

Our findings show that gender diversity on advisory committees, unlike monitoring committees, is likely to decrease the non-compliance likelihood. Non-compliant firms have busy members, specifically among men and long-tenured CEOs who are serving in non-dual structures. Regarding women's profiles, non-compliant boards are prone to hire short-tenured and local female candidates. Finally, their financial and social performances are not damaged while their corporate risks are decreased. When penalties are not required against non-compliant firms, refractory businesses do not bear “real” costs.

This study provides insight into CEO compensation dynamics in the public sector and private sector publicly listed firms in New Zealand. This research uses descriptive statistics, OLS regression, and the difference-in-difference method to analyze the compensation-performance relationship for the period 2005 to 2012. Our findings show that CEOs in the private sector publicly listed firms are receiving higher remuneration benefits. Our results suggest that firm sales and past compensation are the most important determinants of CEO cash-based as well as total compensation. Firms with a larger board size and the presence of a formal remuneration committee are likely to provide higher cash compensation than those without.