Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Kerstin Jacobsson (2004)
Soft regulation and the subtle transformation of states: the case of EU employment policyJournal of European Social Policy, 14
Geoffrey Kiel, G. Nicholson (2006)
Multiple Directorships and Corporate Performance in Australian Listed CompaniesCorporate Finance: Governance
MuiChing Chan, J. Watson, D. Woodliff (2013)
Corporate Governance Quality and CSR DisclosuresJournal of Business Ethics, 125
Arun Upadhyay, Hongchao Zeng (2014)
Gender and ethnic diversity on boards and corporate information environmentJournal of Business Research, 67
M. Harjoto, I. Laksmana, Robert Lee (2014)
Board Diversity and Corporate Social ResponsibilityJournal of Business Ethics, 132
Stéphanie Ginalski (2022)
How women broke into the old boys’ corporate network in SwitzerlandBusiness History
K. Sandholtz (2012)
Making Standards Stick: A Theory of Coupled vs. Decoupled ComplianceOrganization Studies, 33
F. Azmat, R. Rentschler (2017)
Gender and Ethnic Diversity on Boards and Corporate Responsibility: The Case of the Arts SectorJournal of Business Ethics, 141
Rania Béji, O. Yousfi, Nadia Loukil, Abdelwahed Omri (2020)
Board Diversity and Corporate Social Responsibility: Empirical Evidence from FranceJournal of Business Ethics, 173
Phoebe Ball, G. Monaco, James Schmeling, Helen Schartz, P. Blanck (2005)
Disability as diversity in Fortune 100 companies.Behavioral sciences & the law, 23 1
Szymon Kaczmarek, Satomi Kimino, A. Pye (2014)
Interlocking directorships and firm performance in highly regulated sectors: the moderating impact of board diversityJournal of Management & Governance, 18
C. Rose, W. Bielby (2011)
Race at the Top: How Companies Shape the Inclusion of African Americans on Their Boards in Response to Institutional PressuresSocial Science Research, 40
John Dumay, A. Hossain (2019)
Sustainability Risk Disclosure Practices of Listed Companies in AustraliaAustralian Accounting Review, 29
Abubakr Saeed, Yacine Belghitar, A. Yousaf (2016)
Firm-level determinants of gender diversity in the boardrooms: Evidence from some emerging marketsInternational Business Review, 25
D. Merkl-Davies, N. Brennan, S. Mcleay (2010)
Impression Management and Retrospective Sense-Making in Corporate Narratives: A Social Psychology PerspectiveDecision Making
N. Walt, C. Ingley (2003)
Board Dynamics and the Influence of Professional Background, Gender and Ethnic Diversity of DirectorsOrganizations & Markets: Policies & Processes eJournal
Charles Cho, M. Laine, R. Roberts, Michelle Rodrigue (2015)
Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reportingAccounting Organizations and Society, 40
Waris Ali, J. Frynas, Zeeshan Mahmood (2017)
Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure in Developed and Developing Countries: A Literature ReviewCorporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24
H. Dadanlar, Michael Abebe (2020)
Female CEO leadership and the likelihood of corporate diversity misconduct: Evidence from S&P 500 firmsJournal of Business Research, 118
Michael Abebe, H. Dadanlar (2019)
From tokens to key players: The influence of board gender and ethnic diversity on corporate discrimination lawsuitsHuman Relations, 74
Bart Frijns, O. Dodd, Helena Ćımerová (2016)
The Impact of Cultural Diversity in Corporate Boards on Firm PerformanceCorporate Governance: Internal Governance
H. Hung (2011)
Directors’ Roles in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Stakeholder PerspectiveJournal of Business Ethics, 103
Renée Adams, Daniel Ferreira (2008)
Women in the Boardroom and Their Impact on Governance and PerformanceEuropean Finance
Nola Buhr (2001)
Corporate silence: environmental disclosure and the North American free trade agreementCritical Perspectives on Accounting, 12
H. Irvine (2002)
THE LEGITIMIZING POWER OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THE SALVATION ARMY IN ENGLAND, 1865–1892The Accounting historians journal, 29
Olga Hawn, I. Ioannou (2016)
Mind the gap: The interplay between external and internal actions in the case of corporate social responsibility: Mind the Gap: External and Internal ActionsSouthern Medical Journal, 37
Muhammad Islam, B. Cooper, S. Haque, Michael Jones (2021)
Moral versus pragmatic legitimacy and corporate anti-bribery disclosure: evidence from AustraliaAccounting Forum, 46
Stephen Gray, J. Nowland (2017)
The Diversity of Expertise on Corporate Boards in AustraliaFEN: Other International Corporate Finance (Topic)
Lori Holder-Webb, Jeffrey Cohen (2011)
The Cut and Paste Society: Isomorphism in Codes of EthicsJournal of Business Ethics, 107
Paul Guest (2019)
Does Board Ethnic Diversity Impact Board Monitoring Outcomes?Demographics
Fatma Baalouch, Salma Ayadi, K. Hussainey (2019)
A study of the determinants of environmental disclosure quality: evidence from French listed companiesJournal of Management and Governance, 23
Christy Glass, Alison Cook (2018)
Do women leaders promote positive change? Analyzing the effect of gender on business practices and diversity initiativesHuman Resource Management, 57
Giovanna Michelon, A. Parbonetti (2010)
The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosureJournal of Management & Governance, 16
E. Birch, A. Preston (2020)
The Australian labour market in 2019Journal of Industrial Relations, 62
Isabel‐María García‐Sánchez, Nazim Hussain, S. Khan, Jennifer Martínez‐Ferrero (2020)
Do Markets Punish or Reward Corporate Social Responsibility Decoupling?Business & Society, 60
Val Singh (2007)
Ethnic diversity on top corporate boards: a resource dependency perspectiveThe International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18
C. Deegan, C. Blomquist (2006)
Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: An exploration of the interaction between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industryAccounting Organizations and Society, 31
A Ahmed, H Higgs, C Ng (2018)
Determinants of women representation on corporate boards: Evidence from AustraliaAccounting Research Journal, 31
V. Holton (2005)
Diversity reporting: how European business is reporting on diversity and equal opportunitiesWomen in Management Review, 20
Pete Tashman, Valentina Marano, T. Kostova (2018)
Walking the walk or talking the talk? Corporate social responsibility decoupling in emerging market multinationalsJournal of International Business Studies, 50
A. Beck, D. Campbell, Philip Shrives (2010)
Content analysis in environmental reporting research: enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a British-German contextBritish Accounting Review, 42
K. Rao, C. Tilt (2015)
Board Composition and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Diversity, Gender, Strategy and Decision MakingJournal of Business Ethics, 138
C. David (2001)
Mythmaking in Annual ReportsJournal of Business and Technical Communication, 15
Ammad Ahmed, Searat Ali (2017)
Boardroom gender diversity and stock liquidity: Evidence from AustraliaJournal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 13
W. Ben‐Amar, Merridee Bujaki, Bruce McConomy, P. McIlkenny (2020)
Gendering merit: How the discourse of merit in diversity disclosures supports the gendered status quo on Canadian corporate boardsCritical Perspectives on Accounting
S. Ospina, E. Foldy (2009)
A critical review of race and ethnicity in the leadership literature: Surfacing context, power and the collective dimensions of leadershipLeadership Quarterly, 20
Shayuti Adnan, D. Hay, C. Staden (2018)
The influence of culture and corporate governance on corporate social responsibility disclosure: A cross country analysisJournal of Cleaner Production
Deirdre Ahern, Blanaid Clarke (2013)
Listed Companies’ Engagement with Diversity: A Multi-Jurisdictional Study of Annual Report DisclosuresDemographics
V. Colic‐Peisker, F. Tilbury (2007)
Integration into the Australian Labour Market: The Experience of Three "Visibly Different" Groups of Recently Arrived RefugeesInternational Migration, 45
Peter Collett, Sue Hrasky (2005)
Voluntary Disclosure of Corporate Governance Practices by Listed Australian CompaniesBehavioral & Experimental Finance eJournal
Muhammad Ali (2016)
Impact of gender-focused human resource management on performance: The mediating effects of gender diversityAustralian Journal of Management, 41
John Meyer, Brian Rowan (1977)
Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and CeremonyAmerican Journal of Sociology, 83
M. Loosemore, D. Chau (2002)
Racial discrimination towards Asian operatives in the Australian construction industryConstruction Management and Economics, 20
K. Shabana, Ann Buchholtz, A. Carroll (2017)
The Institutionalization of Corporate Social Responsibility ReportingBusiness & Society, 56
Maria Strydom, Hue Yong, Michaela Rankin (2017)
A few good (wo)men? Gender diversity on Australian boardsAustralian Journal of Management, 42
Stephen Brammer, A. Millington, Stephen. Pavelin (2007)
Gender and Ethnic Diversity Among UK Corporate BoardsCorporate Finance: Governance
D. Carter, Frank D’souza, B. Simkins, W. Simpson (2010)
The Gender and Ethnic Diversity of US Boards and Board Committees and Firm Financial PerformanceIO: Firm Structure
S. Bice (2017)
Corporate Social Responsibility as Institution: A Social Mechanisms FrameworkJournal of Business Ethics, 143
Akshaya Kamalnath (2018)
Gender diversity as the antidote to ‘groupthink’ on corporate boardsDeakin Law Review, 22
D. Jamali (2010)
MNCs and International Accountability Standards Through an Institutional Lens: Evidence of Symbolic Conformity or DecouplingJournal of Business Ethics, 95
B. Chatterjee, Monir Mir (2008)
The current status of environmental reporting by Indian companiesManagerial Auditing Journal, 23
C. Wright, H. Forsyth (2021)
Managerial Capitalism and White-Collar Professions: Social Mobility in Australia’s Corporate EliteLabour History: A Journal of Labour and Social History, 121
Kathy Gibson, G. O’Donovan (2007)
Corporate Governance and Environmental Reporting: An Australian StudyEnvironmental Economics
A. Hillman, Albert Cannella, I. Harris (2002)
Women and Racial Minorities in the Boardroom: How Do Directors Differ?Journal of Management, 28
Sónia Monteiro, Beatriz Aibar‐Guzmán (2010)
Determinants of environmental disclosure in the annual reports of large companies operating in PortugalCorporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17
Corinne Post, Kris Byron (2014)
Women on Boards and Firm Financial Performance: A Meta-AnalysisAcademy of Management Journal, 58
R. Burke (1993)
Women on Corporate Boards of DirectorsEquality, Diversity and Inclusion, 12
Richard Bernardi, David Bean, Kristen Weippert (2002)
Signaling gender diversity through annual report picturesAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15
A. Gerged (2020)
Factors affecting corporate environmental disclosure in emerging markets: The role of corporate governance structuresBusiness Strategy and the Environment
Meryl Kenny (2007)
Gender, Institutions and Power: A Critical ReviewPolitics, 27
Santhosh Abraham, Philip Shrives (2014)
Improving the relevance of risk factor disclosure in corporate annual reportsBritish Accounting Review, 46
C. Fredette, Ruth Bernstein (2019)
Ethno-racial Diversity on Nonprofit Boards: A Critical Mass PerspectiveNonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48
Anup Agrawal, C. Knoeber (2001)
Do Some Outside Directors Play a Political Role?*The Journal of Law and Economics, 44
Ehtasham Ghauri, Mansi Mansi, R. Pandey (2019)
Diversity in totality: A study of diversity disclosures by New Zealand stock exchange listed companiesThe International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32
C. Lokuwaduge, Keshara Silva (2020)
Emerging Corporate Disclosure of Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) Risks: An Australian StudyThe Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal, 14
M Ali, OB Ayoko (2020)
The impact of board size on board demographic faultlinesCorporate Governance, 20
J. Plessis, J. O'Sullivan, R. Rentschler (2014)
Multiple Layers of Gender Diversity on Corporate Boards: To Force or Not to Force?Deakin Law Review, 19
K. James, Setsuo Otsuka (2009)
Racial biases in recruitment by accounting firms: The case of international Chinese applicants in AustraliaCritical Perspectives on Accounting, 20
K. Farrell, P. Hersch (2005)
Additions to corporate boards: the effect of genderJournal of Corporate Finance, 11
Diversity of company leadership is an important governance issue for corporations globally, yet the uneven treatment of diversity priorities remains a major challenge. We explore the extent and change over time of both gender and ethnic diversity in leadership and disclosure for Australia’s largest firms from 2005 to 2021. Using institutional theory, we compare the isomorphisms driving change, and examine the extent to which there is rhetorical decoupling between diversity disclosure and practice. Our analysis reveals a significant improvement in gender diversity over time but very little progress in the ethnic diversity of corporate leaders. We find a connection between diversity reporting and the appointment of female corporate leaders. However, there is a disconnection between public commitment to diversity and the appointment of non-white corporate leaders. A lack of regulation for diversity reporting contributes to this imbalance with different outcomes for gender and ethnic diversity as the result of different institutional isomorphisms. Our findings can inform policymakers and corporations, highlighting the importance of a range of institutional pressures that encourage the disclosure and practice of ethnic diversity in corporate leadership. JEL Classification: M14 Keywords corporate Australia, corporate governance, diversity reporting, ethnic diversity, gender diversity Corresponding author: Corinne Cortese, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia. Email: corinne@uow.edu.au Final transcript accepted 22 March 2023 by Victor Sojo Monzon (AE Special Issue). 2 Australian Journal of Management 00(0) 1. Introduction Australia is a multicultural triumph. It’s time we start seeing more cultural diversity in the leadership of our organisations. There’s a challenge to get board diversity right – and not just on gender (Tim Soutphommasane, Australian Human Rights Commission, 2018) Diversity of company directors and executives is one of the most important governance issues cur- rently faced by corporations around the globe, with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (goal 10) urging all countries to ‘empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status’. Diversity of company leaders is argued to improve monitoring and decision-making (Cox, 1993; Upadhyay and Zeng, 2014), enhance organisational efficiency (van der Walt and Ingley, 2003), governance (Kiel and Nicholson, 2006), reputation (Dadanlar and Abebe, 2020) and performance (Ospina and Foldy, 2009). Given these advantages, diversity has gained significant attention from regulators and profes- sional bodies. Several western jurisdictions have mandated rules for corporations to improve diver- sity disclosure and appointment practices, including the United States, European Union and United Kingdom. In Australia, the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations in 2010, effective on or after 1 January 2011, recommended that all listed companies establish and disclose a diversity policy, particularly regarding gender. The Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) called on all boards, particularly the ASX200, to appoint at least 30% of women directors by the end of 2018 (Australian Institute of Company Directors, 2015). In 2019, the AICD reported that the 30% target was achieved and by 2021, there were no ASX200 boards without any women (Australian Institute of Company Directors, 2019, 2021). However, a recent study commissioned by the AICD reports that culturally diverse individuals are underrepresented at leadership levels in both the private and public sectors, despite almost half of Australia’s population being born overseas or having at least one parent born overseas (Groutsis et al., 2018). Despite the clear motive to improve diversity across multiple domains – including ethnicity, class, experience, sexuality and age – industry and regulatory action has largely focussed on gender. Similarly, academic attention has largely highlighted matters of gender diversity. Very few stud- ies have explored diversity from the perspective of ethnicity, predominantly focusing on non- Australian contexts such as Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom (Abebe and Dadanlar, 2021; Brammer et al., 2007; Carter et al., 2010; Fredette and Sessler Bernstein, 2019). In Australia, there are very few academic studies of the extent, cause and impact of ethnic diversity in corporate Australia, with some finding little presence of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders in the leadership of large companies (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2016; Groutsis et al., 2018; Kaur and Qian, 2021). Although there is recognition of the persistent challenge of ethnic diversity in corporate leadership, there is very little understanding of how this form of diversity has changed over time. Annual reports and corporate disclosure have been studied as a complementary indicator of the company’s commitment to equality, sustainability, ethical practice and corporate governance (Baalouch et al., 2019; Chan et al., 2014; de Silva et al., 2020; Du, 2018; Dumay and Hossain, 2019; Lu et al., 2015; Shayuti et al., 2018). Diversity disclosure – the company’s progress and strategy towards equal employment and promotion of a range of minority groups – has received relatively little attention within the literature. Those that do, generally examine the extent of diver- sity reporting with the number of women in leadership (Ahern and Clarke, 2013; Ghauri et al., 2021). There is not, to our knowledge, any research that examines diversity reporting and both gender and ethnic diversity in large Australian firms. Wright et al. 3 We contribute to this literature by systematically exploring the extent of gender and ethnic diversity practices, and diversity statements in annual reports of large Australian companies from 2005 to 2021. We adopt a mixed-method analysis, tracking the extent of diversity disclosure and practice (quantitative) and analysing the content of company diversity statements (qualitative). The longitudinal, cohort data used in this article prompt conceptualising annual reports and leadership appointments as collective organisational forms, rather than only the result of individual- and firm- level motivations. As such, we interpret our findings with institutional theory, comparing the insti- tutional isomorphisms driving change in each organisational form, and examining the extent to which there is rhetorical decoupling between them. The remainder of the article is structured as follows: in section 2, we review the literature relat- ing to academic research on diversity in leadership and annual report disclosures. In section 3, we outline our theoretical framework and in section 4, discuss the mixed-method approach. In section 5, we discuss the empirical results, concluding that there has been close alignment between diver- sity reporting and the number of women in leadership. When it comes to matters of racial and ethnic diversity, there is a disconnect between general public commitment to diversity, and the practice of appointing non-white corporate leaders. The unregulated nature of diversity reporting has contributed to decoupling between disclosure and practice, with different outcomes between gender and ethnic diversity, the result of institutional isomorphisms. These findings are relevant to policymakers and corporations, highlighting the importance of a range of institutional pres- sures for encouraging both disclosure and practice for much-needed ethnic diversity in corporate leadership. 2. Literature review The last four decades have witnessed a significant increase in public, government and media inter- est in the composition of corporate boards (Armour, 2020; Fairfax, 2005; Groutsis et al., 2018). Academic research has examined board members of top corporations to appointment processes, compliance with diversity objectives and the impact of board composition on profit and govern- ance (Agrawal and Knoeber, 2001; Frijns et al., 2016; Griffin et al., 2019; Kagzi and Guha, 2018; Post and Byron, 2015; Rao and Tilt, 2016). The majority of research has so far focussed on matters of gender diversity, with relatively few studies exploring ethnic diversity (Adams and Ferreira, 2009; Ahmed and Ali, 2017; Ahmed et al., 2018; Ali, 2016; Griffin et al., 2019; Harjoto et al., 2015; Hillman et al., 2002; Saeed et al., 2016; Strydom et al., 2017). Representation of those from diverse ethnic or cultural backgrounds has been found to be far less than gender diversity, with Abebe and Dadanlar, (2021) finding that, for the United States, although most companies had women directors, only 10% of firms had non-white directors (see also the studies by Brammer et al., 2007; Carter et al., 2010; Fredette and Sessler Bernstein, 2019; Guest, 2019; Rose and Bielby, 2011). The literature has discussed some of the reasons for poor ethnic diversity in corpo- rate leadership, including internal firm factors, industry effects or external structural factors such as the composition of the labour market (Glass and Cook, 2018; Pirzada et al., 2017; Singh, 2007). While there is acknowledgement of the relative presence of women and non-white directors on corporate boards, there is no research that compares the external institutional factors that have contributed to this disparity. Research has acknowledged the importance of external institutional pressures for the appoint- ment of women and non-white leaders. In some contexts, the introduction of formal legislation, comply or explain procedures or corporate governance principles have obliged firms to improve the gender, ethnic and cultural diversity of corporate boards (Post and Byron, 2015; Rose and Bielby, 2011). In others, pressure has been applied through professional associations or public 4 Australian Journal of Management 00(0) activism (Deloitte, 2021; Rose and Bielby, 2011). In other research, the ‘business case’ has been effective, with the now widely accepted principle that diversity is good for profit, innovation and monitoring prompting companies to appoint members of minority groups to their leadership suite (Brammer et al., 2007; Ginalski, 2022; Post and Byron, 2015; Rose and Bielby, 2011; Singh, 2007; Vinnicombe et al., 2008). However, these various motivations have been constrained by the ‘pipe- line’, with inequalities in corporate work contributing to constrained career prospects for women and non-white workers, thereby reducing the ‘pool’ of candidates appropriately experienced for executive and board roles (Groutsis et al., 2018; Wright, 2021). Others have identified the potential for tokenism and decoupling (see below), with corporations making public commitments to equal- ity, yet only appointing members of minority groups at the minimum level necessary to placate stakeholders (Farrell and Hersch, 2005). Similar to research internationally, Australian diversity research has generally examined gender, with far less work ethnic diversity in leadership (Ahmed and Ali, 2017; Ahmed et al., 2018; Gray and Nowland, 2017; Strydom et al., 2017; Yarram and Adapa, 2020). Australia offers a unique context as board quotas are not mandated, with board composition principle-based rather than rule- based (Yarram and Adapa, 2020). Work has identified the ‘glacial at best’ progress of women appointed to Australian company boards since the 1990s, the importance of professional and regu- latory changes for their appointment and their impact on governance and profit (Australian Institute of Company Directors, 2021; Cermak et al., 2018; Du Plessis et al., 2014; Handley et al., 2018; Klettner et al., 2021; Ross-Smith and Bridge, 2008). Research has also tested the appointment of women leaders against various firm-specific drivers such as size, existing leadership diversity, governance quality, shareholder concentration and so on (Ahmed et al., 2018). Despite the wealth of research on Australian women in corporate leadership, the relationship between this and other public commitments to equality – namely annual reports – has not yet been analysed critically (Ahern and Clarke, 2013 and Ghauri et al., 2021 do so for the United Kingdom and New Zealand, respectively). There is very little Australian research on the extent, antecedents and impacts of ethnic diversity in corporate Australia, with recent industry reports finding that board members and executives are overwhelmingly of Anglo-Celtic and European ethnicity (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2016; Groutsis et al., 2018). Indigenous representation is particularly low, with no top board mem- bers or executives of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage, and very little evidence of their involvement in leadership roles elsewhere in large companies (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2016; Groutsis et al., 2018; Kaur and Qian, 2021). The corporate sector is particu- larly homogeneous, with better outcomes for ethnic diversity in political leadership, or on the boards of cultural institutions and not-for-profits (Azmat and Rentschler, 2017). Although this limited Australian evidence has indicated the present and ongoing challenge of ethnic diversity in corporate leadership, there is a gap in understanding changes in ethnic diversity over time, and in relation to both gender diversity and company disclosure practices. Very similar to the appointment of women and non-white leaders, annual reports have been studied as an indicator of firms’ commitment to equality. Scholars have examined compliance with regulated or compulsory financial disclosure (Abraham and Shrives, 2014; Cortese and Andrew, 2020). Others have examined non-regulated or voluntary disclosure in annual report narrative sec- tions such as the chief executive’s letter, summaries of operations, environmental and sustainabil- ity reports and equity and diversity statements. Most research on voluntary disclosure has focussed on corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting, finding that disclosure practices vary based on firm size, profitability, industry and country of origin (Chan et al., 2014; Lu et al., 2015; Rao and Tilt, 2016; Shayuti et al., 2018). More recently, interest has shifted from exploring CSR as a whole to examining the increase in specific areas of disclosure such as corporate governance, risk, Wright et al. 5 environmental management and human rights (Baalouch et al., 2019; Beck et al., 2010; Collett and Hrasky, 2005; de Silva et al., 2020; Du, 2018; Gerged, 2021; Gibson and O’Donovan, 2007). Disclosure of diversity disclosure has received relatively little attention within the literature. A handful of studies have focussed on gender, finding that gender diversity disclosure is generally lower than other voluntary disclosures (Ahern and Clarke, 2013; Ben-Amar et al., 2021; Bernardi et al., 2002; Chatterjee and Zaman Mir, 2008; Ghauri et al., 2021; Holton, 2005; Rao and Tilt, 2016) . In Australia and New Zealand, there has been limited research on diversity disclosures, with studies finding that although the incidence and specificity of diversity policies increased from around 2010, most content focusses on gender (Ahern and Clarke, 2013; Ghauri et al., 2021). Both studies compare the extent of diversity reporting with the increased representation of women in management and director roles in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Although there is clearly recognition that diversity encompasses more than gender, there is not, to our knowledge, any research that compares diversity reporting and both gender and ethnic diversity within the leader- ship suite of Australian firms. 3. Theoretical framework Company leadership and annual reports are organisational forms subject to a range of individual, firm and institutional factors. Corporate leaders are appointed based, in part, on knowledge and skills that allow them to align the interests of managers and shareholders (agency theory) and to guide company’s operations (resource dependence theory; Bendickson et al., 2016; Berle and Means, 1932; Kaczmarek et al., 2014). Recruitment may also respond to team dynamics, with members of a similar background more likely to make decisions efficiently, while a diverse board – although often plagued with conflict – increasing innovation and encouraging more responsible practices (Ali and Ayoko, 2020; Brass, 1995; Kamalnath, 2017; Post and Byron, 2015). The appointment of executives and directors also serves a symbolic role as part of the company’s public face, with leaders expected to appear knowledgeable, ethical and community-minded (Barnes, 2013; Beji et al., 2021; Bice, 2017; Hung, 2011; Redmond, 2012; Shabana et al., 2017; Wright and Forsyth, 2021). Annual reports are a key mechanism through which a company discharges its accountabilities to shareholders and other key stakeholders, with modern annual reports part statutory audited financial statements, and part symbolic ‘mediascapes and ideoscapes’ that provoke ‘interpretive and emotional reactions’ from readers (David, 2001: 195). Non-compulsory ‘narrative sections’ such as the executive’s letter, summaries of operations, environmental and sustainability reports and equity and diversity statements respond to a range of firm-specific motivations, addressing issues important to company stakeholders (stakeholder theory), meeting public expectations (legit- imacy theory) and constructing belief systems that affect how readers view the company, the indus- try or corporations more generally (impression management; Ali et al., 2017; Da Silva Monteiro and Aibar -Guzmán, 2010; Deegan and Blomquist, 2006; Michelon and Parbonetti, 2012). Although these individual- and firm-level motivations are important, examining a longitudinal, cohort-level data set of large Australian companies prompts conceptualising leadership appoint- ments and annual reports as collective organisational forms. Institutions are the ‘cognitive, norma- tive, and regulative structures’ (Scott, 1995: 33) that provide the ‘rules of the game’ for social thought and action (Bachrach and Baratz, 1970: 43; Irvine, 2002: 2; Jepperson, 1991). These norms become ‘infused with value’ over time as they gain acceptance among organisational members (Selznick, 1957: 19). Critically, these established procedures often carry no clear duty to comply, nor are there mechanisms for enforcement. Instead, this ‘soft regulation’ relies on the development and acceptance of norms, the reputation and influence of the users of the rules, and, eventually, the 6 Australian Journal of Management 00(0) legitimacy that is ascribed to the institutional practices (Kingsford-Smith, 2012: 378). Di Maggio and Powell studied the dynamic evolution of organisations – including boards of directors – argu- ing that they tend to become more similar to one another over time. This tendency is the result of institutionalised behaviours, which reflect a non-binding but strongly held commitment to social mechanisms that softly regulate institutional relations (Jacobsson, 2004). Institutional isomorphisms (coercive, mimetic and normative pressure) encourage organisations to conform, not necessarily due to efficiency, but for the purpose of establishing power and legiti- macy in their field. Coercive isomorphism encompasses factors determined by the external envi- ronment, including pressure from regulators, legal requirements and cultural and societal expectations. Mimetic pressure involves firms imitating others or modelling past successful perfor- mance. Normative pressure stems from organisations conforming to ‘best practice’ established or legitimised through professional structures and industry associations. Institutions are also histori- cally contingent, with changes in institutional pillars influencing the system in which companies, workers and leaders operate, and the practices, norms and obligations that take on a ‘rule like sta- tus’ (Jacobsson, 2004; Kingsford-Smith, 2012; Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Scott, 1995; Selznick, 1957). In our case, leadership appointments for large organisations are an institution governed by coer- cive pressure in the form of regulation and activism, as well as the gender and race regimes within Australian society that externally dictate those able to be appointed to the leadership suite (Connell and Connell, 2002; Glass and Cook, 2018; Kenny, 2007; Sheridan et al., 2021). Leadership appoint- ments have also been subject to mimetic pressure through the actions of large or market leading firms, and normative pressure in the form of industry and professional recommendations. Company annual reports are subject to a similar range of institutional pressures, with coercive pressure from regulators and activism, mimetic pressure in the form of disclosure practices of large firms and normative pressure from established ‘best practice’ influencing the shared disclosure practices of large Australian corporations. Although there are similar institutional forces that act on leadership appointments and annual reports, there may be a disconnect between these two organisational forms. Decoupling argues that firms undertake two distinct forms of action – internal and external – to respond to institutional isomorphic pressures (Hawn and Ioannou, 2016). Internal actions, or the inward-looking real prac- tices of the company, are geared towards meeting the needs of internal stakeholders, whereas external actions generally focus on portrayal and legitimacy in the eyes of public stakeholders (Cho et al., 2015; García-Sánchez et al., 2021; Tashman et al., 2019). Research in Australia and overseas has found evidence of decoupling with regards to CSR; environmental standards; bribery; human rights; and work, health and safety disclosures, in a range of locations (Cho et al., 2015; García-Sánchez et al., 2021; Hawn and Ioannou, 2016; Islam et al., 2021, 2022; Tashman et al., 2019). In our case, although there is public, industry and stakeholder expectations regarding diver- sity in corporate leadership, decoupling involves these expectations being met through public com- munication in the form of the annual report, rather than actual hiring and promotion practices. Rather than the binary of coupled/decoupled actions, the literature identifies several intermedi- ate practices of decoupling. Full decoupling involves the ‘malignant separation’ and complete non-disclosure of regulated activity; slight decoupling involves the ‘symbolic adoption’ and cere- monial disclosure of regulated activities; and no decoupling involves the complete implementation and compliance with the regulated activity (Buhr, 2001; Holder-Webb and Cohen, 2012; Islam et al., 2021; Jamali, 2010; Sandholtz, 2012). This framework largely applies to instances of regu- lated disclosure, where there are concrete penalties for non-compliance. In our case, we propose rhetorical decoupling to account for disclosure practices that occur with voluntary disclosure (simi- lar to the study by Sandholtz, 2012). Sandholtz (2012), examining International Organization for Wright et al. 7 Standardization (ISO) certification, noted that firm compliance with these ‘soft regulations’ was necessary for the firm to achieve legitimacy, but then became ceremonial and was decoupled from the technical work of the organisation (see also the study by Kingsford-Smith, 2012). Islam et al. (2021) has similarly noted the importance of regulation to minimise decoupling, with the lack of regulation for diversity disclosure potentially increasing the extent and scope of decoupling. In light of the institutionalisation and potential decoupling of both of diversity practices and company diversity statements, we track the appointment of company leaders and content of annual reports to determine: 1. The extent and change over time of gender and ethnic diversity in Australian corporate leadership, 2. The extent and change over time of diversity disclosure in Australian company annual reports, and 3. The extent to which there is rhetorical decoupling between diversity disclosure and practice. 4. Empirical data and methods We adopted a mixed-methods approach to examine diversity of leadership appointments, and diversity disclosure, of the ASX100 companies in 2021 as well as tracking the same group of com- panies over several longitudinal benchmarks (2015, 2010 and 2005). Each historical sample had some attrition from the original 100 companies, with the smallest sample size of 62 firms for 2005. We linked each company to their predominant industry group (which we assume is relatively stable over this time horizon), based on the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) taxonomy. We measured firm size based on market capitalisation, collecting separate market capitalisation data for each benchmark year using the Morningstar DatAnalysis database. Board diversity and disclosure information was based on publicly available annual reports accessed through company websites or the DatAnalysis database. Reports are released at the end of each financial year, between July and October for 2020, 2015, 2010 and 2005. Board diversity was coded by examining the personal profiles of board members and senior management team for each company. Although a simplification, we have coded gender as either male or female. Regarding ethnicity, we make the distinction between white (Anglo-Celtic, Caucasian and European directors), and those from non-white backgrounds. The small number of non-white directors and executives means we make no further distinction of ethnicity in the data, though in the empirical section, we discuss the backgrounds that are commonly represented. We detail the number of seats held by men and women, and white and non-white directors, acknowledging that corporate leaders may hold multiple board seats in a single year. Examining the number of board and executive seats also allows the comparison of diversity outcomes based on firm size and indus- try, and between firms with different-sized boards. To this end, we use simple T-tests to compare market capitalisation, determining statistically significant differences in the size of firms with one or more women, three or more women and one or more non-white leaders. Diversity disclosure data were based on content analysis of annual reports. Content analysis is frequently used by accounting and management researchers to study corporate disclosure (Beck et al., 2010; Cortese and Andrew, 2020; Merkl et al., 2011). It is a way of ‘systematising the nor- mal, everyday understanding of texts’, or applying ‘scientific method to documentary evidence’ (Groeben and Rustemeyer, 1994: 310; Holsti, 1969: 5). Content analysis can be classified into two broad approaches: mechanistic (volumetric or frequency capture of routine words and references) or interpretive (disaggregating the narrative into constituent parts and understanding what is 8 Australian Journal of Management 00(0) communicated and how; Beck et al., 2010). Studies that rely on a mechanistic approach often use a dichotomous categorical index to analyse contents published publicly through various company reports or websites, with results then compared to specific compliance guidelines (Abraham and Shrives, 2014; Chan et al., 2014; Cortese and Andrew, 2020; Lu et al., 2015; Rao and Tilt, 2016; Shayuti et al., 2018). Extant literature on corporate diversity reporting often applies a mechanistic approach (Ahern and Clarke, 2013; Du, 2018; Ghauri et al., 2021). Our data record the incidence of diversity reporting in company annual reports. As the form and content of annual reports changes over time and between firms in different industries, we considered diversity reporting ‘present’ in our dichotomous construction regardless of whether it was a long section with definitive targets or a short paragraph. In each case, the discretionary nature of narrative sections means that different forms of diversity statements constitute a choice on the part of the company that is proxy to their rhetorical, public commitment to the issue. As with the personnel data, we include descriptive statistics regarding diversity reporting based on firm size and industry, and use T-tests to determine differences in the size of firms that include these disclosures. 5. Results and discussion 5.1. Decoupling of diversity statements and leadership appointments The number of women in Australian corporate leadership has increased markedly over time. The proportion of firms with at least one woman increased from 77% in 2005 to 100% in 2021, with the overall number of seats held by women increasing four-fold from 101 (11%) to 481 (35%; Table 1, Figure 1). There was an acceleration in the proportion of board seats held by women from 2010, from an increase of 2% between 2005 and 2010, to 9% from 2010 to 2015 and 13% from 2015 to 2021. Diversity statements in annual reports also increased consistently across the bench- marks. Sixteen companies (26% of the sample) included some form of diversity statement in 2005, increasing to 78 firms (82%) in 2021. The incidence of diversity reporting was lower than the proportion of firms with at least one female board member in each benchmark, though was roughly equal to the proportion of firms that had a critical mass of women (three or more) on their board (82% compared to 88%, respectively). Diversity reports were thus not necessary for women’s board or executive representation, though closely tracked alongside deepening commitments to gender equality. Content analysis reveals that top company diversity reports have generally focussed on gender equality. Diversity statements have been recommended (though not required) by the regulator, and have varied in length, detail and form over time. In 2005, diversity reports were brief and vague, with most addressing either the inclusion of women in work and middle management (particularly through the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) framework), or vague statements on ‘diversity of personal background’ that did not specify the type of diversity targeted. For example, the 2005 ANZ annual report stated that they ‘made diversity a real priority, with a particular focus on women’ (ANZ, 2005: 35), and ASX Ltd commented that the firm was ‘commended by the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency for our commitment to equal opportunity’ (ANZ, 2005: 20). By 2020, an interstice opened between the scope of workforce diversity reporting, and disclo- sures regarding the leadership team. In most cases, there was distinction made between diversity objectives in the workforce and those for executive and director roles, with GPT Group identifying action towards gender, Indigenous and LGBTQIA+ inclusion in work; and gender diversity in Wright et al. 9 Table 1. Diversity practices and diversity reporting. 2005 2010 2015 2021 Sample size (firms) 62 75 93 100 Total number of seats 882 852 1217 1374 Seats – women 101 114 269 481 (%) (11) (13) (22) (35) Seats – non-white 25 22 56 102 (%) (3) (3) (5) (7) Firms with at least one woman 48 54 88 100 (%) (77) (72) (95) (100) Firms with at least three women 13 13 51 88 (%) (21) (17) (55) (88) Firms with at least one non-white 18 16 40 51 (%) (29) (21) (43) (51) Diversity statement 16 37 63 78 (%) (26) (51) (68) (82) Sample based on ASX100 companies in 2021 and tracking the same group of companies in 2015, 2010 and 2005. Firm size is based on market capitalisation. Diversity practices and disclosure data are based on annual reports for each year. Gender diversity coded as binary (male or female), and ethnicity as either white (Anglo-Celtic, Caucasian and European directors) or non-white. Diversity reports coded dichotomously, as either present or not present regardless of length or detail. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2005 2010 2015 2021 % board seats - women % board seats - non white % irms with at least 1 woman % irms with at least 1 non-white Figure 1. The growth of women and non-white corporate leaders. Diversity practices and disclosure data are based on annual reports for each year. Gender diversity coded as binary (male or female), and ethnicity as either white (Anglo-Celtic, Caucasian and European directors) or non-white. 10 Australian Journal of Management 00(0) leadership. Information Technology firm, Xero, disclosed strategy and progress regarding gender, cultural background, sexuality, and disability diversity in work, but women in leadership. Evolution Mining, similarly, stated that ‘we continued to improve diversity by increased participation for all people that may face more barriers than others including Indigenous peoples, females and the LGBTI + community’ (Evolution Mining, 2020: 10), but with regards to the leadership suite reported that ‘female Board representation was increased to 25%’ (Evolution Mining, 2020: 26). Although companies now often disclose progress and strategy towards achieving gender equality in leadership, these disclosures tend to neglect other forms of diversity. On the surface, there is evidence of rhetorical decoupling with regards to diversity policies. We define ‘white’ in our sample as those of Anglo-Celtic, Caucasian and European directors, with non- white directors most commonly of Asian heritage, with smaller numbers of South Asian or Middle Eastern descent. Although the number of firms with at least one non-white executive or director roughly doubled (from 29% in 2005 to 51% in 2021), there were disappointing improvements in the overall number of board seats, from 3% in 2005, to only 7% in 2021 (Table 1, Figure 1). To compare, the incidence of diversity reporting began at a similar level in the earliest benchmark (26% in 2005), but became far more common than firms with at least one non-white leader (82% in 2020). There was a significant proportion of companies that included a diversity statement alongside an entirely white leadership suite, from 81% of companies with a diversity statement in 2005, 78% in 2010; 62% in 2015; to 41% in 2020. For example, in 2010, Stockland argued that they recognised ‘the importance of cultural and ethical values, and the benefits of diversity’ (Stockland, 2010: 10), though only appointed Anglo-Celtic or Caucasian directors. Examining top company appointment practices and the content of diversity statements high- lights the progress still to be made regarding ethnic diversity in leadership. Although companies have acknowledged the importance of non-white Australians for their workforce, they have addressed women in leadership rather than promising or developing a strategy for improving the pipeline of non-white directors to the leadership suite. Increased disclosure of gender diversity in leadership tracked closely with the appointment of women directors and executives over time, and the absence of such reporting has occurred alongside disappointing outcomes regarding ethnic diversity. The unregulated nature of diversity reporting has thus contributed to close coupling regarding gender diversity in leadership, but rhetorical decoupling between the public commitment to diversity and the appointment of leaders from diverse ethnic backgrounds. Companies have acknowledged, in a largely external, ceremonial way, the importance of ethnic diversity in work, but have failed to either disclose or act on ethnic diversity in leadership. 5.2. Institutional isomorphisms and diversity procedures As diversity reporting is principle-based rather than rule-based, the coupling and decoupling we observe regarding gender and ethnic diversity in leadership is largely due to institutional isomor- phisms that have acted as ‘soft regulation’ (Jacobsson, 2004; Kingsford-Smith, 2012; Meyer and Rowan, 1977: 341; Scott, 1995: 13). 5.2.1. Gender diversity. As with other countries around the world, the relative success of women in corporate leadership has been the result of a comprehensive suite of interventions (Deloitte, 2021; Rose and Bielby, 2011; Wright, 2021). The broader labour market – including changes in the pool of suitably qualified and experienced directors – has operated as an external force, dictating the appointment of company leaders and thereby resembling coercive pressure. Although women in leadership have become commonplace across every industry, their presence in tertiary service firms – where women have consistently experienced better labour market outcomes – generally outper- formed the average. In 2005, women held 11% of board seats across the sample (Table 1), though Wright et al. 11 Table 2. Industry distribution of diversity practices and disclosures. 2005 2010 2015 2021 Proportion of seats appointed to women (%) Consumer Discretionary 8 14 21 34 Consumer Staples 16 23 20 39 Energy 9 7 16 32 Financials 19 18 29 36 Health Care 7 15 21 31 Industrials 9 15 21 29 Information Technology 13 14 13 44 Materials 10 10 19 38 Real Estate 13 14 27 37 Telecommunication Services 10 15 28 34 Utilities 18 5 22 32 Proportion of seats appointed to non-white (%) Consumer Discretionary 2 1 0 1 Consumer Staples 4 0 5 15 Energy 3 4 8 11 Financials 3 3 3 7 Health Care 2 0 4 7 Industrials 5 3 4 5 Information Technology 0 0 0 7 Materials 2 2 6 11 Real Estate 0 1 4 2 Telecommunication Services 0 0 6 8 Utilities 9 13 6 6 Proportion of firms with diversity statements (%) Consumer Discretionary 40 33 100 63 Consumer Staples 67 67 75 80 Energy 57 29 67 78 Financials 50 69 43 71 Health Care 0 60 83 75 Industrials 50 0 64 100 Information Technology 100 0 67 100 Materials 42 79 71 81 Real Estate 60 71 67 100 Telecommunication Services 50 60 83 67 Utilities 0 0 50 100 The proportion of women/non-white is the proportion of total seats in that industry occupied by members of these groups. Proportion of diversity statements is the proportion of companies in that industry that include those disclosures in their annual report. Industry classifications based on the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) taxonomy. held 19% of seats in financial firms, 18% in utilities, and 16% in consumer staples (Table 2). Simi- larly, in 2021, with an average in the sample of 35%, women constituted 44% of seats in information technology (IT), 39% in consumer staples and 37% in real estate. On the contrary, women were less likely to be an executive or director of materials, energy and industrial firms, reflecting gender imbalance in the entry level workforce in these industries, and masculine corporate cultures that structurally disadvantage women (Birch and Preston, 2020; Summers, 2013). 12 Australian Journal of Management 00(0) External coercive isomorphism in the form of public and regulatory pressure has been successful at improving both the disclosure and appointment of women in corporate leadership. Since the 2000s, building on earlier feminist movements that addressed workplace participation and equal pay and promotion of women in corporate professions, public, government and NGO attention has centred on improving the number of women in corporate leadership (Du Plessis et al., 2014; Summers, 2016). In 2012, the Federal government implemented the Workplace Gender Equality Act, requiring firms with more than 500 employees to implement a strategy to address either workplace gender composition, the gender-pay gap, flexible work arrangements, or sex-based harassment and discrimination. Normative pressure – encouraging firms to confirm with ‘best practice’ established through professional structures and industry associations – has been established through partnership between the ASX and a range of professional bodies such as the AICD, Women on Boards (established(est.) 2001), Chief Executive Women (est. 1985) and Male Champions of Change (est. 2010). The ASX stopped short of requiring firms to appoint women board members, but revised its Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations in 2010 to encourage firms to monitor and establish policies to improve the number of women in leadership at the executive and board level. In the 2014 amendment, they specifically argued that: A listed entity should have and disclose a diversity policy, and through its Board or a committee of the Board, set measurable objectives for achieving gender diversity in the composition of its Board, senior executive and workforce generally (Australian Stock Exchange, 2014: recommendation 1.5). Similarly, the AICD has tracked gender diversity on top company boards, and set highly publicised voluntary targets for the sector. This created expectations for firms’ conduct regarding both the appointment of women and the disclosure of their gender diversity progress, with companies that failed to meet the targets of these professional bodies seen as archaic and unprofessional (Du Plessis et al., 2014; Ross-Smith and Bridge, 2008; Sheridan et al., 2014, 2021). Mimetic pressure has followed, with the actions of large firms pressuring others to conform. T-tests performed on market capitalisation reveals women were consistently appointed to the boards of larger firms. Firms with at least one woman were consistently, and statistically, around three- to four-times larger than those without (average market capitalisation of $10.7 billion, compared to $2.8 billion in 2005; $14 billion compared to $4.4 billion in 2010; and $14.7 billion compared to $3.3 bil- lion in 2015; Table 3). As the 2010s progressed and coercive and normative interventions became more insistent, market leadership extended to the appointment of a greater number of corporate women, with firms with three or more women statistically larger ($21 billion compared to $6 billion in 2015; $16.4 billion compared to $7 billion in 2021). Diversity disclosures – the bulk of which addressed gender diversity – were also the purview of statistically larger firms in 2005 and 2010. In 2015 and 2021, as diversity reporting became more common, the market leadership effect disap- peared due to ubiquitousness. The combination of pressure from external stakeholders, industry groups and large firms themselves has normalised and created stringent expectations regarding the appointment and disclosure of Australian women in corporate leadership. 5.2.2. Ethnic diversity. The lack of ethnic diversity in Australian corporate leadership has been pri- marily due to career path inequalities, with corporations less likely to hire or promote those from non-white backgrounds (Colic- Peisker and Tilbury, 2007; James and Otsuka, 2009; Loosemore and Chau, 2002). For example, Asian-Australians have entered relevant professions such as account- ancy at similar rates as Caucasian people, and yet have been promoted far less than their white counterparts. Despite similar levels of qualification and experience, the key barrier to ethnic diver- sity in corporate leadership has been racism in corporate management and promotion that has lim- ited the numbers of those able to move through the career pipeline (Groutsis et al., 2018). Indigenous Wright et al. 13 Table 3. T-test results. 2005 2010 2015 1 N Mean t-stat t-critical p-value N Mean t-stat t-critical p-value N Mean t-stat t-critical p-value N Mean t-stat t-critical p-value ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) Gender diversity 3.68 2 0.0005 2.88 1.99 0.006 3.93 2.01 0.0003 No women 13 2751 17 4380 4 3288 One or more women 49 10,649 53 14,018 89 14,665 1.89 2.15 0.08 1.83 2.15 0.09 3.47 2 0.001 2.87 2.01 0.006 Less than three women 49 6743 58 9343 42 5947 12 7110 Three or more women 13 17,473 12 22,957 51 20,954 88 16,365 Ethnic diversity 0.52 2.055 0.61 0.02 2.02 0.99 1.8 2.01 0.08 0.58 1.98 0.56 No non-white 30 8783 53 11,659 36 20,535 49 13,947 One or more non-white 18 11,162 17 11,734 57 10,159 51 16,510 Diversity statement 2.21 2.11 0.04 3.36 2.03 0.002 1.04 1.99 0.3 0.21 2.05 0.84 No diversity statement 46 6160 34 4099 29 11,012 17 15,178 Diversity statement 16 17,138 35 19,313 63 15,797 78 14,227 Based on two-tail t-tests performed on market capitalisation of firms that do/do not meet the above conditions. Historical market capitalisation calculated using Morningstar’s DatAnalysis database. 14 Australian Journal of Management 00(0) Australians face even greater barriers to training, employment and promotion, particularly in profes- sional work that is often a prerequisite for executive and board roles (Altman and Biddle, 2015; Biddle et al., 2013). The composition of the corporate labour market – particularly the marginalisa- tion of non-white folks in the pool of experienced directors – resembles a coercive isomorphism, as an external force that has, in part, determined the composition of the leadership suite. At the same time as the corporate labour market has institutionalised the status quo, companies are under little obligation to disclose or address ethnic diversity in leadership. As with international research that has emphasised various firm-specific drivers, Australian companies with greater than average ethnic diversity reflect micro-institutional pressures specific to their company or industry (Pirzada et al., 2017; Rose and Bielby, 2011; Singh, 2007). For example, The Star’s 2021 diversity and inclusion strategy disclosed ‘multicultural diversity’ as one of its key pillars, setting a target of 20% Asian representation in leadership levels by 2023 (The Star Entertainment Group, 2021a: 34). This reflects their business strategy of integrating with the Asian gaming and tourism market (The Star Entertainment Group, 2021b). Mining company Oil Search had the most ethnically diverse leadership team in the sample, with 9 (41%) non-white executives and directors in 2021. This was the result of the firm’s operations, which are largely located in Papua New Guinea (PNG), and their specific external coercive pressures to engage with the local community. The Oil Search diversity statement aligned with their appointment procedures, noting their commitment to ‘localisation and diversity’ through 88% representation of local PNG workers and 77% of local operational leader- ship roles filled by PNG leaders (Oil Search, 2020: 5). Within the sample more broadly, there is a lack of mimetic pressure for ethnic diversity, with no statistically significant market leadership effect for the appointment of non-white directors (Table 3). Regarding normative pressure, the 2010 Corporate Governance Principles recommended considering diversity of ‘gender, age, ethnicity and cultural background’ (recommendation 3.2), though the docu- ment placed far more emphasis on the appointment of women (recommendations 3.3 and 3.4; Australian Stock Exchange, 2010). In 2019, the fourth edition of the Principles recommended that companies ‘consider other facets of diversity [. . ..] having directors of different ages, ethnicities and backgrounds’ (Australian Stock Exchange, 2014: 34), but fell short of specific expectations on the matter. The primary industry body, the AICD, has begun to assert normative pressure for the disclo- sure and appointment of non-white directors (Groutsis et al., 2018). The AICD has also addressed the representation of Indigenous leaders, releasing their Reconciliation Action Plan in 2019, and in 2021 recommending boards foster ‘genuine, ongoing connections with First Peoples’ (Southward, 2021). While these normative pressures are welcome, it is likely to take some time to translate changes in expectations to changes in reporting and appointment practices. 6. Conclusion By examining leadership diversity practices and the nature of diversity reporting for the ASX100, our analysis found that although the number of female directors and executives has increased sig- nificantly between 2005 and 2021, corporations have largely ignored ethnic diversity. In 2021, 35% of board or executive seats were occupied by women, only 7% were held by non-white lead- ers, and none were assigned to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people. Despite this, there have been significant increases in public communication regarding diversity goals. Voluntary diversity disclosures have a social and symbolic role, and have been used to respond to stakeholders, create legitimacy and embed cultural beliefs regarding the success or future prospects for the firm. Australian corporations have demonstrated external commitment to some matters of ethnic diver- sity but appointment practices have excluded non-white leaders from executive or board roles. A closer look at the content of diversity statements revealed that there is a dichotomy between types of diversity disclosure and, as a result, the nature of decoupling. To satisfy public and industry Wright et al. 15 expectations, companies have acknowledged the importance of non-white and Indigenous Australians for their workforce and have addressed women in leadership, but have not yet promised or developed strategies to improve the pipeline of non-white directors to leadership roles. There is thus evidence of coupling regarding women in leadership and diversity reporting, but decoupling between diversity disclosures and the practice of appointing non-white leaders. The principle-based (rather than rule-based) nature of diversity reporting has contributed to this uneven disclosure and practice, with differences between gender and ethnic diversity the result of different institutional isomorphisms. The disclosure and appointment of women in corporate lead- ership has been subject to a comprehensive suite of coercive, mimetic and normative interventions, including specific recommendations from the regulator and industry bodies, media and govern- ment attention and path-setting from market leaders. To compare, institutional isomorphisms regarding ethnic diversity have been very limited, but have increased in recent years. Our findings highlight the strategies that have been meaningful for aligning corporate disclosure and practice for women in corporate leadership, but there is work still to be done regarding ethnic diversity. Looking to the future, we recommend more stringent coercive, mimetic and normative pressures for diver- sity in corporate leadership, which incorporates a broad cross-section of gender, ethnic, age, expe- rience, sexuality and disability diversities. Acknowledgements The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the research assistance of Amanda Stevin. We thank Associate Professor Mariano (Pitosh) Heyden for helpful comments on earlier versions of this work. This project was supported by a grant received from the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand (AFAANZ). Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. ORCID iD Corinne Cortese https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8406-4842 Note 1. See Ball et al. (2005) for a discussion of disability diversity References Abebe M and Dadanlar H (2021) From tokens to key players: The influence of board gender and ethnic diver- sity on corporate discrimination lawsuits. Human Relations 74: 527–555. Abraham S and Shrives PJ (2014) Improving the relevance of risk factor disclosure in corporate annual reports. The British Accounting Review 46: 91. Adams RB and Ferreira D (2009) Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics 94: 291–309. Agrawal A and Knoeber CR (2001) Do some outside directors play a political role? Journal of Law and Economics 44: 179–198. Ahern DM and Clarke BJ (2013) Listed companies’ engagement with diversity: A multi-jurisdictional study of annual report disclosures. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2306932 (accessed 28 November 2022). Ahmed A and Ali S (2017) Boardroom gender diversity and stock liquidity: Evidence from Australia. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics 13: 148–165. Ahmed A, Higgs H, Ng C, et al. (2018) Determinants of women representation on corporate boards: Evidence from Australia. Accounting Research Journal 31: 326–342. 16 Australian Journal of Management 00(0) Ali M (2016) Impact of gender-focused human resource management on performance: The mediating effects of gender diversity. Australian Journal of Management 41: 376–397. Ali M and Ayoko OB (2020) The impact of board size on board demographic faultlines. Corporate Governance 20: 1205–1222. Ali W, Frynas JG and Mahmood Z (2017) Determinants of corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclo- sure in developed and developing countries: A literature review. Corporate Social – Responsibility and Environmental Management 24: 273–294. Altman J and Biddle N (2015) Refiguring Indigenous economies: A 21st-century perspective. In: Ville S and Withers G (eds) The Cambridge Economic History of Australia. Port Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Cambridge University Press, pp. 530–554. ANZ (2005) 2005 Annual Report. Available at: https://www.anz.com/shareholder/centre/reporting/annual- report-annual-review/annual-report-archive/ (accessed 12 February 2022). Armour A (2020) Gender diversity progress report. Australian Institute of Company Directors, https://aicd. companydirectors.com.au/-/media/cd2/resources/advocacy/board-diversity/pdf/final-07649-gender- diversity-report-2020-2020-jan-2020-a4-v5.ashx (accessed 15 November 2020). Australian Human Rights Commission (2016) Leading for change: A blueprint for cultural diversity and inclusive leadership. Available at: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/race-discrimination/publica- tions/leading-change-blueprint-cultural-diversity-and-inclusive (accessed 29 March 2021). Australian Institute of Company Directors (2015) 0% by 2018: Gender diversity progress report, September – December 2018. Sydney, NSW, Australia: AICD. Australian Institute of Company Directors (2019) ASX 200 hits 30% women on boards. Available at: https:// aicd.companydirectors.com.au/media/media-releases/asx-200-hits-30-per-cent-women-on-boards (accessed 26 March 2022). Australian Institute of Company Directors (2021) Gender diversity progress report. Available at: https:// aicd.companydirectors.com.au/advocacy/board-diversity/gender-diversity-quarterly-report-released (accessed 26 March 2022). Australian Stock Exchange (2010) ASX corporate governance principles and recommendations. Available at: https://www.asx.com.au/documents/asx-compliance/cgc-principles-and-recommendations-fourth-edn. pdf (accessed 7 February 2023). Australian Stock Exchange (2014) ASX corporate governance principles and recommendations. Available at: file:///C:/Users/corinne/Desktop/Downloads/cgc-principles-and-recommendations-3rd-edn.pdf (accessed 7 February 2023). Azmat F and Rentschler R (2017) Gender and ethnic diversity on boards and corporate responsibility: The case of the arts sector. Journal of Business Ethics 141: 317–336. Baalouch F, Ayadi SD and Hussainey K (2019) A study of the determinants of environmental disclosure quality: Evidence from French listed companies. Journal of Management and Governance 23: 939–971. Bachrach P and Baratz MS (1970) Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press. Ball P, Monaco G, Schmeling J, et al. (2005) Disability as diversity in Fortune 100 companies. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 23: 91–121. Barnes LR (2013) The Albatross around the neck of company directors: A journey through case law, legisla- tion and corporate governance. Journal of Law and Financial Management 12: 2–9. Beck AC, Campbell D and Shrives PJ (2010) Content analysis in environmental reporting research: Enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a British–German context. The British Accounting Review 42: 207–222. Beji R, Yousfi O, Loukil N, et al. (2021) Board diversity and corporate social responsibility: Empirical evi- dence from France. Journal of Business Ethics 173: 133–155. Ben-Amar W, Bujaki M, McConomy B, et al. (2021) Gendering merit: How the discourse of merit in diversity disclosures supports the gendered status quo on Canadian corporate boards. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 75: 102170. Bendickson J, Muldoon J, Liguori E, et al. (2016) Agency theory: Background and epistemology. Journal of Management History 22: 437–449. Berle A and Means G (1932) The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc. Wright et al. 17 Bernardi RA, Bean DF and Weippert KM (2002) Signaling gender diversity through annual report pictures. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 15: 609–616. Bice S (2017) Corporate social responsibility as institution: A social mechanisms framework. Journal of Business Ethics 143: 17–34. Biddle N, Howlett M, Hunter B, et al. (2013) Labour market and other discrimination facing Indigenous Australian. Australian Journal of Labour Economics 16: 91–113. Birch E and Preston A (2020) The Australian labour market in 2019. Journal of Industrial Relations 62: 341–364. Brammer S, Millington A and Pavelin S (2007) Gender and ethnic diversity among UK corporate boards. Corporate Governance: An International Review 15: 393–403. Brass D (1995) A social network perspective on human resources management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 13: 39–79. Buhr N (2001) Corporate silence: Environmental disclosure and the North American free trade agreement. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 12: 405–421. Carter DA, D'Souza F, Simkins BJ, et al. (2010) The gender and ethnic diversity of US boards and board com- mittees and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review 18: 396–414. Cermak J, Howard R, Jeeves J, et al. (2018) Women in leadership: Lessons from Australian companies leading the way. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/gender-equality/women-in- leadership-lessons-from-australian-companies-leading-the-way (accessed 17 July 2022). Chan MC, Watson J and Woodliff D (2014) Corporate governance quality and CSR disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics 125: 59–73. Chatterjee B and Zaman Mir M (2008) The current status of environmental reporting by Indian companies. Managerial Auditing Journal 23: 609–629. Cho CH, Laine M, Roberts RW, et al. (2015) Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 40: 78–94. Colic- Peisker V and Tilbury F (2007) Integration into the Australian labour market: The experience of three ‘visibly different’ groups of recently arrived refugees. International Migration 45: 59–85. Collett P and Hrasky S (2005) Voluntary disclosure of corporate governance practices by listed Australian companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review 13: 188–196. Connell RW and Connell R (2002) Gender. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Cortese CL and Andrew J (2020) Extracting transparency: The process of regulating disclosures for the resources industry. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 33: 472–495. Cox T (1993) Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Da Silva Monteiro SM and Aibar -Guzmán B (2010) Determinants of environmental disclosure in the annual reports of large companies operating in Portugal. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17: 185–204. Dadanlar HH and Abebe MA (2020) Female CEO leadership and the likelihood of corporate diversity mis- conduct: Evidence from S&P 500 firms. Journal of Business Research 118: 398–405. David C (2001) Mythmaking in Annual Reports. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 15: 195–222. de Silva L, Chitra S and de Silva K (2020) Emerging corporate disclosure of environmental social and govern- ance (ESG) risks: An Australian study. Australasian Accounting Business & Finance Journal 14: 35–50. Deegan C and Blomquist C (2006) Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: An exploration of the inter- nation between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industry. Accounting, Organizations and Society 31: 343–372. Deloitte (2021) Missing pieces report: The board diversity census of women and minorities on fortune 500 Boards, 6th ed. Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/center-for-board-effectiveness/arti- cles/missing-pieces-report-board-diversity.html (accessed 18 January 2022). Du M (2018) Workplace Diversity Disclosure by Global Companies: An Exploration. Master of Business, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland. Du Plessis J, O’Sullivan J and Rentschler R (2014) Multiple layers of gender diversity on corporate boards: To force or not to force. Deakin Law Review 19: 1–50. 18 Australian Journal of Management 00(0) Dumay J and Hossain MA (2019) Sustainability risk disclosure practices of listed companies in Australia. Australian Accounting Review 29: 343–359. Evolution Mining (2020) 2020 annual and sustainability report. Available at: https://evolutionmining.com.au/ wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020-Annual-and-Sustainability-Report.pdf (accessed 1 February 2023). Fairfax LM (2005) The bottom line on board diversity: A cost-benefit analysis of the business rationales for diversity on corporate boards. Wisconsin Law Review 59: 795–854. Farrell KA and Hersch PL (2005) Additions to corporate boards: The effect of gender. Journal of Corporate Finance 11: 85–106. Fredette C and Sessler Bernstein R (2019) Ethno-racial diversity on nonprofit boards: A critical mass perspec- tive. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 48: 931–952. Frijns B, Dodd O and Cimerova H (2016) The impact of cultural diversity in corporate boards on firm perfor- mance. Journal of Corporate Finance 41: 521–541. García-Sánchez I-M, Hussain N, Khan S-A, et al. (2021) Do markets punish or reward corporate social responsibility decoupling? Business & Society 60: 1431–1467. Gerged AM (2021) Factors affecting corporate environmental disclosure in emerging markets: The role of corporate governance structures. Business Strategy and the Environment 30: 609–629. Ghauri E, Mansi M and Pandey R (2021) Diversity in totality: A study of diversity disclosures by New Zealand stock exchange listed companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 32: 1419–1459. Gibson K and O’Donovan G (2007) Corporate governance and environmental reporting: An Australian study. Corporate Governance: An International Review 15: 944–956. Ginalski S (2022) How women broke into the old boys’ corporate network in Switzerland. Business History 208: 1–22. Glass C and Cook A (2018) Do women leaders promote positive change? Analyzing the effect of gender on business practices and diversity initiatives. Human Resource Management 57: 823–837. Gray S and Nowland J (2017) The diversity of expertise on corporate boards in Australia. Accounting & Finance 57: 429–463. Griffin D, Li K and Xu T (2019) Board gender diversity and corporate innovation: International evidence. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 56: 1–32. Groeben N and Rustemeyer R (1994) On the integration of quantitative and qualitative methodological para- digms. In: Borg I and Mohler P (eds) Trends and Perspectives in Empirical Social Research. New York: de Gruyter, pp. 308–325. Groutsis D, Cooper R and Whitwell G (2018) Beyond the pale: Cultural diversity on ASX100 Boards. Available at: https://www.sydney.edu.au/business/news-and-events/news/2018/10/01/beyond-the-pale. html (accessed 18 April 2022). Guest PM (2019) Does board ethnic diversity impact board monitoring outcomes? British Journal of Management 30: 53–74. Handley K, Ross-Smith A and Wright S (2018) The same or different: How women have become included in corporate leadership in Australia. In: Adapa S and Sheridan A (eds) Inclusive Leadership: Negotiating Gendered Spaces. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 93–124. Harjoto M, Laksmana I and Lee R (2015) Board diversity and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 132: 641–660. Hawn O and Ioannou I (2016) Mind the gap: The interplay between external and internal actions in the case of corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal 37: 2569–2588. Hillman AJ, Cannella AA Jr and Harris IC (2002) Women and racial minorities in the boardroom: How do directors differ? Journal of Management 28: 747–763. Holder-Webb L and Cohen J (2012) The cut and paste society: Isomorphism in codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 107: 485–509. Holsti OR (1969) Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Holton V (2005) Diversity reporting: How European business is reporting on diversity and equal opportuni- ties. Women in Management Review 20: 72–77. Hung H (2011) Directors’ roles in corporate social responsibility: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 103: 385–402. Wright et al. 19 Irvine H (2002) The legitimising power of financial statements in the Salvation Army in England, 1865-1892. The Accounting Historians Journal 29: 1–36. Islam MA, Cooper BJ, Haque S, et al. (2022) Moral versus pragmatic legitimacy and corporate anti-bribery disclosure: Evidence from Australia. Accounting Forum 46: 30–56. Islam MA, Haque S, Henderson S, et al. (2021) Corporate disclosures on curbing bribery and the UK Bribery Act 2010: Evidence from UK companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 34: 1851–1882. Jacobsson K (2004) Soft regulation and the subtle transformation of states: The case of EU employment policy. Journal of European Social Policy 14: 355–370. Jamali D (2010) MNCs and international accountability standards through an institutional lens: Evidence of symbolic conformity or decoupling. Journal of Business Ethics 95: 617–640. James K and Otsuka S (2009) Racial biases in recruitment by accounting firms: The case of international Chinese applicants in Australia. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 20: 469–491. Jepperson RL (1991) Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In: Powell WW and DiMaggio PJ (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organisational Analysis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 143–163. Kaczmarek S, Kimino S and Pye A (2014) Interlocking directorships and firm performance in highly regu- lated sectors: The moderating impact of board diversity. Journal of Management & Governance 18: 347–372. Kagzi M and Guha M (2018) Board demographic diversity: A review of literature. Journal of Strategy and Management 11: 33–51. Kamalnath A (2017) Gender diversity as the antidote to ‘groupthink’ on corporate boards. Deakin Law Review 22: 85–106. Kaur A and Qian W (2021) The state of disclosures on Aboriginal engagement: An examination of Australian mining companies. Meditari Accountancy Research 29: 345–370. Kenny M (2007) Gender, institutions and power: A critical review. Politics 27: 91–100. Kiel GC and Nicholson GJ (2006) Multiple directorships and corporate performance in Australian listed companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review 14: 530–546. Kingsford-Smith D (2012) Governing the corporation: The role of ‘soft regulation’. University of New South Wales Law Journal 35: 378–403. Klettner A, Atherton A, Clarke T, et al. (2021) Improving gender diversity in companies. Available at: https:// www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/our-research/centre-business-and-social-innovation/research/ projects/improving-gender-diversity-companies (accessed 2 February 2023). Loosemore M and Chau DW (2002) Racial discrimination towards Asian operatives in the Australian con- struction industry. Construction Management and Economics 20: 91–102. Lu Y, Abeysekera I and Cortese C (2015) Corporate social responsibility reporting quality, board character- istics and corporate social reputation. Pacific Accounting Review 27: 95–118. Merkl Davies-DM, Brennan NM and McLeay SJ (2011) Impression management and retrospective sense- making in corporate narratives. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 24: 315–344. Meyer JW and Rowan B (1977) Institutionalised organisations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–363. Michelon G and Parbonetti A (2012) The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure. Journal of Management & Governance 16: 477–509. Oil Search (2020) Oil Search Annual Report. Available at: https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/ AnnualReports/PDF/ASX_OSH_2020.pdf (accessed 2 February 2023). Ospina S and Foldy E (2009) A critical review of race and ethnicity in the leadership literature: Surfacing context, power and the collective dimensions of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 20: 876–896. Pirzada K, Mustapha MZ and Alfan EB (2017) Antecedents of ethnic diversity: The role of nomination com- mittees. International Journal of Economics and Management 11: 103–119. Post C and Byron K (2015) Women on boards and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 58: 1546–1571. Rao K and Tilt C (2016) Board composition and corporate social responsibility: The role of diversity, gender, strategy and decision making. Journal of Business Ethics 138: 327–347. Redmond P (2012) Directors’ duties and corporate social responsiveness. UNSW Law Journal 35: 35–59. 20 Australian Journal of Management 00(0) Rose CS and Bielby WT (2011) Race at the top: How companies shape the inclusion of African Americans on their boards in response to institutional pressures. Social Science Research 40: 841–859. Ross-Smith A and Bridge J (2008) 'Glacial at best’: Women’s progress on corporate boards in Australia. In: Vinnicombe S, Singh V, Burke R, et al. (eds) Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Research and Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 101–119. Saeed A, Belghitar Y and Yousaf A (2016) Firm-level determinants of gender diversity in the boardrooms: Evidence from some emerging markets. International Business Review 25: 1076–1088. Sandholtz KW (2012) Making standards stick: A theory of coupled vs. decoupled compliance. Organization Studies 33: 655–679. Scott WR (1995) Institutions and Organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Selznick P (1957) Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation. New York: Harper & Row. Shabana KM, Buchholtz AK and Carroll AB (2017) The institutionalization of corporate social responsibility reporting. Business & Society 56: 1107–1135. Shayuti MA, Hay D and van Staden CJ (2018) The influence of culture and corporate governance on corporate social responsibility disclosure: A cross country analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 198: 820–832. Sheridan A, Lord L and Ross-Smith A (2021) Disrupting board appointments: Australia’s governance guide- lines and gender capital. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 40: 615–630. Sheridan A, Ross-Smith A and Lord L (2014) Institutional influences on women’s representation on corporate boards. Equity, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 33: 140–159. Singh V (2007) Ethnic diversity on top corporate boards: A resource dependency perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 18: 2128–2146. Southward J (2021) How to engage with First Nations stakeholders. AICD Membership Update. Available at: https://aicd.companydirectors.com.au/membership/membership-update/how-to-engage-with-first-nations- stakeholders (accessed 28 November 2022). Stockland (2010) Annual Report. Available at: https://www.stockland.com.au/investor-centre/results (accessed 5 March 2020). Strydom M, Au Yong HH and Rankin M (2017) A few good (wo)men? Gender diversity on Australian boards. Australian Journal of Management 42: 404–427. Summers A (2013) The Misogyny Factor. Sydney, NSW, Australia: NewSouth Books. Summers A (2016) Damned Whores and God’s Police. Sydney, NSW, Australia: NewSouth Books [first ed. 1975]. Tashman P, Marano V and Kostova T (2019) Walking the walk or talking the talk? Corporate social respon- sibility decoupling in emerging market multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies 50: 153–171. The Star Entertainment Group (2021a) Diversity and inclusion. Available at: https://www.starentertainment- group.com.au/diversity-inclusion/ (accessed 19 May 2022). The Star Entertainment Group (2021b) Star casino annual report. Available at: https://www.starentertain- mentgroup.com.au/annual-reports/ (accessed 8 August 2022). Upadhyay A and Zeng H (2014) Gender and ethnic diversity on boards and corporate information environ- ment. Journal of Business Research 67: 2456–2463. van der Walt N and Ingley C (2003) Board dynamics and the influence of professional background, gender and ethnic diversity of directors. Corporate Governance: An International Review 11: 218–234. Vinnicombe S, Singh V, Burke R, et al. (2008) Women on Corporate Boards of Directors. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Wright CEF (2021) Good wives and corporate leaders: Duality in women’s access to Australia’s top company boards, 1910–2018. Business History. Epub ahead of print 5 December. DOI: 10.1080/ 00076791.2021.1994948. Wright CEF and Forsyth H (2021) Managerial capitalism and white-collar professions: Social mobility in Australia’s corporate elite. Labour History 121: 99–127. Yarram S and Adapa S (2020) Board gender diversity and corporate financial performance: Is there an eco- nomic case in Australia? AOM Proceedings 2020: 19109.
Australian Journal of Management – SAGE
Published: Feb 1, 2024
Keywords: corporate Australia; corporate governance; diversity reporting; ethnic diversity; gender diversity
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.