Board gender diversity, firm risk, and the intermediate mechanisms: A meta‐analysis

Abstract Research question The primary focus of this meta‐analysis is to synthesize previously discordant findings on the relationship between board gender diversity (BGD) and different types of firm risk and to explore potential moderating and mediating mechanisms underlying these relationships. Research findings We statistically combine the results from 193 studies and find a negative association between BGD and firm risk. Further investigation indicates that different measures of risk lead to systematically different effect sizes. Our meta‐analysis structural equation modeling (MASEM) analysis reveals that BGD's impact on risk operates primarily through the monitoring rather than advising function of the board. Regarding the moderating role of national institutions, we find that several aspects of the national institutional context (e.g., investor protection, gender equality, and national culture) influence the relationship between BGD and different types of risk. Theoretical implications Overall, our results suggest that agency theory has more explanatory power than resource dependence theory for understanding the association between BGD and risk, and women's board representation is more likely to reduce downside risk than upside risk. Our moderating effect analysis also highlights interesting avenues for further research on the interplay of BGD and different risks in national environments with varying institutional attributes. Practitioner/policy implications Our meta‐analysis offers important practical implications for corporate risk management, suggesting that BGD significantly mitigates downside risks associated with poor corporate transparency without stifling board support for corporate decisions shaping future growth potential. In an era of rising board vulnerability to litigation for insufficient transparency, this study contributes evidence supporting trends toward greater gender diversity.