Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 457

Why gender diversity matters for investors

The debate about the importance of gender diverse leadership has been settled for the most part. Companies, investors and governments have all played a part in boosting the participation of women in the boardroom and on management teams. While progress has been patchy, female representation is higher than ever in companies around the world.

It is now possible to take a detailed look at the impact of this diversity on the way companies operate, and to see if it creates opportunities for investors.

Realindex’s research report, ‘Beyond Lip Service: tracking the impact of the gender diversity gap’, is based on a global data set spanning over 2500 large cap companies, in 30 countries, over more than a decade. It looked beyond easy-to-find board diversity data, to include executive team composition.

The findings of the data are clear: more gender diverse leadership teams deliver better performance outcomes.

Diversity and firm performance

To understand the potential drivers for gender diversity, we looked at firm level attributes of the global large and mid-cap companies using the MSCI ACWI index. The correlation of gender diversity was examined with a variety of firm specific characteristics: the type of indicators that we would look for in our quantitative company analysis process.

Table 1 reports the average cross-sectional correlations of the firm gender diversity (as captured by the percentage of females in senior management - senior management gender diversity, and the percentage of females on the board – board gender diversity) with a number of firm characteristics. The highest correlation of 1 is represented in the lightest colour, and the lower correlations are shown in the darker colours.

Table 1. Correlation of gender diversity metrics with other firm characteristics MSCI ACWI

Source: FactSet, Realindex, 1 January 2009 – 31 December 2021
Note: For the purposes of this study, we define senior management as the chief executive officer, and their direct reports which would typically include, the chief financial officer, chief operating officer, head of human resources, and chief legal officer.

We found that gender diverse firms (both board and senior management) are typically higher quality firms, where gender diversity has positive correlation with return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE), and profit margins (Gross and Net Profit Margins). They also tend to have higher price returns over the previous year (MOM12M) and lower market volatility as evidenced by the negative correlation to 12-month price volatility (VOL12M).

We also found that larger capitalised firms (as captured by Size) tend to have higher diversity, especially in the boardroom, while diverse firms also appear to have high valuation multiples, as seen by the negative correlation between the diversity metrics, and book yield (BY) and earnings yield (EY).

Diversity and future operating performance

The questions that follow are:

  • Has increased female representation made a meaningful impact on firms by improving their operating outcomes?
  • Does senior management gender diversity have a more material impact than diversity in the boardroom?

The central proposition behind this is that diversity in management, and leadership more generally, would lead to greater innovation and, in turn, better financial or operating performance. To answer these questions, we looked at whether there is a link between diversity and profitability / performance of the firm.

For both board and senior management gender diversity, we analysed profitability metrics commonly investigated in other studies, such as gross and net profit (EBIT) margins. Some interesting results emerge over the sample period, as highlighted in the charts below.

  • In any given year, higher-diversity firms (those approximately in the top one-third of all firms) have about 20% higher margins in the following 12 months than lower-diversity firms (those approximately in the bottom one-third of all firms).
  • In terms of EBIT margins, diversity in senior management is correlated with approximately 30% higher future profit margins, while the diversity at the board level board has less significant effect.

Figures 1-2. Gender diversity and one-year ahead margins

Source: FactSet, Realindex, 1 January 2009 – 31 December 2021

Our analysis then examined future operating performance over multiple years by testing whether the Return on Equity (ROE) of a firm is impacted positively by gender diversity. To do this, we again ranked firms based on their level of senior management or boardroom gender diversity and examined ROE performance over the next 5 years.

The data (in the tables below) shows that for senior management, higher-diversity firms are able to generate cumulative ROEs that are almost 30% higher than lower-diversity firms over a 5-year period. Similarly, for boardroom diversity, cumulative ROE for high boardroom gender diversity firms outstrips firms with low diversity, by 20%.

Source: FactSet, Realindex, 1 January 2009 – 31 December 2021.

Testing the findings

To understand whether these results are robust, we examined whether the relationship remains after controlling for several other common factors, in order to determine if diversity is essentially just picking up other characteristics of the firm that are known to be related to future operating performance.

This analysis confirmed the results shown earlier and revealed several insights:

  • Controlling for sector and region effects, as well as other firm level characteristics, both senior management and board gender diversity are strongly statistically significant in predicting future firm level profitability.
  • For either metric, we can see that firms in the top decile of gender diversity are able to generate approximately an additional 5% of ROE over the next five years, compared to firms in the bottom decile of either diversity metric, after controlling for other effects that drive firm performance.
  • Furthermore, despite their correlation, the presence of both diversity metrics within the same regression does not invalidate the significance of either metric. In fact, we find that firms in both the top decile of senior management and board diversity generate approximately an additional 10% of ROE over the next 5 years compared with firms that have low (bottom decile) diversity in both senior management and the board. This suggests the importance of gender diversity for both boards and senior management teams, as predictors of financial performance.

Overall, the data sends a clear message: companies with a boys’ club approach to leadership are a red flag for investors.

On the other hand, companies that walk the talk on women in leadership roles perform better, potentially making them more attractive investments.

Beyond this, we must not forget that equal representation is the right thing to do. This study has focused on gender diversity in leadership roles, but we acknowledge diversity is multidimensional, such as diversity in skills, experience, and backgrounds. Future work will look to see how we can build a more comprehensive picture in team diversity, thereby gaining greater insights into the management quality or organisational capital of the firm.

 

Dr Joanna Nash and Dr Ron Guido are Senior Quantitative Portfolio Managers at Realindex Investments, a wholly owned investment management subsidiary of First Sentier Investors, a sponsor of Firstlinks. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any investor.

For a more detailed look at levels of gender diversity in companies by country and sector, read the full report here.

For more articles and papers from First Sentier Investors, please click here.

 

  •   11 May 2022
  • 6
  •      
  •   
6 Comments
Alan B
May 11, 2022

"...gender diversity (as captured by the percentage of females in senior management - senior management gender diversity, and the percentage of females on the board – board gender diversity) "
This definition assumes that gender diversity is achieved by the highest percentage of females to males. But a 100% female team is not diverse because it includes no males. Gender diversity in corporate leadership should be defined and achived by a balance of males and females reflecting the general population or industry population, or better still the qualified female/male candidates ratio. A 1% or 100% male or female board is anything but gender diverse. A 50% male/female board is gender diverse reflecting the general population ratio, but not necessarily the female/male ratio within the industry, eg a higher such ratio in retailing and lower in mining.

Peter B
May 11, 2022

In my business and board experience, when diversity has been given greater weight than merit, the result has been mediocre.

Scott
May 11, 2022

Berkshire Hathaway is the most successful conglomerate in the world. They have a large executive team (11 men and 4 women) Tesla is the most successful disrupter Their executive team team is (6 men and 2 women) To survive and flourish these companies simply choose the best people. The leadership of these companies is regarded as transformational. Quota advocates need not apply for a job at these companies. The whole gender noise generated by academics is taking this country down to lower levels.

Steve
May 11, 2022

Hmmm. Don't take this as anti-diversity, I have for years wondered if the pitiful outcomes from BHP's board over a very long stretch was a classic old boys club problem, so anything that can increase a boards ability to genuinely assess risk and potential I'm all for it. I bet I could pick just about any other attribute and get a correlation of at least 0.1-0.2 with financial metrics (age of board members; education level; left or right handed).


All this data tells us is that gender diversity is AT BEST a very weak predictor of financial performance. The phrase "strongly statistically significant" as used here seems a stretch. For those not up to speed with correlation coefficients, a value of 1 means every result is perfectly predicted (ie correlated) by the model being used. A value of -1 means the result is also perfect but inverse (ie instead of a better outcome, it is a worse outcome). A value of zero means absolutely no correlation at all - totally random. The values quoted here are extremely low for the role of gender diversity, the highest are not surprisingly between a gender diverse board and a gender diverse management, also with the size of the company (probably due to market pressure to increase representation being greater at larger public companies). The actual financial outcomes have extremely weak correlations. None are greater than 0.17 and quite a few are <0.05. These are pitiful correlations. When the correlation coefficient is say 0.04 it means the model (ie diversity) can only explain 4% of the changes in the attribute (eg net profit margin). 96% of the outcomes aren't explained by the model; some other factor(s) are at play but are somehow ignored. Ask a drug manufacturer how much weight they would place in numbers like this! 

C
May 14, 2022

People should be chosen or promoted based on merit alone regardless of gender or race and certainly not just for the sake of achieving KPI diversity targets.

Rod
May 14, 2022

Worth noting that the results are, in any case, a description of a correlation - not causation. It could be that success leads to more concentration on diversity. Or that some other factor links the two.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Why investment stewardship matters for long-term investors

Bigger companies have more females on their boards

Are Australian bank boards fit for purpose?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

2 billion reasons to fix retirement income

A proposal to address Australia's 'stranded balances' in retirement by requiring super funds to transition members to pension phase at 65, boosting retirement income and reframing super as a source of income.

The ultimate superannuation EOFY checklist 2026

Here is a checklist of 28 important issues you should address before June 30 to ensure your SMSF or other super fund is in order and that you are making the most of the strategies available.

Do super funds need a massive wake up call?

UK retirement expert, Guy Opperman, believes super funds are failing at supporting members in deaccumulation. Here is what Australia should do about it. 

Two months into retirement

A retirement researcher's take on retirement and her focus on each of her six resource buckets to stay engaged during the transition and beyond.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 662 with weekend update

The debate over the budget is increasingly shaped by frustration and perceptions of unfairness, rather than clear-eyed assessment of policy outcomes.

Reforming the taxation of wealth and wealth transfers

As the budget approaches debate continues about the need and method for addressing wealth inequality. Could reinstating wealth transfer taxes be the answer?

Latest Updates

Back to the future - Why indexing CGT is a good idea

A return to indexation of capital gains would be a fairer way to compensate households for the effects of inflation than the current discount. Importantly, it opens the door to future, broader reforms to stop the taxation of inflation.

Australia has no death duties. Technically.

Australia may not levy formal death duties, but a growing web of tax measures is quietly shaping what wealth passes between generations. Now, the 2026 budget adds another layer.

Strategy

The folly of the Iran war

From oil shocks to fractured alliances, the Iran war carries the hallmarks of a historic policy misstep - one that could tip an already fragile global economy into crisis.

Taxation

Noel Whittaker’s take on the budget

Marketed as a fix for inequality and housing affordability, the latest budget instead delivers a tangle of tax changes that leave everyday Australians worse off.

Investment strategies

The red metal's long game

Copper has had a rough few weeks but investors should not ignore the potential for future price increases as supply increasingly falls behind demand.

Taxation

The lesser-known effects of changed property taxes

The budget’s property tax reforms are being framed as fairness measures, but they risk splitting the housing market, penalising lower‑income investors and introducing distortions that may prove costly.

Latest from Morningstar

Why stocks sometimes fall for no obvious reason

The vast and opaque world of private assets is a powerful gravitational force - and when trouble hits, it's the more liquid public equities that often the feel it first.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.