Boardroom gender diversity and earnings management: bibliometric and systematic analyses to shape the future research, practice and policy
Haseeb Ur Rahman et al.
Abstract
Purpose This study critically reviews the prior literature examining the relationship between boardroom gender diversity (BGD) and earnings management (EM) to identify research gaps and advance the literature, theory, methodology and practice. Design/methodology/approach A total of 92 relevant studies published on the Scopus database between 2015 and May 2025 were identified and reviewed using bibliometric analysis (BA) and systematic literature review (SLR). Findings The BA highlights that BGD–EM research remains underexplored, with limited publications and citations concentrated among a few scholars, institutions, countries and journals. The SLR reveals inconsistencies in prior findings, identifies key theoretical, methodological and contextual gaps and offers clear directions for future research, practice and policy. Practical implications Regulators and corporate leadership must move beyond symbolic BGD adopted merely for regulatory compliance or diffusing stakeholder pressure. Instead, they should prioritize merit-based increase in qualified, independent and experienced women to boards and audit committees to effectively restrict EM. The limited scholarly attention to certain countries and industries underscores the need and increases motivation for more comprehensive, geographically diverse research. Originality/value This study is original in mapping the existing literature and pinpointing critical yet overlooked aspects of the boardroom gender diversity-earnings management (BGD-EM) nexus, providing evidence-based insights for all stakeholders, especially regulators, academicians, researchers, corporate leaders and managers.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.