Self-Regulation for Key Positions for the Public Sector and Democracy: Effects of Public Corporate Governance Codes on Female Executive Directors’ Appointment

The persistent underrepresentation of women in public-sector executive roles, which undermines core public values of social equity and equal opportunity, has drawn significant scholarly attention given its implications for legitimacy and accountability of public organizations (Baekgaard/George, 2018; OECD, 2024; Kemp et al., 2019; Marvel, 2021). Worldwide, governments have implemented various regulatory strategies to increase female representation in executive director (ED) positions (Sojo et al., 2016; Terjesen et al., 2015). Ongoing debates examine which regulatory approach—mandatory laws, self-regulation, or a hybrid model—is most impactful (Aragòn-Correa et al., 2020; Schrempf-Stirling/Wettstein, 2023; Terjesen et al., 2015). This issue is particularly relevant for key positions in the public sector, as EDs hold substantial influence within MOCs (van Genugten et al., 2023). MOCs, a significant subset of public corporations, play a crucial role in the global economy, contributing approximately 10% to global GDP (Bruton et al., 2015) and national employment in numerous countries (OECD, 2017). The research question of the proposed paper is: Does self-regulation via Public Corporate Governance Codes (PCGCs) foster the appointment of women as EDs in the MOC context? Methodologically, this study employs multilevel mixed-effects modeling to analyze a panel dataset comprising 1,024 observations of newly appointed EDs in MOCs across 69 cities, between 2020 and 2024. Findings show a positive effect of PCGC existence and quality on the likelihood of appointing women to ED positions. The study provides the following contributions: First, it advances the theoretical understanding of self-regulation in the context of MOCs by demonstrating its impact on ED appointments. Second, enhancing the conceptual understanding of the impact of self-regulation quality, the study provides empirical evidence that higher quality of regulatory language effectively drives behavioral outcomes. Third, the study advances the theoretical understanding on innovative regulation, combining voluntary and mandatory approaches (Aragòn-Correa et al. 2020; Schrempf-Stirling/Wettstein 2023).