1 Introduction

Traditionally, frameworks for addressing climate-related matters have focused on multistakeholder perspectives, highlighting the impact of companies’ activities on climate change and society (Petersen et al., 2022). The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards have been the predominant tool for this purpose (Lozano et al., 2016). Other notable multistakeholder reporting initiatives include the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development from the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) which have been tried to be related to environmental, social and governance issues (Isik et al. 2024).

It is important to highlight the fact mentioned by Isik, Sirakaya-Turk and Ogan (2020) that companies are facing a rising uncertainty as a prominent feature of today’s modern economic systems due to a set of unexpected events like COVID-19, lack of global economic stability, regional conflicts and environmental threats. It is also important to refer that many research efforts have sought to link societal, economic, and governance factors to economic growth. Therefore, it is crucial to conduct research that considers societal, governance, and environmental aspects (Isik et al., 2023).

By addressing these variables, we can advance the existing literature and offer practical insights for policymakers and business leaders. This comprehensive approach is crucial for navigating the challenges posed by rising global uncertainties and promoting sustainable economic development.

In our study, we will focus on the environmental factor which is considered a crucial dimension (Isik et al., 2024) and also because companies are increasingly adopting investor-focused frameworks to report on climate-related matters (Zhou, 2022). This shift reflects a growing emphasis on providing information relevant to investors, acknowledging a theoretical link between the disclosure of sustainable information and financial performance (Principale & Pizzi, 2023). Examples of such investor-focused reporting include the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) standards, and Integrated Reporting (IR) from the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC).

In response to these global demands, the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation, traditionally focused on financial reporting, expanded its scope to include sustainability reporting by establishing the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). The ISSB recently issued the IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 sustainability standards, which align with the TCFD recommendations (IFRS Foundation, 2023a). These standards aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of how organizations assess and address climate-related risks and opportunities, integrating both financial and non-financial information (Demaria & Rigot, 2021). The communication of such information is a critical responsibility of a company’s board of directors, as it helps to establish relationships with the external environment (Nadeem, 2019).

The influence of gender diversity on corporate social responsibility issues has been explored in the existing literature. Scholars such as Arora and Aliani (2023), Chang et al. (2024), Jouber (2022), Khan et al. (2021), Khemnakhen et al. (2023), Mallidis et al. (2024), Nguyen et al., (2021), Nwude and Nwude (2021), Purnomo and Rizki (2020), Sun et al. (2022), Wang et al. (2021), Wu et al. (2022) have contributed to this body of research. Their collective findings suggest that gender diversity within corporate boards and leadership teams is associated with the engagement and voluntary disclosure of social responsibility topics. This association underscores the importance of gender diversity in decision-making processes and its potential impact on organizations’ commitment to addressing social and environmental concerns.

With the increased focus on sustainability reporting and the perspective introduced by the TCFD recommendations since 2017, particularly in relation to climate-change topics, this research investigates whether gender diversity significantly influences the level of disclosures made according to the TCFD recommendations.This study aims to expand the limited literature on TCFD-based reporting and evaluate the impact of well-known explanatory factors, such as gender diversity, on reporting practices within this emerging framework for climate-related disclosures. To achieve this, we first conducted a content analysis of corporate reports to develop a disclosure score. Subsequently, we analyzed the influence of gender diversity on this self-formulated score.

The sample of this study includes 27 companies in 14 European countries that are part of the Refinitiv Global Europe index from 2017 until 2021 that operate in three environmentally sensitive industries: electricity, oil, coal and gas, water, and alternative energy.

This chapter is organized as follows: Sect. 2 presents the literature review, Sect. 3 outlines the methodology, Sect. 4 details the results of the empirical study and subsequent discussion, and Sect. 5 provides the concluding remarks.

2 Literature review and hypothesis development

2.1 The TCFD and its global adoption

The TCFD was issued by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) to develop recommendations on the types of information that companies should disclose to support investors, lenders, and insurance underwriters in appropriately assessing and pricing risks related to climate change. The TCFD (2017) released recommendations structured into four core areas. These disclosures are perceived as the most authoritative framework for climate-related risk reporting (Abhayawansa & Adams, 2022). He et al. (2022) also highlighted that accounting scholars have devoted significant attention to studying disclosures related to climate-change and this topic is at the forefront for companies and individuals (Dey et al., 2024; Dilling et al., 2024).

Several authors like Demaria and Rigot (2021) identify several unique aspects of the TCFD framework such as taking an outside-in approach, focusing on how climate change affects the company rather than the company’s impact on the climate (Johnston, 2018); emphasizing climate risks and opportunities; and seeking to bridge financial and non-financial data.

The TCFD (2022) shows that the number of companies reporting has increased in the latest years. Accordingly, Demaria and Rigot (2021), Eccles and Krzus (2019) or Dias et al. (2023) concluded that the process of implementation of the TCFD recommendations still has several issues to be solved regarding the preparation of the reporting, although compliance has increased particularly since 2019.

In the European Union, the recent Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), reinforced the support and stated the alignment with disclosures, including the recommendations of the TCFD. Furthermore, both IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure and IFRS S2 Climate-Related Disclosures, from the ISSB, are built on the recommended disclosures from the TCFD (IFRS Foundation, 2023a), stating that they are a good entry point as the companies raise the practice and quality of climate-related disclosures. Dey et al. (2024) added that despite the TCFD monitoring responsibilities transferring to the ISSB from 2024, the TCFD recommendations remain highly influential. More recently, the IOSCO has announced its endorsement of the ISSB standards, which sends a strong signal to 130 member jurisdictions, as well as non-members, that those standards are fit for purpose for capital market use, enabling pricing in of sustainability-related risks and opportunities, and to facilitate enhanced data collection and analysis (IFRS Foundation, 2023b).

To ensure a better disclosure of climate-related financial disclosures, the TCFD (2017) states that the issue must be relevant at all levels of the company, starting from the top tier of governance. Cosma et al. (2022) argue that the board is ultimately accountable to shareholders for the long-term stewardship of the company, but as those disclosures are made on a voluntary basis is, therefore, at the board’s discretion.

2.2 Board gender diversity and the reporting of climate-related matters

The Board assumes two fundamental roles in the company according to Khemnakhen et al. (2023) and Nadeem (2019): a management and monitoring function, which allows it to control and influence decisions regarding the daily operational activities of the organization including ESG disclosure; and an advisory role, linked to the establishment of relationships between the company and the external environment, enabling the imperative acquisition of resources. Considering these top management roles, Chang et al. (2024) O’Dwyer & Unerman (2020) state that this body can represent a necessary governance tool to integrate the TCFD recommendations into their business model. Mehmood et al. (2023) Velte (2016) argues that its composition is also an essential factor of corporate governance in influencing the environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance.

Gender equality is one of the major agendas of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals” to promote women’s empowerment, with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5 stating that “[e]nding all discrimination against women and girls is not only a basic human right, it’s crucial for sustainable future; it’s proven that empowering women and girls helps economic growth and development” (UNESCO, 2023). Mehmood et al. (2023) refer that board gender diversity and ESG issues are highly discussed topics under the Agenda 2030 scope.

Bush and Zutterberg (2021) describe the representation of women in top leadership as a component that increasingly calls for the achievement of democracy and enables balance in the attribution of authority (Choudhury, 2015; Wang et al., 2023). Women are redefining the workplace by relocating themselves to the boardroom of giant corporate firms and regulators and standard-setting bodies are emphasizing the gender diversity of the boards (Shakil et al., 2021). Bazel-Shoham et al. (2024) added that the composition of the board of directors, namely gender balance, significantly influences a firm’s decision-making processes by providing a set tangible and intangible resources (Chang et al., 2024). At the heart of this proposition is the understanding that within a complex organization, decision-making is a collaborative effort, informed by the collective experiences, values, personalities, and demographics of its board members. Consequently, the combined characteristics and makeup of the board serve as a mirror reflecting the cognitive framework of the firm. Mallidis et al. (2024) stated that female directors possess valuable resources that can assist companies in addressing corporate social responsibility (CSR) concerns with greater effectiveness, thereby contributing to enhanced environmental performance.

Recent empirical studies have shown that gender-diverse boards implement environmentally friendly practices and achieve higher environmental ratings compared to other companies (Arora & Aliani, 2023; Gonenc & Krasnikova, 2022; Wu et al., 2022) and also that boards with a higher female representation reacts better to voluntary reporting initiatives getting better environmental results (Do et al., 2023).

The significance of this topic within the research context lies in recognizing the distinct approaches to moral principles exhibited by men and women due to different social and psychological attributes (Chang et al., 2024. This differentiation in moral outlooks is rooted in societal expectations and the historical roles assigned to each gender. Specifically, women have traditionally been associated with roles emphasizing ethics and the promotion of community values. Hyun et al. (2016) underscore the idea that women, due to their social roles, tend to prioritize ethical considerations and exhibit a greater propensity for fostering communal well-being. Understanding these gender-based differences in moral perspectives is essential for advancing research in various fields, as it sheds light on how diverse viewpoints shape decision-making processes and ethical behaviors within organizations and society at large with Zhuang et al. (2018) and Zhou et al. (2022) pointing out that the importance of the role of gender in environmental responsibility engagement may be associated with one of two issues: risk predisposition and preference for altruism.

Thus, as this is a cross-cutting theme, it could not fail to be associated with the issue of environmental disclosure, once as Isik et al. (2024) stress environmental dimension is crucial to inspire companies to allocate resources and endeavor towards improving their environmental footprint. Therefore, in recent years the discussion has arisen around the importance that the gender diversity of the board has in the referred engagement of environmental responsibility and its disclosure (Bazel-Shoham et al., 2024; Wu et al., 2022). However, the existing literature is still not very comprehensive (Zhou et al., 2022) and also points to the fact that women continue to be underrepresented on the boards (Toerien et al., 2023).

In what concerns the influence that gender has in corporate reporting, Khemnakhen et al., (2023), Mehmood et al. (2023), Qiu et al. (2022), Atif et al. (2021), Erin et al. (2021), Bannò et al. (2021) and state that the representation of women in the board structure strengthens the levels of disclosure of environmental and social matters, as well as the credibility and transparency of the reporting of these issues. Dilling et al. (2024) added that women are considered more diligent and committed characteristics that can enhance the level and quality of the information disclosed. This positive relationship may be attributed to the findings that women tend to be more socially responsible (Ballesteros et al., 2015) and exhibit a greater propensity for voluntarily disclosing information (Katmon et al., 2019). Consequently, a higher number of female board members can influence decision-making processes, thereby positively impacting the organization’s social and environmental responsibility policies as well as the disclosure process (Khemnakhen et al., 2023).

Kuzey et al. (2022) also highlithed that women’s decision-making is not solely driven by financial metrics and quantitative data. Instead, they prioritize human and social aspects, demonstrating a deeper concern for these dimensions. Moreover, their presence on boards better reflects the diversity of the firm’s employees, offering a more holistic perspective on CSR issues. This results in higher-quality discussions among board members regarding CSR matters.

More specifically related to climate matters, Majid and Jaaffar (2023) showed that among the top energy leaders globally, women leaders increased the degree of carbon disclosure and Kyaw et al. (2022) conclude that board gender diversity is positively associated with firms’ emission reduction performance.

Despite there is an increasing number of empirical studies Arora and Aliani (2023) consider there is still a gap regarding the contribution of women directors and the engagement of environmental issues.

In the existing literature regarding corporate reporting, Velte (2022) concludes that the integration of a diversified board of directors, namely those that guarantee impartial representation of women, has a positive impact on the quality of the disclosure of materiality in the integrated reports. Similarly, studies such as Agyemang et al. (2020), Arora and Aliani (2023), García-Meca et al. (2018), Dakhli (2021), Jouber (2022), Khan et al. (2021), Khemnakhen et al., (2023), Kuzey et al. (2022), Lu and Wang (2021); Mehmood et al. (2023), Mallidis et al. (2024), Nguyen et al., (2021), Nwude and Nwude (2021), Pucheta-Martínez and Gallego-Álvarez (2019), Purnomo and Rizki (2020), Sun et al. (2022), Valls Martínez et al. (2019), Wang et al. (2023), Wang et al. (2021) conclude that gender diversity on the board of directors is associated with the voluntary disclosure of social responsibility reports or with a higher level of disclosure of social responsibility information.

Mainly the results suggest that having women represented on the board can provide a platform for diverse stakeholder voices to be heard in the board as they are pivotal in upholding their role and advocating for diverse interests. (Bazel-Shoham et al., 2024; Kuzey et al., 2022). Notwithstanding, Issa et al. (2022) found a negative relationship between board diversity and corporate social responsibility disclosure. Dyduch and Krasodomska (2017), Rehman et al. (2017), Toerien et al. (2023) or Zhuang et al. (2018), or could not find any statistically significant relationship between gender diversity and the disclosure of topic related to social responsibility.

Hence, like Khaled et al. (

3 Methodology

3.1 Sample and data

The study’s population comprises firms from the Refinitiv Global Europe Index, a deliberate focus on major European corporations belonging to the sectors of electricity, oil, coal and gas, water, and alternative energy sectors, that have reported according with the TCFD recommendations.

Annual reports and sustainability reports that specifically reference disclosures based on TCFD recommendations were collected from the companies’ websites. Eccles and Krzus (2019) observed that companies provided more information relevant to the TCFD recommendations in their voluntary sustainability reports than in the Securities Exchange Committee (SEC) Forms 10-K or 20-F. Comparable results were obtained by EFRAG (2020). Hence, the choice of this study was to collect information from both annual and sustainability reports.

From the 81 companies included in the abovementioned sector, 27 disclose information according to the TCFD recommendations (around 34% of the sample) confirming the empirical evidence provided by Zhou (2022). Dependent variable.

3.2 Variables

3.2.1 Dependent variable

The TCFD disclosure score was self-developed using content analysis to assess compliance with the TCFD recommendations. This score measures adherence to the eleven TCFD recommendations across four categories: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. Data for this analysis was manually collected from annual and sustainability reports covering the financial years 2017 to 2021. The year 2017 was selected as the starting point because it marked the first year for the voluntary adoption of TCFD recommendations.

The sample consists of 27 companies as of 2021, yielding 66 observations from 2017 to 2021. It’s important to note that not all companies in the sample adhered to TCFD recommendations from 2017; some began compliance in subsequent years.

To comprehensively understand the elements within each of the four quadrants of the TCFD recommendations and to develop an individual disclosure score for each quadrant to evaluate company compliance, both general recommendations and specific recommendations for non-financial groups were utilized, particularly for the strategy, and metrics and targets quadrants.

Data from company reports was used to create a compliance score for each TCFD recommendation, taking into account both general and industry-specific items. This score was determined using a weighted average. Initially, the method involved assigning a “0” for non-disclosure and a “1” for full disclosure of each item. However, to accurately reflect partial disclosures, intermediate values between “0” and “1” were also assigned when companies partially disclosed information for a specific item.

A global score was determined by averaging the results obtained from each of the four quadrants according to the formula (1) below:

$$Score= \left[\sum _{\varvec{i}=\varvec{l}}^{\varvec{n}}\varvec{d}\varvec{i}\right]/n$$
(1)

where di is the disclosed information for each recommendation and n is the total number of items of disclosure for the quadrant.

3.2.2 Independent variable

The environmental performance score (ENV) which bring together 3 categories, 10 themes, and 68 indicators was retrieved from the Refinitiv Database.

The environmental pillar evaluates a company’s impact on air, land, water, and ecosystems, assessing its adherence to best management practices for environmental risk mitigation and opportunity utilization (Refinitiv, 2022). This score combines three category scores: emissions (35%), resource use (35%), and innovation (30%). Similarly, the governance performance score (GOV) integrates assessments across management, shareholders, and CSR strategy, incorporating six themes and 59 indicators. The GOV score is calculated using weighted averages for each category: management (67%), shareholders (20%), and CSR strategy (13%). Both scores, environmental and governance, ranged from 0 to 100 and the methodological approach regarding the ESG scores data collection is in line with recent studies (Constantinescu et al., 2022; Duque-Grisales & Aguilera-Caracuel, 2021; Gull et al., 2022; Kuo et al., 2021).

Board gender is represented, for empirical purposes, by the percentage of women on the board of directors, considering the total number of members as used by Chang et al. (2024), Arora and Aliani (2023), Pinheiro and Sarmento (2023), Mehmood et al. (2023), Wang et al. (2023), Nwude and Nwude (2021) and Dyduch and Krasodomska (2017). CEO duality is represented by a dummy variable that takes the value of 1 when the CEO also is the Chairman of the board of directors, and the value 0 otherwise in line with the existing literature (Pinheiro & Sarmento, 2023; Mubeen et al., 2021; Hyun et al., 2016). Board Independence is represented using the relative weight of the independent members against the total board members (Pinheiro & Sarmento, 2023; Mubeen et al., 2021; Dyduch & Krasodomska, 2017).

3.3 Research model

This study asserts that female directors often bring unique perspectives on managing environmental risks and issues, particularly regarding their implications for diverse stakeholder groups. This diversity of viewpoints enables boards to explore a broader array of strategies to tackle and mitigate ecological consequences. In addition, the interplay between organizational dynamics and strategic considerations in sha** the adoption of TCFD guidelines can be influenced by board gender diversity level. However, the connection between the specific impacts of board gender diversity on voluntary reporting practices, particularly in the context of the TCFD recommendations, remains notably underexplored. Based on the mentioned issues the selected estimation method was the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) in the following equation model:

$$\eqalign{& SCORE = {\alpha _0} + {\alpha _1}ENVj + {\alpha _2}GOVj \cr & + {\alpha _3}GENDERj + {\alpha _4}SIZEj \cr & + {\alpha _5}GENERALLIQUIDITYj \cr & + {\alpha _6}CEODUALITYj \cr & + {\alpha _7}INDEPENDENTBOARDj \cr}$$
(2)

Where Score is the level of disclosures made under the TCFD recommendations, ENV is the environmental performance score, GOV is the governance performance score, Gender is the percentage of women that compose the Board, Size is logarithm of total assets, Liquidity is the ratio between short-term assets to short-term liabilities, CEO duality is a dummy variable that takes the value of 1 when the CEO also is the Chairman of the board of directors, and the value 0 otherwise, and Independent Board is the ratio of the number of independent members of the Board to total members of the Board.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Descriptive statistics

The results concerning descriptive statistics for the variable SCORE (Table 1) are in line with Achenbach (2021), Demaria and Rigot (2021), Braasch and Velte (2022), and Fernandes and Dias (2022). The average of 0.593 shows that compliance with the TCFD recommendations among the analysed period is not as desirable as expected. Additionally, a standard deviation of 0.258 indicates significant differences in the level of disclosure.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics
Full size table

According to Table 2, the majority of companies exceed the average compliance rate of 65.15% with the TCFD recommendations. Notably, 27.27% of these companies achieve compliance levels above 75%, consistent with the studies by Demaria and Rigot (2021) and Fernandes and Dias (2022). Despite this, almost 20% of the companies exhibit low levels of disclosure, as also highlighted by Braach and Velte (2022). A potential explanation for these initial results could be that the pressure to disclose this type of information is relatively recent (Eccles & Krzus, 2018), and disclosure was voluntary for this sample.

Table 2 SCORE distribution
Full size table

Since the TCFD recommendations were introduced in 2017 and implemented in periods beginning in or after that year, analyzing the average SCORE over time was deemed important (Table 3). The analysis showed that compliance with the TCFD recommendations has steadily increased from 2017 to 2021, with a growing number of companies adopting these recommendations. These findings are consistent with the results reported by Braasch and Velte (2022) and Dias et al. (2023).

Table 3 Average disclosure score per year
Full size table

Table 4 displays the results for each quadrant of the TCFD recommendations. On average, companies show the highest compliance in the “Governance” quadrant, while the “Strategy” quadrant has the fewest disclosures. The findings for “Strategy” align with Demaria and Rigot (2021) and Rigot et al. (2022), where it also shows a higher level of disclosures, although this is not the case for “Risk Management.“, as in those studies it was the most disclosed. Nevertheless, as the authors pointed it may be because French regulations required environmental reporting for several years. It is also to be noted that “Governance” as a quadrant with higher disclosures is not in line with Eccles and Kruz (2019), as this study used as sample 15 of the largest oil and gas companies that have filled Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 10-K or Form 20-F in 2016 or their sustainability reports. The argument regarding the differences in “national legislation” is in line with the results of this study, as some quadrants present very different results depending on the country where the company is based (Table 5). This argument is also considered by some other studies within the reporting of environmental matters (Felix et al., 2022). Braasch and Velte (2022) also concluded that regarding “Governance”, carbon-sensitive companies achieve a higher level of quality disclosures than less carbon-sensitive companies.

Table 4 Information per quadrant regarding TCFD recommendations
Full size table
Table 5 Fixed-effects model: parameter estimates. Dependent variable: SCORE
Full size table

The lower disclosure levels for both “Strategy” and “Metrics and Targets” align with Demaria and Rigot (2021). This may be due to inadequate preparation for climate-related scenario implementation or a lack of transparency in these areas. Eccles and Krzus (2019) found that “Strategy” disclosures are relatively high in SEC filings and sustainability reports but noted that few companies included scenario analysis information, such as a 2 °C or lower scenario, as recommended by the TCFD. According to the FSB (2022), a TCFD survey identified three major challenges: strategy resilience, scope 3 GHG emissions, and the need for standardized climate-related metrics. Overall, improvements are needed in all disclosure quadrants, as emphasized by UNCTAD (2021). Additionally, Braasch and Velte (2022) found no significant differences in the quality of reporting related to companies’ carbon sensitivity.

A detailed analysis by quadrant and country (Table 6) reveals the following: companies in Austria, Czechia, Italy, and Poland fully disclose “Governance” aspects, with French companies also achieving a high score; no country fully discloses “Strategy” recommendations, though the United Kingdom shows an average of 0.644, closely followed by Italy and Poland; “Risk Management” recommendations are fully disclosed by companies in Austria, France, Italy, and Poland; and “Metrics and Targets” are fully disclosed by companies in Austria and France. Austrian companies stand out concerning 3 of the 4 quadrants (“Governance”, “Risk management” and “Metrics and targets”); Italian and Polish companies obtained good results in disclosures for the “Governance” and “Risk management” quadrants; and French companies presented complete disclosures regarding “Risk management” and “Metrics and targets”. This may be due to existent national legislation on the quadrant, as expressed by Demaria and Rigot (2021); however, the main result verified is that Austrian, French, Italian, and Polish companies are taking the lead in reporting climate-related financial topics. However, companies located in Czechia, Germany, Greece, and the Netherlands present a low level of disclosure regarding “Strategy”, “Risk management” and “Metrics and targets”, which may indicate a lower level of preparation to disclose financial information on climate changes. Notwithstanding the mentioned quadrants, Braasch and Velte (2022) show that German companies have the lowest levels of climate reporting quality in “Governance” and “Risk management” from 2018 to 2020.

Table 6 Average per TCFD quadrant and country
Full size table

The quadrant “Strategy” seems to be a challenge to achieve either transparency of reporting or capability of reporting, followed by “Metrics and targets”. The first may be due to a certain resistance to disclosing information that may be prejudicial to the business or to the incapability of measurement of the financial impacts related to climate risks, the second may be the lack of mandatory regulation, as environmental management systems helped companies to communicate quite well-related indicators (such as energy, water, or GHG emissions under scope 1 and 2).

Based on the overall findings, it is evident that numerous companies do not yet perceive these recommendations as significant (TCFD, 2020). The United Kingdom is the country with most of the observations, but it is also where the TCFD requirements will be mandatory for certain reporting companies, with a phased approach, and an earlier adoption could be a preparation for it.

It was over the last 3 years (2019 to 2021) that companies most complied; hence, disclosure is improving yearly, or at least more information is being disclosed, focusing on the investors’ need for system-level data (Eccles & Krzus, 2019).

The quadrant “Governance” is the type of information with higher disclosures, while “Risk management” also presents some countries with full disclosure, which is explained with the existence of national legislation that already obliged or recommended the reporting of such information. On the other hand, “Strategy” is the less disclosed information, which may be attributed to the resistance in disclosing climate-related risks – as a lack of transparency, or to the difficulty in quantify the impact of such risks, or to the lower level of preparation to identify different climate-related scenarios (including a 2ºC or lower scenario), as these are the common ground perspectives of the present study and previous in the literature (Demaria & Rigot, 2021; Eccles & Krzus, 2019).

In summary, it is clear from various studies (Achenbach, 2021; Braasch & Velte, 2022; Demaria & Rigot, 2021; Dias et al., 2023; Eccles & Krzus, 2019; Fernandes & Dias, 2022) that companies have significant room for improvement in climate-related financial disclosures. However, the integration of TCFD recommendations into IFRS S2 suggests that these practices are likely to become entrenched in corporate reporting standards.

4.1.1 Independent variables

Table 7 presents the results obtained regarding the independent variables regarding environmental and governance score, board gender diversity, size, leverage, liquidity, board independence, and CEO duality.

Table 7 Descriptive statistics
Full size table

On average, companies disclose most of the relevant information in the pillars of the environment (ENV) and governance (GOV), with means of approximately 71 and 70, respectively. It is also to be highlighted that the maximum value for these two pillars is 97 for the ENV and 95 for the GOV, indicating that companies are reporting most of the information required.

Regarding GENDER, on average, women represent 62% of the board members, with companies here having few and many women on the board as well, as the minimum and maximum are 15% and 97% respectively. The independent board variable has an average of 69%, with companies having no independent board members and others in which all members are independent.

The CEO DUALITY variable indicates that in 68% of the companies the CEO has the position of chairperson.

The correlation matrix (Table 8) evidences that none of the values exceeds the threshold of 0.8, indicating that the correlations among independent variables are relatively weak. Furthermore, it highlights that the variables GOV and GENDER are positively and relatively correlated, with SCORE, suggesting that those variables may hold particular importance in understanding the influences on the reporting of climate-related information (SCORE).

Table 8 Correlation matrix
Full size table

4.2 Regression results

Table 9 provides the regression outcomes derived from the applied model. The coefficients on the variables GENDER, SIZE, CEO DUALITY, and LIQUIDITY exhibit two noteworthy characteristics: positivity and statistical significance. The adjusted R-squared value, which has been calculated as 0.228 indicates the goodness-of-fit of the regression model; however, it also indicates its poor explanation capacity, i.e., the independent variables do not represent a strong explanation for the volume of reporting based on the TCFD recommendations.

Table 9 Regression results
Full size table

Notwithstanding, some previous tests were made. The Durbin-Watson test, yielded a result of 2.119, suggesting that the variations in the residuals are devoid of systematic patterns or autocorrelation, enhancing the reliability of the model’s statistical inferences. The examination of multicollinearity statistics revealed that the tolerance values for all variables surpassed the threshold of 0.1, signifying a lack of multicollinearity concerns. Moreover, the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values registered below 10 for all variables, further affirming the absence of multicollinearity. This critical assessment of multicollinearity fortifies the model’s credibility.

The outcomes of the analysis align with the formulated hypothesis, as it is possible to verify that the presence of gender diversity within the board of directors’ correlates positively with a higher degree of disclosures on climate-related topics as recommended by the TCFD. Notwithstanding, the results do not evidence a pronounced difference, as the coefficient is very close to zero. Hence, although the constitution of the Board presents itself with a fundamental role in integrating the TCFD recommendations in corporate reporting (O’Dwyer & Unerman, 2020; Velte, 2016), the results are not a clear indication that gender diversity in the Board is a characteristic that significantly influences it. This may indicate that organizations with greater gender diversity at the board level tend to exhibit a higher commitment to disclosing information following the TCFD guidelines but without significant outcomes in what concerned the level of disclosures.

The statistical results are consistent with Ballesteros et al. (2015), Majid and Jaaffar (2023) and Treepongkaruna and Jiraporn (2022), but do not strengthen the idea that the presence of women reveals a specific concern with the disclosure of environmental factors, as previous literature suggests (Bannò et al., 2021; Khemnakhen et al., 2023). Hence, as the Board plays an important role in sustainability reporting (Chang et al., 2024; Dilling et al., 2024), the results do not indicate that the presence of women on the Board is fundamental for a greater propensity to disclose information based on the TCFD recommendations as previous studies stated regarding other standards or structures (Katmon et al., 2019).

This reveals that sustainability reporting based on the TCFD recommendations may have influences that “traditional” corporate social reporting does not have, as it is based on the environmental, social, and economic impacts that the companies have on the external environment. O’Dwyer and Unerman (2020) underlined the innovative nature of TCFD risks, opportunities, and dependencies reporting, which may explain the difference in the results obtained. As the TCFD recommendations are meant to disclose the financial nature of environmental matters, gender diversity does not present a significant influence on the level of the information disclosed. This tends to agree with one of the arguments pointed out by Zhuang et al. (2018) and Zhou et al. (2022), the risk predisposition that women tend to present.

Moreover, ENV and GOV do not present a statistically significant role in the proposed model, indicating that it does not influence the reporting of climate-related information. This may also be because the recommendations of the TCFD are not based on the typical reporting of environmental and social responsibility, such as GRI standards, and the performance on the adoption of such standards does not impact these relatively new types of disclosures. Hence, it is argued that the corporate reporting under the TCFD recommendations brings additional challenges to the environmental and social performance of the company, which was already accepted and consolidated under other structures (Dias et al., 2023). This explanation brings to the literature additional insights that studies based on the reporting of climate risks disclosures have different influence from studies that are based on social responsibility reports which have presented mainly positive and significant influences on gender diversity (Agyemang et al., 2020; Dakhli, 2021; Jouber, 2022; Khemnakhen et al., 2023; Kuzey et al., 2022; Lu & Wang, 2021; Mallidis et al., 2024; Nguyen et al., 2021; Pucheta-Martínez & Gallego-Álvarez, 2019; Purnomo & Rizki, 2020; Sun et al., 2022).

Regarding the control variables, the results highlight the statistical significance and positive associations observed in the variables SIZE and CEO DUALITY. These findings support that larger companies tend to show higher levels of disclosure aligned with the TCFD recommendations (Principale & Pizzi, 2023). These levels are also increased when the CEO simultaneously serves as the chairperson, indicating that there is a more pronounced concern with the disclosed information on climate-related risks when management and the monitoring function of the daily operational activities are concentrated in the same person. The variable LIQUIDITY also has demonstrated statistical significance, although, with a null coefficient, its positive correlation may imply that companies with higher liquidity levels tend to exhibit positive commitment to the TCFD recommendations. The remaining variables subjected to analysis did not exhibit statistically significant relationships with the dependent variable.

Finally, an additional test was conducted. The fixed effects estimation was conducted to assess time-invariant differences. After performing the White test for heteroskedasticity (Table 10) it was concluded homoscedasticity (p-value > 0,05) and hence, the variances of the errors of the residuals are constant and the regression models can be applied.

Table 10 White test for heteroskedasticity a, b,c
Full size table

The results show that the model continues to present statistical significance with an improved adjusted R-squared of 0,368 (Table 11), with the predictors, such as GENDER, SIZE, LIQUIDITY, CEO DUALITY, and YEARS, presenting statistical influence in the SCORE.

Table 11 Test of between-subjects effects. Dependent variable: SCORE
Full size table

Further, the coefficient estimations (Table 5) remain stable in signs and values with the independent variables representing a low capacity of explanation for the score. This indicates that the predictors of ENV, GOV, and GENDER are time-invariant, and as such, the OLS regression was appropriate.

The results provide valuable insights into the factors that are sha** sustainability reporting within the context of climate-related financial disclosures and enhance the understanding of how organizational characteristics impact disclosure behavior, with gender diversity, size, and CEO duality, playing an influential role. Gender diversity, although suggested in the literature that provides higher levels of disclosures for social responsibility reporting, may present a more neutral influence when the reporting is based on climate risks and opportunities, the perspective for the investor, a relatively new focus of sustainability reporting.

5 Conclusions, limitations, and perspectives

The relationship between board gender diversity and the reporting based on the TCFD recommendations underscores that gender-diverse boards contribute to enhance corporate reputation, decision-making, stakeholder engagement, regulatory compliance, and long-term sustainability. As companies tend to recognize the benefits of gender diversity within their boards, the associated positive implications for TCFD engagement suggests that the existing boards may be already shaped by a variety of perspectives and experiences that are responsible corporate practices and transparent disclosures, reinforcing the commitment to diversity and sustainability is not only ethically but also strategically advantageous. Therefore, the integration of gender-diverse perspectives on corporate boards has been theorized to enhance the board’s capacity to address complex and multidimensional challenges such as the reporting of climate-related financial topics.

In the context of voluntary reporting, gender-diverse boards are argued to engage more comprehensively with the TCFD recommendations by fostering broader discussions that encompass a wider range of risks and opportunities associated with climate change. This inclusivity is believed to facilitate a holistic understanding of climate-related impacts on the business, leading to more compliance with the recommended disclosures. This outside-in perspective, alongside the inside-out perspective, also presents a high degree of concerns as board gender diversity contributes to strengthening stakeholder trust in a company’s commitment to sustainable practices and climate-related financial transparency that benefit the stakeholders, supporting the stakeholders’ theory foundations. Notwithstanding the results have showed that there is a positive association with gender diversity, its influence, as the quantity of information disclosed following the adoption of the TCFD recommendations is close to zero. This suggests that corporate reporting on climate-related financial topics, such as climate risks and opportunities, with inclusion of different scenarios, is undertaking different efforts than traditional corporate social reporting. As the presence of women and other underrepresented groups on boards has been associated with higher levels of ethical behavior and a stronger commitment to corporate social responsibility, when the topics of disclosure involved are regarding assessing and pricing climate risks it seems to be in question the reporting of another type of information, the results for its influence are smoothen. This may provide insights that there may be a degree of conservatism in disclosing such information, that are common in gender questions, and pressure to achieve a higher level of transparency as corporate social responsibility matters seem to have accomplished. This study contributes to bring awareness to such relation, mainly that it is needed a commitment of boards with the transparent reporting of the TCFD recommendations as it brought new insights regarding the risks and opportunities that climate-change brought to organizations, which corporate social reporting did not.

The implications of these findings are twofold, encompassing both practical and theoretical dimensions. From a practical standpoint, the results offer valuable insights into the determinants influencing reporting practices in the realm of climate-related financial disclosures. By identifying factors such as gender diversity, organizational size, and CEO duality as key influencers, organizations can better understand the drivers behind their disclosure behavior and tailor their strategies accordingly. This knowledge enables companies to enhance the transparency and effectiveness of their climate-related disclosures, ultimately contributing to improved stakeholder engagement and informed decision-making. Companies should invest in training programs for board members focused on understanding and addressing climate-related risks and opportunities, particularly in the context uncertainty brought by crises like pandemic, geopolitical conflicts, environmental threats, and economic instability. Equip** gender-diverse boards with the necessary knowledge to navigate these challenges will lead to more informed and comprehensive climate disclosures. Additionally, companies should collaborate to develop and share best practices for implementing TCFD recommendations. Practical guidelines, case studies, and toolkits could help organizations improve the quality and comprehensiveness of their climate-related disclosures, fostering a culture of transparency and accountability.

Furthermore, companies should establish crisis management teams that include diverse board members to address the unique challenges posed by pandemics, wars, environmental treaths, and economic instability. These teams can ensure that the company’s response strategies are inclusive and consider a wide range of perspectives. Finally, companies should prioritize building resilient supply chains and business models that can withstand disruptions caused by global uncertainties. By integrating gender diversity and sustainability into their core strategies, organizations can better navigate crises and maintain their commitment to transparency and ethical practices.

Policymakers should consider introducing regulations that mandate a minimum level of gender diversity on corporate boards. This regulatory approach would ensure that boards benefit from diverse perspectives, leading to improved decision-making processes, enhanced compliance with TCFD recommendations, and greater corporate transparency. Also, in light of the actual uncertainty context policymakers should also consider several measures to enhance corporate governance and transparency.

Governments and regulatory bodies should also standardize and enforce TCFD reporting requirements across industries. This standardization will ensure consistent and comprehensive disclosure of climate-related risks and opportunities, which is crucial for maintaining transparency and informed stakeholder engagement during turbulent times.

Additionally, policymakers should develop crisis-specific guidelines for corporate disclosures. These guidelines would ensure that companies remain transparent about their strategies and risks in the face of pandemics, wars, and economic downturns. Implementing flexible reporting frameworks that can adapt to rapidly changing conditions will help organizations maintain their commitment to transparency and accountability.

Furthermore, introducing incentives for companies that demonstrate robust TCFD compliance and gender diversity, such as tax breaks or public recognition, can encourage more businesses to adopt these practices even amid uncertainty. Lastly, policymakers should promote public-private partnerships to support companies in building resilient business models and supply chains that can withstand global uncertainties, thereby fostering long-term sustainability and stability.

On a theoretical level, these findings contribute to the understanding of how various organizational characteristics shape disclosure behavior in the context of sustainability reporting. The positive role played by gender diversity, size, and CEO duality underscores the importance of considering these factors in research and practice related to disclosure practices. However, the nuanced findings regarding the influence of gender diversity on climate-related disclosures highlight the need for further exploration. While gender diversity has been associated with higher levels of disclosure in social responsibility reporting, its impact appears to be more neutral in the context of climate risks and opportunities. This discrepancy suggests that the relationship between gender diversity and disclosure behavior may vary depending on the specific focus of sustainability reporting initiatives.

Our study identified several limitations that also serve as opportunities for future research. We observed a lower-than-expected number of companies reporting climate risks in line with TCFD recommendations. However, the increasing adoption of these recommendations as mandatory requirements in various European countries (including through the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive).

Moreover, the recent introduction of IFRS S2, which incorporates TCFD recommendations and SASB standards, is anticipated to strengthen global disclosure practices. While our study focused primarily on quantifying disclosed climate risk information, alternative methodologies could provide deeper insights into this area.

Future research could explore the quality of disclosures and examine the specific challenges companies encounter in implementing TCFD recommendations. Such studies could offer practical guidance to enhance the effectiveness of these implementation processes.