Purpose The benefits of board diversity are often categorized into five distinct business rationales: talent rationale, market rationale, litigation rationale, employee relations rationale and governance rationale. However, if resource dependency theory’s focus on the director’s ability to secure important resources for the firm is considered, social capital as a viable additional rationale for board diversity can also be considered. The purpose of this paper is to argue that diverse members of the board are likely to have social capital that differs from non-diverse members of the board. Consequently, that diverse social capital can bridge the board to new resources for advice and counsel, legitimacy, channels for communication and access to important external elements, thus making a strong argument to be included as a rationale for board diversity. Design/methodology/approach It is intended to provide a conceptual discussion on whether enhancing the board’s social capital is perhaps a viable and overlooked rationale for board diversity. Findings Consistent with the other five rationales for board diversity, this analysis suggests that social capital should be considered as a sixth rationale for board diversity. Social capital serves a role in governance and rises to the standard of other rationales for board diversity. Practical implications Boards may not recognize that social capital is a strategic resource and sufficiently diverse groups such as women and minorities may be more likely to contribute non-overlapping social capital networks, which may translate into greater external influence and thus additional resources for the firm. This paper may help to influence the viewpoints of directors on who is valuable as a board member. Originality/value Existing board diversity rationales do not include social capital as a primary rationale for board diversity. It may be possible that social capital becomes a legitimate sixth rationale for board diversity.

No abstract

The Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated trends in automation as many employers seek to save on labor costs amid widespread illness, increased worker leverage, and market pressures to onshore supply chains. While existing research has explored how automation may displace nonspecialized jobs, there is typically less attention paid to how this displacement may interact with preexisting structural issues around racial inequality. This analysis updates that of a 2021 Brookings paper by the authors, finding that Black and Hispanic workers continue to be overrepresented in the 30 occupations with the highest estimated risk of automation and underrepresented in the 30 occupations with the lowest estimated risk of automation. The updated analysis also includes new attention to automation's impact on wage structures, consideration of the broader implications of automation for global economics, and a discussion of the potential interplay of automation with recent developments in artificial intelligence.