Master’s Degree Project in Management A Symbolic Boardroom? Navigating Legitimacy Through Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Social Responsibility Authors: Nika Allde, 2000.03.03 Ly Tran, 2001.01.27 Supervisor: Maria Norbäck Department: Graduate School Course: GM0861 Master Degree Project in Management June 2025 A Symbolic Boardroom? Navigating Legitimacy Through Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Social Responsibility Nika Allde Master of Science in Management, Graduate School The School of Business, Economics, and Law, University of Gothenburg Ly Tran Master of Science in Management, Graduate School The School of Business, Economics, and Law, University of Gothenburg ABSTRACT With an increased awareness regarding board gender diversity and corporate social responsibility in society and the corporate world, this research intends to unveil the practical perceptions of these topics. The research is based on a qualitative approach, where perceptions of board gender diversity and corporate social responsibility by 24 Swedish board members from various companies serve as the primary data. An additional interview is conducted with a Norwegian board professional to provide insights into the Swedish case, primarily regarding a gender quota on boards. To interpret the implications of the empirical findings, the research mainly applies institutional theory, along with social role theory, to understand why board gender diversity is presumably perceived to be of importance and its potential influence on corporate social responsibility. The findings indicate that the topic of gender diversity is important. However, it does not appear to be the most critical aspect during board recruitments and for the board dynamic in practice. Furthermore, board members’ perception of board gender diversity’s influence on corporate social responsibility indicates that other factors are of more importance, including legal regulations, formal requirements, norms, and societal expectations. Keywords: Board of Directors, Board Gender Diversity, Corporate Boards, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Gender Equality, Gender Quota, Sweden. 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Board gender diversity (BGD) has been extensively studied by researchers (Byron & Post, 2016; Farrell & Hersch, 2005; Isidro & Sobral, 2016; Nielsen & Huse, 2010; Torchia et al., 2011). However, the results of the impact of board gender diversity on organizational practices and performances remain diverse, and at times, contradictory and inconclusive. The Global Gender Diversity reports that “women account for only 30% of board members at the corporations that make up the major indices of the Global 20” (BoardEx, 2024, p. 1). In Sweden, reports by Allbright (2024) and Kollegiet (2024) present the proportions of women on boards between 2023 and 2024 to be an average of 36% across small, medium, and large companies, marking a significant development in gender diversity within corporate governance. Simultaneously, directives and regulations are further pushing the development of BGD. Among these, the European Commission’s Gender Balance on Boards Directive came into effect at the end of 2024, with the target that large companies need to have 40% of the underrepresented sex among non-executive directors and 33% among all directors by 30 June 2026 (European Commission, 2025). The directive is similar to the Norwegian mandatory gender quotas on corporate boards implemented in 2003, that requires a minimum of 40% of each gender on boards for various types of companies (Piscopo & Clark Muntean, 2018). Heterogeneous boards are associated with challenges, such as making decision processes more time-consuming (Valls Martínez & Cruz Rambaud, 2019). Alternatively, heterogeneity allows for creativity, boldness, broader perspectives, and in-depth conversations, resulting in nuanced approaches (Rao & Tilt, 2016). Specifically, BGD has been highlighted by previous studies to have a positive impact on companies’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities (Gaio & Cruz Gonçalves, 2022; Isidro & Sobral, 2015; Post et al., 2011; Yarram & Adapa, 2021). A common explanation to the positive correlation is that CSR issues are often regarded as a “soft” and empathy-inducing aspect of a business, which is considered more suitable for female directors (Boulouta, 2012). BGD and CSR have also been discussed as a consequence of pressures from diverse sources, thus, a conformity matter to increase companies’ legitimacy rather than a question of performance (Blanco-González et al., 2023; Kamran et al., 2023). 1.2 Problematization and Statement of Purpose In conjunction with previous studies, it is relatively unexplored how board members perceive the practicalities of gender diversity and its potential influence on CSR. Previous research by Terjensen et al. (2009) underlined that research focusing on gender diversity on boards should be investigated with other disciplines in mind, such as CSR, to observe whether women have different perspectives in this debate. Further, the gap has been highlighted by researchers to examine and understand the relationship between diversity and CSR from a qualitative perspective (Boulouta, 2 2012; Rao & Tilt, 2016). In subsequent years, the gap in how BGD positively influences companies’ CSR is still obscure, as emphasized by Gaio and Cruz Gonçalves (2022). To further delve into the relationship between BGD and CSR, we explore how board members from Swedish companies discuss and talk about BGD and its influence on CSR. We adopt the perspective of institutional theory and social role theory to assess how BGD and CSR, respectively, and their intertwined relationship are consequences of institutional forces rather than deriving from the potentiality of intended positive effects that BGD may yield. Our research intends to serve indicatively for various practitioners, such as board members, nomination committees, policymakers, and other researchers within the field. 1.3 Research Question Based on the identified research gap in the literature, the following research question has been formulated: “How do board members perceive board gender diversity, and how do they view its influence on corporate social responsibility?” Exploring this question will allow the research to address the relatively unexplored area of how gender diversity is perceived to influence CSR in practice. Thus, the research is guided by two research objectives, the perception of BGD and how BGD potentially influences companies’ CSR focus in Sweden. The conscious choice of research setting provides interesting outcomes since Sweden is considered a relatively gender equal country. Hence, our findings contribute with insights from Swedish board members’ perceptions and descriptions of the current state regarding BGD and its influence on CSR. This research paper will begin with a theoretical framework, focusing on institutional theory, in combination with social role theory and relevant concepts. The theoretical chapter is followed by a methodology, including how the research was conducted, and explaining how the empirical data was analyzed before presenting the empirical findings. Finally, a discussion is presented, reflecting on the main findings of board members’ perception of BGD and its potential influence on CSR through the lens of the chosen theoretical framework. Lastly, the research and its main findings are summarized in the conclusion. 2. Theoretical Framework Boards of directors (“boards”) are often perceived as a straightforward solution to corporate governance problems, primarily agency problems arising when ownership and management of a company are separated. Agency problems describe the inevitable conflict of interest between the shareholders and management of the company (Berle & Means, 1932, cited in Smith et al., 2018), thus, the main objective for boards as an intermediary is to act in the best interest of shareholders (Thomsen & Conyon, 2012). Further, the role of boards can differ depending on the organization. In smaller companies, the board’s role is determined by owners, usually family owners or the major shareholders, whereas the power of control in large corporations is dispersed across many stockholders and other stakeholders (Mace, 1971). However, these powers of control descend from 3 the same source, a broader institutionalized system where norms and expected practices steer organizations’ operations. 2.1 Institutional Theory: Power, Pressures, and Practices Institutional theory in the field of organizational studies examines why organizations progress towards homogenization, meaning why organizations tend to become similar (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). There is a tendency of organizational actors to construct their decisions to fit the constrained and unchanging environment that has been socially constructed prior by norms and practices, and compliance with them contributes to organizations’ perception of being legitimate (Deephouse, 1999; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Extending the former, Greenwood et al. (2017) explain that the concept of power can be incorporated if considered relational to institutions, meaning that individuals’ and/or organizations’ behaviors are affected by others or a broader system. Hence, power in relation to institutions is seen as an effect of relationships, rather than power as a capacity (Greenwood et al., 2017). Greenwood et al. (2017) emphasize two modes of power: episodic and systemic power. On the one hand, episodic power is emphasized as influential and forceful through, e.g., ownership and other formal authorities, and is described as discrete, strategic, and based on an actor’s self-interest. Accordingly, episodic power demonstrates how certain actors in power positions can influence organizational processes and dynamics, including decision-making, conflicts, and resistance. On the other hand, systemic power functions on discipline and domination. Hence, systemic power refers to how the broader institutions—based on routines, ongoing practices, and societal norms— steer how organizations should act (Greenwood et al., 2017). However, when considering power, it is crucial to look beyond the typical decision-making instances by also including aspects that might be neglected and disregarded (Lukes, 1974, cited in Greenwood et al., 2017), such as gender minorities on boards. For instance, as Eriksson-Zetterquist and Styhre (2008) have described, “the male, western, middle-class, heterosexual subject serves as the dominant image of the legitimate social agent” (p. 137). In accordance with Eriksson-Zetterquist and Styhre (2008), when women, as the underrepresented gender, are added to boards, it represents a deviation from a structure that must be explained. 2.1.1 Institutional Pressures Conforming to institutions derives from pressures on organizations to be portrayed and perceived as legitimate (Deephouse, 1999; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). DiMaggio and Powell (1983) present three sources of isomorphic change: coercive, mimetic, and normative, explaining that institutional isomorphic change can occur because of political influences and legitimacy problems (coercive isomorphism), as a response to uncertainty (mimetic isomorphism), and professionalization (normative isomorphism). Focusing on coercive isomorphism, it is perceived to originate from formal and informal pressures from political influences, other organizations, and societal 4 expectations. While formal pressures can be legal regulations and requirements, informal pressures are less explicit and can take the form of norms in an institutionalized environment (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Similarly, Oliver (1991) refers to it as social fitness, demonstrating organizations’ ability to respond to norms, regulatory bodies, and demands from stakeholders in society, in comparison to economic fitness, where the focus is on companies’ performance, profitability, and competitiveness. According to Carter et al. (2003), the concept of board diversity has gained awareness in recent decades because of these institutional pressures, specifically from the press, shareholders, advocacy groups, and legislative policies. Therefore, board composition is perceived to influence corporate reputation for companies that are under public scrutiny and constantly observed. In the context of BGD and CSR, Yasser et al. (2016) have examined the impact of female board members from the lenses of stakeholder theory and institutional theory, where CSR is predicted to be a consequence of organizations’ homogenization contingent on normative, regulative, and cognitive pressures. Similarly, Kamran et al. (2023) have mentioned that institutional factors, such as social norms and cultural traits, are particularly relevant in shaping CSR. Furthermore, Kamran et al. (2023) have distinguished between tough and tender societies when relating societal norms and culture to BGD and CSR. Tough societies are similar to what Oliver (1991) describes as economic fitness, while tender societies are comparable to social fitness. Based on the institutional characteristics of tender societies, including that women are considered more compassionate and caring, it is believed that there is a positive effect of increased female representation on CSR due to institutional and legitimacy factors (Kamran et al., 2023). 2.1.2 Balancing Legitimacy and Efficiency in Practice Legitimacy is believed to be the foundation of organizations’ survival, and consequently, what companies strive towards (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). To legitimize their existence, companies need to align themselves with institutional demands through verbal statements and/or actions. Kamran et al. (2023) have referred to this as responses to institutional forces, where an ineffective response could risk the companies’ survival. However, conformity to institutions often conflicts with companies’ efficiency measures, and hence, the dilemma is founded on maintaining efficiency or being legitimate (Greenwood et al., 2017; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Thus, to balance efficiency and legitimacy, Meyer and Rowan (1977) draw on the concept of decoupling, explaining organizations’ tendency to discern between formal structures and actual work activities. Formal structures are dependent on institutional sources, in the sense that they are found in societies as normalized understandings of our realities and are defined as a given adherence for organizations (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Conversely, the informal structures—organizations’ actual work activities—are at times in conflict with the formal structures. From the perspective of gender diversity, Blanco-González et al. (2023) have found that any type of gender diversity/equality strategy or policy can be used to improve 5 organizations’ legitimacy, supported by Rao and Tilt’s (2016) claim that companies are judged on more than economic success. Similarly, previous researchers have discussed if applying gender diversity strategies on boards is a symbolic act, in which women serve as tokens (Bear et al., 2010; Byron & Post, 2016; Farrell & Hersch, 2005; Torchia et al., 2011; Valls Martínez & Cruz Rambaud, 2019), rather than it actually having a significant positive impact of companies’ performance (Farrell & Hersch, 2005). Tokenism refers to the representation of minority groups– –such as women in corporations overrepresented by men––who have a heightened visibility and potentially are portrayed as tokens (Kanter, 1997). Therefore, while an increasing number of women on boards is often seen as progress in enhancing diversity, Carter et al. (2003) have discussed whether women are added to boards because it is the right thing to do or because it has the potential to enhance the value of firms for shareholders. In parallel, CSR is also perceived to improve companies’ legitimacy (Blanco-González et al., 2023; Kamran et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2015), as it is contributive to corporate reputation (Bear et al., 2010). 2.2 Social Role Theory: In the Context of Gender-Diverse Boards and CSR Gender-associated characteristics can be understood in conjunction with institutional theory as gender roles and stereotypes become embedded in the broader institutional environment. Therefore, adopting Eagly’s (1987) social role theory––that argues that men’s and women’s social behaviors are shaped by preexisting and historical social roles, such as gender roles––is useful in understanding these behaviors. For instance, the author discusses that women are associated with communal qualities, such as selflessness, while men have agentic qualities, such as self-assertion. Furthermore, these preconceived notions and expectations of each gender have a significant impact since men and women tend to adopt gendered skills (Eagly, 1987). While there is no consensus in previous literature on the relationship between BGD and CSR (Amorelli & García-Sánchez, 2021), there is evidence that board diversity increases the quality of board decisions because of the diverse insights and reduction of groupthink (Rao & Tilt, 2016; Thomsen & Conyon, 2012). Specifically, the inclusion of female directors is highlighted to contribute to broader perspectives, enhance the quality of ideas, and generate more creative strategies (Torchia et al., 2011). Because women are associated with more communal qualities, women on boards are explained as potentially more sensitive and focused on influencing organizational practices, such as CSR (Nielsen & Huse, 2010). On the contrary, heterogeneous, i.e., gender-diverse, groups are associated with more time-consuming decision-making (Valls Martínez & Cruz Rambaud, 2019). 2.2.1 Overrepresentation of Men, the Glass Ceiling, and Gender Quotas Authors such as Isidro and Sobral (2015) have found that a greater female representation on boards can enhance firm value by positively influencing ethical and social compliance and financial performance. Still, board positions are predominantly acquired by men, as demonstrated by the 6 underrepresentation of women (European Commission, 2022). An explanation to the former is that a vast majority of large corporation board members are chief executives, chief operating officers, or retired executives of other large corporations (Hillman et al., 2002), who are primarily male executives (Hall et al., 2024). Consequently, this has resulted in the glass ceiling debate, inferring a gender barrier for women to advance in their careers compared to their male counterparts (Eriksson-Zetterquist & Styhre, 2008). Moreover, stereotypes about women, such as being more risk-averse than men, contribute to the glass ceiling effect (Valls Martínez & Cruz Rambaud, 2019). Eagly and Carli (2007) have argued that the metaphor of the glass ceiling is inadequate in explaining the challenges women face because it assumes men and women have the same access to higher positions, which, in their opinion, is incorrect. Instead, the authors argued that the expression of labyrinth resonates with the complexities women face in attaining higher positions. For instance, Farrell and Hersch (2005) have shed light on the complexities by explaining that appointing women to boards is negatively affected by the number of existing female directors. Comi et al. (2020) have emphasized that to break the glass ceiling, policymakers suggest gender quotas. However, the authors also found that the effect of a gender quota is crucially dependent on the design of the gender quota and the context in which way it is being introduced and implemented. Similarly, Mensi-Klarbach and Seierstad (2020) have examined the usage of gender quotas to improve gender balance on boards across ten European countries. Comparable to Comi et al. (2020), their main finding revealed that gender quotas on boards differ depending on the institutional contexts of the country in question, referring to its current gender equality status, history of other policy initiatives, and political support (Mensi-Klarbach & Seierstad, 2020). Hence, a country with a favorable institutional context, e.g., a supportive political environment is more likely to adopt a gender quota progressively. Other researchers, e.g., Piscopo and Clark Muntean (2018), have evaluated a gender quota to have a positive impact on board gender diversity. On the one hand, the effect of a gender quota is an actual increase in women on boards, where the authors exemplified with the Norwegian Gender Balance Law (GBL), first implemented in 2003, and its domino effect. Piscopo and Clark Muntean (2018) have also lifted another aspect of using gender quota as a statutory threat, e.g., in Sweden, to bring more women to boards through ‘voluntary’ change by the companies to avoid legislative gender quota. On the other hand, researchers such as Fitzsimmons (2012) have questioned if a gender quota will oppose its desired effect and benefits. Fitzsimmons (2012) has emphasized that focusing too much on quotas and numbers will lead to tokenism, where women are appointed to boards “simply because they are female” (p. 561, Fitzsimmons, 2012). 7 2.2.2 Is a Critical Mass Required to Influence CSR? Gaio and Cruz Gonçalves (2022) have argued that having women on boards improves a company’s CSR scores. More specifically, Post et al. (2011) have emphasized that companies with at least three female directors receive higher sustainability-related scores, demonstrating a need for what Konrad et al. (2008) have emphasized in general, that a critical mass of at least three women on a board is necessary to influence change. In the case of CSR, Yarram and Adapa (2021) have shown support that a critical mass is necessary, as a single female director on a board cannot influence CSR activities alone. On the other hand, Glass et al. (2016) have found that gender diversity on boards has a small positive effect on companies’ environmental initiatives. 3. Methodology 3.1 Research Design The methodology of this study is based on a qualitative approach to capture a deeper understanding of the perception of BGD and how it is viewed to potentially influence companies’ CSR focus. According to Silverman (2022), adopting a qualitative approach is useful in answering how questions. Therefore, the primary data for this study is derived from semi-structured interviews, which allow for flexibility and unanticipated topics to arise (Silverman, 2022). Adopting a semi- structured approach allows the answers to go beyond the scope of the questions, as open-ended questions were asked. Further, the choice of semi-structured interviews is supported by Alvesson’s (2003) argument that a reflexive approach to interviews is advantageous. Alvesson (2003) explains reflexivity as the importance of understanding that interviewing is a method to gather interactions and is context-dependent, subject to the setting, interviewee, and interviewer. Furthermore, the research is based on abductive reasoning, a combination of inductive and deductive research. The former is a methodological approach based on already formulated theories to develop an idea for empirical data. The latter is described as the opposite, and instead based on empirical data to generate a theory or hypotheses (Bryman & Bell, 2007). Hence, an abductive approach enables us to reflect on how to analyze the empirical data based on preexisting theories, while it also allows us to be iterative and reflexive with the findings and adjust the theoretical analysis derived from unexpected findings. The companies, where the interviewee is part of the board, have not been required to operate in a specific industry, which derives from the objective to understand the individual’s perspective, regardless of their respective board assignments. On the other hand, predetermined criteria for the interviewees have been outlined. The interviewee must hold a position within a board consisting of at least four members, as multiple participants in a board presumably contribute to dynamics that allow for deeper board discussions with various insights (Thomsen & Conyon, 2012). Moreover, at least 25% of the board must identify as female, which is fundamental to reveal potential differences between how men and women reason about BGD and CSR-related questions. 8 3.2. Data Collection To answer the research question: “How do board members perceive board gender diversity, and how do they view its influence on corporate social responsibility?” both primary and secondary data were collected. The primary data consisted of 24 semi-structured interviews with board members and/or chairpersons of the board. Most of the interviewees are board members of one or multiple large-sized companies in Sweden (see Table 1), reflecting a purposive sampling, as large companies are more stringent to regulatory requirements, such as the European Commission’s Gender Balance on Boards Directive and CSRD. In addition to the 24 interviews, one interview was conducted with a Norwegian board member to delve into the Norwegian equivalent of the European Commission’s Gender Balance on Boards Directive. The choice of including the Norwegian perspective was to draw on practical experiences and consequences of a gender quota to provide further depth to our study. Table 1. Interviewees’ Characteristics & Roles Interviewee No. Gender Role Size of Company* Several Boards Expertise** 1 Male Chairperson Large Yes Industry Knowledge, Operations 2 Female Member Large Yes Capital Markets, Industry Knowledge, Operations 3 Female Member Large Yes CEO, Leadership, Operations, Sustainability 4 Female Member Large Yes CEO, Finance, Industry Knowledge 5 Female Member Large Yes International Experience, Market & Sales, Capital Markets 6 Female Member Large Yes CEO, Industry Knowledge, Operations 7 Female Member Large Yes International Expertise, Market & Sales 8 Male Member Large Yes CEO, Industry Knowledge, Operations 9 Female Chairperson Large Yes CEO, Industry Knowledge, International Experience 10 Male Member Large Yes Politics, Sustainability 11 Female Chairperson Large Yes Industry Knowledge, Market & Sales 9 12 Male Member Large Yes Capital Markets, Finance, Sustainability 13 Female Member Large Yes Finance, HR, Start-ups Industry Knowledge, 14 Female Member Large Yes International Experience, Market & Sales, Start-ups 15 Male Member Large Yes CEO, Industry Knowledge, International Experience 16 Female Member Large No CFO, Sustainability 17 Female Chairperson Large Yes Leadership, Market & Sales, Operations 18 Female Member Small Yes Capital Markets, International Experience, Market & Sales 19 Male Chairperson Small Yes CEO, Finance, International Experience, Operations 20 Male Member Large Yes Finance, Investor, Start-ups, Sustainability 21 Female Chairperson Large Yes Industry Knowledge, International Experience 22 Male Chairperson Small Yes Industry Knowledge, International Experience, Investor, R&D 23 Female Member Small No Sustainability 24 Male Member Large No COO, Operations, Market & Sales 25 Female*** *The size of each company is based on Bolagetsverket’s (2024) definition of a small/large company. **Expertise categorized based on each interviewee’s response. ***Norwegian interviewee with experience of gender quotas on boards in Norway. The first step of the primary data collection was to approach potential interviewees with an interview request through LinkedIn or email. More than half of the interviews were booked through personal interview invitations, and the remainder arose from recommendations from previous interviewees. The effect of recommendation demonstrates the snowball effect (Silverman, 2022), which describes the use of social networks of initial participants. During the initial contact, information about the research, its purpose, and the entailment of being an interviewee in the research was presented. In parallel, an interview guide was constructed with questions that would steer the interview with three main themes: academic and professional background, board gender diversity, and corporate social responsibility. The interview guide allowed us to adapt each interview to the specific interviewee by rephrasing questions and adding follow-up questions. 10 Before the first interview was conducted, a pilot interview was held with a board member within our social network. According to Majid et al. (2017), pilot interviews are useful to identify flaws and limitations of the primary interview design. Thus, conducting a pilot interview was a preparatory step that contributed to the development of the interview guide. It allowed us to test- run the questions, receive feedback on the formulations, and assess the duration of the interview. Accordingly, modifications were made prior to the interviews. However, adjustments to the interview guide were ongoing throughout the data collection process, referring back to the choice of semi-structured interviews. The interviews ranged between 30–45 minutes each and were organized on the virtual meeting platform Microsoft Teams and telephone (two interviews). Prior to the interviews, multiple interviewees requested to receive the interview questions in advance. The primary advantage of sharing interview questions before the interviews is that it can enhance engagement and contribute to more thoughtful answers. However, a potential limitation includes the risk of interviewees altering predetermined and biased answers that would portray themselves and their respective boards in a favorable light. Thus, to prevent skewed answers, only a preparatory guide concerning the topics of the questions was sent in advance. At the beginning of the interviews, the interviewees were informed about the interview’s structure, the possibility to withdraw at any time, and asked about their continued consent to participate. Furthermore, audio recordings were applied to all interviews to ensure transcription correctness and enable usage of the recordings during the data analysis. Questions about the interviewees’ perceptions and personal experiences regarding BGD and CSR were asked, e.g.: What do you think are the potential benefits and challenges of increased gender diversity on a board? Have you experienced differences in how responsive board members are when a man or a woman speaks? Do you experience differences in which CSR-related issues or areas are presented and thus, seem most important to men and women? In addition, to further delve into the topics of BGD and CSR, secondary data have been collected to gather insights through––what we have chosen to call––journals, and in total, five of the interviewees (3, 11, 13, 17, 19) provided these. The journals are inspired by diary research methods, which emphasize that a diarist keeps a diary, as discussed by Hyers (2018). According to Hyers (2018), diaries are explained as useful in capturing details and emphasized as useful in providing immediate personal witnesses compared to interviews that are more retrospective. Thus, the journals are intended to add to the validity of our data by bridging the gap between what is being said in the interviews and what is happening during a board meeting. 11 3.3. Data Analysis The data analysis was based on grounded theory, first developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967), referring to the simultaneous process of collecting and analyzing the data to develop a theory grounded on empirical data. The methodology demonstrates how to view data as narrative constructions and reconstructions of experiences (Charmaz, 2000). Thus, the data coding process was ongoing in parallel with the data collection, in alignment with the grounded theory (Charmaz, 2000), to ensure an interactive process of understanding and questioning the data. The audio-recorded interviews were manually transcribed and later coded, using a qualitative data analysis software, NVivo (release 14.23.0). The data coding and analysis process was based on the Gioia method (Gioia et al., 2013), with the same objective as the grounded theory—to develop new concepts based on collected data. The Gioia method is a three-step methodology, starting with a 1st-order analysis where data is categorized into codes before it is interpreted into themes during the 2nd-order analysis and later further condensed into aggregated dimensions (Gioia et al., 2013). The 1st-order codes, consisting of summarized answers from the interviews, were coded into categorized codes. Initially, the 1st-order analysis consisted of 47 codes, but was later condensed into 26 codes, which is aligned with what Gioia et al. (2013) describe as a part of the research progress when the codes reduce into more manageable and descriptive codes. The condensation of the 1st-order analysis was advantageous for two reasons. First, it highlighted the most occurring answers among the interviewees, and second, it provided a preliminary ground for data interpretations in the 2nd-order analysis. The 2nd-order analysis consisted of data interpretations of the meaning behind the responses (1st-order codes) and framed in their respective context to provide tentative answers connected to the interview guide, and consequently be contributive to answering the research question. From the 2nd-order analysis, six aggregated dimensions were formulated to answer the research question, three of them to explain board members’ perception of BGD and the remaining three to explain their perception of BGD’s influence on CSR (see Table 2). 12 Table 2. Example of the coding process (BGD) based on the Gioia Method 1st Order Concepts 2nd Order Themes Aggregated Dimensions – New insights – Different perspectives Female contribution leads to improved – Various approaches discussions and decisions – Disadvantages of homogeneous boards Advantages – Seems more legit with female inclusion BGD demonstrates legitimacy – Public image – Male-dominated field The current recruitment ‘standard’ for – Informal networks (old boys’ club) boards – Lack of females with C-suite competence – Difficulties finding women (golden The limited availability of women skirt) (golden skirt) Hindrances (Glass ceiling & – Low commitment finding females Gender Roles) – Women are less confident in pursuing board positions – Lack of support from other women – Men are assertive, while women are less self-promotional Prevailing gender roles in the – Condescending attitudes towards boardroom women – Presumptions about female competence – For the sake of appearance and as a token Problem with gender quotas – Too much administrative work – ‘Elite’ of women (same pool of women) Quotas – Searching beyond informal networks – Increased BGD Solution through gender quotas – Norwegian GBL example 3.4 Methodology Limitations and Ethical Considerations There are various limitations associated with the method of this study that should be considered. First, as mentioned, most of the interviewees hold positions on multiple boards in Sweden. Therefore, whether the interviewee discusses a particular board position or a summarized experience, is––if not explicitly mentioned––at times difficult to navigate. However, as mentioned in section 3.2 Data Collection, the interviewees were not required to work in a specific industry, as our study adopts a general perspective to understand the individual’s perspective on the topics of gender diversity and its influence on CSR. Second, as the interviewees hold positions on boards in companies of different sizes and have different board roles, contrasting and comparing their answers in the study may impose a further limitation. Third, while our secondary data, journals, 13 provide a single-entry insight into the topics, we potentially miss out on aspects that could be relevant to the study if collected over time. Furthermore, an ethical consideration regards the topic of gender diversity and CSR, which could be considered sensitive topics where interviewees may respond to questions in a ‘politically correct’ way. According to Stibbe (2021), there are different discourses on how people discuss specific subjects, e.g., controversial and politically induced topics, such as gender and sustainability. Therefore, the answers provided may be influenced by the aforementioned. Thus, knowing whether answers are truthful and unbiased is subject to the interviewee and beyond our influence. However, it was considered in our analysis by assessing whether answers were aligned throughout each interview. Extending the aspect of the data including sensitive information, it has been critical to ensure confidentiality and protection. To safeguard privacy, all interviewees have been anonymized, and specific information that could be associated with the interviewee, such as the company/companies where the interviewee serves as a board member, has been excluded. Further, to avoid the risk of re-identification of the interviewees and their companies, industry-specific information has also been excluded. Moreover, to ensure confidentiality, audio recordings have been protected with face recognition, and documents and the project in NVivo have been encrypted with passwords. Other ethical considerations could arise during the data coding process, including the potential of misinterpreting data. For instance, our biases, pre-assumptions, and personal interpretations could inevitably influence the coding process. Consequently, this could result in conclusions influenced by our beliefs, which may not fully align with the interviewees’ intentions. However, to minimize the risk of our biases, the coding process has been done in a joint effort to avoid individually steered interpretations. Last, an ethical aspect to mention is the use of the AI tool ChatGPT in the translation process of quotes by the interviewees to translate single words. In addition, AI has been utilized to provide inspiration to articulate the title of our study and, in general, to enhance the language in the thesis by, e.g., finding accurate synonyms. 4. Empirical Section 4.1 Board Members’ Perception of Board Gender Diversity The topic of gender diversity in the context of boards is greatly discussed today. Participating interviewees, many of them having years of board experience, were asked why they think that board gender diversity is widely discussed. Most of the interviewees had the perception that it reflects the societal developments toward gender equality, referring to changing trends and norms in society due to increasing awareness around the topic, because of an increasingly educated generation and scientific evidence regarding the advantages of BGD. 14 Thus, when asked about what advantages there are with a gender diverse board, many of the interviewees agreed that it contributes to a broader and more holistic perspective in the boardroom. Furthermore, BGD was also believed to have practical advantages, such as more informed and higher-quality decision-making, better financial results, and increased shareholder value. Similarly, parallels were described with a non-gender diverse board as being overly homogeneous, tunnel-visioned, and could risk negative consequences due to agreeableness. Male interviewee 10 explained it as: You get a greater breadth, otherwise, there is a risk that you get a number of men who are graduates from [Stockholm] School of Economics, with a lot of focus on margins and other things. Of course that is important, it is also a sustainability aspect—if you don't make any money, it won't be much for the company, but there is sometimes a risk that there will be an one-sided view of it, and there I feel that yes, when you get a broader gender composition, there will be more focus on those issues. However, despite the advantages of BGD, there are inevitable challenges concerning how to achieve BGD. Following, three main challenges––the structural process of recruiting women, gender quotas, and the ongoing power relations in the boardroom––concerning what board members perceive as the obstacles to achieving BGD are presented. 4.1.1 The Structural Process of Recruiting Women to Boards One of the main challenges of how to achieve gender diversity on boards is finding and recruiting female board members. Many of the interviewees emphasized that there is a structural process of recruiting board members, which could hinder women from entering the boardroom. The structural process is perceived to be to the male’s advantage, where it is easier to recruit men to boards because of several reasons, including the network effect and the phenomenon of the old boys’ club. Most of the hires to board positions are through informal networks of existing board members, nominations committees, or owners, who are predominantly men. When asked about why women are still underrepresented in the boardroom, interviewee 11, a female chairperson, explained that “it depends on the entire system. What the entire recruitment base looks like, the whole way of bringing in new members, how you find people in your network.” Interviewee 11’s perception was not uncommon among the interviewees. Similarly, female interviewee 7 stated: A man leaves, and then that person knows someone and brings in a new man, and so on. I think that men have a lot more of these informal networks. They play golf, [are] in various different clubs, and things like that. And that’s where they get these networks. … If you also look at who sits on which boards, if you start at the large companies … certain names come up a lot of times and they sit on the same boards. 15 A critical explanation for this network effect and the old boys’ club is that men are still dominating the management and owner level across all-sized companies. Thus, recruiting women to boards is limited since board members tend to be senior executives, and men dominate these positions, e.g., CEO and CFO roles. Male interviewee 12 explained that “a large part of the emphasis is on men who have been in those positions, so when it comes to the board, I believe that it is very important that you start to bring women to management positions in the companies.” Similarly, female interviewee 2 highlighted that “if you want [someone with] CEO experience, there are more men than women with those experiences.” However, having a CEO or CFO role was emphasized by some of the interviewees to be a ‘tick in the box’ to get offered a board role. Furthermore, men are also dominating the owner level of the companies and can affect the boardroom through an active board role or by appointing board members. Female interviewee 9, who is also the chairperson, explained this dual perspective: Almost all PE [Private Equity] companies, and all the investment managers they put on the board are men. Almost all the companies they buy, the founders are men, and usually, you have two people from the founding team who sit on the board, and they are two men, and then you have two people from PE who sit on the board, and they are two men. Another explanation to the network effect is exemplified by female interviewee 23, who stated that “men feel like they have quite a… they dare—what can I say—they dare to invest and start their own businesses and yes, they believe in themselves a lot.” The view of men being more assertive, confident, and outspoken in comparison to women in management, boards, and owner settings was frequently emphasized by the interviewees. The interviewees agreed that women are more reserved in comparison to men, alluding that women are less self-promotional and reluctant to highlight their achievements, hence, limiting their visibility for board roles. Female interviewee 18 problematized this and highlighted that the responsibility is incumbent upon both men and women: 16 Many times you will meet men who can do everything, know everything, have done everything, and don’t see anything they can’t do. While women are actually very humble—the opposite. So, it’s also up to us [women] to actually feel confident with what we can do. Simultaneously, relating back to the network effect, men are also more likely to promote each other, as emphasized by female interviewee 5: Men are often very good at promoting men, while women, I feel, can often be a little bad at taking care of women and ensuring that they enter new environments. … there can easily be competition between them [women], and I don’t think that’s good for this challenge. Hence, women’s limited visibility is also used as a scapegoat for these informal networks. The phenomenon of the golden skirt, often raised by the interviewees, is described as the limited availability of women, where several of the interviewees refer to it as a sparse pool of the same women. Interviewee 1, a male chairperson, stated that “they [women] come from the same pool,” while female interviewee 2 explained that it is about “many fish in the same pond, if you have been given a board assignment, then it will be someone has ‘put a stamp’ on her that she can work.” Contrastingly, this view is not fully agreed upon by other interviewees, who shared that it is rather a double standard and a contradictory argument to say that there are not as many women. Male interviewee 15 described it as “To be completely honest, when we are hiring someone for a board role and say, ‘I want a woman for this,’ but then say ‘there are no experienced female applicants’— there are always experienced women out there.” and male interviewee 10: When you are asked why it is that way, [they say] ‘yes, we have searched and we have not found anyone,’ it is usually an argument used, but it is clear that they only looked in their closest circle of acquaintances. 4.1.2 Gender Quotas—a Solution and a Problem? To get a nuanced perspective from a country where BGD has been an active topic and where gender quotas were found to be a solution to the aforementioned challenges, we interviewed a female Norwegian board member (interviewee 25) regarding her thoughts about the Norwegian GBL and what a similar legislation could potentially entail for Sweden. Interviewee 25 is an advocate for gender quotas and explained that the GBL has been contributive in many ways to gender balanced boards in Norway, including solving problems such as board recruitments through acquaintance circles, such as the old boys’ club, and bringing new competence to the boards. 17 Interviewee 25 also addressed the problems around the golden skirt that quotas are often associated with by arguing that “we have to start somewhere” and that it will enable the entry of more women to the ‘pool.’ This is highlighted, especially, with the revised GBL in mind since it has now expanded to include privately-owned companies with more than 30 employees or revenues exceeding 50 million NOK, from only being applied to public and state-owned enterprises. The opinions regarding a potential gender quota are mixed among the Swedish board members interviewed. Some of the interviewees were in favor of a gender quota, arguing that the progress towards gender equality on boards is not progressive enough. Meanwhile, other interviewees were against a gender quota, due to it further contributing to an already extensive list of directives and regulations. In common, these interviewees meant that legally enforced quotas could lead to a symbolic act, including companies conforming to it for the sake of appearance, rather than women getting board roles because of their skills, qualifications, and competencies. Hence, a problem perceived with a gender quota is the compromise on competence and skills when companies prioritize their image, as emphasized by male interviewee 15, “if you start to set too many laws and rules, you might lose some of the competence part.” Similarly, interviewee 22, a male chairperson, explained: But then I also think that for some, it becomes an image. Or that it’s something you show off and as I said, if we meet a company with three men on the board, I’m not always convinced, even if we influence them to include women on the board, I’m not always sure that they do it because they are convinced that it’s good from a competence point of view, but sometimes I feel that it’s because of their image because they won’t be able to secure new fundings in the future if they don’t get their act together. Other interviewees expressed opposition regarding a mandatory quota, but favored a non-binding directive, e.g., the European Commission’s Gender Balance on Boards Directive. Considering that Sweden is relatively gender equal in comparison to other countries, a mandatory quota was not considered necessary. Still, it could steer the development towards a desirable direction in parallel with consideration of other relevant characteristics. 4.1.3 Boardroom Dynamics To assess whether the board members’ perception of BGD and its practical implications in the boardroom were aligned, questions regarding how the board members perceived the board dynamics, in terms of initiation to speak and receptiveness, were asked. The general view is that board dynamics are gender balanced, recalling that there is no difference between who speaks more in the boardroom. The interviewees’ claims are also apparent in practice from the journals. Instead, it was dependent on the topic, implying that whoever had more to say about the discussed 18 topic could contribute more. On the receiving end, a common denominator to the gender indifference was that women on these boards are usually highly respected women who have had prestigious positions and strong expertise in specific industries. Female interviewee 13 shared the following view: I think it’s more that, when a woman speaks, you listen because then you know that something is being said that is important, and then it becomes almost quieter in the room. Because then it’s like, okay, something’s coming up, so we need to listen [to] this. However, it also became evident that the indifferences were not fully tenable when distinctions between the genders were highlighted by some of the same interviewees who had denied them previously. Some described women as more reserved in the boardroom, and that women were often associated with contributing to a more socially pleasant environment. Others, including interviewee 6, shared that she has heard that “women feel that there are still these ‘lilla gumman’ attitudes” [a Swedish expression with a condescending connotation of women] and that female board members act as board professionals, not as women, in the board setting. Furthermore, interviewee 17, a female chairperson, also implied that there are instances where comments such as “but she doesn’t know anything about results, does she even know the balance sheet?” In other cases, some of the female interviewees felt that having more than one female board member in the boardroom is valuable and contributes to them feeling more supported. Aligned, one of the diarists noted that female board members’ suggestions were neglected during a board meeting, and thus required support from other women to be further considered. Although BGD is perceived to be important and advantageous, based on the interviews, it does not seem to be paramount compared to other factors and aspects. All of the interviewees agreed that competence, prior work experience, and personality are more important when considering a new board member. Further, these factors were also explained as relevant in shaping boardroom dynamics. Another crucial aspect mentioned was the role of the chairperson, who has the authority to set the tone in the boardroom. This was mentioned by many of the interviewees and confirmed in the journals by diarists who expressed that the chairperson has an important role in the boardroom. Female interviewee 7 explained: There’s time pressure, you have a very clear agenda in a board, and it’s very important to have a chairperson if you have a more diverse group… It is important to ensure that everyone is allowed to talk, that everyone is allowed to, like, get enough space, because it is also important to balance so that you do not give too much to someone, and so on. So I think the role of the chairperson of the board becomes even more important if you choose to have a diversified board. 19 Similarly, interviewees with chairperson roles explained that they feel the responsibility to ensure that everyone is heard, which could be as simple as going around the table and making sure that everyone has a chance to contribute to the meeting. Whilst it is agreed upon the critical role of chairpersons, male interviewee 8, also highlighted the board members’ responsibility to contribute independently: A chairperson can get those who do not speak first to speak, then the chairperson’s role is very important, that everyone gets to speak. But then, it is also very much up to you as a board member, if you never have anything to add or talk about ... and if you are uncomfortable with speaking up, then you should probably not sit on a board. 4.2 The Board’s Impact on Corporate Social Responsibility Moving forward and towards the empirical findings relating to the second research objective: how BGD is perceived to influence companies’ CSR focus. Within the topic, the interviewees were asked about the degree to which the individuals on the board and the board itself have the possibility to influence their respective companies’ CSR focus. The answers in this area varied, as some interviewees emphasized the board has a noteworthy impact on their companies’ CSR, while others, such as interviewee 22, a male chairperson, claimed CSR matters were infrequently discussed, implying the board does not have much of an impact on it. Despite differences, three main board roles regarding how the board can influence CSR have been identified from the interviews. The first role was associated with the board’s role in setting directives and guidelines, and assigning tasks to the CEO and/or management team. Along with a second role––a monitoring role––where the interviewees emphasized that the board has responsibilities such as monitoring processes and ensuring tasks are completed. Interviewee 11, a female chairperson, claimed: It’s more that we [the board] make demands on companies, we raise the issues. Our job usually consists more of ‘what are you doing about this?’ instead of saying ‘you should do this.’ We mostly ask the companies questions, like ‘What have you done about this?’ ‘How are you doing with these targets?’ We can set targets, but this is usually done together with the management. The third role of the board was linked to their part in reporting. In this instance, the European Union’s CSRD was brought up as an influential aspect of company reporting. E.g., female 20 interviewee 6 argued that the board is ultimately responsible for ensuring correctness in CSRD reporting. Further, female interviewee 14 exemplified that the board can make: Decisions to start reporting or at least to start inventorying parameters, what can we measure, what could we measure in the future, we must have a baseline, and it really applies to all three of these areas [referring to the CSR aspects: social, ethical, and environmental]. Working with policies, and we approve them, we trigger a lot of such issues, you could say, and above all, through the CEO. In a similar instance, as part of reporting, interviewee 19, a male chairperson, explained that the board is engaged in CSR matters through involvement with various key performance indicators (KPIs) that can measure whether environmental targets are achieved. Additionally, female interviewee 5 explained that KPIs are an important part to demonstrate a company’s impact. 4.3 Board Members’ Perception of BGD’s Influence on Companies’ CSR Initiatives More specifically, the answer to whether gender diversity on boards influences companies’ CSR initiatives varied, similar to the extent to which boards can influence CSR. Some of the interviewees perceived that gender diversity, especially female participation on boards, has a favorable influence on CSR discussions. In general, the positive connotation of women was associated with women showing more awareness and tendencies to reflect upon CSR. However, many of the interviewees underlined that their answers were based on their feelings rather than statistical evidence. For instance, female interviewee 3 explained, “My gut feeling is that more girls are passionate about these [CSR] questions.” Furthermore, interviewee 22, a chairperson, explained that he serves on two boards with only men, where the focus mainly lies in attaining immediate results, thus he explained it as a constant ‘numbers game,’ implying CSR is a ‘soft’ aspect of businesses. On the other hand, although multiple interviewees indicated that CSR might be of greater importance to women, male interviewee 15 expressed a dual perspective by also saying, “but I am also one of those who raise if you look at the CSRD work because I have worked with it before and could contribute.” Thus, he questioned whether claiming women feel more compassionate about CSR can be said, since he has a strong commitment to CSR due to his previous experience. Similarly, female interviewees 4 and 5 also claimed female participation on boards is beneficial for CSR, yet still brought up that CSR focus can depend on other factors, such as the individual’s interest in and drive to promote CSR. Therefore, based on the interviews, it was apparent that various explanatory factors unrelated to gender also matter for CSR focus. 21 4.3.1 Individual Characteristics Some interviewees, such as female interviewee 18, expressed that they have not encountered any differences in CSR focus based on gender. Correspondingly, one diarist confirmed that individual characteristics are important for how engaged a board member is in CSR topics during a board meeting. The interviewees rather emphasized––at least one or more of the following aspects to be more influential on CSR than gender––a board member’s experience, interests, familiarity with the topic, and age/generation. Moreover, some interviewees identified that age and generation could potentially influence the CSR mindset. For instance, interviewee 1, a male chairperson, shared a belief that ‘younger’ generations think CSR is more important than ‘older’ generations. Similarly, interviewee 9, a female chairperson, explained that she has met older men who have expressed grumpiness towards CSR-related topics in the boardroom. However, she underlined that it is not always the case and accentuated that it depends much on the individual. Further, except for the emphasis on age, female interviewee 2 also expressed, “Rather, it’s about the level of [CSR] knowledge … It’s more that you’re not as familiar with the issues.” However, an additional aspect was brought up by multiple interviewees, namely, that they have more often experienced that women tend to hold professional roles associated with CSR matters. Female interviewee 3 shared, “Just a general observation is that it’s probably more women who work with these questions.” In a similar manner, female interviewee 2 shared a belief “There are probably more heads of sustainability who are women than men.” Moreover, female interviewee 5 claimed, “I have not bumped into any man who has been the head of sustainability so far,” which confirms the former. 4.3.2 Company Characteristics First, beyond gender and the individual, many interviewees claimed that a company’s CSR focus depends on the company’s size and current stage. For instance, female interviewee 6, who did not stress any focus on the individual as impactful on CSR, instead explained: I would probably say that it’s a question of maturity and that, as a small company, you don’t have the opportunity to focus on everything [e.g., CRS] in the initial stage. You may only be a handful of employees… today, there are so many things that business management should focus on.” Thus, she emphasized that the main objective of a small business is to establish itself. Further regarding the stage of companies, female interviewee 13 discussed how it is obvious for startups to integrate CSR aspects into their business, as startups tend to be operated by ‘younger’ people. Therefore, indirectly, she also put a focus on the fact that age might matter for CSR focus. 22 Second, an overall consensus among the interviewees was that CSR focus depends on what a company offers and in what kind of industry it operates. For instance, male interviewee 24 highlighted that the kind of business model a company has matters. He explained that in a previous company he worked at, it was easier to integrate sustainability as its entire business model was built on it. Nevertheless, since sustainability is not always a central part of businesses, male interviewee 12 explained the importance of adapting CSR to its business context. Third, as emphasized by the interviewees, boards operate by following owners’ directives and aim to create value for them. Interviewee 22, a male chairperson, stated, “The board must have clear owner directives. A board is no more than its directives from the owners, and if you have owners who don’t give a damn about these issues, nothing will happen.” Especially, he underscored that it is the largest owner who is the most influential and ultimately can decide whether to pursue CSR issues. Further, female interviewee 23 explained what has shaped the CSR focus in her company, “I would actually say that it is the owners who are very well-versed in sustainability. Above all, our chairman of the board [who is also an owner], he is very passionate about sustainability.” 4.3.3 External Determinants Among internal influences on CSR focus, a general consensus amongst the interviewees was that the reporting standard, CSRD, has had an impact on companies’ sustainability focus. Interviewee 11, a female chairperson, recognized, “The whole issue of reporting has been topical for many years. Now it has become even more so, of course, with these new CSRD directives.” Apart from the CSRD, some interviewees mentioned, including male interviewee 8: A board is no more difficult than following general trends in society. Two years ago, we were going to reduce carbon emissions at any cost, the pendulum swung too far, we stopped talking about efficiency, competitiveness, now I feel the pendulum is swinging back... I think boardrooms are often a reflection of the times you are in. The previous example demonstrates that there are certain expectations of companies stemming from society, such as a company’s customers. However, despite CSRD being emphasized as a catalyst for positive change, the interviewees widely agreed that the reporting requirements are perhaps too extensive and complex. For instance, female interviewee 4 raised a concern that CSR efforts might be too exaggerated to the extent that eventually no one is aware of why certain things are being done. Consequently, there is a risk that progressive efforts will be discontinued. 23 5. Discussion The empirical findings demonstrate that the interviewees emphasize BGD, i.e., female contribution on boards, as positive. Regardless, other individual characteristics beyond gender are explained as more important in influencing boards. It was commonly agreed that gender diversity is of importance in certain circumstances, such as for a company’s image. Yet, the findings demonstrate that various obstacles hamper the possibility of achieving BGD, such as the recruitment of new members. In the CSR case, some of the interviewees expressed that women potentially have a greater emphasis on sustainability, similarly to what has been argued by earlier researchers (Bear et al., 2010; Byron & Post, 2016; Gaio & Cruz Gonçalves, 2022), contradictorily, the influence of female contribution for companies’ CSR focus appears to hold less weight compared to other aspects where both individual and company characteristics are of greater importance. The following section will discuss the empirical findings, mainly from an institutional theory perspective, but also from the perspectives of social role theory, in combination with previously mentioned concepts. 5.1 BGD as a Conformity to Institutional Pressures and Gender Roles With an evolving environment, societal developments, and changing norms regarding gender equality and sustainability, previous institutions are now being questioned for their congruity and appropriateness. These institutions stem from the norm of male dominance in the corporate world and irresponsible practices to obtain value maximization. Hence, board members’ perception of BGD and CSR are now being widely discussed and exerted to be aligned with new institutional expectations corresponded with several theoreticians. For instance, Greenwood et al. (2017) explain this aligning behavior to be affected by others and a broader system, which is divided into episodic and systemic power. BGD and CSR are constructed, supported, and conformed by pressures from diverse stakeholders and legislations, representing episodic power, and the society as a whole through expectations, referring to systemic power. Similarly, the cause of isomorphic conformity to BGD and CSR can be explained by Deephouse (1999), DiMaggio and Powell (1983), and Meyer and Rowan (1977), who mean that companies conform to these institutions for the perception of being legitimate, pushed by different institutional pressures including political influences, peers, societal expectations and legal regulations (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). In previous research (Carter et al., 2003; Yasser et al., 2016) regarding board diversity, or more specifically, BGD and CSR, these causes have also been highlighted as the determining factors for organizations’ homogenization. The interviewees are positively positioned to BGD and CSR and agree that both are important aspects that their companies strive towards. However, in practice, the empirical findings reveal that BGD and CSR focus are not as important as other aspects, and sometimes initiated for the sake of adherence to pressures, which demonstrates isomorphic acts (Deephouse, 1999; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977), rather than goodwill. Hence, conformity to institutional 24 pressures is not as straightforward and transparent as perceived by the interviewee. Three aspects have been identified, showcasing board members’ perceptions of BGD. First, BGD is discussed as a contributing source to companies’ legitimizing image. Second, opinions regarding a gender quota on boards are discussed because of its ambivalent effects. Third, we analyze BGD from the lens of gender roles and how it may impact the practicalities of a gender balanced board. 5.1.1 Gaining Legitimacy Through BGD As previously mentioned, it is critical for companies to appear legitimate to survive (Deephouse, 1999; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). The interviewees emphasized that female contribution enhances a company’s legitimacy, presumably originating from societal expectations and pressures, potentially representing a source of coercive isomorphism as explained by DiMaggio and Powell (1983). Nevertheless, amongst the interviewees, it was highlighted that there is a risk that female board members are assigned a board role based on underlying agendas, rather than competence, such as to improve a company’s image to gain potential advantages. Thus, if female representation intends to enhance companies’ legitimacy, as Blanco-González et al. (2023) claim is possible, it potentially represents an act of tokenism as discussed by several researchers (Bear et al., 2010; Byron & Post, 2016; Farrell and Hersch, 2005; Torchia et al., 2011; Valls Martínez & Cruz Rambaud, 2019). Despite companies’ reasoning behind adding women, many interviewees explained that there is an issue with the structural process of board recruitment. According to the interviewees, board members are often recruited from present male board members’ social networks, which are dominated by men. By adopting an institutional theory lens on the former, it has become the norm and can be considered an institutionalized practice, hence making it difficult to deviate from. Moreover, as explained, the legitimate social agent is usually considered to be a man (Eriksson- Zetterquist & Styhre, 2008) and the board landscape is male-dominated (Hall et al., 2024). Therefore, adding a woman to a board conflicts with the ‘standard,’ thus, this deviation must be explained if adopting Eriksson-Zetterquist and Styhre’s (2008) perspective. Hence, both the recruitment process and the view of the typical board member contribute to the noticeable homogeneity among boards, which in turn contributes to the glass ceiling. Extending on the former, if companies are required to explain why they choose a female board member, it is understandably advantageous to choose a trustworthy woman. Many of the interviewees addressed that there is a tendency for prominent women to get a ‘stamp,’ i.e., a positive reputation that verifies she is a suitable board member. Hence, it is likely that a few names recur in board contexts, creating an ‘elite’ of women, which further demonstrates how the golden skirt phenomenon arises. While the ‘stamp’ a woman can obtain may have a positive influence on the individual, it may impede other women from acquiring board positions. Thus, indirectly contributing to the glass ceiling hindering women from reaching their full potential professionally (Eriksson-Zetterquist & Styhre, 2008), or as Eagly and Carli (2007) defined, a labyrinth of 25 complexities, since women do not only have to compete in a male-dominated field, but also against the ‘elite’ of women. Regardless, some of the interviewees acknowledged that companies that want to add women to boards possibly use the recruitment process and the sparse pool of female candidates as an excuse for why fewer women are assigned board roles in reality. However, it is contradictory since many interviewees underlined that there are talented women out there. Therefore, the issue lies in the attempts to find these women, which is possible by searching beyond informal networks and women in the limelight. 5.1.2 Improving BGD with a Gender Quota, or Contributing to Tokenism? A gender quota has been suggested to be a solution to the hindrances that women face when entering and being in the boardroom, as exemplified by interviewee 25 with the Norwegian GBL, along with researchers Piscopo and Clark Muntean (2018) and Comi et al. (2020). However, the empirical findings show that most of the interviewees are against a gender quota, partially— against a quota but supportive of a directive—or fully. Thus, the opposing opinion contributes to the glass ceiling, rather than breaking it, as emphasized by Comi et al. (2020). Opposing a gender quota implies that board members are against the idea of gender balance being regulated by laws, but not against the idea of having a non-regulated directive. Similarly to what Piscopo and Clark Muntean (2018) explained, this demonstrates the idea of having gender quota as a statutory threat where companies prefer to change voluntarily, rather than being legally forced to comply with a quota. Hence, associated with aforementioned institutional pressures (Carter et al., 2003; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Oliver, 1991) and given that regulatory pressures have been emphasized by the interviewees as a determinant to both BGD and CSR, the absence of a gender quota would deteriorate the development of gender diversity on boards. For instance, Piscopo and Clark Muntean’s (2018) argued that gender quotas’ direct effect is the increase of women on boards, thus, a positive development of gender equality on boards. Contrastingly, Fitzsimmons (2012) emphasized that the focus on numbers, in terms of women, is problematic as it can result in women being appointed board roles as a token. Considering how board members perceived the structural process of recruiting women to boards to be a problem, opposing a potential gender quota can be seen as decoupling from an institutional perspective. In other words, what is said by the interviewees regarding companies’ efforts to achieve BGD can be explained by Meyer and Rowan (1977) as misalignments between companies’ formal structures and daily activities. As explained by the interviewees, a gender quota would result in additional administrative work of the extensive list of directives and regulations. Hence, a quota could potentially strain efficiency in practice, thus explaining why there is a misalignment between the formal structures and daily activities of companies. 26 5.1.3 Gender Roles’ Impact on BGD and the Boardroom While the glass ceiling arises due to various aspects, many of the interviewees explained that women are less self-promotional, compared to men, which provides another perspective on the concept. Namely, women themselves may potentially contribute indirectly to the glass ceiling. However, the reason behind women’s self-effacing may be a consequence of existing gender roles in society stemming from, e.g., the social role theory (Eagly, 1987), which explains that men are typically associated with assertiveness while women with selflessness. In general, the interviewees explained that they perceive no difference between male and female board members and that they take on the role of a board member and set aside their gender. Additionally, the board’s chairperson also has a crucial role in distributing the word equally between the genders, where the interviewees described the chairperson, regardless of their gender, to be of great influence on the boardroom climate. However, it became evident that supposedly differences between genders do exist between the board members, since a condescending attitude towards women is still noticeable according to some females, such as the ‘lilla-gumman’ attitude. A further example is that in the interviews, a common response was that men and women are equally heard. Still, it was claimed that women’s suggestions were getting less attention, as described by some interviewees and one diarist. Therefore, the inconsistencies potentially shed light on the fact that a specific discourse may be prevalent regarding how gender diversity is discussed, i.e., there is a correct way of debating gender related topics. Correspondingly, some female interviewees expressed feeling more comfortable voicing their opinions when other women are present. The former may be a consequence of the fact that, as mentioned, the board landscape is male-dominated and the typical board member is a man. Thus, women’s support of each other represents a potential need of a critical mass, which aligns with Konrad et al.’s (2008) finding that it is necessary to have at least three women on boards. However, some interviewees expressed that when a woman speaks, the rest of the board pays even more attention than if a man speaks, linking back to the ‘stamp’ a female board member can have. The interviewees underlined that women who serve on boards tend to be well-respected because of their particular expertise and/or because they have managed to earn a seat in a male-dominated field, which translates into their opinions being of great importance. Therefore, whether women and men are perceived to receive equal respect and attention varies. However, whilst female board members may need support from other women, male board members seem to attain respect and attention regardless. 5.2 A Myth? BGD’s positive influence on CSR, from the Perspectives of Institutional Theory and Social Role Theory Gender homogeneous boards have been criticized by earlier researchers (Rao & Tilt, 2016; Valls Martínez & Cruz Rambaud, 2019) to be associated with disadvantages, and in parallel, 27 heterogeneous boards have been highlighted to be positively related to efficient and positive corporate performance. Our empirical findings indicate that the interviewees consider BGD as important, especially for a company’s image. Whilst BGD is emphasized as advantageous, the findings revealed that the composition of a board is based on a combination of other remarkable characteristics and factors of board members unrelated to gender. Nevertheless, the interviewees emphasized that women do have a particular impact on informal board contexts which is aligned with Eagly’s (1987) and Nielsen and Huse’s (2010) explanation regarding women’s communal characteristics. For instance, women’s tendency to be able to contribute to a more socially pleasant environment was more commonly highlighted in comparison to their contribution to business affairs. Similarly, in the context of CSR, women may possess character traits that emphasize the matter of CSR more compared to men. Interviewees highlighted that women demonstrate greater awareness and tend to raise the issue. Hence, the relationship between women and CSR may align with Eagly’s (1987) social role theory, if CSR is considered a soft aspect linked to communal values. Further, it was mentioned that women more commonly hold CSR-related positions, e.g., being the head of sustainability. Thus, a question of why women take on specific roles arises. Suggestively, it is because individuals tend to adopt their gendered skills, where women are expected to have more caring characteristics (Eagly, 1987), hence, women should be drawn to these roles. Despite women showing more concern for these CSR issues, other unrelated gender characteristics, such as age and interest, were emphasized as more decisive for companies’ CSR focus. Therefore, our findings contradict previous studies to some extent (Gaio & Cruz Gonçalves, 2022; Isidro & Sobral, 2015; Post et al., 2011; Yarram & Adapa, 2021). Further in the CSR case, and referring back to institutional theory, industry-specific norms also steer companies’ CSR focus. Hence, unless businesses adapt to these expectations, they risk losing legitimacy (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). In parallel, the CSR topic is being raised because of formal pressures—e.g., the CSRD, diverse CSR-related KPIs, and owner directives––and informal pressures––e.g., societal expectations of CSR as an integral part of businesses. Therefore, even if board members are firmly committed to CSR, it does not matter unless it is motivated by other constituents, such as political influences, peers, societal expectations and legal regulations (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) to improve their legitimacy (Blanco-González et al., 2023; Kamran et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2015). However, as mentioned, female participation on boards was emphasized to influence the appearance of companies positively, as companies operate in institutionalized settings where expectations exist. Hence, a potential explanation to earlier findings of BGD’s positive influence on CSR could be that BGD has a ‘spillover effect’ on other aspects of the business. In other words, if a company with a gender diverse board has a legitimate image, one could assume that they may experience increased expectations to maintain their legitimacy. Therefore, female participation on 28 boards may not necessarily push for increased CSR focus as emphasized by previous research (Gaio & Cruz Gonçalves, 2022; Isidro & Sobral, 2015; Post et al., 2011; Yarram & Adapa, 2021), but perhaps implicitly, as a strong CSR commitment maintains and contributes to a company’s legitimacy. 6. Conclusion This research has studied how Swedish board members perceive BGD and how they view its influence on CSR. First, the main findings indicate that whereas BGD is perceived to be important and advantageous through its contribution to a more holistic and nuanced boardroom, it is not viewed as the most important aspect of boards, and is often highlighted along with a few challenges. Hence, this research has reflected upon board members’ perception of BGD as a conforming factor to legitimacy, the problematic solution of a gender quota, and how prevailing gender roles still have an impact on BGD. Second, the main findings also indicate that gender is not perceived to have the same importance on companies’ CSR focus, as it is articulated by earlier findings, who claimed that BGD has a positive impact on CSR (Gaio & Cruz Gonçalves, 2022; Isidro & Sobral, 2015; Post et al., 2011; Yarram & Adapa, 2021). Our findings show that other factors are described to be dominant, where a common denominator between BGD and CSR is the driving forces behind their current widespread relevance in society and the corporate world. It is disclosed that other factors contributing to BGD and companies’ CSR activities are institutional, hence, they are driven by formal and informal rules. The former, as DiMaggio and Powell (1983) explain, could be legal regulations and formal requirements, such as a gender quota, CSRD, and owner directives, while the latter derives from norms and societal expectations. Consequently, the main findings indicate that the narrative about BGD’s importance and the reality of boards may be misaligned. Our findings raise awareness regarding if BGD is symbolic, referring that companies’ conformity to gender diversity is motivated by institutional pressures, rather than a genuine goodwill. Furthermore, aligned with the social role theory (Eagly, 1987), existing gender roles are both explanatory regarding challenges related to BGD, such as the glass ceiling, and contradictory regarding the relationship between BGD and CSR. The former relates to the relevance of the social role theory in analyzing how institutionalized gender roles are still hindering women from attaining a board role, while the latter refers to how social role theory is not self-explanatory concerning women’s supposedly impact on ‘softer’ aspects of a business, such as CSR. However, as mentioned, our purpose is not to draw any generalizable conclusions but rather for the findings to serve indicatively for future researchers exploring similar topics and/or practitioners seeking to understand the interconnectedness between BGD and CSR in real-life contexts. 29 Although our findings diverge from previous research, it does not omit that there may be a genuine goodwill among board members and companies to achieve gender diversity, or the importance of BGD. Moreover, our study faces various limitations that should be noted. For instance, the results may not be applicable in other geographical settings. Sweden is a relatively gender equal country, thus, our results illustrate the practices and perceptions of boards in a progressive country where gender diversity is considered a given and obvious. Furthermore, the study has focused on the board members’ perceptions, excluding other decision-makers’ perspectives, such as the nomination committees and owners.’ Consequently, it is suggested that future research expands the horizon of this research field geographically, and beyond board members’ perception to capture the comprehensibility of BGD and its influence on CSR. 30 Acknowledgment First, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to our interviewees for their valuable contribution and support. The time, insights, and experiences that you have shared have been instrumental in conducting this research. Without you, this simply would not have been possible. Second, thank you, Styrelselistan at Västsvenska Handelskammaren, for your help finding interviewees. Third, thank you, Maria Norbäck, our supervisor, and Andreas Diedrich, for your continuous encouragement throughout our research journey. Your guidance and feedback have greatly contributed to our finalized master’s thesis. Last, we want to thank each other for the commitment and mutual support throughout the process and for making this experience genuinely enjoyable. 31 References Allbright. (2024). Kvinnorna Spurtar Mot Målet. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5501a836e4b0472e6124f984/t/ 66e98c51248ba64dedfede95/1726581847440/Allbrightrapporten_2024.pdf Alvesson, M. (2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Academy of management review, 28(1), 13-33. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.8925191 Amorelli, M., & García‐Sánchez, I. (2021). Trends in the dynamic evolution of board gender diversity and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social-Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(2), 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2079 Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C. (2010). The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0505-2 Blanco-González, A., Díez-Martín, F., & Miotto, G. (2023). Achieving legitimacy through gender equality policies. SAGE Open, 13(2), 21582440231172953. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244023117295 BoardEx. (2024). Global Gender Diversity 2023. https://boardex.com/reports/global-gender-diversity-2023 Bolagsverket. (27 August 2024). Delar och bilagor i årsredovisningen. https://www.bolagsverket.se/foretag/aktiebolag/arsredovisningforaktiebolag/delarochbila goriarsredovisningen.761.html Boulouta, I. (2012). Hidden Connections: The Link Between Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2), 185–197. 32 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1293-7 Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Byron, K., & Post, C. (2016). Women on boards of directors and corporate social performance: A meta‐analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(4), 428-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12165 Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Review, 38(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6288.00034 Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(1), 509-535. Comi, S., Grasseni, M., Origo, F., & Pagani, L. (2020). Where women make a difference: Gender quotas and firms’ performance in three European countries. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 73(3), 768–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793919846450 Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2<147::AID-SMJ11>3.0.CO;2-Q DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 807–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004 33 Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007, October). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85(9), 62–146. https://hbr.org/2007/09/women-and-the- labyrinth-of-leadership Eriksson‐Zetterquist, U., & Styhre, A. (2008). Overcoming the Glass Barriers: Reflection and Action in the ‘Women to the Top’ programme. Gender, Work & Organization, 15(2), 133–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2007.00366.x European Commission. (n.d.). Corporate sustainability reporting. https://finance.ec.europa.eu/capital-markets-union-and-financial-markets/company -reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/corporate-sustainability-reporting_en European Commission. (2025, 2 January). New EU Rules to Improve Gender Balance in Corporate Boards Enter into Application. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_22 European Commission. (2022). Gender balance on corporate boards: Driving up gender equality and breaking the glass ceiling. https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-11/Gender_Balance_on_Corporate_ Boards__2_.pdf.pdf Farrell, K. A., & Hersch, P. L. (2005). Additions to corporate boards: the effect of gender. Journal of Corporate Finance (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 11(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2003.12.001 Fitzsimmons, S. R. (2012). Women on boards of directors: Why skirts in seats aren’t enough. Business Horizons, 55(6), 557–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2012.07.003 34 Gaio, C., & Cruz Gonçalves, T. C. (2022). Gender diversity on the board and firms’ corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Financial Studies, 10(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs10010015 Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15- 31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151 Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter. Glass, C., Cook, A., & Ingersoll, A. R. (2016). Do Women Leaders Promote Sustainability? Analyzing the Effect of Corporate Governance Composition on Environmental Performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(7), 495–511. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1879 Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B., Meyer, R. E., & Sage eReference. (2017). The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (2nd ed.). SAGE Reference. Hall, L., Laidlaw, J., Almtoft, A., Dhanasarnsombat, S., & Ramirez, D. (2024, 7 March). Women in leadership: What’s the holdup? S&P Global. https://www.spglobal.com/esg/ insights/featured/special-editorial/women-in-leadership-what-s-the-holdup Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A., & Harris, I. C. (2002). Women and Racial Minorities in the Boardroom: How Do Directors Differ? Journal of Management, 28(6), 747–763. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630202800603 Hyers, L. (2018). Diary Methods: Understanding Qualitative Research (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190256692.001.0001 Isidro, H., & Sobral, M. (2015). The Effects of Women on Corporate Boards on Firm Value, 35 Financial Performance, and Ethical and Social Compliance. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2302-9 Kamran, M., Djajadikerta, H. G., Mat Roni, S., Xiang, E., & Butt, P. (2023). Board gender diversity and corporate social responsibility in an international setting. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 13(2), 240-275. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-05-2021-0140 Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books. Kollegiet. (2024). Kollegiet Redovisar Könsfördelningen i Börsbolagsstyrelser 2024. https://bolagsstyrning.se/Userfiles/Publikationer/Undersokningar/ Statistik_konsfordelning_i_bolagsstyrelser_202419.pdf Konrad, A. M., Kramer, V., & Erkut, S. (2008). Critical Mass: The Impact of Three or More Women on Corporate Boards. Organizational Dynamics, 37(2), 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.02.005 Mace, M. L. (1971). Directors: Myth and Reality. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Majid, M. A. A., Othman, M., Mohamad, S. F., Lim, S. A. H., & Yusof, A. (2017). Piloting for Interviews in Qualitative Research: Operationalization and Lessons Learnt. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(4), 1073–1080. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i4/2916 Mensi‐Klarbach, H., & Seierstad, C. (2020). Gender quotas on corporate boards: Similarities and differences in quota scenarios. European Management Review, 17(3), 615–631. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550 36 Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010). The Contribution of Women on Boards of Directors: Going beyond the Surface. Corporate Governance : An International Review, 18(2), 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2010.00784.x Piscopo, J. M., & Clark Muntean, S. (2018). Corporate Quotas and Symbolic Politics in Advanced Democracies. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 39(3), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2018.1477396 Post, C., Rahman, N., & Rubow, E. (2011). Green Governance: Boards of Directors’ Composition and Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility. Business & Society, 50(1), 189–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650310394642 Rao, K., & Tilt, C. (2016). Board Composition and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Diversity, Gender, Strategy and Decision Making. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(2), 327–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2613-5 Silverman, D. (2022) Doing Qualitative Research, 6th edition. London: SAGE. Smith, A., Tennent, K.D. and Russell, J. (2018). Berle and Means’s The Modern Corporation and Private Property: The Military Roots of a Stakeholder Model of Corporate Governance. Seattle University Law Rev., 42(2), 535–563. Stibbe, A. (2021). The Stories We Live By, 2nd edition. New York: Routledge. Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2009). Women Directors on Corporate Boards: A Review and Research Agenda. Corporate Governance : An International Review, 17(3), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00742.x Torchia, M., Calabrò, A., & Huse, M. (2011). Women Directors on Corporate Boards: From Tokenism to Critical Mass. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0815-z 37 Thomsen, S., & Conyon, M. (2012). Corporate Governance: Mechanisms and Systems. McGraw-Hill. Valls Martínez, M. del C., & Cruz Rambaud, S. (2019). Women on corporate boards and firm’s financial performance. Women’s Studies International Forum, 76, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2019.102251 Yarram, S. R., & Adapa, S. (2021). Board gender diversity and corporate social responsibility: Is there a case for critical mass? Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, 123319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123319 Yasser, Q. R., Al Mamun, A., & Ahmed, I. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and gender diversity: Insights from Asia Pacific. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(3), 210-221. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1400 Zheng, Q., Luo, Y., & Maksimov, V. (2015). Achieving legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: The case of emerging economy firms. Journal of World Business, 50(3), 389-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.05.001 38