**5. Not all female directors are the same**

A large and growing body of literature has investigated on the relationship between female director and CSR. However, the results are mixed (for review paper see [5]). Some studies argue that higher representation of female directors is associated with stronger CSR (for e.g. see [6, 7]), while others do not support such a relationship [10]. A possible reason for the mixed findings is that female directors may differ in personal experiences and backgrounds (e.g. political connection), and consequently exert differential impacts on CSR. Aside from that, companies' attitudes toward social and environmental concerns are multidimensional and impacted by a variety of other company and country-specific factors. Thus, in the following section, we shall analyze the link between a female director and CSR in several contexts.

#### **5.1 Masculine V.S. feminist countries**

In Saudi Arabia and Vatican City, women cannot vote, while in Yemen a woman is considered only half a witness and cannot leave her house without her husband's permission. Women encounter different types of prejudice depending on where they live. According to the World Economic Forum in 2018, there are no laws against sexual harassment in school in 123 nations, and there are no laws prohibiting it in the workplace in 59 countries. Husbands have the legal power to forbid their wives from working in 18 nations, while women are barred from starting a firm in four nations. Thus, certain cultures have stronger gender roles than others, which affects general and organizational behavior in that community [57]. Furthermore, countries that prioritize feminine traits prioritize gender equality, encourage sympathy for the weak, and elect women to multiple leadership positions. Culture can create stereotypes of roles associated with gender that can affect female's access to board [58]. To that end, if a woman currently leads a country that embodies feminine cultural norms, then by definition there is society wide support for policies that would benefit the public good. In turn, the woman leader should have more flexibility in the policies she can enact. So, one may believe that regional effect could be a possible explanation

#### *CSR and Female Directors: A Review and Future Research Agenda DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105112*

for the heterogeneity relationship between female participation on boards and CSR. Consistence with this notion, Seckin-Halac et al. [59] suggested that the impact of the board gender diversity on CSR is more prevalent in high gender-egalitarian societies where women are more involved in decision making. Likewise, in a study of 463 firms from 23 countries, Ringov and Zollo [60] suggested that companies based in more masculine countries, exhibit lower levels of social and environmental performance. Similarly, the recent research by Tapver [61] argues that a country's masculinityfemininity is a variable that determines the association between CSD and female representation, which has previously been overlooked in CSR reporting literature. Shoham et al. [57], on the other hand, empirically examined data from 71 nations and observed that the presence of even one female director on the board positively encourage firms to become much more proactive in environmental sustainability, regardless of the local culture. This result highlights how individual women in powerful positions can make an organization-wide difference.

### **5.2 Female V.S. male-dominated industries**

When women started to work in factories during WWII, they dispelled the idea that they could not perform the same labor as men. Despite a trend toward more equality, several nations continue to exclude women from specific industries. Manufacturing, agriculture, transportation, mining, construction, energy, and water are all examples of this. Some restrictions on when women are permitted to work are based on general safety concerns, while others are based on outdated legislation. Nevertheless, women are less likely to take positions of leadership in industries where their ability to act autonomously is limited. In another word, industry could be another important determinant in explaining the heterogeneity relationship between female boards and CSR. Indeed, there have been studies that showed support for the effects of contextual factors, such as industries, and relationship between gender diversity and CSR. For instance, Ciocirlan and Pettersson [62] show that companies employing more women and having a stronger European presence are more concerned about the climate change. This result suggested a possible moderating effect of contextual factor, such as certain industry characters under which firms are operating, on the relationship between gender diversity and climate change. In the same vein, Li et al. [47], using a sample of nonfinancial firms listed in the United States, found that the pollution creation likelihood (PCL) can have a significant effect on the relationship between gender diversity and firms' environmental policy. Specially, the positive impact of gender diversity on environmental concerns seems to be stronger when environmental pollution is greater. Even so, Kyaw et al. [37] discovered that while the effect of gender diversity boards on CSR scores is not heterogeneous across industries, it is highly heterogeneous across countries.

#### **5.3 Family V.S. non-family business**

Family businesses are those where the founders or family descendants are not only majority shareholders but also manage or sit on the board [63]. This gives them a great power over the company's management and its decisions, and close involvement in day-to-day activities, together with unlimited access to information, which allows them much closer control over management processes and employees than in the case of non-family businesses [63]. Thus, the family's intention regarding certain corporate, social, or family issues will shape business behavior and, as a result, affect business outcome. Some scholars have argued that family businesses are more likely to engage in social activities proactively because doing so preserves and enhances their nonfinancial preferences and socioemotional wealth (SEW) [64]. In another word, family managers and board members are usually more averse to the loss of SEW than to financial loss, an outlook that can significantly affect the strategic decisions taken by the firm (for meta-analysis see [65]). Consequently, directors from family businesses may be more committed to CSR and/or long-term sustainable projects, as these mechanisms are believed to facilitate the company's subsequent transfer to future generations. Furthermore, these policy decisions improve the company's image and reputation, which is an important aspect given the company is viewed as an extension and a mirror image of the family, and therefore as reflecting the fundamental values of the family members [66].

For female directors to have a real impact on a company's decision making, they need to be perceived as equal, legitimate board members [67]. For example, in a family firm, women are believed to have immaterial qualities that facilitate family relationships and thus a more informal management style. So, in family business setting, it is reasonable to assume that these qualities will enhance role played by female directors. This notion is support by García-Sánchez et al. [68], who showed that the presence of women on the boards of family businesses encourages the adoption of CSR practices in the Latin American environment. Similarly, Cruz et al. [69] argued that positive relation between firm's corporate social performance and the presence of women on family firm boards is primarily due to the presence of outsider nonfamily and insider family women directors.

While, some may argue that CSD and the strength of internal corporate governance, particularly the gender diversity board, are substitutes. Family businesses are less prone to information asymmetry [63], which leads to less opportunistic behavior [70]. As a result, control mechanisms such as voluntary information disclosure, such as CSR information, may not be necessary. Furthermore, female directors in family businesses are more likely to be affiliated to the management through family ties rather than their professional experience and knowledge, and therefore their independence is constrained [71]. Additionally, it has been reported that female directors who work in family businesses receive less consideration than their male relatives and that their work is usually underestimated [72]. Consistent with this logic, Rodríguez-Ariza et al. [73] argue that the role of female directors in promoting CSR practices could vary according to the nature of company ownership. Specifically, they suggest that female directors tend to act in accordance with family interests, putting aside their own skills, opinions, and ideas and strengthening or weakening their social responsibility orientation in accordance with the wishes of the family.

Similarly, prior research suggests that the impact of female directors on CSR may differ depending on ownership structure. Because concentrated ownership is an effective monitoring mechanism in and of itself, the need for transparency through high-quality auditing and assurance engagement is less of an issue in such firms. Buertey's [74] empirical evidence backs up this claim. They discovered that concentrated ownership has a significant moderating effect on the relationship between board gender diversity and CSR assurance. Likewise, firms with a high level of state ownership constitutes a strong pressure on corporate executives to implement CSR, which weakens the power of female directors' personal ideologies and preferences over CSR [75].
