**4. How women can drive meaningful CSR**

Going back to the women's liberation movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s, some CSR had already strayed into gender issues. Companies are increasingly addressing the issue of gender equality and incorporating it into their CSR programs. Gender inclusion in CSR can play a dynamic role in achieving gender equality in the workplace through activities, initiatives, strategies, and policies that provide female employees with equal access to job opportunities and equal treatment in the workplace. Likewise, gender equality is playing an increasingly important role at the firm level as a key factor in strengthening CSR strategies. Simultaneously, the involvement of women in leadership positions enhances CSR activity [4, 7]. From these evidences, it would seem that there is a link between the gender equality and CSR. As CSR performance are seen to be the consequence of board choices, a board's characteristics and attributes can be crucial in achieving better CSR results. Thus, it is vital to comprehend the theories and empirical evidences behind the impact of female directors and CSR.

Literatures have offered various reasons to support the notion that board gender diversity enhances the CSR. One of the most frequently used theories to explain the relationship between diversity boards and CSR is agency theory. It is predicated on the notion that there is a separation of ownership and control, which results in expenses associated with resolving conflicts of interest between a principal (i.e. shareholders) and an agent (i.e. a manager). To migrate agency costs, the firm incorporates a range of corporate governance mechanisms, including law, incentives, shareholder rights, and monitoring [32]. And the board of directors is recognized as one of the most important aspects for monitoring managerial behavior and mitigating the firm's agency problems. They are usually elected or appointed by shareholders and represent the company's shareholders. The board is responsible for making important strategic decisions, providing leadership, monitoring and supervising top management on behalf of shareholders.

In agency theory literatures, researchers often try to emphasize on the link between board composition and firm value, investment and firm's decisions. In recent years, researchers have increasingly focused their research on gender diversity. Based on social psychology theory, people often seek out people who have similar backgrounds, perspectives, and values, which are then reinforced in intragroup communication. The more we identify with our in-group, the more distant we feel from members of the out-group. Furthermore, when we strongly identify as an in-group member, we tend to elevate other members of the group. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as in-group favoritism or in-group bias, and it can be described as a privilege issue in which members are favored, while people in out-groups are discriminated against due to characteristics that they cannot change [33]. Sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, race, religion, physical abilities, and age are examples of these characteristics. According to this viewpoint, researchers who believe in agency theory frequently assume male directors regard female directors as out-group members and may have a negative social bias regarding their appointment to board committee [34]. To put it another way, female directors are breaking away from the "old boys club"

and presenting a more independent point of view [2, 19]. This could also imply that firms with a high proportion of female directors have less conflict of interest between shareholders and managers, and the board is more likely to make decisions that benefit the firm in the long run.

Other researchers employ stereotypes concept to explain why different genders of directors behave and make decision differently. Stereotyping is a cognitive process in which a characteristic is associated with a group [35]. It is not an abnormality in human social behaviors and values because it is simply human nature to form opinions about other people and their actions based on our understanding and expectations of ourselves. For instance, the literature on gender stereotype often associated female with complex moral reasoning ability, risk-averse, empathy, caring, kindness, and interpersonal sensitivity. Men, on the other hand, are said to have attribute with agentic qualities such as assertive, ambitious, aggressive, independent, self-confidence, daring and competitive [27–29, 36]. In this regard, men and women differ both psychologically and cognitively. Thus, female directors may result in a greater level of compassion and sensitivity to CSR and stakeholder concerns.

In short, if CSR generates long-term value for stakeholders without endangering people, the environment or the economy, and female directors have the potential to reduce agency costs, firms with a high level of gender diversity may be more likely to improve CSD and CSR performance for the long-term benefit of all stakeholders [37].

Even though several researchers have used agency theory to explain the relationship between the gender diversity board and CSR, the theory appears to fall short of covering all aspects of this relationship. As previously stated, the agency cost theory employs social psychology concepts such as in-group bias and stereotype concept to support the logic underlying the possible positive relationship between female director and CSR. Likewise, Spitzeck [38] contends that the fact that companies are increasingly using CSR committees does not explain why they do so or how CSR governance structures might evolve, implying that the agency theory cannot fully explain the link between CSR and female directors. Similarly, Hussain [39] argued that no single theory fully accounts for all the hypothesized relationships.

Another important theory related to the arguments in favor of board gender diversity is the stakeholder theory. Though both agency and stakeholder theories advocate for the alignment of shareholder, stakeholder, and management interests, it is important to recognize that there are significant differences between the two theories. Unlike agency theory, stakeholder theory describes the composition of organizations as a group of different individual groups with diverse interests. These interests, when taken together, are a representation of the will of the firm. Business choices should take into account the interests of these collective groupings and also balance a multiplicity of stakeholders' interests that can affect or are affected by the achievement of an organization's objectives. Any disagreement between these groups reflects the loss of these interests. Therefore, the stakeholder engagement is crucially important for firms to justify the legitimacy of their operations [40]. Organizational legitimacy does not only ensure the inflow of capital, labor, and customers necessary for the company's viability but also could reduce the likelihood of other disruptive actions [41].

Companies usually attempt to gain legitimacy by disclosing social and environmental verifiable data and information [15] and CSD is a strategy that businesses can use to respond to societal expectations [16] and gain legitimacy of the company's activities in the eyes of stakeholders, who have a diverse expectation. It also signals to stakeholders that companies' actions are appropriate and desirable [17]. In other words, CSD is part of the dialog between the company and its stakeholders as it

provides information to stakeholders on the social and environmental impacts of corporate activities.

In recent year, CSR has become one of the major concerns for many companies and their managers. Gender equality and human rights are also two of the EU's founding values and the United Nations' guiding principles. Also, the corporate world's efforts to re-premiumize have compelled many European countries to implement gender quotas on corporate boards. Consequently, CSR has become the center of interest for both internal and external stakeholders. Unsurprisingly, many firms would choose to reveal social and environmental verified facts and information in order to balance the interests of a variety of stakeholders.

According to stakeholder theory, female directors are more likely to assist the business in developing an orientation toward the interests of diverse stakeholders [42]. Female directors are more likely to oriented toward philanthropic causes and typically have experience in nonprofit industries, firm with greater gender diversity have been shown to give more to community service organizations and programs [43]. In a similar vein, female directors are more likely to enhance stakeholder management by providing firms with relevant knowledge to enhance their ability manage these interests [44]. For instance, examining a sample of FTSE 350 firms, Jizi [8] shows that female board representation has a positive impact on CSR engagement and reporting as well as on the development of ethical policies. Rather than fulfilling the traditional monitoring function to resolving conflicts of interest between management and shareholders, female directors are more likely to exercise their power in ways that benefit a broader variety of stakeholder interests.

Another strand of research has used upper echelon theory-UET [45, 46] to explain the relation between female directors and CSR. According to the upper echelon theory-UET [45, 46], each decision maker brings a cognitive base and values to a decision, creating a screen between the situation and his/her eventual perception of it [46]. Thus, the more these values are shared by top management, the more likely that the directors to have effective and efficient information-sharing, joint decision making, and collaboration in order to formulate and implement good strategies and other decisions, including those for developing effective firms' environmental policy [47]. As mentioned earlier, female directors are said to possess a different set of psychological values and perceptions compared to their male counterparts. Female leaders are more likely to have a participative, democratic, and communal leadership style and more concerned about the environment. Accordingly, female directors may help boosting the firm's value in terms of environmental protection.

Likewise, a gender difference perspective can be deeply embedded in gender socialization theory, which states that socialization encourages and rewards different behaviors in men and women: individualistic and competitive behaviors in men versus cooperative and altruistic behaviors in women (for e.g. see [48, 49]). These diverse public roles and expectations give rise to career paths and leadership styles that differ depending on the gender of the leaders. As a result, women in leadership roles tend to take more participative and relationship development approaches, and they are more likely to pursue long-term strategies and stakeholder focused outcomes, which are critical to successful CSR practices [50, 51].

Given the theoretical justifications provided above, it is evident that female directors play an essential role in implementing CSR into a company's strategic objective. Nevertheless, no single theory fully explains for all the relationships. Indeed, the majority of ideas in favor of female directors are predicated on the premise of psychology idea that female directors have higher moral and communal attitudes than male

directors. As a result, female directors are more concerned with CSR and are more likely to launch CSR initiatives. However, facts might not always imply truth. The board decision is much more about individual traits. For instance, in recent qualitative study has revealed that, while female directors are highly impacted by their psychological perceptions that are aligned with CSR, a number of hurdles have been discovered for female directors to properly participate [52]. It is also argued that female executives must act like men in order to succeed. Female directors, in contrast to the female stereotype for the population, are more risk-taking than their male counterparts [4]. Furthermore, the preceding theories do not include the environmental context, which could be the important determinant of the relationship. For instance, in some countries, a female director's ability to influence on corporate strategy may be limited due to stereotyping challenges and culture. In short, the benefit of female director is prevalence in some extend, nonetheless the future investigations still needed.

In this stance, as part of corporate strategy, the board of directors play preliminary role in determining the socially responsible behavior of an organization [5, 53, 54], being relevant to this role of the fulfillment of social and environmental conscientiousness [55, 56].
