**5.4 Qualification of female directors**

Prior literature often assume that female directors are more socially oriented than their male counterparts, thereby turning the boardroom to be more socially oriented [44]. Wang et al. [75] argued that female directors may differ in social orientation due to their past experience and that political connection is an important personal factor that shapes an individual's social orientation. Government exists to promote social welfare and stability. This ideology is likely to permeate an individual's values, making a politically connected person highly socially oriented. Therefore, they argued that the impact of politically connected female directors on CSR should further differ across situations. Specifically, they found the politically connected female directors are more socially oriented than politically disconnected female directors and consequently have a stronger positive effect on CSR.

Similarly, some researchers focus on characteristics of directors. For instance, del Mar Alonso-Almeida et al. [76] examined the differences in attitudes toward the various dimensions of CSR, with a focus on the perspectives of women in top management positions in Spain. Although they were unable to find a link between professional background and CSR, they did discover a link between women's educational level and CSR awareness. Whereas some may argue that personalities, abilities, network, and business expertise can influence women's views about CSR. Ramon-Llorens [77] classified female directors into three main categories namely, industry experts, advisors, and community leaders, and found that companies characterized by female directors with technical expertise are effective at pursuing CSD strategies. Whereas, female directors with political and social connections reduce CSR transparency. These findings underline the fact that gender diversity could have a two-sided character, with diverse behavior among female directors based on their expertise and backgrounds.

### **5.5 Critical mass**

When women attained 20% of the Senate vote, they went after the Pentagon to modify the military's sexual-assault procedure. When they reached 25% of Hollywood producers, they were able to bring down Harvey Weinstein and his casting-couch culture. When they reached one-third of the White House press corps, Fox News' Roger Ailes, NPR's Michael Oreskes, and other chronic harassers in the media were called out. Things start to alter somewhere around that range, when women make up 20–30% of a given institution. According to critical mass theory based on Kanter [78]'s work, only when a company's board of directors reaches a critical mass or threshold, women will be able to provide unique perspectives, ability, and skills and hence positively influence group culture and performance. Some of empirical results also show that an absolute number of at least three female directors participate on board is necessary before significant power can be exercised over board activities and significantly affect the dynamics and processes inside the board [21, 30]. Besides, unless a critical mass of at least three women is present on a board, female presence on boards appears to have little impact on governance performance [30]. Along the same line, Post et al., [7] demonstrated that boards with three or more female directors demonstrate more firm environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR), as measured by Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini (KLD) ratings in the environmental strength's areas, because individuals in the associated groups have more information about and favorable attitudes toward environmental issues than male directors. Likewise, Liu [79] discovered that female CEOs are related with lower environmental lawsuits only in enterprises with low female board participation; in firms run by male CEOs, a larger association between the number of female directors and lower litigation frequency is detected. Using both qualitative and quantitative data on multination dataset, Shoham et al. [57] observed that when the board has at least three women directors, the probability that the organization reports its attitudes and behavior regarding environmental sustainability is about two times higher than an organization with fewer than three women on the board. In addition, there is evidence that the presence of a critical mass of female directors resulted in enhanced CSD by corporations in a sample of nonfinancial organizations listed in Spain [80].

Nonetheless, some say that variety is not only about the numbers but also about the relative power and prestige of social groupings that extends to their members [81]. For instance, Board A, with four female and six male directors, and Board B, with four male and six female directors, are regarded identical, as indicated by an index of dissimilarity. However, because female and male directors have differing access to firm information, as a result, Boards A and B are most likely extremely distinct and will make very different judgments. Hence, though the critical mass may be important for female directors to have influence on the board, the relative and prestige of female directors' influence on the board is also important.
