The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2049-372X.htm

Gender and
Gender and CSR CSR decisions
decisions: perspectives
from Australian boards
Kathyayini Kathy Rao and Carol Tilt
UniSA Business, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
Received 18 November 2019
Revised 28 February 2020
8 May 2020
Accepted 27 June 2020
Abstract
Purpose – Within the board diversity literature, the issue of gender diversity has been extensively studied,
however, limited research has examined whether gender diversity at board level has any influence on
corporate social responsibility (CSR) decisions. This paper aims to fill this knowledge gap and shed light on
whether, and how, gender diversity influences CSR related decisions.
Design/methodology/approach – In total, 13 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with
board members of Australian companies to examine their perceptions of the effect of gender diversity.
Findings – Although the findings show evidence that there is a general perception that gender diversity has
the potential to influence board level decisions, this does not appear to translate to CSR decisions specifically.
The results from the interviews identified that several issues and moderating factors interact with the gender-
CSR relationship.
Research limitations/implications – The paper contributes significantly to the body of knowledge by
going beyond the plethora of quantitative analyses. The results suggest that there is much work to be done to
improve governance policy and mechanisms if boards are to see the potential for gender to have a positive
impact on CSR decision-making.
Originality/value – The study responds to calls for more research adopting qualitative studies, including
interviews and case studies, to understand the complex interactions that take place during board decision-
making. The findings provide useful insights for future research, practise and policymakers.
Keywords Australia, Corporate social responsibility (CSR), Gender diversity, Decisions
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The importance of gender diversity in boardroom decisions and firm outcomes including
corporate social responsibility (CSR) have been widely documented. These studies have
generally claimed that, compared to men, women often possess a different set of values and
perceptions (Eagly et al., 2003). They also claim that women bring unique resources in terms
of skills, capabilities, experiences (Galbreath, 2018; Hillman et al., 2002) and fresh mindsets
for complex issues (Francoeur et al., 2008). Differences in values and resources can lead to
more diverse perspectives, encourage open in-depth discussions and ultimately enable the
board to address CSR issues in a more effective manner (Adams et al., 2015; Bear et al., 2010).
Notwithstanding this, the majority of research on gender composition undertaken to date
has focussed on its effect on corporate financial performance with much less attention being
given to how specific gender attributes influence CSR performance or CSR reporting.

The authors thank and acknowledges both male and female directors from top Australian boards for
their participation and valuable contribution to this research. Meditari Accountancy Research
Funding: This study did not receive funding from any source. © Emerald Publishing Limited
2049-372X
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. DOI 10.1108/MEDAR-11-2019-0609
MEDAR Further, from a board perspective, CSR is a strategy (Set
o-Pamies, 2015). Hence, to have a
deeper understanding of the potential effect boards have on CSR performance or reporting, it
is important to examine the board level processes around CSR issues and practises
(Kakabadse et al., 2015; Byron and Post, 2016). The outcomes of such decision processes are
likely to be reflected in CSR performance and, in turn, be reflected in their reporting (Rao and
Tilt, 2016b). However, research explicitly linking gender diversity with CSR decisions is
rare. Most research only considers the direct relationship between gender diversity and CSR
performance/reporting using quantitative analysis and has resulted in mixed and
inconclusive findings. Consequently, scholars in the field of corporate governance, have
recently made several calls recommending researchers examine board processes using
qualitative studies (Rao and Tilt, 2016b; Galbreath, 2018). The current paper, therefore,
responds to these calls and provides some preliminary evidence of the potential impact of
gender diversity on CSR decision-making processes in Australia.
Both CSR and gender diversity are increasingly gaining the attention of policymakers
and regulators in Australia. For instance, the Australian Securities Investment Commission
has been continuously encouraging firms to prioritise CSR disclosure (McLeod and Hurley,
2018). The proposed 4th edition of the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) governance
principles reinforces the need for listed companies to act “lawfully, ethically and in a socially
responsible manner” (ASX, 2018, p. 5). More recently, the Australian Council of
Superannuation for Investors (ACSI, 2017) has started measuring sustainability practises
and the progress of ASX 200 companies. Similar to CSR, the issue of gender diversity has
also become a priority on the political agenda globally, including in Australia. Gender
equality, specifically gender balanced boards, is reflected in the United Nations (UN) 2030
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Target 5.5, indicating the importance of gender
equality for the development of a sustainable future (UN, 2015). Several countries have
started adopting various measures (either mandatory, quota systems or voluntary
measures) to increase female representation in top level positions. In Australia, gender has
become “one of the most salient dimensions of demographic diversity” (Ali et al., 2014,
p. 501). In 2010, the ASX recommended listed companies adopt and report on their gender
diversity initiatives and gender proportions at all levels, including boards (ASX, 2010). The
Australian Institute of Company Directors recently called for ASX 200 companies to achieve
a target of 30% female representation on boards by the end of 2018 (AICD, 2017). Given the
importance to these two issues, the current paper is motivated to provide an in-depth insight
into the effect of gender diversity on CSR decisions. This is of particular significance in the
Australian context because both policymakers and firms are increasingly looking for ways
to improve firms’ CSR performance and reporting, and this is commonly understood as a
board-level issue (Rao and Tilt, 2016a). Therefore, examining current perceptions of the
impact of gender diversity in the boardroom helps to understand the complexity around
CSR decisions and ultimately improve them. To achieve this objective, the paper attempts to
answer the research question:

RQ1. Does gender diversity on boards (through bringing different values, perceptions
and unique resources) influence CSR decisions?
In considering this question, the paper undertakes a qualitative study based on thirteen
semi-structured interviews which were conducted with board members of Australian
companies. In particular, it explores board members’ perceptions regarding the role women
directors play in CSR decision-making processes. The findings from the interviews clearly
indicate that the way in which CSR issues are framed by female directors is heavily
influenced by their psychological values/perceptions which are aligned with CSR. However,
several challenges have been identified for female board members in Australian boards Gender and
which seems to restrict their ability to contribute effectively. Results as such not only CSR decisions
highlight the importance of increasing the number, but also enhancing support for women
directors in the boardroom. More importantly, through adopting a qualitative approach, the
paper identifies several possible explanations for inconclusive findings for previous
empirical quantitative studies.
The paper contributes to the literature, theory and practise. Firstly, the paper is enriched
by qualitative data in the form of semi-structured interviews with board members to obtain
insights into their perceptions on the effect of gender on CSR. It, therefore, responds to the
calls for qualitative research in this area and thereby attempts to fill a gap in field of
corporate governance. Specifically, the paper contributes methodological strength to the
existing body of corporate governance and corporate sustainability literature. Further, prior
literature highlights that little research has been performed on the topic of gender in
accounting resulting in a call for research in this field (Broadbent, 2016; Galizzi and Siboni,
2016). Broadbent (2016) argues that current research on gender in accounting does not
provide the “impetus for a change that will enrich accounting information and the decision-
making processes that it informs” (p. 169). The current paper, therefore, contributes to the
body of knowledge in the area of accounting, particularly the role of gender in an accounting
field. Secondly, the paper contributes to theory by combining upper echelon theory and
resource dependency theory (RDT), highlighting the importance of values and resources of
corporate leaders in influencing the social and environmental decisions. Finally, and more
importantly, the results of the study are relevant to both companies and policymakers as the
findings provide more in-depth understanding of the importance of the differences in
background, values and perceptions of gender diverse boards. By identifying various issues,
including barriers and means, the paper provides new insights into the complex relationship
between gender and CSR. This could potentially help policymakers and companies to
develop and strengthen their policies around gender diversity which could, in turn, lead to
improved CSR performance.
The paper is structured as follows. The next section reviews relevant literature and this
is followed by an overview of the theoretical framework used. The methods used to conduct
the analysis are outlined next, followed by results and discussion, then implications and
conclusions are drawn.

Literature review
In recent years, rising importance of CSR in evaluating firms has been observed all over the
world, including Australia (Galbreath, 2010; Jamali et al., 2008). Gradual changes in the
global economy, such as the rise in social activism, the emergence of new expectations,
globalisation, international trade, increased expectations of transparency and corporate
citizenship now increasingly require corporations worldwide to perform well in every aspect
of business (economic, social and environmental) (Jamali et al., 2008, p. 39). The European
Commission (2001, p. 6) defines CSR as a “concept whereby companies integrate social and
environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their
stakeholders on a voluntary basis”. Even though several definitions exist, one thing they
have in common is that they all suggest that, corporations have a broader responsibility
towards society which requires them to consider and address the social and environmental
impact of their operations (Adams and Zutshi, 2004). CSR in this sense seems to be a
complex, multidimensional concept which encompasses various social and environmental
concepts such as environmental concerns, employee welfare, corporate philanthropy, human
resource management and community relations. It strongly recognises the role of business
MEDAR “as an active partner in a world of scarcity and dwindling resources” (Jamali and Mirshak,
2007, p. 244). Indeed, businesses that engage in CSR activities obtain several benefits (de
Jong and van der Meer, 2017), something which is well documented in previous literature.
For example, a study by Krüger (2009) indicated that firms, through demonstrating social
responsibility, are able to attract better employees and a new breed of green consumers and
investors. In Australia, Galbreath (2010) found a similar result suggesting that firms which
engage in CSR activities are able to reduce employee turnover (due to exhibiting fairness),
are likely to increase customer satisfaction (by meeting the justice needs of customers) and
are able to create an avenue to increase overall firm reputation (by providing signals to
stakeholders about the positive characteristics of firms). Various other benefits have been
claimed in the literature, some of which are to maintain the licence to operate, risk reduction,
efficiency gains and tax advantages (Weber, 2008). Benefits from CSR clearly indicate that
through CSR initiatives organisations not only meet their social and environmental
obligations but also can achieve advantages for themselves. Moreover, by taking decisions
and initiatives that incorporate such a broader responsibility, organisations can recognise
their social and environmental impact on society. It then allows corporations to improve
their CSR activities, as well as help them to identify and minimise negative impacts, all of
which contribute towards saving and preserving the planet.
CSR practises and reporting as such not only contribute towards sustainable
development but also help corporations in building trust with investors and communities
(ACSI, 2017). More importantly, it provides investors with an opportunity to make informed
investment decisions (ACSI, 2017). However, decisions regarding CSR seem to be less certain
and complex. Unlike financial reporting, there is no particular standard for CSR practises
and CSR reporting and companies may, therefore, be less likely to be motivated to engage in
CSR related activities. In addition, the benefits of CSR are not easily quantifiable in dollar
figures and often not seen in the short term. As senior level managers often look mainly for
short term benefits (particularly in dollar terms), it is unlikely that CSR issues will be given a
high priority at management level. This is reflected in the recent report by ACSI that found
the depth of disclosure by several Australian companies still remains poor with 42%
achieving a “Basic” or “Moderate” rating and 8% not undertaking any sustainability
disclosure (ACSI, 2017). Therefore, examining corporate governance mechanisms,
particularly Boards of Directors, who are largely considered to be responsible for developing
CSR policies, is of importance, not only for advancing knowledge but also for policy
development in Australia (Rao and Tilt, 2016a). Specifically, gender diversity in companies’
governance systems (notably boards of directors) is one of the significant issues considered
to have an effect on firm outcomes, including CSR.
The literature on gender in accounting recognises there are gender differences in this
professional setting. A few studies specifically focus on accounting students and indicate
that compared to men, female students take more personal responsibility for their studies,
better perform and are more reluctant to undertake unethical academic activities (Sadler and
Barac, 2005; Callaghan and Papageorgiou, 2015; Siboni et al., 2016). Sadler and Barac (2005)
specifically examined the views of accounting students of different genders in South Africa
in response to a range of ethical dilemmas. Their evidence indicated that male accounting
students are four times more likely than women to act unethically (Sadler and Barac, 2005).
In the literature on gender in the workplace, it is well established that female representation
in top management can positively influence several accounting phenomena (Khlif and
Achek, 2017). For example, Kaplan et al. (2009) examined the effect of gender on individuals’
intentions to report fraudulent financial reporting. They documented that female participant
had more intention to report fraud via an anonymous channel than male participants.
Similarly, Capezio and Mavisakalyan (2016) showed that the increase in women’s Gender and
representation on company boards decreases the probability of fraud presentation in annual CSR decisions
reports and financial analysts in the Australian setting. Similar findings have been found for
audit committees in the USA, where female members have been found to be more likely to
report internal control weaknesses under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (Parker et al., 2017). The
study by Parker et al. (2017) showed that the percentage of female directors on the audit
committee increases the likelihood of reporting internal control weaknesses. This
phenomenon has been related to the ethical disposition of women to accounting context,
namely, accounting conservatism. Ho et al. (2015) showed a positive association between
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) gender and accounting conservatism, highlighting the
benefits of gender diversity in upholding the integrity of financial reporting.
Studies have also identified that the presence of female directors on corporate boards can
have a positive effect on accounting phenomena, including analyst forecast accuracy
(Kumar, 2010; Gul et al., 2013) and in mitigating or restraining earnings management
practises (Arun et al., 2015; Srinidhi et al., 2011). Significantly for this paper, gender
composition of boards is considered to be an important aspect when considering their
decisions about CSR related activities (Bear et al., 2010; Hillman et al., 2002; Rao and Tilt,
2016b; Rao et al., 2012; Terjesen et al., 2009; Swartz and Firer, 2005). When linking female
directors with CSR related issues, researchers often focus on the differences between men
and women in terms of values, perceptions, skills, experiences, professional background and
networking skills suggesting that women’s contribution to boardroom discussion is unique
and different to male directors. Specifically, the literature broadly classifies these differences
into two categories as follows: psychological values and unique set of resources.
Firstly, female directors are said to possess a different set of psychological values and
perceptions compared to their male counterparts. For instance, the literature on gender
stereotypes often associates psychological characteristics of women with communal traits
(empathy, caring, kindness, interpersonal sensitivity, concern for others/community
welfare) (Eagly et al., 2003). On the other hand, men are attributed with agentic
characteristics (assertive, ambitious, aggressive, independent, self- confident, daring and
competitive) (Eagly and Karau, 1991; Eagly et al., 2003). In this sense, “men and women
exhibit psychological and cognitive differences” (Cumming et al., 2015, p. 1573). Therefore,
having more women on a board may produce a greater level of compassion and sensitivity
being shown towards CSR and stakeholder related issues (Tremblay et al., 2016; Boulouta,
2013). Secondly, women bring unique resources to the board, particularly in terms of
knowledge/education, experiences and skillsets. It has been noted that women often achieve
higher academic qualifications (Hillman et al., 2002; Galbreath, 2018; Callaghan and
Papageorgiou, 2015). They often serve in non-business roles, including community services,
academia, human resources, marketing and advertising (Hillman et al., 2002; Terjesen et al.,
2009). Women are also considered to be highly responsible; more ethical (Sadler and Barac,
2005); and adopt a more social and ethical leadership style than their male counterparts
(Pucheta-Martínez et al., 2018). Further, compared to men, women are considered to be more
participative and democratic (Ray, 2005; Adams and Ferreira, 2009); are highly interactive
(Fenwick and Neal, 2001), objective and independent (Fondas, 2000; Bilimoria and Wheeler,
2000); and can foresee negative consequences (Siboni et al., 2016; Hillman, 2015). Women
directors’ unique skillsets as such not only encourage them to develop broader perspectives
and multiple viewpoints (Byron and Post, 2016) but also enhance board information, open
conversations and generate more strategic alternatives (Torchia et al., 2011). These
attributes are crucial to solving complex and uncertain decisions like those related to CSR
(Bear et al., 2010).
MEDAR Based on the differences in both psychological values and resources between men and
women directors discussed so far, several studies have recently suggested that having
women on boards does exert some influence on CSR performance and reporting (Ben-Amar
et al., 2017; Nadeem et al., 2017; Set
o-Pamies, 2015; Galbreath, 2018; Cabeza-García et al.,
2018; Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2014; Welbeck, 2017; Post et al., 2015; Rao and Tilt, 2016b; Bear
et al., 2010). For example, based on directors’ values, experiences and knowledge, Byron and
Post (2016) recently found that firms with more women directors engage in more CSR
practises. Similarly, a study by Post et al. (2015) analysed the relationship between women
on a board and specific strategic behaviours (formation of renewable energy alliances) for 36
oil and gas firms from the USA. They found that the higher the representation of women on
a firm’s board, the more likely the firm is to form sustainability-themed alliances (Post et al.,
2015). Further, Harjoto et al. (2015) concluded that board diversity increases firms’ ability to
recognise and serve different stakeholder groups, as well as to prevent and address conflicts
with their broader stakeholders. More recently, an Australian study by Nadeem et al. (2017)
examining the differences in values and practises between men and women directors in ASX
listed firms, found a positive relationship between women’s representation on boards and
corporate sustainability practises.
While the importance of gender diversity is widely recognized, empirical evidence on the
benefits, especially on CSR practises and reporting, is inconclusive. Studies examining the
influence of gender diversity on both CSR performance and reporting document positive
(Harjoto et al., 2015; Nadeem et al., 2017; Bear et al., 2010; Galbreath, 2018; Rao and Tilt,
2016a), negative (Cucari et al., 2018; Argento et al., 2019) or insignificant results (Prado-
Lorenzo and Garcia-Sanchez, 2010; Amran et al., 2014). Such inconsistent findings are often
considered to be driven by various contextual, internal or personal factors. Some of these
factors repetitively identified in the literature include: differences in methodologies used,
country contexts, use of variables and measurements, time horizons, omitted variable biases
(Hermalin and Weisbach, 2003; Adams et al., 2015), use of CSR dimensions (Galbreath, 2018;
Boulouta, 2013), endogeneity/causation effects (Brieger et al., 2019; Li et al., 2017; Velte,
2018), the issue of critical mass i.e. the effect of having three or more female directors on
performance (Konrad et al., 2008; Cabeza-García et al., 2018; Willows and van der Linde,
2016), heterogeneity of gender diversity (Velte, 2018) and leadership style (Powell, 1990).
It is also worth noting that gender discrimination and the existence of the “glass ceiling”
seems to be an inherent factor in the accounting profession which can limit the actual
influence of women on various accounting phenomena, including CSR (Arun et al., 2015).
The literature on gender in accounting has suggested that the values embedded in
accounting practise is gendered masculine, hence ignores the assumptions and values of the
universal feminine (Broadbent, 1998). This idea is also supported by Parker (2008), who
argued that accounting is not gender-neutral but rather largely related to male
characteristics. Broadbent (2016, p. 170) more recently, suggested that women are
“subordinated in terms of relative power and economic rewards”. They are often considered
as support staff, accompaniment and housekeepers and these elements feed into more
structural issues leading to direct discrimination (Broadbent, 2016). Siboni et al. (2016)
argued from a similar perspective that even though women out-perform their male
counterparts, due to bias they are often excluded from senior promotions.
The plethora of issues raised in previous literature clearly indicates that the
establishment of a gender-CSR relationship is complex. Adding more female directors on
boards may or may not necessarily influence CSR performance/CSR reporting. Moreover,
conflicting empirical evidence (especially that relying on quantitative approaches) has
further created challenges in understanding the influence of gender diversity, on CSR
(Kakabadse et al., 2015). Consequently, calls have been repeatedly made to adopt more Gender and
rigorous qualitative studies aiming at examining board processes (Galbreath, 2018; Jain and CSR decisions
Jamali, 2016; Rao and Tilt, 2016b). Various corporate governance scholars suggest that there
are “dangers of studying the appearance of governance, but not its substance” (McNulty
et al., 2013, p. 190). Several recommendations have been provided to explore real-life
governance issues through qualitative studies (Zattoni et al., 2013), including studying
mechanisms through which women on boards might be linked to performance and reporting
(Rao and Tilt, 2016b). This paper, therefore, adopts a qualitative approach specifically
aiming to gain the perspectives of board members to address some of these issues and
thereby provide some preliminary evidence on the effect of gender diversity on CSR
decisions.
To examine the impact of different values, perceptions and resources, it is important to
understand the mechanisms through which values permeate an organisation, and whether a
diverse set of values translates into a useful resource for boards’ decision-making. Thus, two
theoretical frames are combined to inform the paper, as will be discussed in the next section.
In so doing, the paper not only provides deeper insight into the gender-CSR relationship but
also provides some explanation for the inconsistent findings from earlier quantitative
studies. Specifically, it exposes new questions, challenges existing assumptions and
identifies new constructs (Bansal, 2013), which ultimately contributes to both the gender
diversity and CSR literature.

Theoretical framework
In regard to CSR, as discussed in the previous section, certain values or attributes are
considered to be more conducive to social responsibility and these are often associated with
women. In addition, the notion of diversity is also considered to be more likely to promote
CSR as it increases the likelihood of greater resources in terms of knowledge, experience and
skills in these areas. As this paper is concerned with both the potential impact of values and
diverse resources of the upper echelons of firms (i.e. boards and gender) on decision-making,
it combines upper echelon and resource dependency theories into a framework for the study.
Prior research about diversity on boards is grounded in the strategy literature (Hafsi and
Turgut, 2013) and is typically related to studies of executive and strategic leadership, which
is often linked to the upper echelons view of the firm (Hitt and Tyler, 1991; Post and Byron,
2015). Upper echelon theory suggests that “organisational outcomes, both strategies and
effectiveness – are viewed as reflections of the values and cognitive bases of powerful actors
in the organisation” (Hambrick and Mason, 1984, p. 193). The basic assumption is that the
strategic choices are the result of both the objective situation and the characteristics of upper
echelons (executives) of the organisation (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). When decision
makers are exposed to an ongoing stream of potential stimuli, their cognitive biases and
values filter and distort the decision maker’s perception, and thereby affect strategic choice
(Hambrick and Mason, 1984).
While using upper echelon theory, prior studies have viewed boards of directors in the
same context as top management teams (Jensen and Zajac, 2004) suggesting that directors’
strategic preferences are influenced by their values, beliefs, knowledge and prior
experiences (Westphal and Fredrickson, 2001). For example, Jensen and Zajac (2004) used
both the agency and the upper echelon model to explain the board’s role in strategy. Their
results indicated that both position and demography are important factors in influencing
strategy. More recently, Post and Byron (2015), drawing on upper echelon theory, found that
women directors have the potential to shape both the content and process of board decision-
making and ultimately affect firm performance including CSR performance and reporting.
MEDAR Similar to Post and Byron (2015), the current paper draws on upper echelon theory and
thereby contributes to the understanding of the influence of gender on strategic decision-
making regarding CSR in the boardroom. Figure 1 provides an adaptation of Hambrick and
Mason’s original model used in this paper, which examines the effect of gender diversity on
one of the rarely examined strategic decisions – the decision to engage in CSR related
activities.
Although Figure 1 provides the general theoretical framework for the paper, the CSR
decision-making process is a complex strategic choice and warrants further explication. One
theory which is used most widely to theorise diversity in both the management and
corporate governance literature is RDT (Bear et al., 2010; de Villiers et al., 2011). RDT
(Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978) suggests that firms depend on both internal and external units
for resources (Terjesen et al., 2009) and that increased resource diversity in the boardroom
helps corporations to reduce agency costs, facilitates access to untapped resources and
networks (Kakabadse et al., 2015), and helps the company to respond to the environment
(Bear et al., 2010). RDT in this sense, emphasises the resource provision abilities of the board
towards improving firm performance (de Villiers et al., 2011). Several studies have used
RDT suggesting that differences in gender produces unique sets of resources that can be
made available to management and help them to effectively deal with CSR issues (Set
o-
Pamies, 2015; Ali et al., 2014). The integration of diverse attributes in terms of skills,
knowledge and perspectives that male and female directors possess often contributes to
higher quality decisions which is ultimately reflected in social performance (Ali et al., 2014;
Cabeza-García et al., 2018). Considering these factors, this paper proposes that a diverse
board, particularly in terms of gender diversity, has the potential to enhance board
effectiveness. More pooled resources in terms of knowledge, experiences and unique skills
have the potential to influence the CSR decision process. This is diagrammatically presented
in Figure 2.

Empirical research
Research method
As the research is concerned with gaining in-depth understanding of the board’s role in CSR-
related decisions, semi-structured interviews are considered to be most suitable method. They
not only provide the “opportunity to collect a rich and detailed set of data” (Saunders, 2003,
p. 316) but also allow for “flexibility, a characteristic that is important in elite interviews”
(Whitehouse, 2006, p. 284). More importantly, it allows respondents time to speak freely and

Board diversity Characterisc Strategic Choices Performance

Psychological Observable
Cognive
The Objecve Situaon base values
(External and internal) CSR decision Enhanced
Gender (Female) making process CSR
Decisions

Figure 1.
Research framework
based on Hambrick
and Mason’s (1984)
upper echelon theory
provide an opportunity to probe responses further and thus help understand the reasons Gender and
behind such decisions (O’Donovan, 2002; O’Dwyer, 2002). CSR decisions
Selection of sample
The sampling frame for the paper comprises the top 100 Australian companies listed on the
ASX. As the main purpose of the paper is to examine female directors’ involvement, in
particular, only companies that had at least one female director were included in the sample.
Further, it has been identified that female directors often seem to serve in non-business roles
(Hillman et al., 2000) and tend to have experience on boards of smaller firms (Singh et al.,
2008). Based on this, it is assumed that newly appointed female board members in large
listed firms would need to be in their role for a certain period of time to have any impact on
CSR (Bear et al., 2010). Therefore, only firms that had female director(s) who served on the
board for a minimum of three years were included. This ultimately resulted in an initial
sample of 50 companies that were contacted to seek participation in the interviews.

Selection of interviewees
Although the paper focusses on investigating female directors’ involvement in CSR
decisions, interviews were also conducted with a sample of male chairs of boards. In fact, the
Chairman of the organisation is not only in a better position to see the whole picture about
board processes but also would be able to reveal a male director’s perspective on the
influence of gender diversity on CSR decisions (Brunzell and Liljeblom, 2014; Kakabadse
et al., 2015). Moreover, including data from two groups increases the reliability and validity
of the information provided by the interviewees. In total, 13 directors were interviewed,
comprising five male chairs and eight female directors. The small number of participants is
largely due to problems of access to companies, particularly large listed Australian
companies. Further, several potential interviewees, in particular women directors indicated
their inability to participate in the interview due to their busy schedule. However, qualitative
research involves in-depth exploration, hence small samples are considered to be sufficient
by qualitative research experts (Patton, 2002; Saunders, 2012). Moreover, several prior
studies have used small samples while conducting qualitative interviews, particularly with
senior executives. For example, Money and Schepers (2007) (13 interviews with Directors);
Islam and Deegan (2008) (12 interviews with Senior Managers) and Jamali et al. (2008) (8
interviews with Directors and CEOs). In addition, this paper uses a purposive sampling
approach where participants were chosen based on their expert knowledge and experience
in CSR issues (Patton, 2002). This approach ensured that interviewees continued to be
sought via referrals until saturation was reached [the point where “no new information or
themes are observed in the data” (Guest, et al., 2006, p. 59)]. Based on this careful
consideration of participant selection, data collection and the saturation process, 13

Resource Dependency Theory:

Figure 2.
Enhances internal board resources Theoretical
Board diversity (More pooled resources Beer CSR framework: gender
Gender among board members) decisions diversity in the
boardroom and CSR
decision
MEDAR interviews were considered sufficient (Patton, 2002; Saunders, 2012). Further information on
the company and demographic data of the interviewees is presented in Table 1.
Prior to contacting the potential interviewees, ethics approval was obtained to ensure
that the rights and safety of the participants were preserved. Further, an interview guide
was prepared to cover the issues under investigation. Knowledge gathered from the review
of the literature contributed to the design of the interview guide (Appendix). The actual
interview sessions lasted on average 45 to 60 min. At first, a brief introduction about the
study was explained to the participants. As per ethics requirements, all the data from the
interview is kept confidential and individuals are not identified in the results.

Analysis
Upon completion of the interviews, each interview was transcribed verbatim using a third
party professional transcription service to ensure data reliability, which resulted in a rich set
of data, including field notes. Thematic analysis was used (Bryman, 2008) allowing the
researchers to identify the major themes in the data. As there were only 13 directors
interviewed, the transcripts were able to be manually analysed. However, in addition to the
manual analysis, and as an additional check that the analysis was robust, NVivo software
was also used to code the transcription results based on the occurrence of themes and
categories.

Results and discussion

Demographic data and themes
General demographic data of the interviewees is presented in Table 2. It can be seen that
most are aged in their 50s and 60s, all have business-related qualifications and five are part
of a CSR-related committee.
Analysis of the interview data resulted in four major themes emerging:
(1) CSR-Directors’ General Perspectives.
(2) Gender Effect on Decisions in General.
(3) Issues or factors interacting with the gender – board decisions.
(4) Gender Diversity and CSR Decisions.

Detailed analysis of each of these four themes is presented in the following sections with
participants’ direct quotations provided in italics with emphasis added in bold to
demonstrate how the quote supports the interpretation made.

Corporate social responsibility – directors’ general perspectives

Firstly, interviewees were asked about their personal opinion and perspectives of the
importance of CSR for their respective companies. The majority of respondents agreed that
CSR can benefit both the company and their stakeholders. However, deeper analysis
indicates that female directors’ responses had more focus on community/stakeholders’
welfare rather than business interest. For example:
Six years ago when we had the Victorian bushfires, I was feeling very distressed. So I got up on
Sunday morning and I waited until quarter to nine, and then I rang the state manager, and I said
to him, “what are we doing about helping the people in our communities that have been affected by
this fire?”. (Female director 2)

It (CSR) became important to me and is part of my value system [. . .] (Female director 4).
Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Chair (1)
and female Female Female Female Female Female Female
Participants Chair (1) Chair (1) director (1) Chair (1) directors (2) Chair (1) director (1) director (1) director (1) director (1) director (1)
Industry Materials Consumer Finance Consumer Finance Energy Finance Materials Materials Energy Consumer

Board size 10 10 9 8 9 11 9 6 10 7 9
No. of female directors 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 3
Gender of the Chair Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male
Existence of CSR related committees No No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes
Separate CSR report Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes
Board multiple directorships (%) 70% 70% 90% 75% 80% 75% 90% 80% 90% 80% 75%
Board independence (%) 80% 70% 90% 75% 90% 80% 90% 80% 90% 80% 85%

Table 1.

information
Company
CSR decisions
Gender and
 Table 2.

information
MEDAR

Demographic
Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female
(Participants) Chair Chair Chair director Chair director director Chair director director director director director

Age 65 64 62 54 59 54 55 65 61 55 61 53 54
Qualification LLB, BSc BA, B.Ec, G. LLB, FAICD, BA, LLB, B.Ec BSc, BSc B.Ec BSc, B.Ec, B.Ec,
FAICD (Hon), LLM, Dip FCPA MBA, (Hon), BEng (Hon), FAICD PhD MBA, LLB,
PhD MBA FAICD FAICD (Hon) PhD FAICD MBA
Directorships Multiple Single Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple
Committee – – – – Compliance Corp. Res Corp. Res – – – Sust. – Sust.
membership and Social and Sust. and Sust.
(CSR) Res.
Board tenure 7 8 8 9 17 3 6 12 4 12 5 4 11
(years)
 I suppose the way we like to think of it (CSR) is that part of the deal, part of the contract. (Male Gender and
chairman 2)
CSR decisions
My feeling on CSR is that women worry about it more than men. They’re concerned about the
world generally and I think men are more focused on the company performance (Male Chairman
3).
Clearly, the results from the interview are in line with previous studies suggesting that
compared to men, women possess communal traits (Eagly et al., 2003); are more sensitive to
CSR issues and specifically differ in values when it comes to social responsibility (Galbreath,
2018; Bear et al., 2010). When comparing female directors’ responses with male Chairmen,
the female responses generally had a different focus. Their expressions provide an
indication of their “empathic caring” (Boulouta, 2013, p. 185) towards stakeholders which
strongly appeals to female directors. Further, the women interviewed also seem to be
personally concerned about these issues. However, no such expressions were identified from
the responses of male Chairmen towards CSR issues. Interestingly, the results were also able
to capture views on CSR from both female directors’ and Chairs from the same company.
While providing examples for directors’ personal involvement in CSR, a male Chairman
pointed out that:
This year, a couple of kids who have enrolled in university who told me they wouldn’t have gone
to university but for the $5,000 support we gave them. We can only do it because those
communities do the banking with us. So we get more business out of it. I mean it’s a business
thing, even if it’s done for that reason. (Male chairman 2)
As can be seen from the above quote, the Chair’s focus was the business interest. However, a
woman director from the same company while explaining a similar situation mentioned
that:
Some of the directors of our banks are volunteers, they don’t get paid. They do it because they care
about their communities. It is not just about banking it is about making a difference in the
community. (Female director 2)
Although both the respondents raised the same issue suggesting that boards are personally
involved in CSR, the reason seems to be different (one is strategic and the other is focussed
on the community’s welfare). This difference was also reflected in the physical observations
of the interviewees made by the researcher. The women were generally more expressive,
told stories and were more compassionate and contemplative about their answers. It is
worth noting, however, that the difference observed may simply be due to differences in how
men and women express themselves, rather than their underlying values or experiences.
Further research using text mining techniques may essentially shed more light on this
aspect of the findings. One such possible area of future research is to use the software, such
as Leximancer and a “sentiment lens” (sentiment analysis approach) which provides “an
understanding of the extent to which a concept is semantically proximate to sentiment
words generally, as well as the extent to which a concept is semantically proximate to
positive versus negative words” (Bell et al., 2015, p. 5). This could, in turn, provide more
robust results on gender differences in relation to CSR issues and decisions. However, text
mining techniques including sentiment analysis “needs a large volume of data and a
significant amount of tuning to achieve reasonable results” (Liu, 2012, p. 76), hence was not
able to be applied in the current paper.
MEDAR Gender effect on decisions in general
As the aim of the paper is to examine whether gender diversity at board level influences CSR
decisions, participants were initially asked about the influence of female directors on board
decisions in general. A majority of the interviewees agree that gender diversity in the
boardroom brings different perspectives and unique skills to the discussions being held and
can often have a positive effect on decisions made. This was supported by both female
directors and male chairmen, for example,
I think women always have a slightly different perspective to men, [. . .] They’ve also had different
upbringings, they were treated differently when they were younger [. . .] so I think to that extent
they bring different perspectives. (Female director 2)

Men and women ask questions in different ways, [. . .] women will get to the bottom of the issue,
[. . .] make men to bring to the conclusion. (Female director 5)

So, there is a certain rigour of thinking or rigour of communication you (female director) have, you
make your point quickly and effectively. (Female director 6)

Gender diversity, [. . .]. I think is different and is better, is more wholesome, is more complete and
certainly for us, as a board, with gender diversity it’s important for all those reasons. (Male
chairman 4)

What I view as a good CSR activity might be very different from what a woman board member
might think of, just because of our backgrounds. (Male chairman 5)
Overall, the interview data indicates that women directors bring different perspectives to
the discussion, ask hard questions, contribute towards healthy debate and ultimately
influence board level decisions. The result is consistent with the argument provided in prior
literature that women directors tend to be objective, independent and likely to ask questions
more freely than male directors (Bilimoria and Wheeler, 2000). The interview data also
indicates that women have different value priorities (Eagly et al., 2003). In this sense, the
results provide evidence supporting RDT suggesting that the perspectives, background and
expertise of female directors serves as a valuable resource (Ali et al., 2014; Set
o-Pamies,
2015). However, interviewees also revealed several issues, challenges and factors influencing
board decisions which are discussed in the next section.

Issues or factors interacting with the gender – board decisions

As discussed in the literature review section, the accrued collection of previous studies has
resulted in inconclusive findings about the relationship between gender and CSR
performance/reporting. Scholars have been increasingly speculating that there may be
various internal, contextual and personal factors influencing such findings. Consistent with
this literature, the interviewees did identify several issues. Firstly, the majority of the female
interviewees agreed that due to their minority status, they face discrimination which results
in their contribution being ineffective, insignificant or even ignored by other board
members:
Well I definitely think that having a voice is potentially a challenge. I think it’s very difficult to get a
strong voice when you are the only woman. If there are two women it’s better and I’m told that
three women, 30% is actually even more better, well it becomes the norm. (Female director 1)
Then that more women increase the comfort and confidence of female directors to speak up:
 There is a degree of additional comfort when there is another woman on the board. (Female Gender and
director 3)
CSR decisions
If there’s 3 or 4 voices saying “oh but hold on a minute have you thought about this or well no, I
actually agree with” [. . .]. that will open the dialogue up. (Female director 4)
It is clear that small numbers make it difficult for women’s voices to be heard. Consistent
with previous research, the interview data clearly identified that unless there is a certain
threshold or “critical mass” (three or more) of women on a board, individual influence will be
minimal or ineffective (Konrad et al., 2008). This concept has been extensively highlighted in
gender diversity and CSR studies (Bear et al., 2010; Ben-Amar et al., 2017). For example, Bear
et al. (2010) found that firms’ CSR ratings increase with the increase in the number of women
directors and that the contributions women bring to the board are more likely to be
considered by the board when the group diversity dynamics move away from tokenism to
normality. Similarly, Fernandez-Feijoo et al. (2012) and Post et al. (2015) found that boards
with three or more women are determinants for CSR reporting practises.
The second major issue raised is the lack of support from the board (Chair or influential
board members) due to the existence of a traditional male dominated team (i.e. an “old boys
club” with the sole objective of “profit maximization” mind-sets). For example,
If the executive team is very male dominated even if the board is not, it makes it hard to get your
point across. (Female director 2)

Still [. . .] a very traditional director’s mindset that’s about bottom line profitability, and none of
these other things matter. I might put forward a suggestion, [. . .] but unless I can persuade some of
the stronger, more significant male influencers at the table that will not go through. (Female director
4)
However, a few interviewees suggested that the maturity of the board (and the experience of
working together as board) may reduce the impact of such a male dominated environment to
a certain extent:
[. . .] it depends on how mature is your team and how does the chairman lead the team. I have been
very lucky to be a part of good groups. (Female director 6)

It so much depends on the quality of the men on the board. (Female director 3)
This suggests that negative aspects can be moderated over time when, board members
become more knowledgeable about one another (Harjoto et al., 2015; Nadeem et al., 2017).
Thirdly, as identified in prior literature, women who are in leadership or managerial
positions seem to hide their emotions and behave in a masculine manner (Zhao and Lord,
2016). Consistent with this, the majority of female directors indicated that they need to adopt
a certain style or behave in a certain way when contributing to the board discussions to
make the “old boys club” to listen to them. For example, the need to reduce the perception
that women are only interested in “soft” issues:
You cannot allow yourself to talk about the soft issues all the time, so if you really want to
command respect you have to be able to talk about the hard issues and then talk about soft issues.
(Female director 3)
Then the need to use language that male directors are more comfortable with:
[. . .] as soon as we started to call this (CSR) risk management, you got space on the agenda.
(Female director 4)
MEDAR I would call it learning [. . .] Don’t go into that board meeting with anything other than
economically rational argument. (Female director 6)
Interestingly, none of the Chairs interviewed raised any of the above issues, rather, they
expressed that everyone accepts the mix of men and women directors on the board. This
suggests that there is likely unconscious bias exhibited by many male directors, who may
fail to see the more subtle elements of discrimination, forcing women to behave in ways that
reflect the behaviour of their male counterparts. As identified in the literature, it seems that
sex-based biases or stereotyping by male directors can limit women directors’ influence on
decision-making and thereby on sustainable outcomes (Galbreath, 2011).
Finally, one of the most important issues identified by both groups of participants is the
issues around the board recruitment process. The majority of female participants felt that
boards seems to be reluctant to appoint them or appoint candidates who have different
experiences. They note that those recruiting for boards are predominantly male:
There is not a shortage of women. The fellows (men) interview and if they don’t like you that’s it,
you are done. (Female director 3)

Large recruiters are men, and they have no real understanding of the different skills that women
can bring. (Female director 5)
More pointedly, and related to the previous point, the female respondents suggest that those
doing the recruiting look only for people similar to themselves. Thus, women are often
overlooked:
They are not looking too hard. They want people that have exactly the same experience as them.
(Female director 5)

I can tell you that the diversity of thought is very low, because the women around the table and
the men around the table are all thinking the same, because of same experience/background/
network. (Female director 6)
In contrast, male chairs had a completely opposite view regarding board recruitment.
Almost all the male chairs suggest that not enough women directors have the required skills
and those that do are overcommitted:
We have to be careful that we don’t just pick them because they’re female because often they are so
over committed. (Male chairman 4)

Unfortunately, the number of women working in this industry is very small. There is shortage of
women with experience in these kinds of industries. (Male chairman 5)
The results from the interview data are consistent with the literature suggesting that women
directors face difficulties in both contributing to, as well as getting appointed to, corporate
boards (Peterson and Philpot, 2007). It also appears that the assumption that women lack
adequate competencies for board positions (Terjesen et al., 2009) still exists in Australian
companies. This result suggests that a major impediment to women contributing effectively
to board decision-making, and to boards capitalising on the different perspectives and
skillsets that women bring, is the inability to perceive the unconscious bias that exists
amongst board members. It is also worth noting that, from male directors’ perspective, a
concern was raised about the high demand for women directors (shortage of supply) and
women directors, hence, being overcommitted. Such a perception is aligned with busyness
hypothesis suggested by Fich and Shivdasani (2006), who concluded that boards relying on
directors that serve on multiple boards are likely to decline in their quality of corporate Gender and
governance. This issue, hence, needs further investigation. CSR decisions
Overall, the results indicate that there are lot of issues and factors faced by boards (i.e.
minority status, the existence of an “old boys club”, the extent of board maturity, support/
lack of support from the chairs/male board members, boards’ perception of women being
overcommitted or a lack of competencies and board recruitment processes by male
recruiters). These factors have an impact on the relationship between gender and board
decision-making generally and by extension an impact on CSR-related decisions. The
gender-CSR relationship is therefore considered next.

Gender diversity and corporate social responsibility decisions

As noted earlier (Literature review), the majority of the directors interviewed agreed that
gender diversity does influence decisions at the board level. However, when asked about
gender influence on CSR decisions specifically, responses were quite different. A majority of
the respondents felt that gender diversity does not make a difference in CSR decisions or
even if it does, it only influences it at a marginal level, as expressed by both female directors
and male chairmen:
I haven’t really noticed any difference between male and female directors when contributing
towards CSR decisions. (Female director 2)

I would say that we have two women on the board and I would say that at the margin we give
more encouragement. We probably ask more questions, however it is not a dramatic difference
from the men but it is different. The women are not always the most passionate. (Female director 3)

I think women are much more concerned about CSR than men. but it is a slight difference in view
point and it ends with very good debate. (Male chairman 3)

I have participated in decision making about CSR type matters. I haven’t noticed differences of
opinion based on gender. (Male chairman 1)
This is somewhat contradictory to the earlier observation of the women expressing more
concern for community over financial issues. However, the earlier point made that many
women on boards have a similar background as their male counterparts was apparent, but
interestingly not acknowledged as a problem:
It’s certainly an error to assume that the women are more empathetic to some of these soft issues,
because a lot of them come up through legal backgrounds, or financial backgrounds, or technical
backgrounds. Sometimes, they are the least empathetic. (Female director 6)
In summary, the findings support theoretical predictions underpinning both upper echelon
theory and resource dependency perspectives. The results suggest that bringing together
the diverse range of values, expertise and knowledge in the shape of women’s participation
on boards could improve decision-making effectiveness with respect to firms’ CSR.
However, the existence of such diversity in values and resources of women does not seem to
be reflected in CSR outcomes as the influence of gender on CSR decision is likely to be
insignificant due to the barriers to participation identified. Despite such a result, it is worth
noting that, unlike previous empirical studies (that provided no precise explanations for
inconclusive findings), the results from this study provide deeper insight into the findings
on the gender-CSR relationship. Firstly, it seems that the presence of very low numbers of
female directors on sample companies’ boards (one to three on each board), contributed to
MEDAR board members’ difficulty in identifying specific effects of gender diversity (even though
they acknowledge the notion more generally). The results reinforce the critical mass theory
(Konrad et al., 2008) suggesting that the presence of a minority of women on the board has
an insignificant effect on board performance (Kakabadse et al., 2015; Bear et al., 2010;
Willows and van der Linde, 2016). Secondly, from female directors’ perspective, it seems that
there is still the existence of a traditional “old boys club” (with a few powerful older male
directors) with a sole objective of “profit maximization”. Such a mind-set would disregard
any opinions on “soft” CSR-related issues raised by female directors. This is consistent with
studies which highlight that women are predominantly subordinated in terms of power
(Broadbent, 2016) and face greater challenges to their authority and receive less support
(Glass and Cook, 2016). If this is the case, then differences in values and unique resources the
female directors bring to the board are less likely to have an impact on CSR decisions as
there are still very low numbers of women (Swartz and Firer, 2005). That is, it could be
possible that female directors may not consider it worth engaging in critical discussion or
debates on CSR issues, especially if such views are ignored by their board. This would also
increase the current perception that the women are not competent enough to contribute in
the “hard” areas of finance and economics and may have a negative effect on female board
appointments. Finally, the issues raised in the quotes about how women are recruited
suggest that some of those women that are appointed may be more likely to have needs,
values and leadership styles similar to men (Powell, 1990), hence tend to behave in a
masculine manner (Zhao and Lord, 2016), and thus be less responsive to CSR issues.
These results have several implications for both companies and policymakers, and this is
discussed in the next section.

Implications and conclusions

CSR and boardroom diversity are two extremely important issues on the agenda of publicly
listed companies globally (Harjoto et al., 2015). While the importance of gender diversity is
widely recognised, empirical evidence on the benefits, especially on CSR practises and
reporting, is inconclusive. This has resulted in calls from scholars for more qualitative
studies conducting an in-depth analysis of this complex relationship between gender and
board/firm-level outcomes. This paper, therefore, presents an examination of the
relationship between gender diversity and CSR decisions in Australian boards. Specifically,
it uses qualitative interviews with board members and responds to such calls, attempting to
fill this gap in the literature.
Overall, this study shows the gender effect on CSR decision-making to be insignificant,
which is consistent with a few prior empirical studies (Prado-Lorenzo and Garcia-Sanchez,
2010; Amran et al., 2014), but contradicts others (Nadeem et al., 2017; Bear et al., 2010;
Galbreath, 2018). The result also supports findings from previous studies which suggest
that until female representation on boards reaches critical mass, their contribution is likely
to be ineffective (Kakabadse et al., 2015; Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2014). The findings from the
qualitative interviews, in fact, provide several explanations for the insignificant finding for
the effect of gender diversity on CSR decisions. Firstly, this may be due to the current small
number of women on boards in Australia (Rose, 2015), thus impacting the sample. Secondly,
as claimed in the literature, even though female directors’ values are more aligned with CSR
issues, the qualitative results clearly identify some of the major challenges for female
directors (in particular, minority status, the existence of an “old boys club” and lack of
support from the chairs/male board members) and this could hinder them in making
effective contributions to board discussions. Thirdly, boards’ perception of a lack of skilled
and competent female directors or a lack of guidance on board recruitment processes, may
result in fewer women being appointed. Finally, as highlighted by the interviewees Gender and
(specifically men), it could be that female directors hold too many directorships, and this CSR decisions
restricts their ability to effectively contribute or devote enough time to strategic issues such
as CSR.
Although the results are not strong enough to support the view that women make a
significant difference to CSR, the paper provides several possible explanations for previous
inconclusive findings which were missing in previous empirical studies. For instance, the
current paper indicates that although women have different value priorities which are
aligned with CSR, they face several challenges which restrict their ability to contribute
effectively towards CSR decisions. These issues and challenges act as mediating factors that
influence the gender-CSR relationship. By identifying such new insights, the paper has
provided several avenues for future research which could potentially help explain the
complex relationship between gender and CSR and ultimately contribute towards
advancing the corporate governance literature.
The findings have implications for theory, practise and policymakers, including the
ASX. For theory, it appears from this, albeit limited, evidence that RDT provides the
dominant explanation for the perception of the value of diversity. Upper echelon theory
posits that underlying values will have an impact, and while this is supported the values
appear to be those of the dominant group (men). Thus, women bring a different set of
resources via their views and perceptions, but they may not have an influence on the
decision-making process while their numbers are still low. This issue needs more analysis to
understand it further, but the notion that a combination of the two theories manifests as
mitigating against each other is an important contribution to developing the theories of
decision-making.
In terms of practise, the results provide implications for companies, and for professional
associations, for the need to provide training and incentives for more women to become
involved in firm governance. Further, given that boards in Australian private sector
companies seem reluctant to appoint diverse board members, in particular women directors,
the results further provide some guidance to Australian boards that being open to accepting
greater diversity will result in improved board performance. There is potential for training
on unconscious bias to be included in board training programs which could help with this.
In terms of CSR, through the appointment of more women directors in line with ASX
requirements, their voice (currently a minority voice) could become more prominent and this
could lead to less communication barriers and more ability to engage in and promote firms’
CSR initiatives. However, caution should also be exercised to ensure that the ASX
provisions are not abused through token appointments. The presence of women that is
merely driven by regulatory pressures may not favour CSR practises (Cucari et al., 2018). In
addition, the interview results also indicate that a major drawback for women directors is
them having too many directorships (too much commitment/busyness). For companies, this
implies that proper monitoring is advisable for those responsible for board appointments to
maintain the level of directorships held by directors, especially in ASX listed companies.
Finally, with regard to policy implications, it has been identified recently that the ASX’s
drive to increase female representation has not been successful, given the continued small
numbers of women on Boards in Australia (Galbreath, 2018). This is also supported by the
recent decline in the number of female directors on ASX 200 companies (The Guardian,
2019). The ASX could, therefore, develop more effective policies in relation to board
appointments, board renewals and provide greater tools, training and resources for
companies. While helping companies to appoint, empower and support more female
MEDAR directors, the ASX could promote better CSR performance and reporting in Australia,
ultimately benefiting society.
Several limitations of the paper potentially represent opportunities for further
investigation. The paper comprised a sample of large firms listed on the ASX and hence the
results are applicable only to the Australian market; analysis of the governance effect on
small and medium types of organisations is beyond the scope of the current paper but
warrants future research. Given the low level of representation of women directors on
Australian boards (only one or two on any one board), the critical mass effect was not
examined. This could have some influence on the findings. Therefore, another important
future research area is to examine the board process when companies have three or more
women directors which may provide more robust results and responds to the recent calls for
examining critical mass in gender diverse boards (Bear et al., 2010; Post and Byron, 2015).
Finally, due to difficulty in accessing companies, the current study used a small sample of
directors. However, restricted access is a very common limitation when investigating
companies’ top-level management and perceptions of the interviewees are representative
enough to support the results. Future research with a larger sample, and possibly using
sentiment analysis, could further support or complement this finding.
Despite its limitations, this paper has identified several issues and factors interacting with,
and influencing, the gender-CSR relationship and thereby provides significant insight into the
complex relationship between the two, which was missing in previous quantitative studies.

References
ACSI (2017), “Corporate sustainability reporting in Australia: an analysis of ASX 200 disclosure
featuring climate-related risk”, available at: www.acsi.org.au/images/stories/ACSIDocuments/
generalresearchpublic/2017-Sustainability-Report-FINAL.pdf (accessed 22 January 2020).
Adams, R.B. and Ferreira, D. (2009), “Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and
performance”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 291-309.
Adams, R.B., Haan, J.D., Terjesen, S. and Ees, H.V. (2015), “Board diversity: moving the field forward”,
Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 77-82.
Adams, C. and Zutshi, A. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility: why business should act responsibly
and be accountable”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 34, pp. 31-39.
AICD (2017), “30% By 2018: Gender diversity progress report”, available at: https://static1.squarespace.
com/static/53040435e4b0c7c348ba3b1e/t/5a3c44dfc83025169db57a07/1513899249610/Genderþ
diversity-Quarterlyþreport-Nov17.Web.PDF (accessed 7 February 2020).
Ali, M., Ng, Y.L. and Kulik, C.T. (2014), “Board age and gender diversity: a test of competing linear and
curvilinear predictions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 125 No. 3, pp. 497-512.
Amran, A., Lee, S.P. and Devi, S.S. (2014), “The influence of governance structure and strategic
corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality”, Business Strategy and
the Environment, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 217-235.
Argento, D., Grossi, G., Persson, K. and Vingren, T. (2019), “Explaining sustainability disclosures of
hybrid organizations: the case of Swedish state-owned enterprises”, Meditari Accountancy
Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 505-533.
Arun, T.G., Almahrog, Y.E. and Aribi, A.Z. (2015), “Female directors and earnings management:
evidence from UK companies”, International Review of Financial Analysis, Vol. 39,
pp. 137-146.
ASX (2010), “Corporate governance principles and recommendations with 2010 amendments”,
available at: www.asx.com.au/documents/asx-compliance/cg_principles_recommendations_with_
2010_amendments.pdf (accessed 23 January 2020).
ASX (2018), “Review of the ASX corporate governance council’s principles and recommendations”, Gender and
available at: www.asx.com.au/documents/asx-compliance/consultation-paper-cgc-4th-edition.
pdf (accessed 23 January 2020).
CSR decisions
Bansal, P. (2013), “Inducing frame-breaking insights through qualitative research”, Corporate
Governance: An International Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 127-130.
Bear, S., Rahman, N. and Post, C. (2010), “The impact of board diversity and gender composition on
corporate social responsibility and firm reputation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 97 No. 2,
pp. 207-221.
Bell, E., Campbell, S. and Goldberg, L.R. (2015), “Nursing identity and patient-centredness in scholarly
health services research: a computational text analysis of PubMed abstracts 1986–2013”, BMC
Health Services Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 181-207.
Ben-Amar, W., Chang, M. and McIlkenny, P. (2017), “Board gender diversity and corporate response to
sustainability initiatives: evidence from the carbon disclosure project”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 142 No. 2, pp. 369-383.
Bilimoria, D. and Wheeler, J.V. (2000), “Women corporate directors: current research and future
directions”, Davidson, M. and Burke, R. (Eds), Women in Management: Current Research Issues,
Springer Science, Dordrecht, pp. 138-163.
Boulouta, I. (2013), “Hidden connections: the link between board gender diversity and corporate social
performance”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 113 No. 2, pp. 185-197.
Broadbent, J. (1998), “The gendered nature of ‘accounting logic’: pointers to an accounting that
encompasses multiple values”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 267-297.
Broadbent, J. (2016), “A gender agenda”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 169-181.
Brieger, S.A., Francoeur, C., Welzel, C. and Ben-Amar, W. (2019), “Empowering women: the role of
emancipative forces in board gender diversity”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 155 No. 2, pp. 495-511.
Brunzell, T. and Liljeblom, E. (2014), “Chairmen’s perceptions of female board representation: a study
on Nordic listed companies”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 33
No. 6, pp. 523-534.
Bryman, A. (2008), Why Do Researchers Integrate/Combine/Mesh/Blend/Mix/Merge/Fuse Quantitative
and Qualitative Research, Sage, London.
Byron, K. and Post, C. (2016), “Women on boards of directors and corporate social performance: a meta-
analysis”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 428-442.
Cabeza-García, L., Fern
andez-Gago, R. and Nieto, M. (2018), “Do board gender diversity and director
typology impact CSR reporting?”, European Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 559-575.
Callaghan, C. and Papageorgiou, E. (2015), “Gender differences in locus of control and student
performance in the South African context of accounting studies”, Meditari Accountancy
Research, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 348-368.
Capezio, A. and Mavisakalyan, A. (2016), “Women in the boardroom and fraud: evidence from
Australia”, Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 719-734.
Cucari, N., DeFalco, S.E. and Orlando, B. (2018), “Diversity of board of directors and environmental
social governance: evidence from Italian listed companies”, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 250-266.
Cumming, D., Leung, T.Y. and Rui, O. (2015), “Gender diversity and securities fraud”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 1572-1593.
de Jong, M.D.T. and van der Meer, M. (2017), “How does it fit? Exploring the congruence between
organizations and their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 143 No. 1, pp. 71-83.
De Villiers, C., Naiker, V. and van Staden, C.J. (2011), “The effect of board characteristics on firm
environmental performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 1636-1663.
MEDAR Eagly, A.H. and Karau, S.J. (1991), “Gender and the emergence of leaders: a meta-analysis”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 685-710.
Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. and Van Engen, M.L. (2003), “Transformational, transactional,
and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 129 No. 4, pp. 569-591.
European Commission (2001), “Green paper: promoting a European framework for corporate social
responsibility”, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/DOC_01_9
(accessed 28 April 2020).
Fenwick, G.D. and Neal, D.J. (2001), “Effect of gender composition on group performance”, Gender,
Work and Organization, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 205-225.
Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S. and Ruiz-Blanco, S. (2014), “Women on boards: do they affect
sustainability reporting?”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 351-364.
Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S. and Ruiz, S. (2012), “Does board gender composition affect corporate
social responsibility reporting?”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 31-38.
Fich, E.M. and Shivdasani, A. (2006), “Are busy boards effective monitors?”, The Journal of Finance,
Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 689-724.
Fondas, N. (2000), “Women on boards of directors: Gender bias or power threat”, Burke, R.J. and Mattis,
M.C. (Eds), Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Challenges and
Opportunities, Springer-Science, Dordrecht, pp. 171-177.
Francoeur, C., Labelle, R. and Sinclair-Desgagné, B. (2008), “Gender diversity in corporate governance
and top management”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 83-95.
Galbreath, J. (2010), “How does corporate social responsibility benefit firms? Evidence from Australia”,
European Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 411-431.
Galbreath, J. (2011), “Are there gender-related influences on corporate sustainability? A study of
women on boards of directors”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 17-38.
Galbreath, J. (2018), “Is board gender diversity linked to financial performance? The mediating
mechanism of CSR”, Business and Society, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 863-889.
Galizzi, G. and Siboni, B. (2016), “Positive action plans in Italian universities: does gender really
matter?”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 246-268.
Glass, C. and Cook, A. (2016), “Leading at the top: understanding women’s challenges above the glass
ceiling”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-63.
Guest, G., Bunce, A. and Johnson, L. (2006), “How many interviews are enough? An experiment with
data saturation and variability”, Field Methods, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 59-82.
Gul, F.A., Hutchinson, M. and Lai, K. (2013), “Gender-diverse boards and properties of analyst earnings
forecasts”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 511-538.
Hafsi, T. and Turgut, G. (2013), “Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance:
conceptualization and empirical evidence”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 112 No. 3,
pp. 463-479.
Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984), “Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top
managers”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 193-206.
Harjoto, M., Laksmana, I. and Lee, R. (2015), “Board diversity and corporate social responsibility”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 132 No. 4, pp. 641-660.
Hermalin, B.E. and Weisbach, M.S. (2003), “Boards of directors as an endogenously
determined institution: a survey of the economic literature”, Economic Policy Review,
Vol. 9, pp. 7-26.
Hillman, A.J. (2015), “Board diversity: beginning to unpeel the onion”, Corporate Governance: An Gender and
International Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 104-107.
CSR decisions
Hillman, A.J., Cannella, A.A. and Harris, I.C. (2002), “Women and racial minorities in the boardroom:
how do directors differ?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 747-763.
Hitt, M.A. and Tyler, B.B. (1991), “Strategic decision models: integrating different perspectives”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 327-351.
Ho, S.M., Li, A., Tam, K. and Zhang, F. (2015), “CEO gender, ethical leadership, and accounting
conservatism”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 127 No. 2, pp. 351-370.
Islam, M.A. and Deegan, C. (2008), “Motivations for an organization within a developing country to
report social responsibility information: evidence from Bangladesh”, Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 850-874.
Jamali, D. and Mirshak, R. (2007), “Corporate social responsibility (CSR): theory and practice in a
developing country context”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 243-262.
Jamali, D., Safieddine, A.M. and Rabbath, M. (2008), “Corporate governance and corporate social
responsibility synergies and interrelationships”, Corporate Governance: An International
Review, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 443-459.
Jain, T. and Jamali, D. (2016), “Looking inside the black box: the effect of corporate governance on corporate
social responsibility”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 253-273.
Jensen, M. and Zajac, E.J. (2004), “Corporate elites and corporate strategy: how demographic
preferences and structural position shape the scope of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 507-524.
Kaplan, S., Pany, K., Samuels, J. and Zhang, J. (2009), “An examination of the association between
gender and reporting intentions for fraudulent financial reporting”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 15-30.
Kakabadse, N.K., Figueira, C., Nicolopoulou, K., Hong Yang, J., Kakabadse, A.P. and Özbilgin, M.F.
(2015), “Gender diversity and board performance: women’s experiences and perspectives”,
Human Resource Management, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 265-281.
Khlif, H. and Achek, I. (2017), “Gender in accounting research: a review”, Managerial Auditing Journal,
Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 627-655.
Konrad, A.M., Kramer, V. and Erkut, S. (2008), “Critical mass: the impact of three or more women on
corporate boards”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 145-164.
Krüger, P. (2009), “Corporate social responsibility and the board of directors”, Job Market Paper,
Toulouse School of Economics, France.
Kumar, A. (2010), “Self-Selection and the forecasting abilities of female equity analysts”, Journal of
Accounting Research, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 393-435.
Li, J., Zhao, F., Chen, S., Jiang, W., Liu, T. and Shi, S. (2017), “Gender diversity on boards and firms’
environmental policy”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 306-315.
Liu, B. (2012), “Sentiment analysis and opinion mining”, Synthesis Lectures on Human Language
Technologies, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-167.
McLeod, T. and Hurley, S. (2018), “Time for an Australian sustainable finance taskforce”, available at:
www.smh.com.au/national/time-for-an-australian-sustainable-finance-taskforce-20180720-p4zso1.
html (accessed 28 January 2020).
McNulty, T., Zattoni, A. and Douglas, T. (2013), “Developing corporate governance research through
qualitative methods: a review of previous studies”, Corporate Governance: An International
Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 183-198.
Money, K. and Schepers, H. (2007), “Are CSR and corporate governance converging? A view from
boardroom directors and company secretaries in FTSE100 companies in the UK”, Journal of
General Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 1-11.
MEDAR Nadeem, M., Zaman, R. and Saleem, I. (2017), “Boardroom gender diversity and corporate sustainability
practices: evidence from Australian securities exchange listed firms”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 149, pp. 874-885.
O’Donovan, G. (2002), “Environmental disclosures in the annual report: extending the applicability and
predictive power of legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 344-371.
O’Dwyer, B. (2002), “Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure: an Irish story”, Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 406-436.
Parker, L.D. (2008), “Strategic management and accounting processes: acknowledging gender”,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 611-631.
Parker, J., Dao, M., Huang, H. and Yan, Y. (2017), “Disclosing material weakness in internal controls:
does the gender of audit committee members matter?”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting and
Economics, Vol. 24 Nos 3/4, pp. 407-420.
Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, SAGE Publications, London.
Peterson, C.A. and Philpot, J. (2007), “Women’s roles on US fortune 500 boards: director expertise and
committee memberships”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 177-196.
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (1978), The External Control of Organisations: A Resource Dependence
Perspective, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Post, C. and Byron, K. (2015), “Women on boards and firm financial performance: a meta-analysis”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 1546-1571.
Post, C., Rahman, N. and McQuillen, C. (2015), “From board composition to corporate environmental
performance through sustainability-themed alliances”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 130 No. 2,
pp. 423-435.
Powell, G.N. (1990), “One more time: do female and male managers differ?”, Academy of Management
Perspectives, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 68-75.
Prado-Lorenzo, J.-M. and Garcia-Sanchez, I.-M. (2010), “The role of the board of directors in
disseminating relevant information on greenhouse gases”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 97
No. 3, pp. 391-424.
Pucheta-Martínez, M.C., Bel-Oms, I. and Olcina-Sempere, G. (2018), “The association between board
gender diversity and financial reporting quality, corporate performance and corporate social
responsibility disclosure: a literature review”, Academia Revista Latinoamericana de
Administraci
on, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 177-194.
Ray, D.M. (2005), “Corporate boards and corporate democracy”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship,
Vol. 2005 No. 20, pp. 93-105.
Rao, K., Tilt, C.A. and Lester, L.H. (2012), “Corporate governance and environmental reporting: an
Australian study”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 143-163.
Rao, K. and Tilt, C.A. (2016a), “Board diversity and CSR reporting: an Australian study”, Meditari
Accountancy Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 182-210.
Rao, K. and Tilt, C. (2016b), “Board composition and corporate social responsibility: the role of diversity,
gender, strategy and decision making”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 138 No. 2, pp. 327-347.
Rose, S. (2015), “Conservative governments ‘bad for women’ on boards”, Sydney Morning Herald,
available at: www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/conservative-governments-bad-for-women-
on-boards-20150316-1m02ev.html (accessed 20 April 2020)
Sadler, E. and Barac, K. (2005), “A study of the ethical views of final year South African accounting
students, using vignettes as examples”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 107-128.
Saunders, P. (2003), Social Theory and the Urban Question, Routledge, London.
Saunders, M.N.K. (2012), “Choosing research participants”, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (Eds), Qualitative Gender and
Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges, Sage, London, pp. 35-52.
CSR decisions
Set
o-Pamies, D. (2015), “The relationship between women directors and corporate social
responsibility”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 22
No. 6, pp. 334-345.
Siboni, B., Sangiorgi, D., Farneti, F. and de Villiers, C. (2016), “Gender (in) accounting: insights,
gaps and an agenda for future research”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 158-168.
Singh, V., Terjesen, S. and Vinnicombe, S. (2008), “Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: how do
women and men differ”, European Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 48-58.
Srinidhi, B., Gul, F. and Tsui, J. (2011), “Female directors and earnings quality”, Contemporary
Accounting Research, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1610-1644.
Swartz, N.-P. and Firer, S. (2005), “Board structure and intellectual capital performance in South
Africa”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 145-166.
Terjesen, S., Sealy, R. and Singh, V. (2009), “Women directors on corporate boards: a review and
research agenda”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 320-337.
The Guardian (2019), “Number of women on boards of Australia’s top companies falls”, available at:
www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/oct/31/number-of-women-on-boards-of-australias-top-
companies-falls (accessed 10 November 2019).
Torchia, M., Calabrò, A. and Huse, M. (2011), “Women directors on corporate boards: from tokenism to
critical mass”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102 No. 2, pp. 299-317.
Tremblay, M.-S., Gendron, Y. and Malsch, B. (2016), “Gender on board: deconstructing the
‘legitimate’ female director”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 165-190.
United Nations (UN) (2015), “Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development”,
available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld (accessed
27 January 2020).
Velte, P. (2018), “What do we know about meta-analyses in accounting, auditing, and corporate
governance?”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 17-43.
Weber, M. (2008), “The business case for corporate social responsibility: a company-level measurement
approach for CSR”, European Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 247-261.
Welbeck, E.E. (2017), “The influence of institutional environment on corporate responsibility
disclosures in Ghana”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 216-240.
Westphal, J.D. and Fredrickson, J.W. (2001), “Who directs strategic change? Director experience, the
selection of new CEOs, and change in corporate strategy”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 22 No. 12, pp. 1113-1137.
Whitehouse, L. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility: views from the frontline”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 279-296.
Willows, G. and van der Linde, M. (2016), “Women representation on boards: a South African
perspective”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 211-225.
Zattoni, A., Douglas, T. and Judge, W. (2013), “Developing corporate governance theory through
qualitative research”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 119-122.
Zhao, Y. and Lord, B.R. (2016), “Chinese women in the accounting profession”, Meditari Accountancy
Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 226-245.
MEDAR Further reading
Ameen, E.C., Guffey, D.M. and McMillan, J.J. (1996), “Gender differences in determining the ethical
sensitivity of future accounting professionals”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15 No. 5,
pp. 591-597.

Appendix. Interview guide

Interview questions
Gender diversity and CSR decision-making process
 Can you give me some general background about your organisation’s CSR activities?
How important it is to your organisation?
 Do you think the backgrounds and values of a board member influence CSR decisions?
What diversity characteristics do you think are important? Why do you think that?
 Gender diversity has been one of the most debated issues recently. Do you think that
gender diversity at board level is an important factor in decision-making processes in
general? Why do you think that?
 In what ways do you think values and perceptions significantly differ between male and
female directors?
 What perceptions of female directors do you think male directors hold, and how do you
think they get these perceptions?
 From your experience do you think that female directors’ contribution towards CSR
decisions is different than male directors? If so, what are those important differences/
factors? How do you think those factors influence CSR decisions? Is there any issues or
factors affecting board decisions?
 Given the low number of female board members on the Australian companies’ boards,
what challenges, if any, do you think female board members face while contributing
towards complex decisions such as CSR?

Corresponding author
Kathyayini Kathy Rao can be contacted at: kathy.rao@unisa.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com