Search results

The corporate communications literature recently focused on corporate board gender diversity, specifically looking at two central aspects: gender quotas and equitable target percentages for women on corporate boards. This paper extends the debate by focusing on board gender diversity and critical mass theory.

The paper gives a conceptual viewpoint on the issues raised in the literature on board gender diversity through a critical mass theory lens.

Following the 2022 European Union (EU) directive, all EU member states will have to attain a 40% women representation on large corporate boards to achieve board gender diversity and what has been termed a “critical mass”. However, the literature indicates that gender diversity benefits may not be achieved if a critical mass is not composed of independent women directors who create a voice that produces a collective action. The authors highlight why a critical mass may not be achieved. The inconsistency in prior research linking corporate board gender diversity to economic performance may result from the critical mass of women directors not reflecting an independent collective action. However, as gender-diverse boards evolve, the authors argue that women will not just be seen as female directors but will be accepted on equal terms with their male counterparts and have an equal voice; gender will no longer be an issue and critical mass theory may then become irrelevant.

From a corporate communications perspective, this study will focus the minds of human resources (HR) professionals on the importance of the composition of women on corporate boards if the HR professionals wish to obtain the full potential benefits of board gender diversity. Theoretically, this study highlights the importance of critical mass and collective action when researching the economic benefits of corporate board gender diversity. Investment analysts may wish to look more closely at the structure of corporate boards and not just the numbers.

This paper gives a conceptual viewpoint on the critical mass theory and corporate board gender diversity, identifying that it is not just the numbers that are important but also the issue of minority independence and collective action, and this is, therefore, unique in this respect. Future research should identify if a critical mass (not just numbers) of women on corporate boards has been achieved. Only then that the linkage, based on critical mass theory, between board gender diversity and corporate performance/profitability can be made. Knowing whether board sizes are being increased to accommodate the added female directors would be also interesting, or will the new female directors replace existing male directors? However, the most important research question, once gender diversity has been achieved, could be: Is critical mass theory relevant with respect to board gender diversity?

The corporate communications literature recently raised the question, “Board gender diversity and women in leadership positions – are quotas the solution?” This paper extends the debate by asking, “What is an equitable target percentage for women on corporate boards?”

The paper explores and gives a conceptualised viewpoint on the issues expressed in the literature concerning the meaning of board gender equality, focussing on what is regarded as an equitable number of women on corporate boards.

The arguments and questions raised in this paper highlight the difficulty in answering the research question. The question will only be answered when it no longer needs to be raised. In other words, when gender equality is no longer seen as an issue and men and women are treated equally, when qualifications, experience and ability are the key issues on board selection, not gender. Highlighting gender inequality issues by setting target figures may in itself deter some women from seeking board-level promotion. The target should not just be to place women in what is currently a masculinised board culture but to change this culture to reflect non-masculinity.

This paper can guide practitioners in their policy-making decisions on corporate board gender diversity and refocus the minds of academics on such an important issue. It should also help change the hegemonic understanding of leadership and thus influence recruitment policy.

This is believed to be the first paper to give a conceptualised viewpoint on the issue of targets concerning the number of women on corporate boards and brings into perspective the wide variation highlighted in the literature. It adds to the current debate on board gender diversity and the lack of women on corporate boards by highlighting the questions regarding gender targets. A research opportunity lies in exploring this paper's conceptual issues and questions by soliciting the views of male and female management students and corporate directors.

The question has been asked, “Where are the women?” explicitly looking at the public relations (PR) industry, but this is a broader issue reflected in many senior management roles, especially at the corporate board level. One of the solutions suggested is “quotas”. This paper explores the literature to identify the prominent arguments for and against representation regulations (quotas) concerning corporate board gender diversity and concisely presents the findings.

The exploratory research path first focuses on a literature search using the keywords – “gender diversity”, “board structures” and “female traits” to identify the various issues concerning female members serving on corporate boards. This led to the investigation exploring if 'quotas' could play a role in increasing the number of female directors and, if so, what kind of impact this would have. When the authors discovered the paper by Place and Vardeman-Winter (2018), it was realised that a possible gap in the literature might have been identified. The focus then turned to the PR and corporate communications literature, where it was discovered that the issue of gender quotas was not explored. This paper brings together the germane literature from a wide range of disciplines. To obtain a broad perspective of the arguments, the authors conducted a review of this diverse field of literature through various databases and websites, including Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, publishers' databases such as Emerald Insight, Taylor and Francis, Macmillan, Blackwell, Oxford University, etc.

There are solid arguments both for and against quotas. However, many opposing views appear to be less sound than the positive ones, which allowed the authors to concur in favour of quotas and the broader adoption of female directors. It is only by identifying problems that solutions can be found – the issues concerning corporate board gender quotas relate to the perception of the arguments for and against quotas; the reality is often different. While there is a strong “business case” and “stakeholder influence” for the inclusion of women on corporate boards, some governments have put further pressure (either voluntary or mandatory) on organisations by imposing a “quota” system. At the same time, other countries are undecided on what action, if any, to take.

This paper can serve as guidance to countries that have not yet implemented quotas or those looking to move from a voluntary to mandatory quotas system. In addition to that, the paper should be valuable to academics, managers, regulators, legislators and policy-makers.

To the best of the authors knowledge, this is the first academic paper to present the critical arguments raised in the diverse literature on corporate board gender quotas succinctly and concisely and, therefore, adds value to the literature. It is also believed to be the first paper to address the issue of quotas in the PR and corporate communications literature.

The purpose of this study/paper is evidence to suggest that information communication technology (ICT) capital projects are different from non-ICT projects and that as a result the appraisal of such projects is more difficult. This may suggest that organisations would use dissimilar financial and risk assessment models or place different importance levels on such models between the two types of investment. The purpose of this paper is to investigate this issue and present the results of research into the practices of organisations in Czech Republic that have recently undertaken an appraisal of both ICT and non-ICT capital projects.

A factual and attitudinal survey was developed and conducted during the end of 2011, addressed to organisations based in the Czech Republic. The object of the survey was the identification of current practices in respect of the appraisal of both ICT and non-ICT projects and the opinions of senior executives on a number of important issues regarding such practices. This paper focuses on the issues relating to ICT projects being “different” from non-ICT projects.

The empirical findings support the literature in that ICT projects are, in many respects, different from non-ICT projects. However, the evidence indicates that, in practice, there is no significant difference in the financial and risk assessment models used in their appraisal. This indicates that any perceived difficulties, which may infer that the projects are “different”, are overcome (or ignored), to some extent, when it comes to the formal financial and risk assessment stage of project appraisal. There is also evidence to suggest that practitioners use assessment models that academics regard as unsophisticated. The findings also show that strategic issues are more important with respect of ICT projects than non-ICT projects. The research therefore supports the view that ICT projects are perceived to be different, but that the current conventional (financial and risk) appraisal models are adequate to appraise such capital projects, provided they are supported by a strategic assessment.

As the findings are based on a survey of companies in the Czech Republic only, we accept that the research results may have some limitations in terms of drawing general conclusions. The concern over drawing general conclusions is also brought about by the relatively low response rate, although the rate is in line with previous published research.

ICT projects are different and as such these differences must be taken into account when appraising capital projects. The evidence supports the need for practitioners to review their appraisal of ICT capital projects, by adopting more sophisticated financial and risk models (as prescribed by academics) and linking their appraisal to corporate strategic goals. Future research should be aimed at identifying the formal and informal strategic approaches adopted by practitioners in the appraisal of ICT capital projects.

This is the only survey to simultaneously address the appraisal issues concerning both ICT and non-ICT projects in the Czech Republic. As such, it gives a valuable insight into the practices of Czech Republic organisations in their appraisal of ICT and non-ICT capital projects. The identification of the four main problem areas with respect to the appraisal of ICT projects will help to focus academic research in the future.