Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do all female directors have the same impact on corporate social responsibility? The role of their political connection

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous studies generally assume that all female directors have the same level of social orientation and equal impact on corporate social responsibility (CSR). However, we argue that they may differ in social orientation due to their past experience. As political experience is predicted to strengthen social orientation, we differentiate female directors into those who are politically connected and those who are politically disconnected. On this basis, we tested the differential impact of these two types of female directors on CSR. Drawing upon upper echelons theory, we argue that politically connected female directors are more socially oriented than politically disconnected female directors and consequently have a stronger positive effect on CSR. Using a sample of Chinese publicly listed firms on the Shanghai or Shenzhen Stock Exchanges from 2007 to 2015, we find that the results support our proposition. Further, we find that state ownership moderates the relationship between politically connected female directors and CSR such that the relationship is weaker in organizations with higher state ownership. These findings add to the current research by offering a nuanced understanding of the effect of politically connected female directors on CSR and addressing the limitation in this line of research that assumes all female directors are homogeneous in their impact on CSR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data used in this study has been uploaded to OSF: https://mfr.osf.io/render?url=https%3A%2F%2Fosf.io%2Fvsjhn%2Fdownload

Notes

  1. http://www.rksratings.cn/

  2. Female directors are categorized into politically connected and politically disconnected female directors that may also be endogenous. To test the difference in the effects of politically connected and politically disconnected female directors on CSR, these two variables are included in the same regression model (i.e., Model 3). To test the validity (exogeneity) of instrumental variables for these two endogeneity variables by an overidentification test (i.e., Hansen J statistic), we need at least three instrumental variables. Accordingly, the initial instrumental variable – industry female director ratio – is divided into industry politically connected female director ratio and industry politically disconnected female director ratio. Ultimately, industry politically connected female director ratio and marketization index served as instrumental variables for politically connected female director ratio, while industry politically disconnected female director ratio and marketization index served as instrumental variables for politically disconnected female director ratio.

  3. One concern about the exogeneity of industry female director ratio is that it is less likely to be random, which implies this instrumental variable may be not exogenous. We thank the anonymous reviewer for pointing this out. To answer this question, we must turn to the definition of instrument exogeneity, which refers to the instrumental variable being exogenous in equation (Wooldridge, 2013). In other words, “exogenous” variables do not have to be exogenous out of the equation, but exogenous with reference to the dependent variable in the equation (i.e., uncorrelated with the error term (u) of the dependent variable). Therefore, as long as an instrumental variable is uncorrelated with u in the equation, it can be exogenous in the equation even if it is not random out of the equation. Since few theoretical rationales indicate that industry female director ratio has a direct influence on the dependent variable in our study (i.e., CSR), it is unlikely to be correlated with u in our equation. This is because if it is correlated with u, it would be also correlated with the dependent variable (y), given the equation y = b0 + b1x1 +…+ bnxn + u. Therefore, it meets the requirements of exogeneity.

  4. As discussed earlier, to confirm the relevance and exogeneity of the instrumental variables, the Kleibergen-Paap rk LM statistic should be significant, whereas the Hansen J statistic should be insignificant.

  5. t-statistic is calculated by (βi − βj )/[var(βi) + var(βj) − 2cov(βiβj)]1/2, where βi and βj are the unstandardized regression coefficients for politically connected female directors and politically disconnected female directors, respectively.

References

  • Aguinis, H. 2011. Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 855–879). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. 2012. What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4): 932–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. SAGE Publications: Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amran, A., & Devi, S. S. 2008. The impact of government and foreign affiliate influence on corporate social reporting: The case of Malaysia. Managerial Auditing Journal, 23(4): 386–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asian Development Bank. 2017. Gender equality and the labor market: Women, work, and migration in the people’s Republic of China. Retrieved from: https://www.adb.org/publications/gender-equality-women-migration-prc.

  • Badura, K. L., Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Yan, T. T., & Jeon, G. 2018. Gender and leadership emergence: A meta-analysis and explanatory model. Personnel Psychology, 71(3): 335–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C. 2010. The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2): 207–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beji, R., Yousfi, O., Loukil, N., & Omri, A. 2020. Board diversity and corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from France. Journal of Business Ethics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04522-4

  • Bernardi, R. A., Bosco, S. M., & Vassill, K. M. 2006. Does female representation on boards of directors associate with fortune’s “100 best companies to work for” list? Business & Society, 45(2): 235–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, T., & Case, A. 2000. Unnatural experiments? Estimating the incidence of endogenous policies. The Economic Journal, 110(467): 672–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. 2004. Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1): 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulouta, I. 2013. Hidden connections: The link between board gender diversity and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2): 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, B. K. 1995. CEO duality and firm performance: A contingency model. Strategic Management Journal, 16(4): 301–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brieger, S. A., Terjesen, S. A., Hechavarría, D. M., & Welzel, C. 2019. Prosociality in business: A human empowerment framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2): 361–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byron, K., & Post, C. 2016. Women on boards of directors and corporate social performance: A Meta-Analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(4): 428–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza-García, L., Fernández-Gago, R., & Nieto, M. 2018. Do board gender diversity and director typology impact CSR reporting? European Management Review, 15(4): 559–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., Crossland, C., & Huang, S. 2016. Female board representation and corporate acquisition intensity. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2): 303–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H., Zeng, S., Lin, H., & Ma, H. 2017. Munificence, dynamism, and complexity: How industry context drives corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(2): 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., Fang, H. C., MacKenzie, N. G., Carter, S., Chen, L., & Wu, B. 2018. Female leadership in contemporary Chinese family firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(1): 181–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, L. 2018. Estimating the value of political connections in China: Evidence from sudden deaths of politically connected independent directors. Journal of Comparative Economics, 46(2): 495–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chizema, A., Liu, X., Lu, J., & Gao, L. 2015. Politically connected boards and top executive pay in Chinese listed firms. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6): 890–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, Y., Ghosh, R., Sun, J. Y., & McLean, G. N. 2017. Current perspectives on Asian women in leadership: A cross-cultural analysis. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Claessens, S., Feijen, E., & Laeven, L. 2008. Political connections and preferential access to finance: The role of campaign contributions. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(3): 554–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coffey, B. S., & Wang, J. 1998. Board diversity and managerial control as predictors of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(14): 1595–1603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, A., & Glass, C. 2018. Women on corporate boards: Do they advance corporate social responsibility? Human Relations, 71(7): 897–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, F. L. 2005. Women’s managerial careers in china in a period of reform. Asia Pacific Business Review, 11(2): 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordeiro, J. J., Galeazzo, A., Shaw, T. S., Veliyath, R., & Nandakumar, M. K. 2018. Ownership influences on corporate social responsibility in the Indian context. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(4): 1107–1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte. 2019. Women in the boardroom: A global perspective. Retrieved from: https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/risk/articles/women-in-the-boardroom-global-perspective.html.

  • Du, X. 2016. Does Confucianism reduce board gender diversity? Firm-level evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(2): 399–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupire, M., & M’Zali, B. 2018. CSR strategies in response to competitive pressures. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(3): 603–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. 1991. Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5): 685–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. 1991. Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(3): 306–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A., Johannesen-Schmidt, M., & van Engen, M. 2003. Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4): 569–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmagrhi, M. H., Ntim, C. G., Elamer, A. A., & Zhang, Q. 2019. A study of environmental policies and regulations, governance structures, and environmental performance: The role of female directors. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1): 206–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennser-Jedenastik, L. 2017. Campaigning on the welfare state: The impact of gender and gender diversity. Journal of European Social Policy, 27(3): 215–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faccio, M., Masulis, R. W., & McConnell, J. 2006. Political connections and corporate bailouts. Journal of Finance, 61(6): 2597–2635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, W. D., & Thams, Y. 2019. Board diversity and stakeholder management: The moderating impact of boards’ learning environment. The Learning Organization, 26(2): 160–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, W. D., Burnett, M. F., & Gomez, C. B. 2019. Women in the boardroom and corporate social performance: Negotiating the double bind. Management Decision, 57(9): 2201–2222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Gago, R., Cabeza-García, L., & Nieto, M. 2018. Independent directors’ background and CSR disclosure. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5): 991–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. 1990. Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3): 484–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francoeur, C., Labelle, R., Balti, S., & EL Bouzaidi, S. 2019. To what extent do gender diverse boards enhance corporate social performance? Journal of Business Ethics, 155(2): 343–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk, P., & Gathmann, C. 2015. Gender gaps in policy making: Evidence from direct democracy in Switzerland. Economic Policy, 30(81): 141–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, E., Rocholl, J., & So, J. 2009. Do politically connected boards affect firm value? Review of Financial Studies, 22(6): 2331–2360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, E., Rocholl, J., & So, J. 2013. Politically connected boards of directors and the allocation of procurement contracts. Review of Finance, 17(5): 1617–1648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haesevoets, T., Folmer, C. R., & Hiel, A. 2015. Cooperation in mixed-motive games: The role of individual differences in selfish and social orientation. European Journal of Personality, 29(4): 445–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. 2007. Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2): 334–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. 1987. Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9: 369–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D., & Mason, P. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harjoto, M. A., & Rossi, F. 2019. Religiosity, female directors, and corporate social responsibility for Italian listed companies. Journal of Business Research, 95: 338–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harjoto, M., Laksmana, I., & Lee, R. 2014. Board diversity and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4): 641–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, X., & Jiang, S. 2019. Does gender diversity matter for green innovation? Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(7): 1341–1356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hessami, Z., & da Fonseca, M. L. 2020. Female political representation and substantive effects on policies: A literature review. European Journal of Political Economy, 63: 101896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J. 2005. Politicians on the board of directors: Do connections affect the bottom line? Journal of Management, 31(3): 464–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J. 2015. Board diversity: Beginning to unpeel the onion. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23(2): 104–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., Shropshire, C., & Cannella, A. A. 2007. Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4): 941–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A.J., Withers, M.C., & Collins, B.J. 2009. Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6): 1404–1427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holman, M. R. 2014. Sex and the city: Female leaders and spending on social welfare programs in U.S. municipalities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(4): 701–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. 1993. Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1): 119–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jia, M., & Zhang, Z. 2013. Critical mass of women on BODs, multiple identities, and corporate philanthropic disaster response: Evidence from privately owned Chinese firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2): 303–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. L., Daily, C. M., & Ellstrand, A. E. 1996. Boards of directors: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22(3): 409–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanadlı, S. B., Torchia, M., & Gabaldon, P. 2018. Increasing women’s contribution on board decision making: The importance of chairperson leadership efficacy and board openness. European Management Journal, 36(1): 91–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, G., & James, J. 2007. Revisiting the concept of a societal orientation: Conceptualization and delineation. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(3): 301–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao, E. H., Huang, H., Fung, H., & Liu, X. 2020. Co-opted directors, gender diversity, and crash risk: Evidence from China. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 55(2): 461–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, A. 2018. The gender composition of corporate boards: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(2): 346–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, C., Lu, Y., & Liang, Q. 2016. Corporate social responsibility in China: A corporate governance approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(1): 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, R. H., Hillman, A., Zardkoohi, A., & Cannella, A. A. 2008. Former government officials as outside directors: The role of human and social capital. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5): 999–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J. J., Poppo, L., & Zhou, K. Z. 2008. Do managerial ties in china always produce value? Competition, uncertainty, and domestic vs. foreign firms. Strategic Management Journal, 29(4): 383–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Zhang, Y. A., & Shi, W. 2020. Navigating geographic and cultural distances in international expansion: The paradoxical roles of firm size, age, and ownership. Strategic Management Journal, 41(5): 921–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, L., Lin, T. & Zhang, Y. 2018. Corporate board and corporate social responsibility assurance: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1): 211–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, Z., Zhang, M., & Wang, X. 2019. Do female directors influence firms’ environmental innovation? The moderating role of ownership type. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(1): 257–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lii, Y., & Lee, M. 2012. Doing right leads to doing well: When the type of CSR and reputation interact to affect consumer evaluations of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(1): 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S. 2013. A few good women at the top: The China case. Business Horizons, 56(4): 483–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., Wei, Z., & Xie, F. 2016. CFO gender and earnings management: Evidence from China. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 46(4): 881–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, J., Huang, Z., Li, X., & Lin, X. 2018. Are women CEOs valuable in terms of bank loan costs? Evidence From china. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(2): 337–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luttmer, E. F. P., & Singhal, M. 2011. Culture, context, and the taste for redistribution. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(1): 157–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macaulay, C. D., Richard, O. C., Peng, M. W., & Hasenhuttl, M. 2018. Alliance network centrality, board composition, and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4): 997–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, C., & Qian, C. 2014. Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance? Organization Science, 25(1): 127–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marz, J. W., Powers, T. L., & Queisser, T. 2003. Corporate and individual influences on managers’ social orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(1): 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuinness, P. B., Vieito, J. P., & Wang, M. 2017. The role of board gender and foreign ownership in the CSR performance of Chinese listed firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 42: 75–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuinness, P. B., Vieito, J. P., & Wang, M. 2020. Proactive government intervention, board gender balance, and stakeholder engagement in China and Europe. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37(3): 719–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelon, G., & Parbonetti, A. 2012. The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure. Journal of Management & Governance, 16(3): 477–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullins, F., & Holmes, J. 2018. Balancing board? The effects of board independence and capital on firms offering work-family benefits. Human Resource Management, 57(2): 457–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nekhili, M., & Gatfaoui, H. 2013. Are demographic attributes and firm characteristics drivers of gender diversity? Investigating women’s positions on French boards of directors. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2): 227–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oehmichen, J., Schrapp, S., & Wolff, M. 2017. Who needs experts most? board industry expertise and strategic change – a contingency perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 38(3): 645–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, W., Chang, Y. K., & Cheng, Z. 2016. When CEO career horizon problems matter for corporate social responsibility: The moderating roles of industry-level discretion and blockholder ownership. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(2): 279–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okhmatovskiy, I. 2010. Performance implications of ties to the government and SOEs: A political embeddedness perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6): 1020–1047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J., & Shang, J. 2011. How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1): 117–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W. 2004. Outside directors and firm performance during institutional transitions. Strategic Management Journal, 25(5): 453–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piazza, K. S., & Diaz, G. 2020. Light in the midst of chaos: COVID-19 and female political representation. World Development, 136: 105125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, C., Rahman, N., & McQuillen, C. 2015. From board composition to corporate environmental performance through sustainability-themed alliances. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(2): 423–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pucheta-Martínez, M. C., Bel-Oms, I., & Olcina-Sempere, G. 2019. Commitment of independent and institutional women directors to corporate social responsibility reporting. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(3): 290–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qian, C., Gao, X., & Tsang, A. 2015. Corporate philanthropy, ownership type, and financial transparency. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4): 851–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, K., & Tilt, C. 2016. Board composition and corporate social responsibility: The role of diversity, gender, strategy and decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(2): 327–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirsly, C-A. T., & Lvina, E. 2019. From doing good to looking even better: The dynamics of CSR and reputation. Business & Society, 58(6): 1234–1266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. J., Wokutch, R. E., Harrington, K. V., & Dennis, B. S. 2001. An examination of the influence of diversity and stakeholder role on corporate social orientation. Business & Society, 40(3): 266–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spanos, Y. E., Zaralis, G., & Lioukas, S. 2004. Strategy and industry effects on profitability: Evidence from Greece. Strategic Management Journal, 25(2): 139–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, J. Y., & Li, J. 2017. Women in leadership in China: Past, present, and future. In Y. Cho, R. Ghosh, J. Y. Sun, & G. N. McLean (Ed.), Current perspectives on Asian women in leadership: A cross-cultural analysis (pp. 19–35). Cham: Springer International Publishing AG.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, P., Mellahi, K., & Wright, M. 2012. The contingent value of corporate political ties. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(3): 68–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, P., Mellahi, K., Wright, M., & Xu, H. 2015. Political tie heterogeneity and the impact of adverse shocks on firm value. Journal of Management Studies, 52(8): 1036–1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, P., Hu, H., & Hillman, A. 2016. The dark side of board political capital: Enabling blockholder rent appropriation. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5): 1801–1822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tam, O. 2002. Ethical issues in the evolution of corporate governance in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 37(3): 303–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahid, A. S. 2019. The effects and the mechanisms of board gender diversity: Evidence from financial manipulation. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(3): 705–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X. L., Fan, G., & Yu, J. W. 2016. Marketization index of China’s provinces: NERI report 2016. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F., Xu, L., Zhang, J., & Shu, W. 2018. Political connections, internal control and firm value: Evidence from China’s anti-corruption campaign. Journal of Business Research, 86: 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wängnerud, L. 2009. Women in parliaments: Descriptive and substantive representation. Annual Review of Political Science, 12(1): 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wangrow, D. B., Schepker, D. J., & Barker, V. L. 2015. Managerial discretion: An empirical review and focus on future research directions. Journal of Management, 41(1): 99–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, R., Hoskisson, R., Yiu, D., & Bruton, G. 2008. Employment and market innovation in Chinese business group affiliated firms: The role of group control systems. Management and Organization Review, 4(2): 225–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. 2013. Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (5th edition). Mason, OH: South-Western.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. 2020. The global gender gap report 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.weforum.org/reports/gender-gap-2020-report-100-years-pay-equality/.

  • Yang, W., Yang, J., & Gao, Z. 2019. Do female board directors promote corporate social responsibility? An empirical study based on the critical mass theory. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 55(15): 3452–3471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Qu, H. 2016. The impact of CEO succession with gender change on firm performance and successor early departure: Evidence from China’s publicly listed companies in 1997–2010. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5): 1845–1868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Marquis, C., & Qiao, K. 2016. Do political connections buffer firms from or bind firms to the government? A study of corporate charitable donations of Chinese firms. Organization Science, 27(5): 1307–1324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, N., & Guillén, M. F. 2015. From home country to home base: A dynamic approach to the liability of foreignness. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6): 907–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., Gao, G. Y., & Zhao, H. 2017. State ownership and firm innovation in China: An integrated view of institutional and efficiency logics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2): 375–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, H., & Yoshikawa, T. 2016. Contingent value of director identification: The role of government directors in monitoring and resource provision in an emerging economy. Strategic Management Journal, 37(8): 1787–1807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Q., & Zhang, Q. 2015. Evaluating practices and drivers of corporate social responsibility: The Chinese context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 100: 315–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant numbers 71902075, 71972061, 72002090], and the Project of Humanities and Social Sciences, Chinese Ministry of Education (Grant number: 20XJC630005).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Lanzhou University, No. 222 South Tianshui Street, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu Province, China

    Yu Wang

  2. School of Management, Jinan University, 601 Huangpu W Ave, Tian He Gong Yuan, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, 510632, Guangdong Province, China

    Jie Ma

  3. School of Management, Harbin Institute of Technology, No. 92 West Dazhi Street, Harbin, 150001, Heilongjiang Province, China

    Tienan Wang

Authors
  1. Yu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jie Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tienan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jie Ma.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Y., Ma, J. & Wang, T. Do all female directors have the same impact on corporate social responsibility? The role of their political connection. Asia Pac J Manag 40, 1047–1074 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-021-09754-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-021-09754-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation