PurposeThe 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.Design/methodology/approachThe 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.FindingsThere 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.Practical implicationsThis 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.Originality/valueTo 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.

No abstract

PurposeThe 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?”Design/methodology/approachThe 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.FindingsThe 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.Practical implicationsThis 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.Originality/valueThis 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.

No abstract

PurposeThe 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.Design/methodology/approachThe paper gives a conceptual viewpoint on the issues raised in the literature on board gender diversity through a critical mass theory lens.FindingsFollowing 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.Practical implicationsFrom 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.Originality/valueThis 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?