From CSR to the boardroom: how institutional logics influence gender diversity

Gender diversity on corporate boards has attracted increasing academic and policy attention, particularly for its potential impact on corporate social responsibility (CSR). Prior studies show that female directors can influence decision-making, improve firm performance and promote ethical and sustainable practices (Ahmed et al., 2018; Pucheta‐Martínez et al., 2019; Gul et al., 2011; Campbell and Mínguez-Vera, 2008; Bear et al., 2010; Beji et al., 2020; Harjoto et al., 2015). Yet, despite these insights, corporate boards remain predominantly male, even in countries with quotas and targets (Lückerath-Rovers, 2023; Spenser Stuart, 2020). At the same time, CSR has become a key strategic focus for many organizations, driven by increasing pressure from stakeholders, media and regulatory bodies to report on their social and environmental performance (Setó-Pamies, 2015). Studies consistently suggest that companies with more gender-diverse boards tend to promote stronger CSR initiatives, engage in sustainable practices and demonstrate greater accountability (Pinheiro et al., 2024; Rabbani et al., 2024; Sultana et al., 2024).

Although the association between board diversity and CSR is well established, the direction of influence remains unclear. Do diverse boards actively foster CSR or do CSR-oriented firms strategically appoint more women to their boards? Moreover, factors such as organizational culture, industry characteristics and regulation may confound this relationship. Understanding the mechanisms behind this link is essential to explain why some organizations are more inclined to gender-diverse boards than others.

To address this gap, we draw on institutional logics theory. Institutional logics are the shared values, beliefs and assumptions that guide how organizations interpret their environment and make decisions (Thornton and Ocasio, 1999; Thornton et al., 2012; Haveman and Gualtieri, 2017). In other words, institutional logics provide the underlying cultural frameworks that shape how organizations interpret their environment, assign meaning to their activities and ultimately structure their behavior. At the same time, they function as normative reference points that define what is considered legitimate practice. In this way, institutional logics also guide strategic choices in governance, including decisions about board composition and the distribution of leadership roles (Doldor et al., 2016; Mitra et al., 2018). By highlighting which values and norms are prioritized – whether inclusivity and social responsibility or tradition and hierarchy – logics help explain why some firms are more inclined to appoint female directors, while others maintain more male-dominated leadership structures.

We focus on two logics particularly relevant to board diversity. A CSR logic emphasizes inclusivity, ethical leadership and accountability to a broad set of stakeholders. Firms guided by such a logic are expected to pursue gender-diverse leadership as part of their wider commitment to social equity. In contrast, a conservative logic emphasizes tradition, hierarchy and established norms. This logic may act as a barrier to change or support only symbolic forms of gender diversity, such as tokenistic appointments to supervisory boards (Kowalewska, 2019; Reay et al., 2015).

Our study is also novel in its methodological approach. While most prior research has examined board diversity and CSR using correlational designs or qualitative case studies, we combine dictionary-based quantitative text analysis of corporate annual reports with fixed-effects panel regression models. This design allows us to measure how CSR and conservative logics are expressed in organizational discourse and link these measures to longitudinal changes in female board representation. By integrating institutional logics theory with large-scale text analysis, we advance a new way of operationalizing organizational values at scale and over time (Reay and Jones, 2016).

We use longitudinal data from Dutch organizations, encompassing all annual reports of publicly listed companies from 2010 to 2022 ^[1]. The Netherlands provides an appropriate context for this analysis. In 2013, the government introduced a voluntary target of 30% female representation on executive and supervisory boards, followed by a mandatory quota for supervisory boards in 2019 (Kruisinga and Senden, 2017). This evolving policy environment offers a natural backdrop against which to study how institutional logics interact with regulatory change to shape board composition.

This study makes three contributions. First, it shows how institutional logics, particularly CSR and conservative orientations, are associated with gender diversity on corporate boards over time, addressing an underexplored area in management research. Understanding what logics affect female board membership in corporate boards is the first step in changing the existing logics or adding a new logic (Durand et al., 2013; Terjesen and Singh, 2008). Second, this study advances institutional theory by demonstrating that logics are more dynamic over time than often assumed, and by introducing dictionary-based text analysis as a methodological tool for studying logics. Finally, our study responds to calls for research that extends the institutional logics perspective beyond the US context (Greenwood et al., 2010), examines organizations within a single institutional environment such as the Netherlands (Doldor et al., 2016; Elam and Terjesen, 2007), and adopts longitudinal designs (Rao and Tilt, 2016).

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature on female board membership and institutional logics. Section 3 presents our research design and methodology. Section 4 reports the empirical results. Section 5 concludes, and Section 6 discusses the findings and highlights their theoretical and practical implications.

The number of highly educated women joining the global workforce is increasing. In 2020, women made up almost half (46.4%) of the workforce in Europe. Moreover, the educational gap between men and women has decreased since more women than men attend university (Catalyst, 2020a). These results are also shown in the boardroom, where the average educational level of board members is higher for women than for men (Bennouri et al., 2018; Lückerath-Rovers, 2019).

Women are becoming more available for organizations to hire and attain higher management positions (Lückerath-Rovers, 2013; Schoen and Rost, 2021). In recent years, the role of women in these positions, especially their role in corporate boards, has been well-researched (Van Bommel et al., 2023). However, researchers found mixed results on the effects of more female board members. Positive effects of more balanced gender competition include improved decision-making (Hunt et al., 2015), improved corporate governance by introducing new perspectives (Pletzer et al., 2015) and improved financial performance (Ahmed et al., 2018; Campbell and Mínguez-Vera, 2008; Gul et al., 2011; Hunt et al., 2015; Lückerath-Rovers, 2013). Furthermore, research shows that female directors tend to be more risk-averse and less radical in their decision-making (Croson and Gneezy, 2009; Jianakoplos and Bernasek, 1998). On the other hand, several studies also showed a negative impact of gender diversity on firm performance, primarily driven by companies with limited takeover defenses (Adams and Ferreira, 2009) and higher levels of gender diversity can create conflict and turnover (e.g. Chadwick and Dawson, 2018; Kabat-Farr and Cortina, 2012; Tsui, Egan, and O’Reilly, 1992). Other studies found no clear evidence of female board membership on firm performance (e.g. Sila et al., 2016). Despite the debate on the direct and causal effect of female board membership, the main body of literature indicates several positive effects of women on boards. From an economic perspective, this assumes that corporate boards comprise a substantial percentage of women. However, the board’s composition is still almost 80% male (Catalyst, 2020b; Lückerath-Rovers, 2023).

Over the past decade, many governments have exercised their legislative power to enhance gender diversity in corporate leadership by introducing mandatory quotas and targets for female representation on boards. Globally, the use of quotas and targets continues to vary. While countries like Norway, France and Italy have seen relatively high compliance rates due to stringent legal frameworks and penalties, others, such as the UK and Australia, rely on voluntary measures and corporate governance codes, leading to slower progress (Terjesen et al., 2015). For example, the Netherlands started with a voluntary measure in 2013 and introduced a mandatory quota in 2020 to improve progress (Duchin et al., 2020; Lückerath-Rovers, 2023). In emerging economies like India and Brazil, quota laws exist, but enforcement is inconsistent and social barriers often impede women’s advancement into leadership roles (Kang et al., 2007). Despite these efforts, many organizations worldwide fail to achieve the commonly set target of 30% female board members. Recent studies provide insight into the limited impact of these laws, revealing that they tend to affect only specific segments of organizations. In many countries, gender quotas apply solely to nonexecutive board members, leaving other critical areas, such as executive boards, C-suite positions and top management, outside the scope of these mandates (Duchin et al., 2020; Lückerath-Rovers, 2023). As a result, while there may be notable progress in female representation on nonexecutive boards, this change does not necessarily extend to other leadership positions, where women remain significantly underrepresented.

This persistent gap raises questions about the effectiveness of such regulations in driving comprehensive gender equality across all levels of corporate governance and reveals several underlying challenges – including tokenism and the pervasive influence of gender stereotypes. Gender stereotypes represent a critical barrier to female representation in leadership, affecting women’s chances of advancing into senior positions, including board membership. A wealth of research has demonstrated that gender stereotypes significantly shape perceptions of women in leadership roles (Arfken et al., 2004; Martin and Herrero, 2019; Oakley, 2000). Many women continue to encounter stereotypes as they climb the corporate ladder, often confronting the “glass ceiling” – a metaphorical barrier that prevents them from reaching the highest levels of organizational leadership (Burke and Mattis, 2000). These barriers are deeply entrenched and include assumptions about women’s unsuitability for leadership roles, unequal pay and promotion opportunities, limited access to mentors and networks, and disproportionate responsibilities for childcare and other domestic duties (Carli and Eagly, 2016). Moreover, the stereotypes women face are often influenced by their work environment, societal norms and the perceptions of individuals and groups (Duchin et al., 2020; Hedegaard and Ahl, 2013; Oakley, 2000). These stereotypes not only affect how women are viewed as potential leaders but also shape their own self-perception, potentially undermining their confidence and ambition to pursue higher leadership roles.

Another significant pitfall of introducing targets and quotas to improve the level of female directors on corporate boards is the chance of tokenism (Moon et al., 2024; Rixom et al., 2023; Torchia et al., 2011). Tokenism refers to appointing a small number of individuals from underrepresented groups, in our case, women, to create the appearance of diversity without truly integrating them into the decision-making process. This often occurs when companies include just one or two women (or other minority members) on their boards to meet diversity targets or avoid criticism, while maintaining the existing power structure dominated by the majority group. Tokenism can result in these individuals being marginalized or overlooked in key decisions, as their presence is more symbolic than substantive. It typically happens when diversity initiatives focus solely on numerical representation rather than fostering meaningful inclusion, leaving those appointed with limited influence or authority (Guldiken et al., 2019; Torchia et al., 2011).

In conclusion, while government-imposed quotas and targets have made strides in boosting female representation on corporate boards, they often fail to tackle the broader issue of gender diversity throughout the entire leadership structure. Tokenism and deeply ingrained gender stereotypes continue to be significant barriers that prevent women from advancing to the highest levels of organizational leadership (Moon et al., 2024; Rixom et al., 2023; Carli and Eagly, 2016). To create long-term, meaningful change, organizations must move beyond simply meeting diversity quotas and implement comprehensive strategies that challenge prevailing gender norms, dismantle the glass ceiling and provide clear pathways for women to rise to leadership roles at all levels (Burke and Mattis, 2000). These efforts are also increasingly seen as integral to a company’s CSR agenda, as promoting gender equality within leadership aligns with the broader goal of fostering ethical, inclusive and socially responsible business practices (Seierstad et al., 2017). By embedding gender diversity into their CSR frameworks, organizations contribute to a fairer workplace, enhance their corporate reputation, improve decision-making and drive sustainable growth (Terjesen et al., 2015).

The concept of institutional logics, introduced by Friedland and Alford (1991), highlights the social patterns that shape institutions and organizations. Institutional logics are described as “socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and give meaning to their social reality” (Thornton and Ocasio, 1999, p. 804). These logics function as cultural frameworks, guiding individuals, groups and organizations in making sense of their activities within temporal and spatial contexts (Haveman and Gualtieri, 2017). They operate on multiple levels, from macro-level societal influences on meso-level organizational fields to micro-level individual interactions (Thornton et al., 2012). At the macro level, multiple institutional orders, such as family, community and market, coexist and sometimes compete to influence behavior. These dominant orders can vary across societies depending on their unique historical and cultural contexts.

At the meso-level, central to the current discussion, organizations operate within fields governed by one or more institutional logics drawn from the broader interinstitutional system. These logics shape the structures and behaviors within organizations, influencing how they interpret and respond to societal expectations (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). At this level, institutional logics become deeply embedded in organizational practices, influencing decision-making, governance and strategies (Thornton and Ocasio, 1999). For example, incorporating values like inclusivity, equity and ethical practices into organizational frameworks can be directly traced to the institutional logics that dominate within a particular organizational field. These logics manifest in various organizational documents, practices and communications, revealing their foundational role in shaping organizational culture (Reay et al., 2015). Institutional logics shape organizational practices and influence strategic decisions regarding board composition. Organizations aware of multiple logics can integrate specific logics to align with societal expectations or stakeholder demands. For example, Durand et al. (2013) highlight how organizations strategically use institutional logics to enhance their reputations and meet external expectations, such as appointing female board members in response to growing societal emphasis on gender equality. This demonstrates how logics at the meso-level shape organizational behavior, influencing both internal governance and the fulfillment of external demands.

Prior research indicates that institutional logics also impact the presence of women on corporate boards (Terjesen et al., 2015). Moreover, there is a clear correlation between the influence of institutional logics on the strategic choices, formal organization and governance structure of organizations, and therefore, institutional logics impact the choice of new (female) board members (Lounsbury and Boxenbaum, 2013; Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Several logics have emerged concerning gender diversity in organizations. For instance, Philippczyck et al. (2024) distinguish between a logic of inclusion and equality, which promotes gender diversity, and a market logic, where diversity is viewed as a strategic asset to enhance organizational performance. The business case logic, gaining prominence in recent years, argues that gender-diverse boards improve both ethical decision-making and financial outcomes (Geiger and Marlin, 2012). This logic underscores the importance of inclusivity and recognizes the value of different leadership styles, such as the more collaborative approaches often attributed to women (Oakley, 2000). Opposing this is the “think leader – think male” logic, which persists in some organizations and is rooted in traditional views of male dominance in leadership (Mitra et al., 2018). Family and religion logics, similarly, reinforce gender-based stereotypes and support a division of labor that limits women’s participation in corporate leadership (Miller et al., 2017; Thornton et al., 2012).

CSR is the concept that businesses have obligations not only to their shareholders but also to a broader group of stakeholders, including employees, customers, communities and the environment (Porter and Kramer, 2006). The CSR logic has also become increasingly influential in recent years. It represents a shift from the traditional business model, which focuses primarily on profit maximization, to one that balances profitability with sustainable and ethical practices (Hyun et al., 2016; Setó-Pamies, 2015).

This CSR logic promotes cooperative actions to benefit both internal and external stakeholders (Reay et al., 2015). The CSR logic emphasizes ethical leadership and sustainable practices, making organizations more likely to seek gender-diverse leadership as part of their broader commitment to social equity and focusing on a shared belief system in a community, attributing high intrinsic value to environmental goods (Lee and Lounsbury, 2015). In this sense, CSR logics are closely aligned with the community logic identified in the institutional logics typology (Thornton et al., 2012), as both stress collective benefits, inclusivity and shared responsibility. As CSR has become a dominant logic in many organizational fields, it has contributed to the rise of gender diversity on corporate boards, fulfilling both ethical and reputational goals (Hyun et al., 2016; Jamali et al., 2017). Consequently, organizations with strong CSR commitments are more inclined to seek female board members to enhance their reputations and align with stakeholder expectations for socially responsible leadership.

On the other hand, we also identified a conservative logic that might negatively affect gender diversity in corporate boards. This logic is characterized by its focus on maintaining organizations’ traditional structures, hierarchies and centralized control. As identified by Lee and Lounsbury (2015), this logic often aligns with broader political ideologies that emphasize preserving the status quo, particularly concerning gender roles and leadership. Within the corporate context, conservative logics manifest in organizational practices that reinforce existing power dynamics, often limiting opportunities for women to ascend to leadership positions. This is partly driven by gender-based assumptions rooted in traditional family and religious values, which perceive women primarily as caregivers and secondary earners (Miller et al., 2017; Reay et al., 2015). In line with the institutional logics perspective, such orientations can be understood as drawing on elements of the family and religion logics (Thornton et al., 2012). Some scholars have also described these orientations as traditionalist (cf. Greenwood et al., 2011), emphasizing their role in reproducing established hierarchies and limiting organizational change. Consequently, organizations governed by a conservative logic will likely resist efforts to increase female representation on boards, viewing such changes as disruptive to the established order. This logic promotes a centralized, male-dominated leadership structure, discouraging diversity and perpetuating gender inequality within organizational decision-making (De Cleen, 2018).

In practice, organizations rarely operate under a single dominant logic. Instead, they often face institutional complexity, where multiple logics coexist and may reinforce or contradict one another (Greenwood et al., 2010; Greenwood et al., 2011; Pache and Santos, 2010). In this context, a financial performance or market logic can compete with CSR orientations. Such tensions may moderate the relationship between CSR logics and board diversity, as financial imperatives could lead firms to deprioritize diversity initiatives when these are not perceived to directly enhance shareholder value. Recognizing this interplay of competing logics is therefore important for understanding the conditions under which CSR or conservative orientations shape board composition.

Based on the available literature, we argue that logics at the meso-level offer a comprehensive framework for understanding how organizations adopt practices related to gender board diversity. This paper focuses on the CSR and conservative logics, both grounded in the institutional logics perspective. A CSR logic emphasizes cooperative actions, inclusivity and shared benefits, both within and outside the organization, closely aligned with the community logic (Thornton et al., 2012; Reay et al., 2015). A conservative logic, on the other hand, often emphasizes maintaining traditional structures, centralized authority and preserving the status quo, particularly in terms of social hierarchies and roles (Lee and Lounsbury, 2015). While not codified as a separate institutional logic, it draws on family and religion logics (Thornton et al., 2012) and overlaps with what some scholars refer to as traditionalist orientations (Greenwood et al., 2011). The relationship between these logics can appear complex, and their interaction is crucial to understanding how they shape organizational behavior and, more specifically, affect gender board diversity. While these logics may initially seem like opposites, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The interaction between these logics depends on the organizational field and broader institutional context. In this study, we aim to understand the effect of these logics on gender board diversity and to what extent they can explain the presence or absence of female board members.

Gender quotas and diversity targets are increasing pressure on organizations to improve gender representation on boards. As a result, female board membership is expected to grow over time. Institutional logics, however, are deeply embedded cultural frameworks that influence how organizations interpret their environment and justify decisions. Since these logics are closely connected to organizational identity, they tend to change slowly rather than quickly. External pressures may shift the focus on certain logics, but such changes usually happen gradually. Therefore, we expect expressed institutional logics to stay relatively stable over time. Section 4.2 explores these dynamics descriptively by analyzing trends in both female board representation and expressed institutional logics over time.

CSR logic emphasizes ethical leadership, sustainability and accountability to a broad set of stakeholders (Reay et al., 2015). Within this perspective, gender diversity has become a key aspect of CSR, as addressing inequality and empowering women are seen as essential to ethical business conduct (Hyun et al., 2016). Research suggests that female board members contribute to higher CSR performance and improved governance (Reay et al., 2015). Prior research shows that gender-diverse boards are associated with stronger CSR performance, since female directors often bring perspectives aligned with CSR values, such as stakeholder orientation, social justice and long-term value creation (Amorelli and García‐Sánchez, 2021; Orazalin and Baydauletov, 2020; Yarram and Adapa, 2021). Conversely, CSR-oriented firms are more likely to prioritize diversity in leadership, recognizing that appointing women enhances legitimacy and aligns with stakeholder expectations (Bear et al., 2010; Buse et al., 2016; Rao and Tilt, 2016).

Taken together, these studies suggest a mutually reinforcing relationship between CSR and gender diversity: diverse boards enhance CSR outcomes, and CSR-oriented firms are more inclined to appoint women to leadership roles. We therefore argue that a strong CSR logic plays a crucial role in advancing gender diversity on corporate boards, fulfilling both ethical and reputational objectives.

This leads us to formulate the following hypotheses:

Organizations operating under a conservative logic tend to emphasize tradition, hierarchy and centralized authority, which often translates into resistance against efforts to increase female representation on boards (Lee and Lounsbury, 2015; Reay et al., 2015). Such orientations are rooted in family- and religion-based values that view women primarily as caregivers, thereby reinforcing male-dominated leadership structures (Miller et al., 2017). Although external regulations such as quotas may compel organizations to appoint women, conservative logics shape how this compliance occurs. Rather than redistributing power, firms are more likely to appoint women to positions with limited strategic influence. This practice reflects tokenism, where women are included mainly in nonexecutive roles to signal legitimacy while executive positions remain male-dominated (Guldiken et al., 2019).

We therefore expect that conservative logics will hinder genuine gender diversity by reducing women’s presence in executive roles while encouraging tokenistic representation in nonexecutive positions:

To test the hypotheses, this study applies quantitative text analysis on longitudinal data based on a sample of annual reports of Dutch-listed companies between 2010 and 2022. The sample consists of all companies listed on Euronext Amsterdam, the Dutch Stock Exchange, listed for at least five consecutive years, resulting in 71 firms.

To capture the prevalence of CSR and conservative logics, we developed a dictionary (wordlist) for each logic. Annual reports were analyzed using Wordstat software, which identifies the frequency of dictionary terms in texts. This approach enables us to quantify the extent to which organizational discourse reflects CSR- or conservative-oriented values.

Data on female board membership were obtained from the Dutch Female Board Index, an annual report that provides an overview of women’s presence on executive and nonexecutive boards of Dutch-listed companies (Lückerath-Rovers, 2022). The index covers all listed firms each year, excluding penny stocks and investment funds, and distinguishes between executive and nonexecutive positions.

To operationalize tokenism, we follow Guldiken et al. (2019), who define it as the symbolic inclusion of women in positions with limited influence rather than substantive participation in decision-making. In this study, tokenism is inferred from the distribution of female directors across board roles: a higher proportion of women in nonexecutive positions, combined with low representation in executive positions, indicates tokenistic rather than substantive inclusion. By linking this distribution to the prevalence of conservative logics in organizational discourse, we assess whether conservative orientations are associated with tokenistic patterns of female representation.

Finally, we use a longitudinal research design to identify temporal relationships between logics and board diversity. Fixed-effects regression models are used to test the hypotheses, allowing us to control for unobserved firm-level heterogeneity and to examine how within-firm changes in logics relate to female board representation over time.

The Netherlands is used as a case study for this research, as it has an interesting mix of more conservative and progressive organizations and went through different cycles of legislation regarding gender diversity in corporate boards. In 2007, less than 30% of listed companies had one or more women on their boards, and only 5% of all board members were female (Lückerath-Rovers, 2013). This includes a combination of board members from the executive (with decision-making power) and nonexecutive boards (who supervise), a system uncommon in other Anglo–Saxon countries. In 2013, these numbers increased to 14% female directors, of which 5% were female executive directors and 18% were female nonexecutive directors. From 2013 to 2020, the Dutch Government introduced a 30% nonbinding target for female (and male) directors on executive and nonexecutive boards of the 5,000 largest Dutch organizations (Kruisinga and Senden, 2017). However, the observed increase in the number of women occupying executive and nonexecutive board positions remained incremental, with a limited number of companies achieving compliance with the specified target. When evaluating this target in 2020, the total number of female directors had increased to 21% (Lückerath-Rovers, 2019). This was mainly due to an increase in the number of women on nonexecutive boards (27%), as executive boards only had 9% of female directors. This outcome is primarily due to the perceived lack of enforceability inherent in the legislation governing the target ^[2]. Therefore, the Dutch Government introduced a binding quota in 2022, which stated that for listed companies, the nonexecutive board must consist of at least 33% women and 33% men ^[3]. However, this quota does not cover the executive board, and while two-thirds of all listed companies comply with the quota, the number of women in executive boards remains at 15% in 2023 and only shows an incremental increase (Lückerath-Rovers, 2023). While legislation shows a clear increase in the level of female directors, there is still a clear difference between organizations and the executive and nonexecutive boards. To understand why these differences are more prominent in certain organizations while less so in others, we propose that logics can explain the variation in the presence of female directors.

We used a quantitative text analysis method to measure the prevalence of CSR and conservative logics in our sample. This approach allows for the systematic analysis of large data sets, making it ideal for identifying patterns on a broader scale (Goertzen, 2017; Suzuki, 2011). The independent variables in this study are the two institutional logics introduced earlier – CSR and conservative logics. Measuring these logics is inherently complex, as they are often examined using interpretative research methods (e.g. Berente et al., 2019; Reay and Jones, 2016). However, we argue that specific organizational values, whether conservative or CSR-oriented, are reflected in the language organizations use in their communications. Given the strong connection between language and culture (Kramsch, 2014), we hypothesize that the prevalence of certain words and phrases in corporate reports reflects underlying organizational logics. Bowman (1984) states that “analyzing the content of annual reports can be a fine source of data on individual firms and industries” (p. 61).

Using quantitative text analysis, we can systematically analyze how these logics manifest across a large sample, which would be more difficult with purely qualitative methods. This approach captures patterns in language and enables us to explore these logics at a scale that qualitative research typically cannot achieve. Since logics manifest as patterns in language and material practices (Reay and Jones, 2016), our method is well-suited for identifying behaviors and opinions across a broad data set. Quantitative text analysis has been successfully applied in political studies (Merz et al., 2016; Suzuki, 2011), and content analysis is already widely used in disclosure studies (Abdo et al., 2018), supporting the applicability of our approach in examining corporate communications. Furthermore, this quantitative method is particularly valuable because it minimizes researcher bias, allowing for more objective results. It also enhances the reliability and validity of the study, as the choices made are grounded in existing research methodologies. In contrast to qualitative methods, which offer more room for interpretation, quantitative text analysis provides a more structured approach to analyzing large data sets. It allows us to uncover trends that would otherwise remain hidden. Given the complexity of measuring institutional logics, this approach offers a robust way to examine how CSR and conservative logics are embedded in organizational language, making it an ideal method for our study.

Although annual reports are a valuable and widely used resource for analyzing organizational communication, it is important to recognize that they mainly reflect the expressed rather than the enacted aspects of institutional logics. Corporate discourse may highlight specific values for legitimacy purposes, but such statements do not necessarily match internal decision-making processes or actual organizational practices. This potential discrepancy is well documented in the literature on symbolic disclosure and greenwashing (e.g. Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Bromley and Powell, 2012), where companies adopt language that aligns with societal expectations while maintaining routines that differ from these claims. Our text-based measures, therefore, capture the prominence of institutional logics as expressed in public communication, not how fully these logics are implemented internally. However, within institutional theory, discourse plays a key role as a carrier of cultural meaning and as a mechanism through which organizations signal priorities to stakeholders. The measures used here thus offer insight into the normative orientations organizations aim to highlight, though we recognize that these expressions may be only partly linked to actual practices. We discuss these limitations further in Section 6.3, but include them here to clarify the scope of our methodological approach.

To develop “measures” for institutional logics, we applied a word-count methodology to each company’s annual reports. We developed dictionaries (phrase lists) grounded in the existing literature for both the CSR and conservative logic. We followed the guidelines (Short et al., 2010) set for creating wordlists and enhancing construct validation. First, we used a priori literature to create a definition for each construct. Second, we evaluated the dimensionality by reviewing relevant articles for each logic. Where available, we incorporated existing dictionaries; for the CSR logic, these were available, but for the conservative logic, they were not. We conducted an inductive content analysis for the conservative logic to create a new word list. This approach entailed generating a frequency list from existing literature on the subject and identifying keywords and phrases (Neuendorf, 2002; Short et al., 2010). Third, to validate construct validity, we randomly selected two samples of annual reports from three different companies (Glass et al., 2016; Short et al., 2010). The results from these two samples were cross-checked, and only words present in both wordlists were retained for the final dictionaries. To ensure reliability, we used computer-aided analysis (Neuendorf, 2002; Short et al., 2010). After the initial dictionary development, we conducted a discriminant validity test by removing words that appeared in both logics to enhance discriminant validity (Short et al., 2010).

To further ensure reliability, we minimized subjective bias by using fully computer-aided coding (Wordstat). Since no intercoder judgment was required in scoring the texts, traditional intercoder reliability statistics are not directly applicable (Neuendorf, 2002). Instead, we strengthened reliability through repeated sampling: two independent samples of annual reports from three firms were analyzed, and only terms consistently appearing in both lists were retained. Construct validity was addressed by combining inductive dictionary building with established wordlists from prior literature (e.g. Laver and Garry, 2000; Oakley, 2000) and by conducting a discriminant validity test in which words appearing in both logics were removed (Short et al., 2010). These steps, together, provide robustness comparable to intercoder reliability in manual content analysis (Neuendorf, 2002; Short et al., 2010; Laver et al., 2003).

The CSR logic can be defined as a sense of responsibility for organizations to all stakeholders (Hyun et al., 2016). A dictionary for this logic has already been developed and evaluated (Myšková and Hájek, 2018; Pencle and Mălăescu, 2016). The dictionary categorized relevant words into four dimensions: social and community, human resources, environment and human rights. This initial dictionary consisted of 1,002 words (Pencle and Mălăescu, 2016), and the words were checked for construct and discriminant validity, which resulted in a dictionary of 249 words, for example, environment, impact or sustainability. The conservative logic follows a more centralized and federal control and mostly follows Republican politics, embedded in family tradition and Christian religion (Lee and Lounsbury, 2015; Miller et al., 2017; Reay et al., 2015). Laver and Garry (2000) created different wordlists to find policy positions in texts. The wordlist for conservative institutions, laws and ethics is used for this logic and includes words for traditional family routines and religion (Laver and Garry, 2000). Oakley (2000) also named gender-based stereotypes that are in line with conservative logic. A dictionary of 63 words was created, for example, competitive, discipline or tradition. An overview of the developed dictionaries can be found in  Appendix 1.

Our choice to rely on dictionary-based text analysis rather than ESG ratings is grounded in the conceptual distinction between institutional logics and CSR performance. ESG ratings evaluate firms’ realized outcomes and risk exposures across environmental, social and governance dimensions. By contrast, our interest lies in the normative orientations expressed in organizational discourse – that is, the values and priorities firms emphasize in their communications. Institutional logics are reflected in these discursive patterns (Reay and Jones, 2016), even when they do not translate directly into measurable performance outcomes. Moreover, research has shown that ESG ratings vary considerably across providers, with correlations often ranging from 0.4 to 0.6 (Nyberg et al., 2015), underscoring that such ratings capture a different construct than CSR logics. Where ESG ratings (e.g. MSCI/Refinitiv) aim to quantify realized performance and risk exposure, our dictionary-based measure captures the salience of CSR-related values and legitimacy claims in corporate discourse – an upstream cultural signal rather than an outcome metric. So, for the purpose of this study – exploring how organizational values shape board gender diversity – text analysis of annual reports provides a more direct and theoretically consistent measure of institutional logics than ESG ratings.

The independent variables in this study are the two institutional logics introduced earlier – CSR and conservative logics. While these logics are distinct, they are not necessarily oppositional. Instead, they can function simultaneously or independently within organizations, allowing for the possibility that firms may exhibit both CSR and conservative elements or may prioritize one over the other depending on various internal or external influences. This approach acknowledges the flexibility of institutional logics and allows us to analyze CSR and conservative logics without assuming a direct opposition between them. Furthermore, while some correlation between CSR and conservative logics may exist, they remain conceptually and practically separate in our analysis. For instance, an organization may emphasize CSR-related language in its corporate communications while also maintaining conservative values, reflecting a nuanced coexistence rather than a binary relationship. Our method captures these potential interactions and variances, enhancing our understanding of how both logics may independently or jointly influence organizational practices.

With the variables defined, we estimate a series of regression models to examine the relationship between institutional logics and female board membership. Our main objective is to assess whether the prevalence of CSR and conservative logics in corporate discourse is associated with the number of women on corporate boards. To do so, we estimate the following model:

In this model, variable WOB_it indicates the number of female board members ^[4] in company i in year t.$X¯it$ is a vector of background variables, such as industry and board size and ε_it. The coefficients α₁ and α₂ reflect the relation between either logic and female board membership.

As our data set comprises panel data, encompassing 739 data points from 71 companies, we can enhance our estimates by employing a firm-fixed effects model:

This model explores the relationship between logics and female board members by comparing the evolution of each variable of interest over time within a given company (with parameter Firm_i representing the firm-fixed effect). The principal advantage of this model lies in its ability to control for all company characteristics, whether observed or unobserved, that may have influenced either our measures of logics or female board membership, thereby mitigating potential endogeneity issues (Wooldridge, 2010; Gunasekara et al., 2014). Endogeneity occurs when an explanatory variable is correlated with the error term, leading to biased estimates. A fixed-effects model mitigates this risk by accounting for such firm-level factors.

The fixed-effects specification absorbs all time-invariant firm characteristics, such as governance traditions, ownership structure or sector-specific institutional environments. This makes the inclusion of a large set of further control variables unnecessary and potentially counterproductive, as it would reduce degrees of freedom in a relatively small sample. By leveraging within-firm variation over time, our approach isolates the effect of changes in institutional logics on female board membership while minimizing omitted-variable bias. At the same time, the reduction in variation inherent to fixed effects makes it more difficult to detect statistically significant results. To address this limitation, we also include the standard OLS regression results from equation (1) as a comparison.

The primary coefficients of interest in equation (2) are β₁ and β₂, indicating the marginal effect of either a CSR or conservative logic on female board membership, respectively. We will accept H1 if β₁ is positive and statistically significant. Likewise, we will accept H4 if β₂ is negative and statistically significant. Parameter β₃ captures the time trend, specifically, the average annual increase in female board members. To test H2 and H5, we replace the dependent variable with WOB_exec, and for H3 and H6, we use WOB_non-exec.

Our data set comprises 739 annual reports from 2010 to 2022, sourced from 71 Dutch-listed companies.

An assessment of the balance in our longitudinal data set revealed the following insights. For most companies, we have a complete set of annual reports covering each year from 2010 to 2022. For some companies, datapoints are consecutive, but with reports missing only when the company was either not yet established in a given year or was no longer active during that year.  Appendix 2 includes two tables that detail the sample composition, both by year (Table A2) and by company (Table A3). Because data are evenly distributed across the years (as shown in Table A2), we are confident that the data set is balanced.

Table 1 provides summary statistics for the key variables. These descriptive statistics offer context for the regression analyses discussed in the following sections. Women make up 18% of the board members in our sample, with an average of 1.6 women per board and an overall average board size of 8.3 members. Most female board members hold nonexecutive roles, with only 0.2 women, on average, serving in executive positions per board. Row (5) shows the word count for CSR logic per 10,000 words, while Row (6) shows the same measure for conservative logic. CSR logic occurs more frequently in the annual reports in our sample, with 139 words per 10,000, compared to conservative logic at 113 words per 10,000.

It is important to note that the size and weighting of words in our dictionaries are not standardized, which may skew direct comparisons of absolute values. Therefore, for the regression analysis, we have used standardized measures. This allows us to compare the relative prevalence of different logics within the same company over time and across companies, while adjusting for variations in word count and logic weightings.

Table 1 also presents the Pearson correlation coefficients of the main variables, revealing notable relationships among several key factors. A significant correlation is observed between WOB, WOB_Non_exec and board_size. This suggests that as board size increases, the number of women on boards rises, though primarily in nonexecutive roles, as evidenced by the much weaker correlation between WOB_exec and board size. Turning to the role of logics, we find a notable correlation between CSR logic and women on boards, particularly among nonexecutive members. However, no correlation is observed between conservative logic and female board membership.

To assess model diagnostics, we examined multicollinearity and autocorrelation. Variance inflation factors (VIF) were well below conventional thresholds, with mean values of 2.02 and 2.66, respectively (see  Appendix 3), suggesting that multicollinearity is not a concern (O’brien, 2007). For serial correlation, we applied the Wooldridge test for panel data, which indicated the presence of autocorrelation. Therefore, our preferred specifications in Section 4.3 report firm fixed-effects models estimated with Driscoll–Kraay standard errors, which are robust to both autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity (Driscoll and Kraay, 1998).

Figure 1 illustrates changes in the representation of women on boards over the years, comprising three graphs. One graph depicts the average board size, another presents the average number of women on boards and a third illustrates the number of women in executive board positions. The data reveal a substantial increase in the presence of women on boards over the past decade. In 2010, our sample shows a mean of 0.7 females (SD = 1.0) in board positions. By 2022, this figure had risen to 2.7 (SD = 1.4), representing a remarkable 386% increase over 13 years. The overall board size has remained relatively stable over the same time frame. Consequently, the proportion of female board members has witnessed significant growth. Despite this positive trend, the number of female board members in executive positions remains low. In 2010, the average was just 0.1 female executive board members. However, there has been a notable increase over the years, reaching 0.5 in 2022, marking a 500% increase. Nevertheless, in practical terms, the median board of a firm in our sample still lacks any female executives. In the Netherlands, the first target for female board members was introduced in 2013. However, this did not correspond with a significant increase in female board members immediately after the legislation. In contrast, following the implementation of the quota for nonexecutive board members in 2020, we observe a noticeable increase in female (nonexecutive) board members.

Based on our quantitative text analysis, Figure 2 presents the evolving trends of the CSR and conservative logics within our sample over time. From this figure, two descriptive observations emerge. First, we note that both logics exhibit a consistent increase over time. While it is well-documented in the literature that CSR has gained prominence in recent decades (Arena et al., 2018; Hyun et al., 2016; Jamali et al., 2017; McCarthy, 2017), leading us to anticipate an uptick in the expression of CSR logics in annual reports, it is noteworthy that the conservative logic has also been on the rise. Nonetheless, the CSR logic has experienced a more rapid growth trajectory. In 2010, the values for CSR and conservative logics were relatively close, with an average of 112 words for CSR and 106 words for conservative. However, the gap between these two logics has widened significantly over the years, with an average of 181 words dedicated to the CSR logic in 2022, compared to 122 for the conservative logic.

We can observe a gradual increase in both logics over the observation period. While the rise of CSR-related language aligns with prior research documenting the growing prominence of CSR in organizational discourse (Arena et al., 2018; Hyun et al., 2016; Jamali et al., 2017; McCarthy, 2017), it is noteworthy that conservative logic also increases over time. However, the growth trajectory of CSR logic is steeper. Whereas the two logics were relatively close in prevalence at the beginning of the observation period, CSR-related language becomes increasingly dominant in later years. The results of our univariate regression analyses confirm this: both logics shift over time, with CSR logic increasing more rapidly [δ₁ = 0.09; t = 9.49 (0.00); R² = 0.11] compared to the conservative logic [γ₁ = 0.06; t = 5.66 (0.00); R² = 0.04]. This also shows that proportionally, over time, the CSR logic has become more prominent.

Our next step is to analyze whether there is a relationship between institutional logics and the presence of female board members. Table 2 presents the primary findings. In Columns (1) and (2), we show the estimates derived from equations (1) and (2), respectively. It is important to note that the estimates from equation (1) account for endogeneity, reducing bias but with a trade-off in efficiency due to a significant loss of observations. The results in Table 2 consistently indicate a significant relationship between the CSR logic and the number of women on corporate boards. The effect of the CSR logic is positive and statistically significant in both models. These coefficients are based on standardized values of the logics. Therefore, we interpret a coefficient of 0.10 as meaning that the number of women on the board increases by 0.1 for each standard deviation increase in the CSR logic. Although the CSR logic is positive and significant in both models, the coefficient is smaller in the fixed-effects specification (0.10) than in the OLS model (0.16), which is expected since fixed effects rely on within-firm variation while OLS also captures between-firm differences. Conversely, the conservative logic appears to have a negative effect on female board members, but the results are less definitive. While the standard OLS model shows a negative correlation, this relationship no longer reaches statistical significance in the fixed-effects model.

Based on the analysis above, we can accept H1: we observe a significant positive effect of the CSR logic on female board membership. However, we do not find enough evidence to support H4. Although we see a negative relationship in our OLS model, the fixed-effects estimates are not statistically significant. This does not necessarily rule out a negative effect; rather, it suggests that our current data are insufficient to confirm the hypothesis. Both the fixed-effects and OLS models consistently show that, all else being equal, the average number of women on boards increases by 0.15 each year.

Up to this point, our analysis has primarily focused on the influence of institutional logics on the overall presence of women on corporate boards. However, Figure 1 illustrates that the growth of female executive board members has lagged behind that of female nonexecutive board members. Moreover, the correlation matrix reveals weaker associations between board size and the number of female executive board members compared to their nonexecutive counterparts. To further explore these dynamics, Figure 3 plots the proportion of executive and nonexecutive female directors (as a percentage of the total board) over time, alongside the standardized values of the two dominant institutional logics.

The figure reveals that most of the growth in female board presence since 2013 – and especially after the introduction of the 2020 quota – has been concentrated in nonexecutive roles. The share of executive female directors remains comparatively low and shows only incremental change. This pattern illustrates the persistence of tokenism, in which firms comply with diversity regulations through supervisory board appointments without a parallel rise in positions with substantive strategic influence.

To investigate this further, we turn to the regression analysis. Table 3 presents the findings from this analysis, distinguishing between executive and nonexecutive board appointments. Columns (1) and (2) show the results when the number of female executive board members is used as the dependent variable, while Columns (3) and (4) display the results with female nonexecutive board members as the dependent variable.

The results show no significant link between conservative logic and the number of female executive board members. Although there might be a negative effect on nonexecutive board members, it is not statistically significant in the fixed-effects model. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to support H6. Based on these results, we reject both H5 and H6.

In contrast, the CSR logic has a clear and significant impact on the number of women in executive board positions. Table 3 shows that CSR logic positively affects the number of women in executive roles, indicating that its influence goes beyond symbolic representation and promotes meaningful inclusion in strategic decision-making. At the same time, CSR logic is also positively related to nonexecutive positions, suggesting that firms committed to CSR values tend to appoint women across different levels of board responsibility. These findings consistently support H2 and H3.

Organizations rarely operate under a single dominant institutional logic but are embedded in fields where multiple logics may coexist, compete or reinforce one another (Greenwood et al., 2010; Pache and Santos, 2010). To examine whether the effects of CSR and conservative logics depend on one another, we estimated additional models including an interaction term between the two logics (see  Appendix 4, Table A5). The interaction term is statistically insignificant across all specifications, indicating that the two logics do not amplify or offset each other in shaping female board representation. In other words, the effect of CSR logic on female board representation does not depend on the presence or strength of conservative logic within the firm. Instead, CSR logic exerts a positive effect independently, while conservative logic remains insignificant. These findings reinforce our earlier conclusion that CSR logic is the primary driver of female board representation.

By investigating the relationship between CSR-oriented organizational discourse and female representation on corporate boards, this study aimed to examine whether the values firms express through CSR are reflected in their governance structures. Drawing on an institutional logics perspective, our findings provide insight into how CSR-related discourse is associated with the presence of women in board positions.

One of the central expectations of this study was that a stronger CSR logic would positively influence female board representation (H1). Our results support this expectation. More specifically, we find evidence supporting H2, indicating that CSR logic increases the number of women in executive roles, as well as H3, which concerns nonexecutive board positions. These findings suggest that CSR logic not only contributes to greater female representation in supervisory roles but also facilitates women’s presence in executive leadership positions. In other words, the influence of CSR logic extends beyond symbolic representation and appears to affect the distribution of women across different types of board positions. Taken together, these results indicate that organizations guided by a stronger CSR logic tend to incorporate gender diversity more broadly into their governance structures.

A second set of expectations concerned the role of conservative logic. H4 predicted that conservative logic would negatively affect female board membership. Although our standard OLS estimates point in the expected direction, the fixed-effects estimates are not statistically significant. We therefore find insufficient evidence to support H4. Similarly, our analysis provides no support for the tokenism-related expectations. H5 and H6 predicted that conservative logic would reduce female representation in executive positions while increasing representation in nonexecutive roles. However, we find no systematic evidence for this pattern. These findings suggest that conservative logic does not exert a systematic influence on female board representation. However, this result should be interpreted with caution. The absence of statistically significant effects does not necessarily imply the absence of an underlying relationship. It may also reflect limitations in statistical power.

In conclusion, this study shows that CSR-related discourse is positively associated with female board representation and precedes subsequent increases over time. These findings strengthen the argument that a CSR logic is an important organizational antecedent of board gender diversity. At the same time, the absence of robust effects for conservative logic suggests that barriers to women’s board representation may be shaped by institutional context and by mechanisms that are not fully visible in formal corporate discourse. Together, these findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how institutional logics are linked to changes in board composition.

This study contributes to the institutional logics literature by offering new insights into how organizational logics – particularly CSR and conservative logics – shape gender diversity on corporate boards. Institutional logics refer to the values, beliefs and practices that influence both individual and organizational behavior (Friedland and Alford, 1991; Thornton and Ocasio, 2008), and they play a crucial role in decision-making and governance. Our approach to analyzing the influence of these logics is innovative. Unlike most studies, which rely on qualitative and interpretative methods (Reay and Jones, 2016), we used a quantitative analysis of qualitative data extracted from annual reports. The key assumption of our approach is that an organization’s dominant institutional logics are implicitly communicated through formal documents like annual reports, an assumption supported by previous research on the relationship between institutional logics and language use (Reay and Jones, 2016). By quantitatively analyzing the language used in corporate annual reports, we advance the understanding of how these logics are reflected and how they affect the inclusion of women on boards; we provide an innovative contribution to the field. While institutional logics are typically studied through qualitative methods, we demonstrate that they can be empirically measured using language patterns in corporate communications. This approach allows for a more systematic examination of how logics shape organizational behavior on a broader scale, opening new possibilities for future research to quantify the impact of other institutional logics on corporate outcomes.

A key theoretical contribution of this research is the demonstration that a CSR logic is not only correlated with female board membership but likely serves as a driver of gender diversity in corporate boards. Organizations with strong CSR logics tend to prioritize ethical governance and social responsibility, which includes addressing gender inequality. Our results also provide an important nuance to the debate on symbolic versus substantive inclusion. Whereas previous studies have raised concerns that CSR-oriented firms may appoint women primarily for reputational purposes (tokenism), our findings show that CSR logics are associated with higher female representation in both executive and nonexecutive roles. This suggests that CSR commitments extend beyond symbolic compliance and instead foster more comprehensive gender diversity at multiple levels of governance. Theoretically, this strengthens the view that institutional logics not only reflect symbolic discourse but can also drive substantive organizational change, with CSR logic operating as a cultural framework that facilitates women’s participation across the full spectrum of board functions.

Furthermore, understanding which logics impact female board membership is an essential step toward shifting these logics to promote greater female representation. Shareholders increasingly recognize the ethical and financial benefits of achieving better gender balance on corporate boards (Geiger and Marlin, 2012; Terjesen and Singh, 2008). However, identifying which organizational logics support or hinder this goal has been less clear. This study fills that gap by providing evidence that a CSR logic is positively associated with gender diversity, offering shareholders and policymakers a framework for understanding how institutional values influence board composition.

Additionally, the study challenges some of the traditional assumptions about the stability of institutional logics over time. While previous research has posited that institutional logics are deeply rooted and resistant to change (Friedland and Alford, 1991; Thornton and Ocasio, 2008), our findings show that both CSR and conservative logics can shift, probably in response to external pressures such as legal mandates and societal expectations. This opens up new theoretical discussions about the adaptability of institutional logics and the conditions under which they evolve, suggesting that organizations are more malleable in their cultural frameworks than previously thought. Understanding how and why logics change is critical for scholars and practitioners alike, as it offers a pathway for influencing organizational behavior and promoting diversity and inclusion in leadership roles. By expanding the understanding of how institutional logics shape gender diversity in corporate governance, this study contributes to both institutional theory and the growing body of research on diversity in corporate leadership. It offers a clear framework for how organizations can consciously shift their logics to align with societal demands for ethical leadership and gender equity, providing a theoretical foundation for future studies to build upon.

In contrast, our analysis found no evidence that conservative logics significantly reduce female board membership. We see two plausible, and likely complementary, explanations for this null finding. First, in the Dutch context, mandatory gender quotas may constrain the extent to which conservative orientations translate into lower female board representation. Second, conservative orientations may be expressed more implicitly through informal norms, recruitment practices or boardroom culture than through explicit language in annual reports, making them harder to capture with dictionary-based text analysis.

The practical implications of these findings are significant. Durand et al. (2013) argue that making organizations aware of the logics present in their corporate frameworks can help them consciously adopt or reinforce certain logics. This study demonstrates that organizations with a strong CSR logic tend to positively influence female board membership, suggesting that fostering this logic could be a strategic priority for companies aiming to improve gender diversity – not only in symbolic terms, but in ways that enable substantive participation.

Our findings indicate that, although we did not observe statistically significant effects for conservative logic, descriptive trends suggest that growth in female representation is focused on nonexecutive roles, consistent with tokenistic compliance with quota legislation. To move from symbolic representation to meaningful inclusion, firms must ensure that women are not only represented numerically but also appointed to executive positions where they can influence strategic decisions. This requires aligning diversity policies with broader governance reforms, such as linking board diversity targets to leadership development pipelines and ensuring transparent evaluation of board contributions.

Embedding CSR values into core governance practices can help drive this shift. It enables organizations to respond more effectively to growing shareholder expectations for ethical leadership, as well as to regulatory pressures concerning board diversity. Policymakers can build on these insights to design measures that incentivize firms to integrate CSR principles into their governance structures, thereby promoting greater inclusion of women in leadership roles.

For corporate leaders, the methodology developed in this study provides a tool for assessing the institutional logics that dominate their organization’s culture. By analyzing the language in annual reports, leaders can gain insights into whether CSR or conservative logics are more prevalent and understand how these values influence decision-making processes related to board composition. This awareness can help organizations consciously shape their values to align with diversity and inclusion goals, improving both their ethical reputation and compliance with diversity regulations.

Finally, this research is valuable for shareholders increasingly interested in diversity’s ethical and financial benefits. Evidence suggests that gender-diverse boards perform better regarding CSR and decision-making quality (e.g. Terjesen et al., 2015; McCarthy, 2017). By encouraging companies to prioritize CSR values, shareholders can ensure that their investments contribute to financial success and social progress.

Despite the valuable insights gained from this study, several limitations should be considered, which also pave the way for future research opportunities. First, while we successfully measured the prevalence of CSR and conservative logics in annual reports, we did not test for interactions or mediating effects between these logics and other factors influencing female board membership. As a result, while the study demonstrates that CSR logic is associated with higher female representation, we cannot explain why or how this logic leads to these outcomes within organizations. Future research could address this gap by developing models that test for the interactions between institutional logics and external factors, such as regulatory mandates, industry norms or market expectations. This would provide a more nuanced understanding of the mechanisms driving gender diversity on boards.

A second limitation of our approach is that the presence of CSR discourse in annual reports may not always reflect actual practices. Such discourse may also include elements of greenwashing, that is, the strategic use of CSR language to appear legitimate without corresponding organizational change (Lyon and Montgomery, 2015). In some cases, firms may emphasize CSR language in ways that overstate actual practices, which makes it important to distinguish expressed logics from realized CSR performance. While this creates challenges in interpreting discourse as direct proof of behavior, it does not diminish the value of our analysis. Institutional logics are embedded in the symbolic language organizations use to present themselves, whether or not these claims are fully put into practice (Reay and Jones, 2016). In this way, our approach captures the normative orientations firms aim to project, which remain meaningful as indicators of the orientations firms seek to project. Future research could build on our findings by combining discourse-based measures with external CSR performance indicators.

Third, the study’s exclusive focus on Dutch-listed companies limits the generalizability of our findings to other countries or regulatory contexts. The Dutch regulatory environment, particularly its gender quotas, may shape the manifestation of logics differently from other regions. This is particularly relevant in light of increasing globalization, where businesses are influenced by various cultural, legal and economic factors. To enhance the generalizability of the findings, future research should expand the analysis to cross-national samples. This would involve refining and testing the wordlists used to measure CSR and conservative logics across different cultural and regulatory environments, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of how institutional logics function in diverse contexts.

Additionally, the study did not account for other dimensions of diversity, such as nationality or ethnicity, on corporate boards. Given the increasing importance of national and cultural diversity in decision-making and governance, future studies should examine how gender diversity intersects with other forms of diversity. For example, research could explore how different institutional logics affect both gender and national diversity and how these dimensions interact to shape corporate governance outcomes.

Finally, while effective in capturing how institutional logics manifest in formal documents, our text analysis approach may not fully reflect the internal realities of organizations. The concept of loose coupling (Lukka, 2007) suggests that what is reported in formal documents like annual reports may not always align with actual practices within an organization. Therefore, future research should combine qualitative methods, such as interviews, internal documentation or organizational assessments, with quantitative text analysis. This mixed-methods approach would provide a more holistic understanding of how institutional logics influence corporate behavior, allowing researchers to cross-validate the insights gained from textual data with real-world practices.

This study provides valuable insights into the relationship between CSR and female board membership, demonstrating that CSR logic positively influences gender diversity on corporate boards. While our findings challenge the traditional view that institutional logics are static, they also highlight the need for further research to explore how logics evolve and interact with external factors. By fostering a CSR-oriented culture, organizations can promote gender diversity in leadership, improving their ethical reputation and compliance with diversity mandates. Future research should continue to investigate the complex interplay between institutional logics, gender diversity and corporate governance while addressing the limitations of this study to provide deeper insights into how organizations can effectively promote diversity and inclusion at the highest levels of leadership.

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.