IMHO we are here for different purposes. I invite anyone who wants to learn more about the subject to examine the paper you cited in support of the claim that "doubling female participation in board membership increases profits." It says "The results find no impact of board gender quotas on firm performance" in the abstract, and has details about Norway in footnote 9 on page 7. The paper does not support the claim that increasing female participation in board membership increases profits, rather it describes some correlations, with many qualifications about the uncertainty inherent in this kind of study. As you have reminded us more than once, correlation does not imply causation.
What purpose are you here for? What purpose do you suppose I'm here for? Because I'll note you responded to my other point here, and have made no response to this one. You could even address my principle point: that female participation on boards is good for the general public. Because that "responsibility of one" vs "responsibility for 13,000" angle, which was my point made to you, is hangin' right there. Unanswered. Much like the majority of conversations you've ever had where you're directly contradicted.