Quotas for women: for or against?

Friday 26 October 2012 by Jonathan Goldsmith

For Twitter followers of the EU justice commissioner, Viviane Reding, it will be clear what has been on her mind recently. From 5 October until the middle of last week, she had tweeted 17 times. Apart from when she was distracted by the award of the Nobel peace prize to the EU and gave a single tweet to welcome it, the rest were about the vexed question as to how to advance women in the boardroom.

The recent political history is recited in her Twitter account in short bursts - ‘It's time to shatter the glass ceiling keeping women out of top jobs’; ‘Without women on board, European companies will lose the battle for the best and the brightest’; ‘All Commissioners w/ economic portfolios join me in this battle’; ‘This week, I will fight for a Directive to bring about gender equality in corporate boardrooms’; ‘Of course, there will be some opposition’; ‘Gender balance directive postponed’; ‘I will not give up. @BarrosoEU will put this on the Commission agenda again before the end of November’. So, battle will be resumed on 14 November over whether to have a quota of 40% by 2020 imposed on publicly-listed European companies.

Depending on the attitude you take to quotas, the UK government has played a shameful/heroic part in this delay, because Vince Cable – that famous woman who has succeeded against all odds in spite of her gender – led a group of nine governments in opposing the notion of quotas. Interestingly, in commissioner Reding’s efforts to persuade her fellow commissioners to back quotas, we are told that numerous powerful men joined her – Barroso himself, Michel Barnier (internal market), Antonio Tajani (industry), Olli Rehn (economic affairs), Joaquín Almunia (competition), László Andor (employment) and Andris Piebalgs (development) – while numerous powerful women apparently opposed her - Neelie Kroes (digital agenda), Cecilia Malmström (home affairs), our very own Catherine Ashton (external action), Connie Hedegaard (climate action) and Máire Geoghegan-Quinn (research).

A further interesting aspect of this dilemma is that the only directly-elected part of the EU institutions – the parliament – is in favour of quotas. The heads of the principal parties - EPP (conservatives), Socialist, Liberal and Greens, as well as the radical left - would prefer if quotas were not necessary, but point out that the percentage of women on the executive boards of big European companies is still too low. Within listed public enterprises, only 14% are at the highest level of decision-making, even though 60% of university graduates in the EU are women.

This saga has become intertwined with another taking place simultaneously, where the parliament has been able to use its limited muscle: the appointment of a new board member to the European Central Bank. A Luxembourg man, Yves Mersch, has been nominated. No one doubts his qualifications for the post, but he is the wrong gender for some, since the rest of the ECB’s board is made up of men, and there will not be the opportunity to appoint anyone new again until 2018. The European parliament, which has only a consultative (and not a blocking) role, has voted against his nomination by 325 votes to 300, with 49 abstentions. One MEP asked him to withdraw his candidacy, which he refused to do. There was a female ECB board member - Gertrude Tumpel Gugerell - until last year.

At the International Women in Law Summit 2012, hosted by the Law Society earlier this year to mark International Women’s Day, women lawyers opposed quotas as patronising, and preferred diversity targets. However, commissioner Reding would presumably say that she has tried that: she started by calling on enterprises to sign European pledges, but only 24 responded to her call. Norway is usually cited as the country where quotas for women in the boardroom have worked, and there is background information on the long-running debate.

This is a very difficult issue on which there are proper and reasonable arguments on both sides. Since it is cowardly to describe the issue in some detail and not take sides, I will say I support the Reding party.

Jonathan Goldsmith is secretary general of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, which represents about one million European lawyers through its member bars and law societies. He blogs weekly for the Gazette on European affairs

Comments

I agree with women lawyers

I agree with women lawyers who say in part, quotas are patronising. This will also demeans Women that have earned their place at the top, which there are many.
I strongly disagree with Viviane Reding comments ‘Without women on board, European companies will lose the battle for the best and the brightest’. This is ridiculous, as mentioned above this demeans all those that have achieved their positions (both men and women).

Also why are shareholder and board members seemingly rejecting the best and the brightest. I fear they are not and we are in a position were those that want but cannot achieve find excuses. How is it that these people cannot convince their bosses but want to persuade you and me that based on their gender they should have an unfair advantage based on their view that they have an unfair disadvantage?

Yes I agree some fall through the net but that is life for everyone whatever your gender or any classification you seem to fall into. If someone has to give you a job based on your gender then that is discrimination and for the rest of your life, you will be labelled (in all probability behind their back and in private).

If some people have, what are deemed, wrong attitudes, then you have to persuade them rather than force them. Otherwise, we will still have problems twenty, thirty years down the line. In any case, it is not government job to tell a business whom they can and cannot give a job to? They get to choose.

The economy needs quotas

Time and again I have seen poorly qualified/ skilled men appointed ahead of bright, intelligent, go-getting women. Why? Human nature. We are programmed to seek out 'people like us'. White, middle- aged shareholders and board members, consciously or not, see white, middle-aged men as a safe pair of hands - they know what they are getting. So women and ethnic minorities have to work twice as hard, and be twice as good before appointment committees and employers will take a risk on them. It's bad for the economy that we are stuck in an industrial revolution mentality of appointing jobs for the boys, while some of the brightest talent is under-utilised and, quite frankly, wasted.

Quotas are not patronising. They are a short-term, necessary step to shift societal patterns and get the best talent into our boardrooms. In 50 years, when women on boards is the norm, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

"Time and again I have seen

"Time and again I have seen poorly qualified/ skilled men appointed ahead of bright, intelligent, go-getting women". Really? I doubt it. "In 50 years, when women on boards is the norm, people will wonder what all the fuss was about". I agree, but that will happen naturally, not by (positive) discrimination - actually negative, as is all discrimination.

quotas for women on boards - overdue

I am 60 and have been concerned with this issue, and monitoring "progress", for a long time. What is patronizing are the empty promises, followed by same old, same old. Little has changed. We have waited long enough.

Really

“We have waited long enough”
Really, who is we?

The current boards do not want to have to waste time with individuals with this attitude. You have to stop the victim mentality and for that matter, an employee mentality before you can be a board member. The method you are encouraging is social bullying! If you cannot persuade shareholders and the current board (whose decision it is), do not try to persuade politicians to force them.

Why should a woman, just for the fact she is a women, against the better judgment of those that are appointing the position, be given a job as important as being a board member, because of a quota. It will be a given, that she thinks she can do the job. Who cares?

Ask anyone in the street if they want a half a million-pound job were they could not be sacked because there is a quota for their classification. They will nearly all smile and say yes regardless if they are the best person for the job.

Would it not also be a breach of the current director’s duties assigned under the company’s act 2006, to recommend to shareholders someone they think is not the best person for the position? YES. Would the decision be in the best interest of the company, the business and the economy for a person to be appointed a decision maker not based on merit? NO!

There is a reason why so many people in the UK do not want to be in the EU and are calling for a referendum. My mistake, there are many reasons.

"Norway is usually cited as

"Norway is usually cited as the country where quotas for women in the boardroom have worked". Good old Norway. Good old economic powerhouse Norway. Think of a great economy. Norway. Massive economic crisis and we are focusing on giving people jobs based on their sex, not on their merit. We can be happy with our choices as China and Brazil overtake us.

The argument for...

It's a mistake for women to think "I want to be appointed on my own merit ergo all quotas are an insulting mistake". Of course we want to be appointed for what we can do, not what we are - that's a no-brainer. The fact remains however that in some sectors quotas, if they do nothing else, force employers to at least open the field to candidates they may not otherwise have interviewed. If, via that process, they subsequently see that a woman/ethnic minority candidate/less abled person is indeed the best person for the job, then great. Job done. It's lazy scare-mongering (and quite insulting) to suggest that this means we will inevitably end up with substandard candidates in some posts.

We do not yet have a level playing field. Until we do we need to look for solutions. There is no victim mentality in this. We women need to help each other. If we got our current posts on our own merits, then that's fantastic. Now let's turn our attention to making sure other women at least get their chance to shine and are not cut off at the first hurdle.

In Answer

What makes you think women are not getting their chance? There are so many women in senior positions that have earned it. The numbers have been growing over time.

In addition, what’s with the phase "force employers"

Some may see that as a women’s attitude to getting to the top. You are not helping the cause.

If someone does not have the aptitude to be noticed for a position, then they deserve not to have it. What makes you think anyone can contribute anything at board level if they have problems being noticed?