Gender Quotas on Corporate Boards: Similarities and Differences in Quota Scenarios

Abstract

In this article, the use of gender quotas to strengthen gender equality on corporate boards is explored. Examining national practices in ten European countries we provide an overview, categorizing the design of various corporate board quotas (CBQs) and the contexts in which they are embedded. In particular, similarities and differences along two dimensions are investigated: the design of the CBQs in terms of their hardness and progressiveness, and the institutional context in which they are embedded. From patterns of design and context configurations, different quota scenarios are discerned. We advance the discussion of female representation and the strategies of corporate boards beyond the rather misleading dichotomy of voluntary targets versus mandatory quotas, proposing a framework for understanding various CBQ designs. Moreover, we suggest that the configuration of design and institutional context, resulting in different quota scenarios affects female representation on corporate boards.

A “quota silo” or positive equality reach? The equality impact of gender quotas on corporate boards in Norway

“…The resilience of gender quota silos and small external equality reach in Norway tarnishes what has been acknowledged internationally as a radical step forward in corporate governance. Indeed policy‐makers need greater awareness of the Quota's narrow equality reach but are faced with an environment when Norway's position with gendered balanced boards are applauded in academic and political debates without acknowledging their rather narrow limited restricted scope (Mensi‐Klarbach & Seierstad, 2020). Our findings indicate that there is a case for the Norwegian government to widen the Quota requirements based on the status and size of a company, if it is serious about enhancing equality and democracy in the private sector.…”

“…Improving women's representation on boards and in senior positions in the private sector through quotas is a contemporary human resource (HR) issue for academics, politicians and practitioners (Doldor, Vinnicombe, & Sealy, 2016; Kirsch, 2018) and is on the agenda globally (e.g., Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development [CIPD], 2015; European Commission, 2017; Kirsch, 2018). Norway can claim some credit for the Quota's international equality reach (see Machold, Huse, Hansen, & Brogi, 2013; Mensi‐Klarbach & Seierstad, 2020). In Europe, Spain, Iceland, France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Portugal introduced quota regulations after Norway, nevertheless, the design of different quotas vary (see Mensi‐Klarbach & Seierstad, 2020).…”

“…Norway can claim some credit for the Quota's international equality reach (see Machold, Huse, Hansen, & Brogi, 2013; Mensi‐Klarbach & Seierstad, 2020). In Europe, Spain, Iceland, France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Portugal introduced quota regulations after Norway, nevertheless, the design of different quotas vary (see Mensi‐Klarbach & Seierstad, 2020). The Icelandic case is most progressive, setting a 40% quota embracing all companies with over 50 employees (ibid).…”

Bringing Women on Board? Family Policies, Quotas and Gender Diversity in Top Jobs

“…A small but rapidly growing body of research on women on boards indicates that hard quota laws are most successful in increasing women's board representation, while the possible effects of the softer approach are more disputed (e.g. Humbert et al, 2019;Klettner et al, 2016;Mensi-Klarbach and Seierstad, 2020). However, some studies suggest that wider institutional factors can support or undermine the success of gender boardroom regulations (Mensi-Klarbach and Seierstad, 2020).…”

“…Furthermore, those studies that do typically focus on a small number of countries (⩽ 10) and neglect to disaggregate the unique contributions of individual policies (e.g. Grosvold et al, 2007;Mensi-Klarbach and Seierstad, 2020), which can have diverse and sometimes contradictory effects (Brady et al, 2020;Budig et al, 2016;Korpi et al, 2013). Iannotta et al (2016) contribute to filling this 'gap' in the literature on women on boards.…”