Is 30 per cent representation the new gender-equality dream?

Campaigns to raise women’s representation on boards and in politics to 30 per cent are picking up steam globally

by Anne Kingston on Wednesday, April 6, 2011 9:48am - 10 Comments
Thirty is the new fifty

Paul Yeung/Reuters

In February, Deutsche Bank CEO Josef Ackermann created a firestorm with his remark that more women on corporate boards would make life “more colourful and prettier.” Certainly it would at Ackermann’s bank, Germany’s biggest, whose 12-member executive committee is entirely male. Editorialists and bloggers around the globe slammed the banker for his sexist barb. Less discussed was the serious debate that inspired it: proposed quotas in the German Bundestag that would require the country’s largest publicly traded companies to fill at least 40 per cent of their management and supervisory boards with women, up from a current 8.6 per cent.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has filled one-third of her ministerial positions with women, quashed the proposal. Instead, she offered companies “one last chance” to redress the issue before she imposed legislation. Ackermann’s comment, at least according to his PR people, was intended to support that idea; he was trying to highlight the bank’s achievement of filling 16.5 per cent of management positions with women.

Germany is not alone in focusing on gender imbalances in power echelons. Norway, Spain and Iceland all have imposed quotas in the boardrooms of publicly traded companies. Earlier this month, the EU’s justice commissioner, Viviane Reding, gave public companies 12 months to commit voluntarily to filling 30 per cent of board positions with women by 2015—going up to 40 per cent by 2020 before legislative action is taken. France is already on board: in January, it introduced a law stipulating the boards of its large publicly traded companies be 40 per cent female by 2017. Governments, too, are facing quotas. India’s parliament has passed a bill to reserve 33 per cent of its legislature’s seats for women, up from 10 per cent. Argentina established a 30 per cent female quota; Uganda reserves a percentage of seats in its 39 districts for women.

Suddenly, it seems, the vast estrogen deficit in business and government has reached a flashpoint. True, the disparity is severe: in Canada, women represent more than half of university graduates and comprise half of the workforce. Girls are raised believing they can achieve anything—become an astronaut or prime minister. Strapping on a space pack offers better odds of liftoff: only 21 per cent of Canadian MPs are women, a rate little changed over five elections. Women hold a mere 14 per cent of board seats and 17 per cent of senior officer roles on FP 500 corporations; close to half of these companies have no female directors at all. The trend is echoed globally: in the U.S., 15 per cent of corporate directors are women, in Britain, it’s 12.5 per cent. The pace of change is glacial; at current rates, it’ll be some 50 years before gender parity is reached.

Not that parity is even the goal. Politicians in France, the cradle of egalité, voted on a watered-down version of the original proposal for full gender equality. In February, Canadian Liberal Sen. Céline Hervieux-Payette saw her bill to establish full gender parity on boards, financial institutions and Crown corporations soundly defeated. The very term “gender equity” was eliminated by the Harper government in its communications, replaced by the cumbersome “equality of men and women,” a phrase absent of any strident feminist connotations.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://www.womenonboard.ca Thea M. Miller

    Join the 'Club. Getting women on boards is considered a matter of fairness, but what's really going to get women there is for companies to understand that it's a matter of good governance. But how are we going to get them there? Catalyst's Deborah Gillis is correct when she said women are "under sponsored." Women who are qualified to serve on boards are missing one thing – connections to people already on boards. We've got to get women in the Club. There are many paths to getting women on boards, but to have long term success joining the Club is the key. With such a large percentage of director vacancies filled through the networks of sitting directors, it is absolutely essential that women are introduced to these directors. WomenOnBoard is doing just that with the support of some of the most influential board chairs and CEOs in the country.

    • Thwim

      They're missing something else, too.. wives.

      Seriously. I've been witness to board discussions where the issue of not having a wife that is able to stay at home and help organize/plan events for the incoming member was brought forward as a consideration.

      I no longer work for said organization.

  • Ryan

    Blah blah blah

    • Ryan

      Not blah'ing the article itself, just blah'ing the fact there are still people out there who think that "gender-equality" is something to "strive" for when all that involves is handcuffing business owners into making decisions that they would have not otherwise made.

  • David

    What is disgusting about this article is the complete acceptance of the role of governments in continuing to destroy citizens' fundamental freedom of association (i.e., the right of shareholders to choose whomever they wish to serve on their board), which is absolutely essential for Canada to remain a free country. Nowhere in this article is the possibility mentioned that the lack of women on governing boards might reflect the free choices made by women, who tend to sacrifice careers for family reasons in much higher numbers than men. By the way, will we be seeing any future articles decrying the lack of women carpenters, plumbers, electricians, mechanics, roofers, bricklayers, heavy equipment operators, pipe-fitters, machinists, oil rig workers, miners, loggers, truck drivers, welders, ….

  • Peter

    Secondly, why do women choose not to become CEOs and MPs? I say choose, because it has been proven repeatedly that women who work the same number of hours as men get the same pay and positions.

    Surveys have shown that 64% of women aspire to find a husband who earns more than they do. NONE wanted to marry a man who earned less. Men do not have this problem; male CEO's routinely marry educated women who work in less demanding careers such as teaching or don't work outside the home at all. This is because becoming an executive officer is highly demanding, requiring decades of 70 hour work weeks and constantly being on-call. Women COULD become CEOs because if they married men who could be the lower earning partners in a relationship, managing the home and allowing the women to work 70 hours. But they are overwhelmingly rejecting such men.

  • Peter

    Also, 69% of women said they would prefer to stay at home to look after their children if money were not an issue. So picture a power couple with both husband and wife on the management fast track. Both husband and wife are offered promotions that lead the boardroom, so money wouldn't be an issue. The data clearly shows that women would choose the less demanding career rather than the promotion. Hence, more males become executive officers. A small minority of women will choose their own careers over greater parental responsibility. These are your 10% of CEOs who aren't there because of quota.

  • Peter

    To conclude, enforced gender quotas would be discriminatory, against men. Under such a regime, the women who would move into the executive under quota would have a career behind them of 40-50 hour family friendly work weeks, and have husbands who earned the same or more, as their preference shows. The men on the executive would have a stay-at-home or lower income wife, and would have put in large amounts of overtime; even more so than today, for competition would be fiercer now that 30% of these positions are closed to them. This is blatantly unfair to these men. It's not equality for women to put in way less work than a man for decades, and get the same rewards.

  • VAGINAS

    If you are going to pull the "upper middle class white male discrimination" card, I suggest you provide links to all of those stats, surveys, and percentages you are touting. Statistical survey is notorious for non-response bias. Otherwise, you are just presenting yourself as yet another member of the all boys patri-archaic club…

    As a woman in a male dominated industry (offshore oil & gas) I have only one thing to say — The glass ceiling is there, and it is going to take a hell of a lot more than a sledgehammer to bring it down.

  • Peter

    Doubt you'll be back here to check for a response, but for the sake of posterity, here is where I got my info:

    The surveys which showed female preference for higher earning partners and revulsion towards lower earning spouses: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1345520…

    Here is a Globe and Mail article which shows that all successful female CEO's are either single or have a partner in a secondary career or stay at home capacity. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships…

    And here is an article by feminist Linda Hirshman who lambastes the elite women of the US for overwhelmingly choosing children over advancing their own career: http://prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=10659

    Her solution? Women should marry down in income level in order to have equality in the workplace.

    I too work in a male dominated industry similar to your own. The female bosses and executives are all, to a woman, either single or with stay at home husbands. Quit living in some feminist dreamworld.

From Macleans