Women’s representation and gender quotas: New directions
European Consortium for Political Research ECPG
Conference – Section Power & Representation
University of Uppsala, 11-13 June 2015
Panel Number PO43
Preliminary Draft: Please do not cite, circulate or copy without author’s permission.
1
Board quota legislation and its contestations
Hannelore Roos (Univesity of Hasselt)1 & Patrizia Zanoni (University of Hasselt)
Abstract
Although the rhetoric of gender equality has been widely accepted, there is no consensus on how to
increase gender diversity at top levels in academics, politics or the economic sphere. A paradigm shift
seems to occur in how to tackle the problem of the low representation of women in decision-making
positions. From focusing on the women themselves in equipping them with the competences,
confidence and contacts to participate in the higher echelons of organizations, more and more
countries opt to install structural measurements such as quotas to remedy historically grown
imbalances. Also in the framework of shaping equal opportunities for men and women in economic
decision-making bodies and driven by economic concerns, several European countries have opted for
quota systems. Although there is much research investigating the impact of quotas, the
implementation of quota legislation and its contestation after its adoption remains underresearched. Therefore, this study focuses on the transition from quasi homogeneous male boards to
the inclusion of gender diversity in the boards’ demographic composition. As quota remain a
controversial policy instrument, this research draws on 40 interviews with corporate board members
of publically listed companies in Belgium who speak from their own experiences on mechanisms of
exclusion, the functioning of corporate boards and the stimulation of gender diversity by quotas.
Despite resistance against the introduction of quotas as corporates’ freedom of self-organization
becomes restricted, this research contextualizes and analyses gender board quota discourses and
how the interviewees position themselves. In addition, a comparison is made with the public debate
on the introduction of electoral quota and which new and recurring arguments and discursive
strategies can be distinguished. Interestingly, not gender but ideology in combination with
experiences of unconscious biases relate to the strong belief in the necessity of quota regulations to
induce change.
1
This research was financed by the Flemish Government in the framework of its program for Policy Research
Centers and conducted in the Policy Research Centre on Equality Policies under the supervision of Petra Meier.
2
1. Introduction
The introduction of electoral gender quotas sparked public as well academic debate and spurred
women’s collective action to improve women’s position in decision-making bodies. Although quotas
remain a controversial policy tool, they seem to become globally accepted in the political world. As a
“Fast Track” to equal gender representation (Dahlerup and Freidenvall, 2005), the introduction of
quotas gained widespread legitimacy installing pressure from above. However, as Dahlerup (2008, p.
324) points out, this arises the question “why male dominated parliaments would pass gender quota
regulations?” Equality policies cannot go beyond the realities of political life, which is “a game of
bargaining, compromises and mixed motives” and wherein which “political decisions are made
synchronically” as Dahlerup (2008, p. 325) states. As it is hard to find the compromises behind
political decision-making, this paper’s research aims do not consider the reconstruction of the
decision-making process. Instead, it intends to investigate the discursive strategies of board
members and their position vis-a-vis the most recently introduced gender quota legislation in
Belgium considering the representation of women on corporate boards of publically listed
companies. Remarkably, after the introduction of this law in 2011, the debate amongst the corporate
elite continued. As also the European Union considers a common gender policy and suggested to
introduce gender quotas, quotas remain a subject for debate on women’s position and the social
construction of gender (Sacchet, 2008). The research of Sacchet (2008) points out the cultural
changes thanks to quotas. The study of the broader impacts of quotas, including the politicization of
gender issues, is of particular significance as it contributes to the continuous process of renegotiating
women’s position in society.
Gender quotas deal with complexities related to the recognition of women’s under-representation
and the redistribution of power (Meier, 2008). Literature on gender quotas stresses that quotas play
a significant democratic role in fostering gender equality (Mansbridge, 2005). In this way, quotas are
of high symbolical value in addition to their ambitions to realize change. It is a popular measure for
lobby and pressing groups as the outcomes are easy to monitor and to observe: is the specific target
reached or not? Compliance to gender quota equates in that perspective the realization of equal
opportunities resulting in gender equality. This paper analyses an empirical case study of Belgian
gender quota legislation that addresses the ongoing debate on the effects of gender quotas on
corporate boards studied from a discourse perspective. Drawing on Acker’s notion of “inequality
regimes” (2009), can and how can gender quotas change organizational inequality regimes is at the
centre of analysis. To address these questions, the concept of “quota regimes” (Dahlerup, 2007) is
extended from the political to the economic domain. As research has shown the diffusion of gender
3
quotas from the public to the private corporate domain (Terjesen et al., 2015), “quota regimes” is
here defined as the combination of electoral gender quotas and gender board quotas.
This research investigates the impact of the adoption of electoral quotas and how it stimulated equal
opportunities for women in political decision-making positions and beyond the field of policymaking.
Male and female board members, including so-called “quota women”, were interviewed to
understand their view on the quota legislation regulating corporate boards. In the analysis, attention
is paid to discursive strategies of inclusion and exclusion. It is remarkable to note that liberal
opposition to gender quotas in company boards continues, even after the introduction of the law.
This critique centres around the core liberal notions of individualism, meritocracy and freedom of
organization.
The article is organized as follows: first a brief introduction is given on Belgium’s historical
background in positive action legislation. This is followed by a description of Belgium’s newly
introduced gender quota on corporate boards. Next, empirical data is presented of board members’
perspectives on and experiences of gender-based board quota legislation. The debate is bifurcated
between opponents and advocates of legally binding quotas. However, both competing discourses of
what is here described as individual merit versus discourses of gender representation exhibit various
discursive-constructive strategies. Drawing on critical discourse analysis, these will be analysed in
terms of assimilation and inclusion (the construction of sameness) and dissimilation/exclusion (the
construction of difference) (Wodak et al., 2009).
2. Historical background of positive action legislation in Belgium
Literature on quota legislation to increase the number of women on corporate boards often refer to
Norway as a paradigmatic example. Known for being a country with a strong tradition of
egalitarianism, it took up a pioneering role by introducing gender-based board quota legislation, as
early as 2008, which inspired lobby groups to press for similar measures in other countries as well.
Huse and Brogi (2013) speak in that respect of a “Norwegian snowball” as legal regulations are more
and more subject of debate in many countries around the world. However, an inspiring role model is
not enough that leads to the developing and approving of legal regulations enhancing gender
diversity on corporate boards. Terjesen et al. (2015) identified three key institutional factors driving
the establishment of gender quota legislation on corporate boards, namely: female labour market
and gendered welfare state provisions, left-leaning political government coalitions, and pathdependent policy initiatives for gender equality, both in the public realm as well as in the corporate
4
domain such as defined in corporate governance codes. Considering the Belgian case, all three above
mentioned conditions were fulfilled in 2011, at the time that the gender quota act for corporate
boards was adopted by the centre-left government. Belgium was however among one of the last
Western countries to give women the fundamental right to vote. Not until 1948 women could vote at
all levels of government. Despite these slow developments regarding gender equality, Belgium
became a pioneer by implementing as the first European country a gender quota law in politics.
Discussions to strengthen the position of women in electoral politics started from the 1980s onwards
with Paula D’Hondt’s proposal, a Christian Democrat Senator, stipulating that no more than 75 per
cent of the candidates on local lists should be of the same sex (Meier, 2012).These debates resulted
in the first legally binding quota law, passed in 1994, the Smet-Tobback act. This forced parties to
include a minimum quota of on third of the opposite sex (in practice meaning: women) on their
electoral lists. The rules were applied for the first time in the 13 June 1999 elections, leading to a
steep increase of female representatives.
The quota act was strengthen by a change in the Constitution in 2002 that explicitly affirms the
principle of equality between men and women (article 10, amended in 2002). The introduction of the
new Article 11 bis, dedicated to the promotion of equal access of men and women to political office,
was a crucial milestone as it offered an explicit constitutional basis for affirmative action (de Bethune
and Van Hoof, 2013). From that moment, the zipper system was introduced guaranteeing that
political parties put an equal number of female and male candidates forward. Since 2006, the quota
act applies to all political levels, including the federal parliament, regional parliaments and local
councils.
In these discussions, the central argument evolves around the recognition of women’s underrepresentation as a democratic problem. “Democracy cannot truly deliver for all of its citizens if half
of the population remains under-represented in the political arena” (de Bethune and Van Hoof,
2013). Female politicians would put alternative topics on the agenda that directly concerns girls,
women or familial interests. Further, the arguments goes that women bring in a different political
culture, add to the human capital or pool of candidates and thus increase the chance that the most
suitable person is selected for the job and that female politicians can serve as influential role models
who are able to inspire and empower women in other spheres of society. Looking at the effects of
electoral quota, in the Belgian case this has not only increased the numerical representation of
women. It has also had a qualitative impact on policy-making such as the gender quota act on
governing boards of publicly owned and listed companies illustrates.
5
With a substantial increase in the number of women in political legislatures, a strengthening in
women’s political advocacy can be observed. The results can be noticed in major changes in policy
content related to women’s issues. Despite that quotas remain a controversial tool in creating equal
opportunities, the Belgian tradition of legislative (or statutory) quotas spilled over to the economic
realm. As this study demonstrate, especially the previously established gender quota legislation in
politics is of major significance in understanding the adoption of gender quota legislation advancing
the representation of women on corporate boards despite corporate resistance. As quotas tend to
foster broader social and cultural changes as the research of Sacchet (2008) indicates, electoral quota
helped encouraging women’s political action as well as proved to be a driving force in changing
people’s perceptions about gender relations, resulting in the questioning of gender imbalances in
other decision-making bodies such as corporate boards. This observation is in line with the theory of
the politics of presence (Phillips, 1995) that expects a link between the presence of women (or a
critical mass) and their effects on addressing women’s interests leading to women-friendly policy
change. Evidence for the notion of “women acting for women”, including spreading feminist
awareness driving female but also male critical actors (Childs and Krook, 2009), is empirically
supported by, among others, Lovenduski and Norris (2003), Wängnerud (2009) or Catalano (2009).
The de facto exclusion of women as a democratic problem is the leading argument for electoral
quota. However, is this democratic argument also applicable to other domains beyond the political
arena? How can quotas become legitimate measures to install equal opportunities in other domains
such as the economic sphere and in economic decision-making bodies?
3. Case-study of Belgian board quota legislation
To guarantee the presence of women on economic decision-making bodies of autonomous public
undertakings, listed companies and the National Lottery, a fast-track policy was introduced by the
law of 28 July 2011. As late as 2006, only 6.9% of board directors were female (Valgaeren et al.,
2008). Currently, Belgian boards are in a phase of transition by the introduction of a gender board
quota of 33.3%, with which all listed companies should comply by 2017 or at the latest by 2019,
depending on their size and book year. Drawing on the preceding parliamentary discussions, the
political landscape was from the very start sharply divided between the advocates of quotas and the
other opposing parties. The social-democratic (PS & sp.a) and Christian-democratic (cdH & CD&V)
French- and Dutch speaking political parties, as well as the Greens actively support legally binding
board quotas in order to tackle the corporate glass ceiling restricting women to participate in
economic decision-making bodies (Marghem and Uyttersprot, Doc. 53-0211/004). The gender board
6
quota act was based on draft bills prepared by male and female members of these various political
parties: Ms Colette Burgeon (PS2); Mr Bruno Tuybens (sp.a3); Mr Joseph George (cdH4) and Ms
Catherine Fonck (cdH); Ms Sonja Becq (CD&V5); and Ms Muriel Gerkens (Ecolo-Groen!6) and Ms Eva
Brems (Ecolo-Groen!). The opposing right-wing parties, Open VLD7, N-VA8, VB9, LDD10 and MR11 built
their defence against statuary quota around the principles of freedom of association and the rights of
the shareholders which should not be overruled by politics. As an alternative, they suggest a
corporate governance approach (Lambrecht, 2014), referring to the law of 6 April 2010 that made it
compulsory for listed companies to publish an annual corporate governance declaration and legally
anchored the 2009 Belgian Code of Corporate Governance that includes the recommendation to
foster gender diversity amongst the composition of the board members. In the 2009 Belgian Code of
Corporate Governance that is recognised by the government as the Belgian benchmark code, gender
diversity is explicitly addressed in article 2.1 stating that:
The board's composition should ensure that decisions are made in the corporate interests. It
should be determined on the basis of gender diversity and diversity in general, as well as
complementary skills, experience and knowledge.
While quotas regulating public governance companies are much less controversial as these are
considered to act as role models, the composition of the board of private businesses that are
publically listed is much more sensitive. It indeed touches upon questions of responsibilities, the
freedom of association and the rights of shareholders.
Even though electoral quotas have been in place for over a decade, a survey amongst Flemish
politicians shows that a major gender gap remains as these are not considered legitimate according
to most of the male politicians (Meier, 2008). While quotas are widely accepted among female
politicians as a legitimate measure to overcome gender barriers, Meier (2008) found that the
electoral quotas are not generally accepted among male politicians. Although the gender quota law
on company boards has been in place, much resistance is heard in the public press against the
imposition of gender quota, restricting companies to freely choose their own board members. In
2
Parti Socialiste/Socialist Party
Socialistische Partij Anders/Socialist Party Different
4
Centre démocrate Humaniste/Humanist Democratic Centre
5
Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams/Christian Democratic and Flemish
6
Flemish and Francophone (Ecolo) ecologist parties.
7
Open Vlaamse Liberalen en Democraten/ Open Flemish Liberals and Democrats is a Flemish liberal party.
8
Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie/New Flemish Alliance is a Flemish nationalist party.
9
Vlaams Belang/Flemish Interest is a Flemish nationalist party.
10
Libertair, Direct, Democratisch/LDD (Libertarian, Direct, Democratic) is a minor Flemish liberal party.
11
Mouvement Réformateur/Reformist Movement is a Francophone liberal party.
3
7
order to better understand this ongoing discursive resistance even after the adoption of the law, 40
in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 male and 20 female board members of publically listed
companies on the EURONEXT Brussels.
Questions include the educational and professional background of board members, the motivation to
serve on a corporate board, their experiences with the appointment of new board members, the
functioning of corporate boards and the influence of gender diversity, and how they as members of
the board evaluate the legal imposition of gender quota on corporate boards of listed companies.
At the time of the research (2014), the 40 board members interviewed were connected to 28
companies listed on the Euronext Brussels, holding together in total 57 positions on Euronext
Brussels’ listed companies. Of the respondents 8 were CEOs (4 male; 4 female) and 5 male board
members held 6 chairmen positions. The 27 positions as independent members were held by 7 men
and 18 women. Four board members had a non-Belgian nationality (3 male; 1 female). Of the 28
boards, one is homogenously male, 20 need at least one more female member to reach the quota, 7
have reached the quota and 4 companies have even exceeded the target of 1/3 gender diversity.
The majority of the interviewees, 28, were absolutely against quota, while 12 interviewees shifted
over time their opinion in the direction of pro positive active measures such as binding quota
legislation to improve the representation of women on company boards of government and
publically listed companies. Among this minority who are in favour of legally binding quota, two men
expressed their support for the new gender quota law as a legitimate measure of the government. It
should be noted that they do not publically address this topic in media debates on gender equality
and insisted on remaining anonymous. Furthermore, some respondents tend to contradict
themselves in their speech, not stating clearly whether they are in favour or against but prefer to
give a very nuanced opinion. As they feel the law is already in place, in their opinion it is better to
make the best out of it and contribute in such a way that the advantages outweigh the
disadvantages. No respondent (including CEOs and chairmen) stated not to have the intention to
ignore the law. Except one respondent, a chairman of a male homogeneous board, boldly stated not
to be frightened by the sanctions in case of non-compliance. The sanctions imply that all the
advantages financial as well as non-financial of the board members will be nullified and every new
appointment of a board member will be void unless the position is taken by a board member of the
opposite sex and this until the quota is reached.
8
4. Discourses of individual merit versus discourses of gender representation
In asking about board director’s experiences with the newly introduced gender quota law designed
to stimulate gender diversity among corporate boards, a “boardroom gender paradox”, as Pesonen
et al. (2009) term the ambiguity in respondent’s discourses, emerges. On the one hand, gender is
found to be irrelevant, while on the other hand it also matters. Liberal as well as feminist opponents
to the gender-based quota law regulating the demographic composition of corporate boards draw
upon the argument of merit to refute the legitimacy of gender quotas. In their view, quotas
undermine the principle of merit and are therefore even demeaning to women. By focusing on the
result of the number of women represented on corporate boards, legally binding quota measures
even go beyond the notion of shaping equal opportunities (Dahlerup, 1998; Teigen, 2000).
Two main rivalry discourses are located in the talk of male and female board directors on legallyenforceable quotas: discourses of individual merit that compete with discourses of gender
representation. Both discourses, however, make use of discursive strategies of exclusion and
inclusion and evolve around the discursive construction of sameness and difference.
4.1 Discourses of individual merit
The discourse of individual merit centres around an individual focus opposed to the recognition of
group identities. Sameness between genders are stressed, while differences are pushed to the
background, stressing that individual differences are based on differences in competences and
experiences and are thus merit-based. Drawing on the analytical framework of discourses of national
identity of Wodak et al. (2009), which can be applied to identity formation in general, four social
macro-functions can be analytically distinguished that also gives an insight in the professional
identity formation of board members, namely construction, perpetuation or justification,
transformation and demontage or dismantling. As board members continue to engage in discursive
resistance even after the introduction of the gender board quota act, an analysis is made of board
members’ strategies of justification. These strategies are in the words of Wodak et al. (2009, p. 33)
an “attempt to justify or relativize a societal status quo ante by emphasizing the legitimacy of past
acts of the ‘own’ […] ‘we’-group which have been put into question, that is they restore, maintain
and defend a common […] ‘self-perception’ which has been ‘tainted’ in one way or another.” Three
analytical distinct discursive strategies of justification and relativisation are: downplaying or
trivialization, a shift of blame and responsibility and legitimation/delegitimation that justifies board
members’ stance against the introduction of gender board quota while recognizing, but without
problematizing, the underrepresentation of women on corporate boards. Board members agree that
they are looking for people who can add value to the board and increase the overall board capital.
9
Therefore they are looking for well-defined profiles and hold on to their common practices of
recruitment within known circles of confidants. That female candidates might be overlooked in this
way is explained by denying the possible positive effects quota might have and by downplaying the
possible negative side-effects by recruiting board members within tight male-dominated networks.
Furthermore, the lack of women on boards is not a responsibility of the boards, but is a result of
other mechanism at play such as sexism within society or a mentality issue among women
themselves. Eventually board members tend to explain the functioning of corporate boards, which is
distinct from the functioning of political parties and politics. By doing so, they justify the status quo
and argue that quotas are illegitimate as it goes against the basic principles of corporate meritocracy.
4.1.1
Downplaying/trivialisation
The following quotes illustrate discourses of merit which deny that a lack of women on corporate
boards is problematic for boards and which makes external regulations in support of female talent
superfluous:
Talented women are visible, they walk anyway in the spotlights. You meet them at receptions,
you talk to them, they present themselves, they are part of professional networks or clubs. So
when you need someone with particular experiences or capacities, you will automatically think of
one of those women. But quotas have contradictory effects. In practice, you will get boards with
female directors who will not perform, who are maybe there against their liking or accept a
board position but have a wrong attitude. However, talent always rises to the top. (interview 3,
man)
Gender quotas restrict the forces of the liberal market. I don’t believe for 100% in the invisible
hand. I am definitely convinced that you need to make certain social corrections, but the
government is interfering in too many issues which don’t need any steering at all. (interview 5,
man)
This movement of incorporating women in high positions is relatively new. Not many companies
are experienced in gender diversity. So you will have to be very careful and attentive that you
retain a good quality of directors who are able to function at the board level. Talent develops
slowly. Naturally, women will be part of corporate boards. Within ten years we will not having
these discussions anymore. It is a matter of time in fact. (interview 24, man)
Referring to the saying: “never change a winning team,” board members, inclusive established
female board directors, tend to trivialize the need for change:
10
People find nowadays that even after a long legacy of 2000 years, a lot of things should
change. I am surprised to hear that philosophers and psychologist say: don’t you worry, we
have lived in a certain way for around 2000 years, but abandon that lifestyle all together. I
find this non-sense and risky. From a philosophical point of view, I am frightened when
people want to equalize women and men in such a way that they can’t be themselves
anymore. (interview 4, man)
As an economist I am just questioning what are the costs and benefits of gender quotas?
What is the effectivity and efficiency of that? I am not convinced or I don’t have any scientific
proof that gender quotas effectively contribute to the governance of corporations. With all
due respect, the existing research trying to measure the influence of the demographic
composition of the corporate board on the performances is not convincing to me. (interview
5, man)
It is demeaning to women to get a seat on the board because she is a woman, therefore I am
not in favour of gender quotas. Board members should be appointed based on their
competences and knowledge. I am convinced that this ‘problem’, if you like to call it like that,
will be automatically solved in the future. Women of the upcoming generations purposefully
work towards their careers. While many women of my generation quit after having children.
More overs, working-regimes have become more flexible, which eases the combination of
work and family life. Everybody can stop earlier here in the company to go to the doctor with
his or her child. In the evening, the time loss will be compensated. Men or women, they all
have their unique characteristics. What is most important is to maintain diversity within
companies, different types of diversity: men and women, young and older, allochthonous
and autochthonous employees. That all contributes to the creativity. (interview 9, female).
4.1.2
Shift of blame and responsibility
In general, board members tend to locate the responsibility for change to increase women’s
representation outside the boardroom. The broader society is to blame for the lack of equal
opportunities between men and women or linked to this, it is a mentality problem among men, but
also among women as they might have other priorities or ambitions as the following quotes describe:
Why didn’t the board think of including more women before the introduction of the gender
board quota law? I don’t know, I think out of convenience because the board was always
working well the way it was. It is not that they are anti-women in business or so, not at all. I
11
know that even in the 1970s the board had a female chairperson. So they were quite
advanced in fact and even ahead of their time. She was a member of the family and fitted
very well at that point of time. She performed extremely well, she was the sister of my
grandfather. The boards of publically listed family companies are definitely not against
women per se. But we are living in a society wherein which more men are available for such
positions and they are willing to take up those posts. That is a reality. (interview 18, woman)
In my opinion, gender quotas are a terrible measure. The government imposes gender board
quotas without thinking whether there are sufficient women with board potential available.
Of course feminist movements wouldn’t like to admit that women maybe don’t like to
become a board member and to take responsibility. It is not attractive to be sitting there in
the shit or the misery, because, bon, company board meetings are not a bed of roses.
(interview 3, man)
When women tell me: ‘nothing really changes.’ Then I reply: ‘are you experienced? Are you
going to meetings? Are you asking challenging questions there?’ Go and put your questions
forward, we also have to do that. If you hand over change to homogeneous groups, then you
can expect that they won’t induce change for women, let alone encourage diversity.
(interview 20, woman)
We should not mince our words here. There are a number of managers, including me, who
endeavour to give opportunities to women. But you have still managers who think that
women should take care of the children and the household so she is less available than male
employees and thus they are not considered in promotions. That mind-set is still alive today
and quite powerful among many [managers]. That is the core of the problem. So the society
at large should change and provide real equal opportunities. … Introducing quotas is
something spectacular, but actually change should be introduced at the bottom, not at the
top. … Women have much more impact on the thought processes within the company when
they are a member of the executive committee than when they are part of the corporate
board. (interview 2, man)
4.1.3
Legitimization of the common practices/delegitimation of quota
Board members delegitimize quota as a way of going back to the past where corporate boards were
less formalized and professional:
In the past, board members, usually men, were chosen because of their positioning, their
status or imago, or his network. Now, they will appoint women, because they are women in
12
the first place and the questions: what will they contribute is pushed at the background. The
time that men were only chosen because of their image is nowadays quasi over. (interview 2)
What is very important is, in my opinion, a good board member is someone who has built a
certain career, who worked in a leading position, and who is able to tell something. As a
board director, you should know what is a company, what are the pitfalls, also charisma and
persuasiveness are important characteristics. When you suddenly chose a board member
who has never functioned in leading roles, than this person will have no credibility. Therefore
it is of primordial importance to take experienced people. (interview 9, woman)
People often say, the corporate board, that is the “old boys network”, but that is not the
case, according to me. I would like to comment on that, it is extremely important that you
know who is sitting around the table and who you are dealing with. You have to be able to
trust all the board members, especially when times are challenging such as during the
financial crisis or when the CEO needs to be replaced. During such critical moments,
everybody around the table should be able to trust each other. Consequential, you should
know beforehand how each board director reacts. During the banking crisis, although all
formal corporate governance rules were fulfilled, no board meeting could be scheduled
anymore, everybody had an excuse or was unreachable. (interview 10, man)
The cohesion within the board is thus extremely significant. Quotas imply to incorporate (initially)
unknown board member which entail a high risk. He continues by explaining the differences between
decision-taking in politics and within corporations:
In politics you have a democratic decision-making model in which you vote for a majority
against a minority. So politicians can say: ‘yes we decided that, but personally I don’t agree
and I have always been against that.’ That doesn’t work in companies. The employees, all
who is working within the company, they want to feel their acts are supported by the whole
upper echelon. Who else can you otherwise motivate to relocate to China for example if you
some board members who question the whole idea of internationalization. Here, decisions
are made consensus-based. (interview 10, man)
The argument goes that even to replace male board members by rather other, unknown and
untested, men, similar voices of protest would be raised. This indicates the irrelevance of gender and
the under-representation of women in the discourses of board members. Instead, they stress the
meaning and purposiveness of common recruitment and decision-making practices, which differ
from democratic principles. In their view, regulation would undermine the corporate meritocracy
13
that has proven to be effective. That board members, including female board members, are nervous
about the effects the gender board quota will bring, is clearly expressed by the CEO of her family
company, who is afraid that harmony and continuity might be disrupted:
One should be careful of activists who come with an agenda to the board of directors. I’m not
fighting for the equality in fact, I’m not an activist. We need the qualities in the board,
irrespective of gender. We have many boys in the family, you can train, educate them, but
they can’t enter the board, we have to take women only for the quota. For family companies:
it is really a problem. … I happen to be there, because we were with two girls, I don’t have a
brother, but if I would have had a brother, maybe my career would have looked totally
different. Good corporate governance is actually a state of mind. Ethics is the base. It is very
important that you know the personality of your board members. Now we don’t know the
personality of the women who might be capable of serving in the board (interview 27, female
CEO)
Organizational decision-making is not concerned about gender or any other characteristic, besides
from the competences individuals embody. Occupational subjects are therefore imagined to be
operating in gender-neutral environments. Once they enter the organization, subjects are stripped of
their gender. Uniformity of treatment is upheld as a major value in offering equal opportunities. This
implies that success or failure can be directly ascribed to one’s own individual talents and merits. This
implies that gender is an insignificant category as there is a strong believe in the fairness of
organizational practices creating organizational hierarchies. In this view, the explicit recognition of
difference does not stimulate, or worse, might even harm, the cause of equality. This way of thinking
results in the belief in the individual responsibility for inequality. In line with Spivak’s notion of
“strategic essentialism” (1990), this stance can be described as a strategically use of de-essentializing
gender identities. Organizational barriers that affect groups of individuals might be consciously or
unconsciously disguised by overemphasizing the uniqueness of each individual, composed of many
personality traits and identities.
Treating ‘like as like’ constitute the main guideline to judge whether policies are legitimate or not to
encourage gender equality. Sex-related differences are irrelevant. In this view, all personal
characteristics such as gender, are put between brackets in order to look at the needed skills and job
performances. This way of working should lead to equal recruitment and appraisal practices
regarding male and female candidates. The main critique against the liberal approach of equal
14
treatment is that the norm is constructed around men’s characteristics, skills and behaviour (Liff and
Wajcman, 1996).
4.2 Discourses of gender representation
In discourses of gender representation attention is paid to the recognition of social group
differences. Not sameness but difference and the valuing of difference is at the center stage within
the discourse of gender representation (Liff, 1997). As Hall (1990, p. 229) notes, “without relations of
difference, no representation would occur”. Certain groups might feel that they are forced to
assimilate to the working patterns of white male professionals in order to succeed within the
organization. In response, they advocate for equality policies that recognize differences. Recognizing
group differences provides a basis for change, argues Young (1990). If not, “the norms and standards
of dominant groups are not questioned, members of such groups are not encouraged to reflect on
their own specificity and subordinated groups come to see themselves as having a problem (Liff,
1997, p. 18)”. In this view, collective disadvantages are addressed. Positive action measures are thus
a legitimate way to restore contemporary and historically grown imbalances.
The discourses of advocates of gender board quotas contain discursive strategies of transformation.
Based on the analysis of Wodak et al. (2009), these contain elements of positive self-presentation,
resistance to heteronomy, autonomisation and dissimilation with as aim to transform wellestablished identities. Up until the introduction of the gender board quota law, being a board
member was associated with occupational masculinities. The introduction of this new act challenges
the contours of this masculine identity that is intertwined with the professional identity of being a
board member. Proponents of gender quotas stress not individual merit, but the underuse of talent
and possible losses of human capital, which harms businesses and the society at large, including the
next generation:
Individuals and society invest in education, more and more women are highly educated, why
don’t we see this reality reflected in the higher echelons of economic decision-making
bodies? It is a waste of human capital with a huge social cost. (interview 35, woman)
When you are younger, you naturally say: ‘of course we don’t need this, such a law for
women. It can’t be happening that women in corporate boards get a seat just because they
are a women.’ While becoming older, you have less troubles with that in fact. With aging you
become stronger and are more aware of your own strengths. (interview 7, woman)
15
Fearing that gender board quotas might be only a symbolical act, board members indicate alternative
measures to be taken seriously. However, board quotas might not been seen as sufficient, these are
nevertheless necessarily and significant actions as the next testimony reveals:
I have been always against quotas. If you would have asked me twenty years ago, I would
have said no, I am against gender quotas. When I started working, I was the only woman in
the management team, now I am retired and I see that there are only 10 female mangers out
of 100. We should have been with at least 50 women. So no, I don’t believe it is a natural
process. However, in addition to board quotas, I feel there should be similar regulations
among the management in general. They can have a much more stronger impact on the
company culture. (interview 17, woman)
I am in favour of gender quotas, because as an economist I studied discrimination. First of all
you need competition. Nevertheless, statistical discrimination tend to remain. This entails
that newcomers are judged by the expected characteristics put forward by the company. Not
competition or any other measure goes against the pattern of stereotypical images that are
attached to groups of people. Only positive action can break this. There are many biases
among professors towards allochthonous students for example, but in the past this
happened also among people from lower social backgrounds. Only when a group becomes
successful and is able to break through these biases, organisations become more and more
class, gender or colour blind. I have experienced it myself. Only the law can combat statistical
discrimination. After a number of years, the law might become obsolete. (interview 30, man)
Many arguments against gender quotas circulate around the question of the status of women
elected on the basis of quota provisions. These categories of arguments may be translated into a fear
of stigmatization of women elected or appointed as ‘quota women’. Advocates of gender board
quotas testify they recognize these anxieties but trusting upon their experiences, they were able to
overcome these as the following accounts demonstrate:
According to me, quotas are not demeaning. At big American universities they also have
positive action programs. Thanks to such programs Obama could study at prestigious
institutes such as Harvard. Is that stigmatizing? I don’t think so. I don’t say that we should
keep quotas. Ideally, after several years when the practice of including women is totally
incorporated in our culture, then we don’t need such guidelines any longer. But up until
today, I think we need such measures. … Women have to show much more than men their
competences in order to gain the confidence of men to promote them. Belgium has no
culture of self-regulation such as the U.K. Boards only included independent board members
16
from the moment it became a legal obligation. It is a pity, but we do need laws if we want to
see change. (interview 7, female)
You know it is very interesting; because for a very long time I was against the women quota,
because I was convinced that it’s artificial, crazy, why giving chances to those who barked.
Recently, looking at several surveys and reading some research material, I realized that
women really don’t feel so much pressed to take part in a competition. And it’s not so
important for us. While guys, I have a son as well, they feel they should prove that they are
the king on their little territory. And I think for us, it’s not so important, we don’t want to win
the game by all means. So sometimes women should put in the race, and the quota means
that you are put in the race, you are forced to take part in the race, if you are bad, you will
fall away anyhow. So now I am very pro quota. We don’t take part in the competition
otherwise. I think, it’s somehow not so important for us to take part in the competition. I
think being a board member is considered as male business, and especially so in the
traditional, Catholic countries, as Belgium. (interview 14, woman)
Fear for backlash effects or not to be taken seriously by male counterparts as not being competent
makes especially younger female professionals sceptical towards positive action initiatives. Critical
voices warn for the danger of essentialism, or the overgeneralization of gender identities, assuming
homogeneity with groups and promoting stereotypical traits. Another point of critique centres
around the general inclusivity of diversity.
5. Discussion
Diversity is broader than gender and should not privilege particular social groups, but takes ideally
various social divisions into account such as race and class. As Liff and Wajcman (1996, p. 92) aptly
remark: “But simply submerging all women into norms adopted by those who are white, able-bodied
and middle class would only produce another model which claims to treat everyone equally but in
fact disenfranchises significant numbers of those it claims to represent.” The representation of
women is according to liberal discourses that highlight the individual’s merit a state that naturally
will unfold. The government does not need to interfere in this natural process that automatically
selects the most suitable candidates. Companies does not need to represent various social groups,
but however do value diversity. Diversity is here understood as functional diversity, diversity of
competences and ideas, not of gender social groups. Quotas are in this view seen as intrusive
17
measures, violating the principle of freedom of organization and disrupting the meritocratic logics of
organizations. Not equality of results as seen by the number of women in corporate board rooms
should be the goal, but offering equal opportunities, based on meritocratic principles. According to
Dahlerup (2006), liberal discourses entail a resistance to quotas as these do not recognize the same
diagnosis of the problem as quota advocates. Women’s underrepresentation in the higher echelons
of decision-making bodies are explained in terms of women who lack the willingness, confidence,
time, experience or social networks to climb the hierarchy. Not discrimination or barriers within the
organization hold women back, the so-called glass ceiling is not an organizational construction, but is
a mental construction within the heads of women. The society at large might be sexist, but the
organization can overcome all biases based upon strict meritocratic principles that are ingrained in
professional life. Therefore liberal advocates fear that above mentioned deficits will lead to the
nomination of unqualified women as before the introduction of quota they were not able to
compete at the same level with men, but nevertheless will be forced to be absorbed by the board.
This line of argumentation against legally binding board quota is similar to the counterarguments
formulated against electoral gender quotas. As Dahlerup (2006, p. 13) remarks, the argument of
candidate shortage “is as old as women’s suffrage”.
This debate between opponents and advocates of positive action measures on corporate boards,
touches upon discursive struggles regarding the professional identity of board members. Although
opponents do not consider gender as a relevant factor to take into account, advocates who draw
upon discourses of gender representation bring explicitly gender identity into the debate by stressing
the existence of a female professional identity, different, but of equal value to male professional
identities. Hereby arguing against the neutral professional identity upheld by discourses of individual
merit. As Martin (1990, p. 5) states:
Identity implies both a uniqueness and sameness … one identity cannot be defined in
isolation: the only way to circumscribe an identity is by contrasting it with other identities.
Consequently, identity is an ambiguous notion. It gets its meaning from what it is not, from
the Other: like a word in a crossword puzzle, it is located in a place where uniqueness,
defined in a negative way (one’s identity implies that one is different from the Others), meets
a sameness which needs an ‘elseness’ to exist (to get an identity one must be perceived as
identical to or to identify with someone else).
In this view, being not male or assimilating to masculine routines and work patterns, does not
equates with non-professionalism. Being female and being a potential board member can go hand in
hand and are not competing identities per se. However, as the data indicate, this view is marginalized
18
by the dominant liberal discourse of individualization and the individualization of merit amongst the
corporate elite. Their discursive resistance against gender quota board legislation can be analysed in
terms of discursive-constructive strategies with as aim to assimilate aspirant (female) board
members. Drawing on critical discourse analysis, these discourses of resistance can be read as forms
of social practice (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997; Wodak, 1995, 1996; Titscher et al., 1998). As De Cillia
et al. (1999, p. 157) put it:
It assumes a dialectical relationship between particular discursive events and the situations,
institutions and social structures in which they are embedded: on the one hand, the
situational, institutional and social contexts shape and affect discourses; on the other hand,
discourses influence social and political reality. In other words, discourse constitutes social
practice and is at the same time constituted by it.
Even after the introduction of the gender quota law, discourses of resistance are not silenced.
Although company boards tend to comply with the law, their consent of descriptive representation
but simultaneously deploying discursive-constructive strategies in resistance of gender board quota
can be interpreted as a way to limit, control or even restrict substantive representation. However,
opponents and advocates of gender board quotas seem to agree that more needs to be done in
order to enhance women’s representation in all domains of life.
6. References
On request.
19