Critically consider what legal reforms, if any, might be effective in promoting diversity in
corporate boards of directors and at senior management level.
, Society today has embraced diversity more than ever. Activists, the media,
regulatory agencies, and even legislators are especially insisting on the need for gender
diversification. Progressive governments have subsequently acknowledged the low
levels of female representation on corporate boards of directors, and have respectively
introduced legal reforms aimed at promoting diversity for varying reasons. Some
governments are under the impression that a positive correlation between diversity and
productivity exists, whereas others implement reforms on the basis of equality. Whether
motivated by economic or egalitarian aims, what is important is that these governments
ultimately recognize the benefit of diversifying corporate boards in terms of gender
composition.
The object of this essay is therefore to identify and critique these different legal
reforms aimed at addressing the disproportionality of gender representation on
corporate boards. Firstly, this essay outlines the advantages and disadvantages of a
hard law approach in terms of enforcing gender-based quotas. Next, it goes on to
explain an alternative soft law approach involving business-based gender diversity
initiatives. Finally, these two legal reforms are compared, concluding that hard law is
more likely to secure compliance in promoting gender diversity within corporate boards
due to its forceful nature.
Hard law aims to impose gender-based quotas in addressing the
disproportionality of gender representation on corporate boards. This legal reform
involves legislation mandating a minimum representation for each gender, or the
underrepresented gender in particular.1 For example, in 2003, Norway pioneered quota
laws by requiring boards of listed companies to be comprised of at least 40% female,
which all companies managed to achieve by the 2008 deadline.2 This reform is seen to
be extremely effective mainly because it is a hard law measure. Hard law measures are
enforceable in courts since they concern statutory provisions, making it mandatory for
1
Aaron Dhir, Challenging Boardroom Homogeneity (Cambridge University Press 2015) 72
2
OECD, OECD Economic Surveys: Norway 2016 (OECD 2016) 41
1
corporate boards of directors and at senior management level.
, Society today has embraced diversity more than ever. Activists, the media,
regulatory agencies, and even legislators are especially insisting on the need for gender
diversification. Progressive governments have subsequently acknowledged the low
levels of female representation on corporate boards of directors, and have respectively
introduced legal reforms aimed at promoting diversity for varying reasons. Some
governments are under the impression that a positive correlation between diversity and
productivity exists, whereas others implement reforms on the basis of equality. Whether
motivated by economic or egalitarian aims, what is important is that these governments
ultimately recognize the benefit of diversifying corporate boards in terms of gender
composition.
The object of this essay is therefore to identify and critique these different legal
reforms aimed at addressing the disproportionality of gender representation on
corporate boards. Firstly, this essay outlines the advantages and disadvantages of a
hard law approach in terms of enforcing gender-based quotas. Next, it goes on to
explain an alternative soft law approach involving business-based gender diversity
initiatives. Finally, these two legal reforms are compared, concluding that hard law is
more likely to secure compliance in promoting gender diversity within corporate boards
due to its forceful nature.
Hard law aims to impose gender-based quotas in addressing the
disproportionality of gender representation on corporate boards. This legal reform
involves legislation mandating a minimum representation for each gender, or the
underrepresented gender in particular.1 For example, in 2003, Norway pioneered quota
laws by requiring boards of listed companies to be comprised of at least 40% female,
which all companies managed to achieve by the 2008 deadline.2 This reform is seen to
be extremely effective mainly because it is a hard law measure. Hard law measures are
enforceable in courts since they concern statutory provisions, making it mandatory for
1
Aaron Dhir, Challenging Boardroom Homogeneity (Cambridge University Press 2015) 72
2
OECD, OECD Economic Surveys: Norway 2016 (OECD 2016) 41
1
