Gender quotas in corporate decision-making bodies – regulatory promotion of equality of results in the EU

IF 1.5 Q1 LAW
Ana Horvat Vuković
{"title":"Gender quotas in corporate decision-making bodies – regulatory promotion of equality of results in the EU","authors":"Ana Horvat Vuković","doi":"10.1080/20508840.2020.1814555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT EU and its member states utilise the paradigm of equality of results in the area of gender equality. In addition to preferences in standardised jobs, states have also been using quotas in corporate and political bodies. Those seem to be best testing grounds, as the arguments supporting their use of quotas are non-controversial. The nature of their work also allows for a laxer application of formal equality, originally tailored to highly competitive activities that necessarily hinge on merit. Regarding quotas in decision-making bodies generally, the argument from democracy stresses the lack of legitimacy for decisions reached by unbalanced representation of genders. This attenuates the normative strength of adopted policies and regulations and renders their acceptance and enforcement difficult. A supporting argument is one from diversity, positing a greater quality of decisions reached and better business performance due to greater responsiveness to the need of the voting/consumer base. The democracy and diversity arguments both are not grounded in distributive justice. However, their utilitarian logic appeals to a market democracy and makes them forerunners in terms of quota justifications. Arguments that, in turn, are based on distributive justice echo anti-subordination theory and stress the quotas’ impact on rebalancing of power. A critical mass of women in decision-making bodies should enhance female social capital. This should symbolically spill over into a newfound self-respect for the whole community, and lift women up through ancillary instruments such as female professional networking, mentoring and sponsorship. One of the main reasons for this that the bluntness of the quota system severs the informal social phenomenon of networking. The ‘gatekeeper’ phenomenon is based on the homophily principle that has traditionally hindered women from ‘rising through the ranks’. In this way, quotas also protect from unconscious bias, which influences social solidarity and disrupts reproduction of set centres of power.","PeriodicalId":42455,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20508840.2020.1814555","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2020.1814555","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT EU and its member states utilise the paradigm of equality of results in the area of gender equality. In addition to preferences in standardised jobs, states have also been using quotas in corporate and political bodies. Those seem to be best testing grounds, as the arguments supporting their use of quotas are non-controversial. The nature of their work also allows for a laxer application of formal equality, originally tailored to highly competitive activities that necessarily hinge on merit. Regarding quotas in decision-making bodies generally, the argument from democracy stresses the lack of legitimacy for decisions reached by unbalanced representation of genders. This attenuates the normative strength of adopted policies and regulations and renders their acceptance and enforcement difficult. A supporting argument is one from diversity, positing a greater quality of decisions reached and better business performance due to greater responsiveness to the need of the voting/consumer base. The democracy and diversity arguments both are not grounded in distributive justice. However, their utilitarian logic appeals to a market democracy and makes them forerunners in terms of quota justifications. Arguments that, in turn, are based on distributive justice echo anti-subordination theory and stress the quotas’ impact on rebalancing of power. A critical mass of women in decision-making bodies should enhance female social capital. This should symbolically spill over into a newfound self-respect for the whole community, and lift women up through ancillary instruments such as female professional networking, mentoring and sponsorship. One of the main reasons for this that the bluntness of the quota system severs the informal social phenomenon of networking. The ‘gatekeeper’ phenomenon is based on the homophily principle that has traditionally hindered women from ‘rising through the ranks’. In this way, quotas also protect from unconscious bias, which influences social solidarity and disrupts reproduction of set centres of power.
企业决策机构中的性别配额——在欧盟促进成果平等的监管
欧盟及其成员国在性别平等领域运用成果平等范式。除了对标准化工作的偏好外,各州还在企业和政治机构中使用配额。这些国家似乎是最好的试验场,因为支持它们使用配额的论据是没有争议的。他们的工作性质也允许更宽松地应用形式上的平等,这种平等最初是为那些必然取决于绩效的高度竞争活动量身定制的。一般来说,关于决策机构的配额,民主的论点强调,由于性别代表性不平衡而作出的决定缺乏合法性。这削弱了所采用的政策和法规的规范性力量,并使它们难以被接受和执行。一个支持的论点是来自多样性,假设更高质量的决策和更好的业务绩效,因为对投票/消费者基础的需求有更好的反应。民主和多样性的论点都没有建立在分配正义的基础上。然而,他们的功利逻辑迎合了市场民主主义,使他们在配额正当性方面成为先行者。反过来,基于分配正义的论点呼应了反从属理论,并强调配额对权力再平衡的影响。决策机构中妇女人数达到临界数量应能提高妇女的社会资本。这应该象征性地蔓延到整个社区的新自尊中,并通过女性职业网络、指导和赞助等辅助工具提升女性的地位。造成这一现象的主要原因之一是配额制度的直观性切断了非正式社会的网络化现象。“看门人”现象是基于同质性原则,这一原则传统上阻碍了女性“升职”。这样,配额还可以防止无意识的偏见,这种偏见会影响社会团结,扰乱既定权力中心的再生产。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Theory and Practice of Legislation aims to offer an international and interdisciplinary forum for the examination of legislation. The focus of the journal, which succeeds the former title Legisprudence, remains with legislation in its broadest sense. Legislation is seen as both process and product, reflection of theoretical assumptions and a skill. The journal addresses formal legislation, and its alternatives (such as covenants, regulation by non-state actors etc.). The editors welcome articles on systematic (as opposed to historical) issues, including drafting techniques, the introduction of open standards, evidence-based drafting, pre- and post-legislative scrutiny for effectiveness and efficiency, the utility and necessity of codification, IT in legislation, the legitimacy of legislation in view of fundamental principles and rights, law and language, and the link between legislator and judge. Comparative and interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged. But dogmatic descriptions of positive law are outside the scope of the journal. The journal offers a combination of themed issues and general issues. All articles are submitted to double blind review.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信