Whether you love them or hate them, gender quotas are becoming a popular strategy for governments and corporations across the globe trying to tackle the challenge of gender inequality in the workplace.
But is a mandated quota the only option? Or, could companies be left to come up with their own solutions?
A new study conducted by the UNE Business School’s Dr Lucie Newsome and Emeritus Professor Alison Sheridan has shown the latter could in fact be a successful approach when executed effectively.
“In 2009, there was a strong push from lobby groups and high-profile activists to introduce a gender quota on Australian corporate boards, as at that time, just eight percent of ASX 200 directors were women,” says Dr Newsome. “This idea wasn’t met with positivity from the corporate sector, as they argued quotas would be ‘tokenistic’. Because of this, the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) went down the self-regulation path, setting a 30 percent recommended target that companies could aim for instead.
“After analysing the flow-on effects of this decision, we found it was an effective strategy that saw nearly a three-fold increase in the number of ASX 200 females over the span of a decade.”
Image: Percentage of women on ASX 200 boards in 2009 and 2019.
This finding forms the basis of a chapter co-authored by Dr Newsome and E/Prof Sheridan in the new book, Gender Equality and Policy Implementation in the Corporate World. In the chapter, they take a deep dive into gender diversity on Australian corporate boards between 2009 and 2019, exploring the pros and cons of companies being left to voluntarily increase diversity.
"In the Australian context, encouraging goal setting by companies is more likely to receive support than setting mandates,” says Dr Newsome.
“Corporate boards need to commit to diversity in order to move beyond numerical representation of women, and toward a deep valuing of a variety of perspectives. This isn’t limited to women, but also extends to gender diverse, queer, neuro diverse, differently-abled and culturally and linguistically diverse people. Forced quotas don’t necessarily allow for this.”
While self-regulation appears to be leading the corporate sector on the right track, Dr Newsome explains there is still more that needs to be done to truly even the playing field.
“While there has been an increase in women on boards, the number of women in executive management teams has remained low," she says.
Image: Percentage of females in leadership positions in ASX listed companies in 2018.
“In addition, there is still the issue of ‘the golden skirt’, which is when elite women hold multiple board memberships. This means that while women’s representation on boards may have increased, the power is concentrated in a few hands."
Dr Newsome explains the stagnant gender pay gap and the persistence of the ‘glass ceiling’ are also factors that are yet to be rectified.
However, without setting the 30 percent target, it’s likely today’s levels of female representation would be much lower. One of the big takeaways of the chapter, then, is the impact of powerful women challenging the status quo.
“The voices of lobby groups and influential women, such as former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick, have been pivotal in increasing female representation on corporate boards,” says Lucie. “While there’s still a long path ahead, they sparked a shift in attitudes which has had an unmistakable impact.”
You can access the full chapter, Accommodating Gender through Self-regulation: A Limited Response for Equity on Boards in Australia, here (note: to access the chapter for free, you will need to login using your University credentials).
