Transcript Affirmative legal actions – to what extent, why and how

Affirmative legal actions – to what extent,
why and how can they be used ?
Norwegian experiences
Prague 15th June 2013
Arni Hole
Director General
Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion
Norway
Equal chances or equality in outputs ?
• Everyone is pro equal chances and gender
equality
• Anti-discrimination and gender equality laws
secures formal rights and equal opportunities
• How to make real and substantial equality
come true, when social structures , culture
and traditions and may be lack of other
supportive measures, constitute obstacles to
outputs/results ?
2
Continued….
• How to develop a toolbox for implementing a
political economy of equality ?
• What are the possibilities, legally and
otherwise ?
• What works and what do not work ?
3
Some excamples from Norway:
• § 21 in the GE-law, securing that all
govermental appointed committees, councils,
working groups etc, shall have no less than 40
% of each gender (since 1988)
• The Municipal Law has, since 1993, a
requirement of 40 % of each gender in all
committees appointed by the elected
Municipal Council
4
Continued:
• The Father’s ”quota” in the paid Parental
Leave law, since 1993, now 14 weeks not
transferable to the mother
• The legal regulations on gender balance for
election to boards of governors (NONEXECUTIVE) from 2003, 2008 and 2009
5
Continued:
• Some other important, strong legislation to
improve equality: The positive duty to be proactive and report annually on gender equality
in the GE law since 2003- for all private
businesses and public institutions, in the law
against ethnic discrimination since 2009,in the
laws ensuring the rights of persons with
disabilities since 2009, and from 2013 in the
new law concerning the rights of LHBT in all
fields of society
6
What is needed to make a legal
affirmative action effective ?
• Ex:The regulation for gender balance for the
elected boards of governors in certain
company laws, may not have been so
effective without a comprehensive and
universal system of family provisions to make
it possible for women – as men – to have both
careers and children.
• The women were already in the labour market
displaying their competence and education
when the regulations came…..
7
Continued…
• Important: A culture – both in business and
public life, where the values of equality is
deeply embedded
• Key word: Talents are evenly divided among
the genders; 62 % of graduates are women
• An understanding of the need for a society
and it’s private sector as well, to employ all
talents as to compete and grow
• The smart economy: Harvest the profit of the
investments in higher education !
8
What happened in 2002/2003 ?
9
•
The then conservative/liberal/christian demo. Goverment
decided to amend five company laws with a requirement of
40 % of either sex for elections to the boards of governors;
the most wellknown: The PLCs, the listed companies
•
No quotas for administrative positions; that would not be
legal in Norway (even if we have the right to moderate legal
affirmative action when competing for jobs…)
•
Legal sanctions for not complying with the rules follows the
same pattern as 35 years back; concerning requirements for
setting up a legally operating board (any company) Can be
dissolved by court or have a large fine
•
2 years of transition to meet requirements (the PLC’s had 4)
•
The ordinary privately owned Companies (240.000) were not
regulated, because they do not have a broad spread of
shares/seeking investments from many sources or owned by
the public (state or municipalities)
Company laws were amended in 2003,
2008, 2009
• What were the political expectations to be met
by the law amendments ?
• To what extent have expectations been met ?
• Other spin-off effects ?
• Lessons learned how to change corporate
cultures, removing hindrances of gender
stereotypes as to recruit able persons to
positions, regardless of gender ?
10
Expectations:
• To break the gender biased corporate culture
notion of ”economic decisionmaking as a male
domain”
• To increase real numbers of the
underrepresented gender in elections to board
of governors of the listed (and 6 other types )
companies
• To harvest profit /return on investment in free
higher education
11
Further:
• To widen democratic representation in the
upper echelons of economy;where legally
possible
• To boost gender equality – in a general sense
• To stimulate new images of women and men
• To eradicate the indirect discrimination of
women beeing ”seen” only as mere
representations of their sex, (group
stereotyping women) rather than able
persons/individuals with many capacities
12
Results and effects:
• Real numbers; 40 % or more, of the
underrerpesented gender elected to boards of
governors in seven different company types
(appr. 2000 companies; appr.300 listed
companies)
• An abundance of able female individuals
”seen”, invited to be om short-lists, and
elected to such positions
• Changes in corporate cultures and mental
images of what competences an elected board
of gov.’s should possess
13
Spin-offs:
• Excellent open and exciting public discussions
on gender equality in its deepest and most
profound sense
• New and relevant social and economic
research, also for further policy making
• A new understanding of why universal
systems of early child care, paid parental
leave (incl.earmarked father’s leave ),
flexibility in work life as to reconcile work and
family, etc. are of vital importance to change
corporate cultures, enhance gender equality
and employ all talents…. (along with keeping
up the fertility rate)
14
Still:
• Dissappointment in the sense that these
gender balanced boards of governors did not
– ”immediately” - recruite and hire female
CEO’s (top managers), probably this will
change over time
• General Assemblies did not - ”immediately” –
choose female chairpersons of the boards
(only 8 % of the listed companies’ boards
have a female chair)
• The regulations did not have an ”immediate”
spin-off effect down the line in the
corporations: more women in line
management; though this is increasing
(between 20 and 30 %)
15
What now ?
• However, after Parliament voted pro,
corporate sector did set up good and relevant
programmes for diversity and for recruiting
/shortlisting persons of both genders for
boardroom elections and for competing for top
management
• I wonder if this would have happened without
the legal regulations ? (Hardly…)
16
Summing up:
• The legal regulations were never seen as a
”quick fix” to all aspects of gender equality or
corporate life….
• It was seen, and is seen, as one tool in a rich
tool-box to increase GE, boost eradication of
hindrances to recruit and retain the best
persons of either gender to boards of
governors
• To change corporate cultures /increase
diversity - to cope with global competetion
• To get return on investment in education
17
Why legal actions ?
• It is not a human right to be elected to a
board room, most men do not sit on boards.
But it is a human right to be seen and
acknowlegded as a competent person, not
biased by stereotyping of your sex.
• Not to be seen, could be indirect, gender
based discrimination
• Benjamin Disraeli (former liberal British PM )
once said:
”Genuin politics is to have power, and to
distribute it”.
18