In a few weeks of worrying information centered on war and in price hikes, a piece of news has gone almost unnoticed: the proposal for a new European directive recommending gender quotas on company boards with more than 250 workers and listed people. To be fair, the proposal uses the expression of quotas of the “underrepresented sex”. I think I will not be wrong if I say that there are no large companies that are excessively feminized. But, if this is the case, men can rest easy.
Traditionally, liberal feminism has militated against quotas: “If you arrive, you arrive, and if you don’t, you’re not worth enough.” Quotas are criticized for being excessively rigid; for not taking into account the talent and experience available according to the sector, and for placing women who have obtained their chair ‘by quota’ and instead of on their own merits, in a hypothetical situation of disempowerment. In this sense, the CNMV, in its Good Governance Code of 2015, recommended the inclusion of women in the boards of directors in order to have greater diversity, but without going into quantifying percentages.
But the slow, very slow progress in the incorporation of women in positions of high responsibility is changing the opinions regarding quotas. Even the most liberal people have a hard time explaining how, with a stronger base of female graduates than men, there isn’t a better balance in positions of power. For this reason, in the last review of the Code of Good Governance carried out by the CNMV incorporated for the first time numerical and temporary recommendation: 40% of women on the board of directors by the end of 2022. Does this mean that it will be achieved? No. But at least there is evidence of which companies are following -or not- the recommendations of the CNMV. The latest Atrevia-IESE report places the average presence of women at 11 points below the recommendation. The companies that are part of the Ibex-35, and that are the object of all eyes, fare better and already have a third of women on their boards.
In this non-ideal context, but moderate progress, The proposal for a directive from the European Union arrives with the same magic number of 40%, but specifying non-executive directors and with another date: 2027. Five years later! The reason is that the directive must be generous to accommodate the unequal rhythms of the member countries. Fortunately, the European proposal proposes other options for the most advanced countries in this regard.
The first, the simplest, would consist of do not transpose the directive. This is a possibility if the country already has its own national policies that guarantee progress.
The second consists of going into the detail of the composition of the boards of directors with another variable added to the gender: the power of counselors. And it is that not all members of a board of directors are born equal. There are external or independent directors, and internal directors. The power of influence, execution and decision resides, mainly, in the internal directors. In this way, the directive proposes a second quota: 33% but including in the calculation all the members of the board of directors, independent or not. From this point of view, the numbers of Spanish companies will not be so favorable since, according to the Atrevía-IESE report, the executive directors represent a meager 4%.
Related news
Another argument in favor of transposing the European directive, in the 40% or 33% version, is that it will apply beyond companies that are listed on stock markets, to companies with more than 250 workers and that currently do not have no quantitative quota recommendation, although they do have approved equality plans.
This pressure to incorporate female talent has brought with it a curious phenomenon: the proliferation of specific training for women who want to enter boards of directors. Of course, a training that male counselors have not needed, nor do they need, because they are considered competent from the outset. An exit advantage that, sometimes, women do not have.