Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Norway: 40% of Corporate Board Seats Must Be Female

obeygiant

obeygiant

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jan 14, 2002
4,260
4,251
totally cool
Under a Norwegian law passed four years ago, women must fill 40 percent of the country's corporate board seats effective tomorrow. The measure affects 487 public companies ranging from StatoilHydro ASA, Norway's largest company by stock market value at $99 billion, to Exense ASA, an Internet consultant, at $9.5 million. Most companies already have complied under media pressure and the threat of being shut down by the government.

The corporate governance measure underscores Norway's commitment to gender equality. The nation of 4.7 million already has the highest ratio of female directors worldwide and more women than men in government.

Critics say the rule risks sacrificing qualification for quota. The Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise says shareholders should pick board members and measures should be voluntary.

Quotas are ``a bunch of nonsense,'' says Bente Lowendahl, 49, who was named the first female professor at the Norwegian School of Management five years ago. ``I'm glad I was chosen for my merits and not because I was a woman,'' she says.

Gradual Change

Lowendahl, who has a doctorate in applied economics, says she's too busy to sit on any corporate boards. Petersen, the 49- year-old mother on 11 boards, has a master's degree in chemistry and mathematics and worked in the oil industry for almost 20 years.

The rules took effect for state-owned companies in January 2004. The law exempts private limited companies because many of them are small, family enterprises. Other companies may choose to give up their public listings to avoid the requirement.

The move is designed to employ more of Norway's workforce in steering companies and ending the tradition of picking board members from a small pool, according to Ansgar Gabrielsen, the Conservative party politician who helped pass the legislation.

With unemployment at a 20-year low of 1.6 percent, Norwegian companies already struggle to fill job vacancies. There were 38,900 people out of work in December.

Women fill 410, or 37 percent, of the 1,117 board seats at companies listed on the Oslo stock exchange. That's up from less than 7 percent in 2002 and twice as many as in Sweden, four times as many as Denmark and almost seven times the number in Iceland, according to Marit Hoel, director of Oslo-based Center for Corporate Diversity, which tracks women in management.

15 Percent in U.S.

In the U.S., women hold about 15 percent of board seats at the 500 biggest companies, according to New York-based Catalyst, an organization tracking women in business.

Media coverage has added to pressure on companies to add female representation. Norwegian newspapers have published lists of companies that have yet to name the required number of women to their board. As 2007 progressed, the lists grew ever shorter.
Click to expand...
Bloomberg

Is this affirmative action in action?

I have nothing against women holding any position, even president, but hopefully people won't view those women on the board of directors as being there just due to a law.
 
I have mixed feelings about the whole affirmative action thing. While on the one hand I think that people are more likely to "stick with what they know" and basically vote for white men to fill positions and this should be discouraged, I think that a quota system does raise the question of, "Am I in this position because I'm a minority or because of my talents?" What a complicated world!
 
Does this only affects public companies? I'm curious to know what the standard for meeting the quota requirement is.

Reading the article, it touched upon something else that concerns me even more than having a given percentage of a certain class of person on the board - why on earth would you want someone who is on 10 other boards on your board? It just seems like when people are stretched that far, they can't govern as effectively as they could if they were only on 5 total (for example), and this is how oversight is quickly lost.
 
I am getting a little peeved by the affirmative action crap that hires based on whether a person has tits rather than skills.

My university just turned down two excellent instructors/researchers because they were white males and the school has to hire females and minorities first.
so instead of getting the best possible person, the school is getting the most politically correct person.

While I would like to see more women in "non-traditional" fields, let them earn their place, so they do not make the rest of women look bad.

enough of these ridiculous quotas. 40%? why not make it truly equal and demand 50% women. :rolleyes:
 
obeygiant said:
Bloomberg

Is this affirmative action in action?

I have nothing against women holding any position, even president, but hopefully people won't view those women on the board of directors as being there just due to a law.
Click to expand...

I believe it's called Affirmative Discrimination.

And, under Affirmative Discrimination, you're right to assume it's common to be hired on the basis of gender and/or skin color rather than your qualifications.

Based on that premise it is also correct to assume you may NOT be hired because of your gender or skin color.

Hey, hold on! I thought that NOT being hired because of your gender or skin color was discrimination!!!

In case anyone is confused about Affirmative Action, yes, it definitely is a discriminatory practice. It was a bad idea when it was drafted. It's a bad idea now. It will always be a bad idea. What an idiotic way to look at people.
 
If you were a Norwegian woman, wouldn't it make you feel all warm and tingly inside knowing that you're just a part of the requisite quota?

AoWolf said:
Only if all meetings are held in public.
Click to expand...

And on my lap. I'd enjoy 40% of the meetings, although the remaining 60% of the meeting would be awkward for me.
 
I hate laws like this. It is discrimination and it is not hard to prove. It is illeagel in many places not to higher because of one sex or race but this is EXACTLY that. I want to see some law suits over that from the normal majority in those spots and the funny part they can win.

In the state of Texas the reason we have the 10% rule (which is busted in and of it self) is because 2 white guys sued UT because they did not get into UT law school because they where white males and they won. It cheer cases like that.

Also this law will hurt a lot of companies. Some fields are a majority men. Not because women are scared of those fields but because it is the nature of the work. It is a proven fact men and women general go to different fields. Want proof of this just go look at some college majors. College of engineering is a good place to start. Look at the break down in the different deparments. You have EE ME and the construction side that has next to no women in them. While others have a fairly large number. Do not try to tell me for a 2nd that it because those fields push women away. Just they do not go to them. I no saying engineering as a whole (which is mainly men) but using just the seperation in the field which should help prove it. Generally women going in to engineering are not going to have an issue going into a "man world" of a field so it should not be an issue.


Sorry for the rant I just hate laws like this because I am among the group who gets screwed by them and I promise everyone if I get screwed because I am a while male I will sue on the grounds of discrimination
 
I've no problem with affirmative action as long as it's only in place for just long enough to kickstart the trend towards equality (rather than wanting equality itself). When it becomes a permanent quota it effectively turns into a gravy train and offers no benefit to anyone.
 
I don't really like quotas either and I think people should get positions based on skill, but getting a seat on a board has more to do with social network than skill and competence. Some claim that there's a boy's club culture dominating such boards, and I'm inclined to believe there's something to that claim.

A quota can be used to initially break an unwanted tradition and after that competition will be more fair.
 
dynamicv said:
I've no problem with affirmative action as long as it's only in place for just long enough to kickstart the trend towards equality (rather than wanting equality itself). When it becomes a permanent quota it effectively turns into a gravy train and offers no benefit to anyone.
Click to expand...

Ahh, that would be nice. But, when has it ever been politically and socially feasible to derail the train? Unfortunately, programs like this turn into entitlements, which people begin to believe that they have an absolute right to. Any attempt to end the program will be met with claims of misogyny, sexism, etc.

At least it would in the US.
 
I normally rate the Scandinavians and their ideas very highly but this is daft. It's sexist and that's wrong. Remove the hindrances and prejudices that stop all people from opportunity.
 
I'm OK with affirmative action, though I would prefer that we confront and remedy the real structural issues that create racial and gender disparities in our societies. Affirmative action, with soft preference, seems reasonable as a stop gap, if nothing else. But hard quotas seem arbitrary and counter-productive to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back