Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia D
IPARTIMENTO DI STUDI LINGUISTICI E CULTURALIC ORSO DI L AUREA M AGISTRALE IN
L ANGUAGES FOR C OMMUNICATION IN I NTERNATIONAL
E NTERPRISES AND O RGANIZATIONS
Gender Diversity on Corporate Boards:
policy and legislation in the European context
Prova finale di:
Gloria Priscoglio Relatore:
Cinzia Valente Correlatore Livia Ventura
Anno Accademico 2017/2018
Abstract
Nonostante i progressi compiuti negli ultimi anni, le donne risultano ancora scarsamente rappresentate nei consigli di amministrazione e in posizioni di leadership, sia nel settore pubblico che privato. Il presente lavoro fornisce un’analisi dei quadri legislativi e delle misure adottate a livello europeo per far fronte al tema della diversità di genere nei consigli d’amministrazione. Risulta che, se è vero che l'uso delle quote di genere è notevolmente aumentato negli ultimi dieci anni fra i maggiori Paesi europei, è anche vero che altri paesi si sono opposti a questo sistema, prediligendo piuttosto l’utilizzo di misure volontarie. In aggiunta, lo studio ripercorre i vantaggi e gli ostacoli alla diversità di genere negli organi societari, la legislazione contro la discriminazione, le politiche nazionali sulla parità di genere e le principali raccomandazioni e iniziative europee.
Parole chiave: Diversità di Genere; Organi Societari; Parità di Genere; Quote Rosa; Misure Volontarie.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Despite the progress made in recent years, women are still underrepresented on corporate boards and upper-level positions, both within public and private sector companies.
This study examines how European and national institutions have been trying to tackle the problem, by discussing the legislative framework and measures adopted to improve gender diversity on corporate boards. It has been found that while the use of gender quotas has considerably increased over the last ten years among European countries, some other countries have been opposing to the quota system in favour of voluntary measures. In addition, the study reviews the
benefits of and barriers to gender diversity in the boardrooms, the legislation against discrimination, the national policies on gender equality and major European recommendations and initiatives.
Keywords: Gender Diversity; Corporate Boards; Gender Equality; Mandatory Quotas; Voluntary Measures.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A pesar de los avances logrados en los últimos años, las mujeres siguen estando escasamente representadas en los directorios de las empresas y en los puestos de liderazgo, tanto en el sector público como en el privado. En este trabajo se investiga la forma en que las instituciones han tratado de abordar el problema mediante el análisis de los marcos legislativos y las medidas adoptadas para mejorar la diversidad de género en los directorios corporativos. Resulta que si bien el uso de cuotas de género se ha difundido considerablemente en la última década entre los principales países europeos, también es cierto que otros países se han opuesto al sistema de cuotas, prefiriendo más bien utilizar medidas voluntarias. Además, el estudio examina las ventajas y los obstáculos a la diversidad de género en las empresas, la legislación contra la discriminación, las políticas nacionales de igualdad de género y las principales recomendaciones e iniciativas europeas.
Palabras clave: Diversidad de género; Directorios Corporativos; Igualdad de género; Cuotas de género; Medidas voluntarias.
Contents
Introduction………...…..7
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1 Literature review……….………...9 1.1.1 The Concept of Diversity in the Workplace….……9 1.1.2 The Concept of Gender in the Workplace………..11 1.1.3 Conceptualization of Corporate Boards…….……13 1.1.4 Benefits of Gender Diversity on Corporate Boards……….…....15 1.2 Data on Working women.………..……….…..28 1.2.1 Women in the world workforce.………..…..…29 1.2.2 Women on top-level positions before quotas……31 1.2.3 Possible causes for the under-representation.….33
CHAPTER 2: LEGISLATION IN SUPPORT OF GENDER DIVERSITY
2.1 Legislation against gender discrimination….………39 2.1.1 Discrimination as inheritance of the past…………39 2.1.2 Legislation against discrimination………...…..41 2.1.2.1 International framework………41 2.1.2.2 European framework………...….……….……47 2.2 Overview of gender diversity policies………..52
2.2.1 Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome..52
2.2.2 Voluntary regimes……….………55
2.2.3 Mandatory Quotas………..….57
2.3 European recommendations and initiatives……….61
2.3.1 European Parliament………..61
2.3.2 European Commission………63
2.3.3 Council of Europe……….66
2.3.4 European Women’s Lobby……….69
CHAPTER 3: THE NATIONAL ARENA
3.1 Contextualization of policies in different countries………713.1.1 The case of Norway……….….……….………..71
3.1.2 The case of Italy……….………....…..78
3.1.3 The case of the United Kingdom……….88
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUDING REMARKS
4.1 Current landscape………….………..………..…994.2 Criticism: opponents and proponents of gender quotas……….………105
4.3 Personal considerations………..………108
Conclusions……….…………...111
Bibliography………..113
Webography………..121
7
Introduction
The last decade has seen a significant increase in the number of female directors on corporate boards of large European companies. However, women are still underrepresented on corporate boards and top-management positions, despite nearly 40 years of equal opportunity policies and the numerous recommendations coming from the European context.
It is true that, compared to the past, women’s entry to most professions is easier and a great deal of progress has already been made in order to combat the under-representation of women in top-management positions, but we are still a long way from reaching absolute equality.
One of the most debated - and still unsolved - issue of the last decades is the choice of the best legislative system to adopt in order to increase female representation on corporate boards.
The main purpose of the present work, then, is to explore how European and national institutions have been trying to tackle the problem, with particular attention to the national legislative framework of three major EU countries, namely Norway, Italy and United Kingdom.
First of all, it seems appropriate to provide a theoretical background regarding the concept of gender diversity and corporate boards, as well as a review of major academic studies regarding the reasons for considering female presence beneficial not only for social justice, but also from an financial point of view (Chapter 1).
8
Chapter 2 will then focus on the analysis of the principle of equality of treatment and non-discrimination, with a thorough revision of the legislation against gender discrimination at international and European level; an introduction of gender diversity policies, which may be divided into mandatory and voluntary regimes; and, finally, an overview of major recommendations and initiatives coming from the European context, including resolutions and proposals for directives.
Additionally, a contextualization of policies is provided in Chapter 3, where the national legislative framework of Norway, Italy and United Kingdom is presented in order to assess the effectiveness of mandatory or voluntary measures and their implications.
To conclude, Chapter 4 presents some final remarks regarding the current situation, the criticism about gender quotas and the author’s personal considerations.
The work has been prepared by consulting academic literature, official documents and web-sites of the United Nations, the European Union, national governments and other institutions, as well as academic journals and economic reports.
9
CHAPTER 1
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 1.1 Literature Review
1.1.1 The Concept of Diversity in the Workplace
For many years, a significant growth in research on diversity in the workplace has been registered. According to the online Merriam-Webster online dictionary1, ‘diversity’ refers to “the condition of having or being composed of different elements”.
In the context of the workplace, a more specific definition is given by Dessler (2015: 55)2, which defines ‘diversity’ as
The variety or multiplicity of demographic features that characterize a company’s workforce, particularly in terms of race, sex, culture, national origin, handicap, age, and religion.
In other words, such diversity finds expression in the existence, in the workforce, of two or more groups of employees that are diverse in race, ethnic, age, gender, national origin or culture, etc.
Foot & Hook3 go further by arguing that, since diversity is the main dimension to assess the differences between people, this should include all aspects of such differences, meaning not only race, age, gender, religion, etc. but also educational
1 Merriam-Webster dictionary, more information available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/
[Accessed on February 5th, 2019].
2 G. Dessler, Human Resource Management, 13th edition. Pearson (2015), p. 55. Full text available at: https://monizaharie.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/dessler-human-resource-management- 2015.pdf [Accessed on February 5th, 2019].
3 M. Foot, & C. Hook, Introducing Human Resource Management, 6th edition. Chapter 5: Diversity and equality. Prentice Hall/Financial Times (2011).
10
background, personal opinions and thoughts, political beliefs, sexual orientation, socioeconomic background, etc.
A more accurate segmentation of such dimensions is offered by Sayers (2012: 12)4, which divides them into three different classes: primary dimensions, secondary dimensions and tertiary dimensions (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Diversity dimensions' diagram.
(Source: Sayers, 2012: 12)
The first class includes the most evident dimensions, such as age, race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, personal characteristics and mental or physical capacity, etc.
4 J. Sayers, Managing Diversity. Bookboon (2012), p. 12. Full text available at:
http://m5zn.com/newuploads/2014/10/08/pdf/5ec7c9cf7d39162.pdf [Accessed on February 5th, 2019]
11
As Ali5 outlines, among the primary dimensions, gender diversity in the workplace is always the top-priority-to-focus one for every organization.
Secondary dimensions are the less easily apparent, and consists of: education background, first language, family status, work experience, financial status, communication style, etc. All of these dimensions can easily become the cause for discrimination in society.
Finally, tertiary dimensions, also known as organizational dimensions, can be work location, professional positions, colleagues, etc.
Usually, in the Anglosphere, especially in the United States and the United Kingdom, the debate over diversity in the workplace is centred more on the concept of ‘race’, due to their historical and socio-political background. However, in the present work, the discussion will primarily focus on
‘gender’ and its implications.
1.1.2 The Concept of Gender in the Workplace
As leading organisational theorist Joan Acker (1992: 565)6 suggests, “although the term [gender] is widely used, there is no common understanding of its meaning, even amongst feminist scholars”. In fact, despite its widespread use in everyday discourse, there is no common definition that works across all the sectors or that is used by everybody.
5 F. Ali, Gender diversity in the workplace. Managing Diversity and Inclusion – An International Perspective. 1st edition. SAGE Publications (2015).
6 J. Acker, Gendering Organisational Theory, in A. J. Millis and P. Tancred, Gendering Organizational Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage (1992), pp. 248-60.
12
Contemporary gender and social theorists tend to move away from the idea of gender as a natural, unchanging or even biological essence. As Wharton7 argued, gender is not intended as an individual possession, but rather as a social construction, the result of human social processes, actions, language, cultures, policies and practices.
[Gender is the] activity of managing situated conduct in the light of normative conceptions of attitudes and activities appropriate for one’s sex category, not a set of traits, nor a variable, nor a role, but the product of social doings.
- West and Zimmerman (1987: 127)8
With respect to the concept of gender in the workplace, Joan Acker (1990)9 argues that organizational structures are not gender-neutral and that assumptions about gender underline organizational contracts, documents, hierarchies and job descriptions. This leads to the necessity of introducing different types of intervention, in order to address such regimes of inequality10.
7 A. S. Wharton, The Sociology of Gender: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell (2005).
8 C. West & D. Zimmerman, Doing Gender, in ‘Gender and Society’, Vol. 1, No. 2. (1987), pp. 125- 51.
9 J. Acker, Hierarchies, Jobs and Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations, in ‘Gender and Society’, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1990), pp. 139-58.
10 - J. Acker, Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class and Race in Organizations, in ‘Gender and Society’, Vol. 20 No. 4 (2006), pp. 441-64.
- -See A. S. Wharton, The Sociology of Gender: An Introduction to Theory and Research (2005), note No. 7.
13
1.1.3 Conceptualization of Corporate Boards
A Corporate Board of Directors, also known as Board of Directors (B of D), is a “group of persons elected by the shareholders of a corporation to govern and manage the affairs of the company” (definition retrieved from uslegal.com)11. All the board members are required to have specific knowledge and professional expertise, being them a strategic resource used by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the management for specific counsel and advice.
Duties and powers of the corporate boards and its members (directors) are regulated by government regulations and by the organization’s own corporate charter and bylaw. Corporate boards have the ultimate decision-authority, as well as the power and duty to: establish the company’s policy and set out strategic objectives; name the CEO and the members of the various committees; hire, control, evaluate and fire the managing director and senior executives, determine and pay dividends and issue additional shares (Business Dictionary)12. Moreover, they function as an important information system for external stakeholders, in order to monitor managerial behaviour and firm performances, and to reduce asymmetric information between contracting parties13.
11 US Legal. More information available at: https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/board-of-directors/
[Accessed on February 5th, 2019].
12 Business Dictionary. More information available at:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/board-of-directors.html [Accessed on February 5th, 2019].
13 J. Gabriellson & M. Huse, “Outside” directors in SME boards: A call for theoretical reflections, in
‘Corporate Board: role, duties and composition’, vol.1. Virtus Interpress (2005), pp. 28-37.
14
A long tradition of studies and scholarly research exists in the field of corporate boards. In fact, given its disciplinary and strategic role, the issue deserves a special attention.
From the perspective of contractual and strategic theories, the board contributes to the development of innovation by creating growth opportunities and reducing the losses in value that could derive from conflicts of interests between partners14.
Furthermore, according to the cognitive theory, the corporate board is regarded as a mechanism that facilitates the organizational learning and innovation and minimizes the agency cost15. In this way, the principal criterion to evaluate the efficiency of corporate boards becomes its capacity to create and protect the organizational value16.
An important contribution from Lazonick and O'Sullivan for the purpose of the present work is the recommendation for the boards to have representatives of all entities: employees, firms, financial institutions, etc. This is strictly connected to the necessity of heterogeneous boards, issue that has been largely investigated by scholars, especially in light of the various benefits that could derive from a diverse board room.
14 J. Chouaibi, Y. Boujelbene & H. Affes, Characteristics of the board of directors and involvement in innovation activities: A cognitive perspective, in ‘Corporate Board: role, duties and composition’, vol. 5, issue 3. Virtus Interpress (2009), pp. 34-44.
15 - W. Lazonick & M. O‘Sullivan, Maximizing shareholder value: a new ideology for corporate governance, in ‘Economy and Society’, Vol. 29 No. 1 (2000), pp. 13–35.
- A. L. Boone, L. C. Field, J. M. Karpoff & C. G. Raheja, The determinants of corporate board size and composition: An empirical analysis, in ‘Journal of Financial Economics’, Vol. 85 (2007) pp. 66- 101
16 W. Lazonick & M. O‘Sullivan, Corporate Governance and the Innovative Economy: Policy Implications, STEP Report ISSN 0804-8185, Oslo (1998), pp. 1-12.
15
1.1.4 Benefits of Gender Diversity on Boards
Prior to any consideration on which the most effective way to achieve gender diversity on corporate boards should be (see below, 2.2), it is fundamental to understand the reasons that make it desirable. In fact, focusing on the reasons why gender diversity could be beneficial is a first important step to design the best strategy to improve the overall performance.
A large number of investigations on this issue are based on the Resource Dependency Theory (RDT)17, whose arguments in favour of board diversity can be summarized as follows:
• There is a positive relation between diversity and firm performance18;
• Board diversity provides a bridge to unique resources otherwise difficult if not impossible to reach19;
• Boards with female directors could be associated with higher revenue and profitability20;
17 The Resources Dependence Theory (RDT) investigates how the external resources of organizations affect the behaviour of the organization. It was formalized for the first time during the 1970s, with the publication of J. Pfeffer & G. R. Salancik, The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Harper and Row: New York, NY (1978).
18 C. Carson, D. Mosley & S. Boynar, Performance Gains through Diverse Top Management Teams, in ‘Team Performance Management’, Vol. 10 (2004), pp. 121-126.
- D. Carter, B. Simkins & W. Simpson, Corporate Governance, Board Diversity, and Firm Value, in 'The Financial Review’, Vol. 38 (2003), pp. 33-53
- N. Erchardt, J. Werbel & C. Shrader, Board of Director Diversity and Firm Financial Performance, in ‘Corporate Governance’, Vol. 11 (2003), pp. 102-111.
- Q. Roberson & H. Park, Examining the Link Between Diversity and Firm Performance: The Effects of Diversity Reputation and Leader Racial Diversity, in Group & Organization Management, Vol. 32 (2007), pp. 548-568.
19 J. Goodstein, K. Gautam & W. Boeker, The Effects of Board Size and Diversity on Strategic Change, in ‘Strategic Management Journal’, Vol. 15 (1994), pp. 241-250.
16
• Gender diversity in non-profit organizations is positively linked with its level of social performance21 and social performance is linked to financial performance22. Therefore, good social performance will lead to stronger financial performance.
Moreover, following Terjesen et al.23, the impact of gender diversity on corporate boards can be analysed in relation to three different frameworks: the individual, the board and the firm.
Impact on the individual
At the individual level, the presence of women directors can foster more opportunities for women employees generally24, because they act as role models and can have a positive impact on promotion of women25. Role models, in general, are
20 V. Singh, S. Vinnicombe & P. Johnson, Women Directors on Top UK Boards, in ‘Corporate Governance’, Vol. 9 No. 3 (2001), pp. 206-216.
21 J. Siciliano, The Relationship of Board Member Diversity to Organizational Performance, in Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15 (1996), pp. 1313-1320.
22 S. Waddock & S. Graves, The Corporate Social Performance-Financial Performance Link, in
‘Strategic Management Journal’, Vol. 18 No. 4 (1997), pp. 303-319.
23 S. Terjesen, R. Sealy & V. Singh, Women Directors on Corporate Boards: A Review and Research Agenda, in ‘Corporate Governance An International Review’, Vol. 17 No. 3(2009), pp. 320-337.
Full text available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227541616_Women_Directors_on_Corporate_Boards_
A_Review_and_Research_Agenda [Accessed on February 5th, 2019].
24 D. Bilimoriam, The relationship between women corporate directors and women corporate officers, in ‘Journal of Managerial Issues’, Vol. 18 No. 1 (2006), pp. 47-62.
- D. Bilimoria & J. Wheeler, Women corporate directors: current research and future direction, in M.
Davidson and R. Burke (eds), Women in Management: Current Research Issues, Vol. 2. London:
Paul Chapman (2000), pp. 138-163.
25 C.M. Beckham & D.J. Philips, Interorganizational determinants of promotion: client leadership and the promotion of women attorneys, in ‘American Sociological Review’, Vol. 70 No. 4 (2005), pp.
678-701.
17
considered to help individuals to develop their identity at work by showing what is possible26.
However, the scarcity of adequate role models can lead to the opposite effect: negative role models. Senior women, in this case, could be perceived by other women as ‘not very nice’ or
‘unnatural’, and also as having ‘lost their femininity’27.
Hence, the importance of having as many women role models as possible, since they allow women moving to upper-level positions to develop a clear and coherent professional identity28.
Impact on the Board
A more gender diverse board also affects in different ways the board itself, especially with respect to the governance performance, the decision-making process, the general behaviour and culture, and the board independence.
26 D.E. Gibson, Developing the professional self-concept: role model construals in early middle, and late career stages, in ‘Organization Science’, Vol. 14 No. 5 (2003), pp. 591-610.
- H. Ibarra, Provisional selves: experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation, in
‘Administrative Science Quarterly’, Vol. 44 No. 4 (1999), p. 764.
- R. Sealy & V. Singh, The importance of role models and demographic context for senior women’s work identity development, in ‘International Journal of Management Reviews’, Vol. 12 No. 3 (2010), pp. 284-300.
27 D.E. Gibson and D. Cordova, Women’s and men’s role models: the importance of exemplars, (1999) in A.J. Murrel, F.J. Crosby and R.J. Ely (eds), Mentoring Dilemmas: Developmental Relationships within Multicultural Organizations, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 121-142.
- S. Liff & K. Ward, Distorted views through the glass ceiling: the construction of women’s understanding of promotion and senior management positions, in Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 8 No. 1 (2001), pp. 19-36.
28 A.H. Eagly, Acheving relational authenticity in leadership: does gender matter?, in ‘Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3 (2005), pp. 459-474.
- V. Singh, S. Vinnicombe & K. James, Constructing a professional identity: how young female managers use role models, in ‘Women in Management Review’, Vol. 21 No. 1 (2006), pp. 67-81.
18
It is demonstrated that the presence of more female directors in the board may stimulate more participative communication, both among board members and with major stakeholders29. Firms with a higher percentage of women directors, in fact, are supposed to have more favourable work environments30, because the presence of women in the boardroom leads to more civilized behaviour and sensitivity to other perspectives31 and, in particular, to women’s issues32.
Moreover, Huse & Solberg33 sustain that women lighten up the boardroom atmosphere and, according to Singh34, there is evidence that the inclination of male directors to have a very political behaviour is tempered when women are present in the boardroom; also, in presence of women, men change their language, become more civilized and moderate their
29 F.J. Milliken & L.L. Martins, Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups, in ‘Academy of Management Review’, Vol. 21 No. 2 (1996), pp.
402-433.
30 R. Bernardi, S. Bosco & K. Vassill, Does Female Representation on Boards of Directors Associate with Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work for List?, in Business & Society Vol. 45 No. 2 (2006), pp. 235–248.
- R. A. Johnson & D. W. Greening, The Effects of Corporate Governance and Institutional Ownership Types on Corporate Social Performance, ‘Academy of Management Journal’, Vol. 42 No.
5 (1999), pp. 564–576.
31 D. Bilimoria, Building the Business Case for Women Corporate Directors, in R. Burke and M.
Mattis (eds.), Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Challenges and Opportunities, Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht (2000), pp. 25–40.
- N. Fondas & S. Sassalos, A different voice in the boardroom: How the presence of women directors affects board influence over management, in Global Focus, Vol. 12 (2000), pp. 13–22.
32 R. J. Burke, Women on corporate boards of directors: A needed resource, in ‘Journal of Business Ethics’, Vol. 16 No. 9 (1997), pp. 909–15.
33 M. Huse & A. G. Solberg, Gender-related boardroom dynamics: How Scandinavian women make and can make contributions on corporate boards, in ‘Women in Management Review’, Vol. 21 No. 2 (2006), pp. 113–30.
34 V. Singh, Transforming Boardroom Cultures, Report for UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology, Bradford (2008).
19
masculinity. Moreover, since female directors are more participative35, democratic36, and communal than men37, having more women on a board could encourage more open conversations among members of the board and lead to more effective performance and better governance38.
It is also pointed out that, as the number of women increases, communication barriers on the board come down and the minority voices become more assertive39. At the same time, the majority is more likely to listen to them40. Nevertheless, such likelihood increases proportionally with the increase in the number of members of the minority group, in our case
‘women’. In other words, the more the women on the board, the more their effectiveness. The presence of just a single member of a minority group, in fact, may not be sufficient, because the group may consider that minority member as a token, less competent and of lower status, and fail to consider his/her opinion or contribution seriously41. However, when
35 A. H. Eagly, M. C. Johannesen-Schmidt & M. L. van Engen, Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-Faire Leadership Styles: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Women and Men, in
‘Psychological Bulletin’, Vol. 129 No. 4 (2003), pp. 569–591.
36 A. H. Eagly & B. T. Johnson, Gender and Leadership Style: A Meta-Analysis, in ‘Psychological Bulletin’, Vol. 108 No. 2 (1990), pp. 233–256.
37 L. A. Rudman & P. Glick, Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes and Backlash Toward Agentic Women, in ‘Journal of Social Issues’, Vol. 57 No.4 (2001), pp. 743–762.
38 See V. Singh, Transforming Boardroom Cultures, (2008), note No. 34.
39 A. Konrad, V. Kramer & S. Erkut, Critical Mass: The Impact of Three or More Women on Corporate Boards, in ‘Organizational Dynamics’, Vol. 37 No. 2 (2008), pp. 145–164.
- V. W. Kramer, A. Konrad & S. Erkut, Critical Mass on Corporate Boards: Why Three or More Women Enhance Governance, Report No. WCW 11, Wellesley Centers for Women, Wellesley, MA (2006).
40 S. Asch, Opinions and Social Influence, in ‘Scientific American’, Vol. 193 (1955), pp. 31–55.
41 M. B. Brewer & R. M. Kramer, The Psychology of Intergroup Attitudes and Behavior, in ‘Annual Review of Psychology’, Vol. 36 (1985), pp. 219–243.
20
the minority group comprises more than one member, it is more likely that the group would take that member more seriously42. According to numerous empirical evidence, the same process may be also applied on boards. When a significant number of women directors (at least three) is represented on a board, then they can make their voice heard, ask challenging questions and play a more significant role in the decision-making process43. The presence of at least three or more women in the board also influences firm performance, which is improved44.
One of the numerous strengths women can bring to the board is a more participative decision-making style45. Decision- making processes are enhanced as a wider variety of perspective are taken into consideration46. Women, in fact, contribute to increase the diversity of board resources as they
- R. M. Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, NY (1997).
- C. G. Lord & D. S. Saenz, Memory Deficits and Memory Surfeits: Differential Cognitive Consequences of Tokenism for Tokens and Observers, in ‘Journal of Personality and Social Psychology’, Vol. 49 (1985), pp. 918–926.
- C. J. Nemeth, Differential Contributions of Majority and Minority Influence, in ‘Psychological Review’, Vol. 93 No. 1 (1986), pp. 23–32.
42 See S. Asch, Opinions and Social Influence, (1955) note No. 40.
43 See A. Konrad, V. Kramer & S. Erkut, Critical Mass: The Impact of Three or More Women on Corporate Boards (2008), and V. W. Kramer, A. Konrad & S. Erkut, Critical Mass on Corporate Boards: Why Three or More Women Enhance Governance (2006), note No. 39
44 J. Joecks, K. Pull and K. Vetter, Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance: what exactly constitutes a "critical mass?", in ‘J. Bus. Ethics’ Vol. 118 No. 1 (2003), pp. 61–72.
- Y. Liu, Z. Wei & F. Xie, Do women directors improve firm performance in China?, in ‘J. Corp.
Finan.’, Vol. 28 (2014), pp. 169–184.
45 See A. Konrad, V. Kramer & S. Erkut, Critical Mass: The Impact of Three or More Women on Corporate Boards (2008), and V. W. Kramer, A. Konrad & S. Erkut, Critical Mass on Corporate Boards: Why Three or More Women Enhance Governance (2006), note No. 39.
46 C. M. Daily & D. R. Dalton, Women in the Boardroom: A Business Imperative, in ‘Journal of Business Strategy’, Vol. 24 No. 5 (2003), pp. 8–9.
21
are likely to have different experiences of the marketplace, of public services and of the community in which they live47. They also have different professional backgrounds, working experiences, scientific expertise and advanced degrees. In addition, compared to their male counterpart, they are more likely to have expert backgrounds outside of business48. As a result of this, there is a higher probability of obtaining skilled resources with the necessary expertise who can provide new opportunities for growth49. Moreover, studies with management teams have shown that diversity of experience is an important asset, since it can boost team innovation through the creation of alternative solutions50 and allow the board to better monitor management51. All of this contributes to strengthen board performance and, consequently, firm performance.
Impact on the firm
The effects of gender diversity on corporate boards are very much in evidence also at the firm level, especially with regard to the financial performance, the relationship with the
47 D. Zelechowski & D. Bilimoria, Characteristics of women and men corporate inside directors in the US, in ‘Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 12 No. 3 (2004), pp. 337–42.
48 A. J. Hillman, A. A. Cannella Jr. & I. C. Harris, Women and Racial Minorities in the Boardroom:
How Do Directors Differ?, in ‘Journal of Management’, Vol. 28 (2002), pp. 747–763.
49 S. Zahra, Goverance, Ownership, and Corporate Entrepreneurship: The Moderating Impact of Industry Technological Opportunities, in ‘The Academy of Management Journal’, Vol. 39 No. 6 (1996), pp. 1713-1735.
50 - K. Bantel & S. Jackson, Top Management and Innovations in Banking: Does the Composition of the Top Team Make a Difference?, in ‘Strategic Management Journal’, Vol. 10 (1989), pp. 107–124.
- A. Joshi & H. Roh, The Role of Context in Work Team Diversity Research: A Meta-Analytic Review, in ‘Academy of Management Journal’, Vol. 52 No. 3 (2009), 599–628.
51 A. J. Hillman & T. Dalziel, Boards of Directors and Firm Performance: Integrating Agency and Resource Dependence Perspectives, in ‘Academy of Management Review’, Vol. 28 (2003), pp. 383–
396.
22
shareholders, the increase in philanthropy and the improvements in CSR ratings and corporate reputation.
The impact of women directors on the financial performance of a firm has been largely investigated: the results are mixed, but mostly positive, especially in more recent studies. Statistics report that there is a positive relationship between the presence of women directors and higher market capitalization in Fortune 500 (Catalyst, 2004)52 and FTSE 100 firms53. According to these studies, in fact, an increase in the presence of women directors corresponds to an increase in the firm’s market capitalization.
However, there are also other performance indicators that have been used by researchers to examine the link between financial performance and board diversity.
For example, a study by Catalyst (1997)54 on Fortune 500 firms relates the presence of multiple female directors to an increase in revenues: in particular, the top 100 companies by revenue are twice as likely to have numerous women directors compared to the bottom 100 companies.
52 Catalyst, The Bottom Line; Connecting Corporate Performance and Gender Diversity, New York (2004). Full text available at: https://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/bottom-line-connecting- corporate-performance-and-gender-diversity [Accessed on February 5th, 2019].
53 - V. Singh, S. Vinnicombe & P. Johnson, Women directors on top UK boards, ‘Corporate Governance: An International Review’, Vol. 9 No. 3 (2001), pp. 206–16.
- V. Singh & S. Vinnicombe, The 2002 Female FTSE Index and woman directors, in ‘Women in Management Review’, Vol. 18 No.7 (2003), pp. 349–58.
54 Catalyst, Census of Women Board Directors of the Fortune 500, New York (1997). Full text available at: https://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/1997-catalyst-census-women-board-directors- fortune-500 [Accessed on February 5th, 2019].
23
Catalyst (2004)55 relates higher representation of women on boards to higher financial performance, finding that for 353 companies in Fortune 500, Return on Equity was 35% higher than in companies with the lowest women’s representation, and Total Return to Shareholders was 34% higher.
Also Catalyst (2007)56 found that companies with higher representation of women directors in Fortune 500 (for the period 2001-2004) attained higher financial performance than companies with the lowest percentage of women directors, as a result of higher Return on Equity (+ 53%), higher Return on Sales (+ 42%) and higher Return on Invested Capital (+ 66%).
Another important finding is that firms with more women directors are more likely to have a larger workforce and larger boards57. This means that, the larger the internal talent pool, the more the opportunities for challenge and growth, and so the chances for women to reach the top.
The impact of a more diverse boardroom on the creation of shareholder value cannot be measured quantitatively, but the effects can be seen in the long term. According to Bilimoria58, the lack of gender diversity on US corporate boards is a matter of concern for many powerful investors, such as union
55 See Catalyst, The Bottom Line; Connecting Corporate Performance and Gender Diversity, New York (2004), note No. 52.
56 N. M. Carter & H. M. Wagner, The Bottom Line: Corporate Performance And Women's Representation On Boards, in Catalyst, New York (2007). Full text available at:
https://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/bottom-line-corporate-performance-and-womens- representation-boards [Accessed on February 5th, 2019].
57 R. Burke, Company size, board size, and the numbers of women corporate directors, in Burke, R.
and Mattis, M. (eds.) Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Challenges and Opportunities, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (2000), pp. 118–25.
58 D. Bilimoria, Building the business case for women corporate directors, in Burke, R. and Mattis, M. (eds.) Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Challenges and Opportunities, Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000), pp. 25–40.
24
pension funds with many female members. As a consequence, there is an increasing pressure on firms towards diversifying boards59. Good diversity management, in fact, can be seen by investors as an indicator of forward planning and future value60 in view of the increasing need for sensitivity towards different cultures and diversity, typical of the modern globalized world. For this reason, Canadian institutional shareholders seek to invest in firms devoted to diversity on the board61, because they consider it as essential for the long- term survival.
Among other groups who are both directly and indirectly influenced by board gender composition and have expressed a preference for increased representation of females and minority groups at board-level, there are outside evaluators and external institutions, e.g. investors, influential business magazines, pension funds, equal opportunities pressure groups, employment regulators, etc.62. A wide range of benefits, including economic ones, may derive from an improved relationship with these and other kind of
59 - V. W. Kramer, A. Konrad & S. Erkut, Critical Mass on Corporate Boards: Why Three or More Women Enhance Governance, Report No. WCW 11, Wellesley Centers for Women, Wellesley, MA.
(2006).
- P. Sellers, Women on Boards (Not!), in Fortune 156(8), (2007), p. 105.
- S. A. Ramirez, A Flaw in the Sarbanes-Oxley Reform: Can Diversity in the Boardroom Quell Corporate Corruption?, in ‘St. John’s Law Review’, Vol. 77 No. 4 (2003), pp. 837–866.
60 D. Brown, D. Brown & V. Anastasopoulos, Women on Boards: Not just the Right Thing . . . But the “Bright” Thing, Report, 341-02: The Conference Board of Canada, Ottawa (2002).
61 See above, D. Brown, D. Brown & V. Anastasopoulos, Women on Boards: Not just the Right Thing . . . But the “Bright” Thing (2002).
62 - D. A. Carter, B. J. Simkins & W. G. Simpson, Corporate Governance, Board Diversity, and Firm Value, in ‘Financial Review’, Vol. 38 (2003), pp. 33–53.
- J. Carver, On Board Leadership. Jossey-Bass, John Wiley: New York, NY (2002).
- S. Kuczynski, If Diversity, Then Higher Profits?, in ‘HRMagazine’, Vol. 44 (1999), pp. 66–74.
25
stakeholders, like customers, suppliers, competitors and bankers63.
A fundamental role here is also played by the firm’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the corporate reputation. It has been largely argued that a higher percentage of female representation on boards positively affects firms’ CSR ratings, which, in turn, enhances corporate reputation64. Women are more likely than men to be support specialists and community influential65, and this may allow them to orient the board towards more sensitive CSR issues and initiatives.
Furthermore, according to gender socialization theory, women and men have different perspectives on ethical issues66, due to
63 M. Branco & L. C. Rodrigues, Corporate Social Responsibility and Resource-Based Perspectives, in ‘Journal of Business Ethics’, Vol. 69 (2006), pp. 111–132.
64 - S. Bear, N. Rahman, C. Post, The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation, in ‘J. Bus. Ethics’, Vol. 97 No. 2 (2010), pp.
207–221.
- R. J. Williams, Women on Corporate Boards of Directors and Their Influence on Corporate Philanthropy, in ‘Journal of Business Ethics’, Vol. 42 (2003), pp. 1–10.
- C. Post, N. Rahman & E. Rubow, Diversity in the Composition of Board of Directors and Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR), in ‘Business & Society’, Vol. 49 (2011).
- P.B. McGuinness, J.P. Vieito & M. Wang, The role of board gender and foreign ownership in the CSR performance of Chinese listed firms, in ‘J. Corp. Finan.’, Vol. 42 (2017), pp. 75–99.
- R. Bernardi, S. Bosco & K. Vassill, Does Female Representation on Boards of Directors Associate with Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work for List?, in ‘Business & Society’, Vol. 45 No.2 (2006), pp. 235–248.
- Bilimoria, D., Building the Business Case for Women Corporate Directors, in R. Burke and M.
Mattis (eds.), Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Challenges and Opportunities, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2000), pp. 25–40.
- S. Brammer, A. Millington & S. Pavelin, Corporate Reputation and Women on the Board, in
‘British Journal of Management’, Vol. 20 No.1 (2009), pp. 17–29.
65 See A. J. Hillman, A. A. Cannella Jr. & I. C. Harris, Women and Racial Minorities in the Boardroom: How Do Directors Differ? (2002), note No. 48.
66 C. Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. (1982).
26
different experiences in social interactions: women are raised to be more aware and caring towards the needs of others67 and to be more sensitive towards ethical issues68. Empirical evidence also shows that there are relevant gender differences in ethical decision making69, for example the tendency of women to be more receptive to a code of ethics70. In the boardroom, women directors bring with them different ethical values and attitudes to decision-making71. They are less power-oriented72, and more prone to benevolence and universalism, which includes “understanding, appreciation,
67 R. Carlson, Understanding women: implications for personality theory and research, in ‘J. Soc.
Issues’, Vol. 28 No. 2 (1972), pp. 17–32.
68 C. Simga-Mugan, B.A. Daly, D. Onkal & L. Kavut, The influence of nationality and gender on ethical sensitivity: an application of the issue-contingent model, in ‘J. Bus. Ethics’, Vol. 57 No. 2 (2005), pp. 139–159.
- N. Ibrahim, J. Angelidis & I. Tomic, Managers' attitudes toward codes of ethics: are there gender differences?, in ‘J. Bus. Ethics’, Vol. 90 (2009), pp. 343–353.
69 - L.M. Dawson, Ethical differences between men and women in the sales profession, in ‘J. Bus.
Ethics’, Vol. 16 No. 11 (1997), pp. 1143–1152.
- R.R. Radtke, The effects of gender and setting on Accountants' ethically sensitive decisions, in ‘J.
Bus. Ethics, Vol. 24 No. 4 (2000), pp. 299–312.
- S. Valentine & T. Rittenburg, The ethical decision making of men and women executives in international business situations, in ‘J. Bus. Ethics’, Vol. 71 No. 2 (2007), pp. 125–134.
- P. Puncheva-Michelotti, M. Michelotti & P. Gahan, The relationship between individuals' recognition of human rights and responses to socially responsible companies: evidence from Russia and Bulgaria, in ‘J. Bus. Ethics’, Vol. 93 No. 4 (2010), pp. 583–605.
- L. Ryan, Sex differences through a neuroscience lens: implications for business ethics, in ‘J. Bus.
Ethics’, Vol. 144 No. 44 (2017), pp. 771–782.
70 See N. Ibrahim, J. Angelidis & I. Tomic, Managers' attitudes toward codes of ethics: are there gender differences? (2009), note No. 68.
71 D. Robin & L. Babin, Making sense of the research on gender and ethics in business: a critical analysis and extension, in ‘Bus. Ethics Q.’, Vol. 7 No. 4 (1997), pp. 61–90.
72 R.B. Adams & P. Funk, Beyond the glass ceiling: does gender matter?, in ‘Manag. Sci.’, Vol. 58 No. 2 (2012), pp. 219–235.
27
tolerance and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature”73.
This directly influences firm's activities and policies: firms with more diverse boards are less likely to engage in unethical conduct, such as tax avoidance74, securities fraud75, earnings management76, and environmental lawsuits77.
Research also shows that firms with a higher representation of female members on the board have higher level of corporate charitable donations78 and more positive CSR initiatives79. Consequently, firms that give the most to charity and have a
73 R.B. Adams, A.N. Licht & L. Sagiv, Shareholders and stakeholders: how do directors decide? , in
‘Strateg. Manag. J.’, Vol. 32 No. 32 (2011), pp. 1331–1355.
74 - R. Lanis, G. Richardson & G. Taylor, Board of director gender and corporate tax aggressiveness: an empirical analysis, in ‘J. Bus. Ethics’ (2015), pp. 1–20.
- G. Richardson, G. Taylor & R. Lanis, Women on the board of directors and corporate tax aggressiveness in Australia: an empirical analysis, in ‘Account. Res. J.’, Vol. 29 No. 3 (2016), pp.
313–331.
75 D. Cumming, T.Y. Leung & O. Rui, Gender diversity and securities fraud, in ‘Acad. Manag. J.’, Vol. 58 No. 5 (2015), pp. 1572–1593.
76 J.M. García Lara, B. García Osma, A. Mora & M. Scapin, The monitoring role of female directors over accounting quality, in ‘J. Corp. Finan.’, Vol. 45 (2017), pp. 651–668.
77 C. Liu, Are Women Greener? Corporate gender diversity and environmental violations, in ‘Journal of Corporate Finance’, Vol. 52 (2018), pp. 118–142. Full text available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929119918301408 [Accessed on February 6th, 2019].
78 - M. Jia & Z. Zhang, Critical mass of women on bods, multiple identities, and corporate philanthropic disaster response: evidence from privately owned Chinese firms, in ‘J. Bus. Ethics’, Vol. 118 No. 2 (2013), pp. 303–317.
- J. Wang & B. Coffey, Board Composition and Corporate Philanthropy, in ‘Journal of Business Ethics’, Vol. 11 No. 10 (1992), pp. 771–778.
79 See S. Bear, N. Rahman, C. Post, The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation (2010), note No. 64.
- C. Post, N. Rahman & E. Rubow, Diversity in the Composition of Board of Directors and Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR), note No. 64.
28
foundation, also have more positive reputations80, since philanthropy is a signal of responsiveness to social concerns and contribute to build positive corporate reputation and credibility81.
In addition, according to the signalling theory82, the mere presence of women on a firm’s board is another factor contributing to building a positive firm’s reputation, because this demonstrates that the firm is socially responsible since it pays attention to women and minorities.
1.2 Data on Working women
It is out of doubt that, compared to not so many years ago, women have gone a long way towards the achievement of their full civil and human rights. The role of women in societies have radically changed, and so have the labour market, which results in more and more women actively involved in the world economy83. However, while progress has been made on the issue of gender equality, it is also true that we are still far from full parity.
80 C. Fombrun & M. Shanley, What’s in a Name? Reputation Building and Corporate Strategy, in
‘Academy of Management Journal’, Vol. 33 (1990), pp. 233–258.
81 M. Pfau, M. Haigh, J. Sims & S. Wigley, The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility Campaigns on Public Opinion, in ‘Corporate Reputation Review’, Vol. 11 No. 2 (2008), pp. 145–154.
82 Signaling (or signalling) theory suggests that one party may convey, intentionally or not, some relevant but not immediately visible information about itself to another party, through observable signals.
83 K. April, S. Dreyer & E. Blass, Gender impediments to the South African Executive Boardroom, in
‘South African Journal of Labor Relations’, Vol. 31 No. 2 (2007), pp. 51-67.
29
1.2.1 Women in the world workforce
According to the Global Employment Trends for Women 200884, a report issued by the International Labor Organization (ILO)85, the number of employed women in 2007 had grown by almost 200 million over the previous decade, to reach 1.2 billion, compared to 1.8 billion men, 18.2% more. Also, of all people employed globally, 40% were women, and this had not changed over the previous ten years.
Another positive trend regards the level of education: in 2007, more and more women were gaining access to education, and this contributed to making them more competitive in the labour market and ensuring them better access to employment in an enlarged scope of industries.
Correspondingly, many regions were making progress in increasing the quality of the employment, but full gender equality had not yet been attained.
Despite the positive data, as former ILO Director-General Juan Somavia argued, “this progress must not obscure the glaring inequities that still exist in workplaces throughout the world”. In fact, the number of unemployed women had also grown over the same period (1997-2007), from 70.2 to 81.6 million, and women who actually worked were often confined to work in the less productive sectors of economies and in low- status groups, with higher economic risks and bad conditions of employment. As a result of this, they often earned less than men.
84International Labor Organization, Global Employment Trends for Women 2008. Geneva (2008).
Full text available at:
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/documents/publication/wcm s_091225.pdf [Accessed on February 4th, 2019].
85 More information on the ILO’s work on gender equality is available at:
https://www.ilo.org/global/lang--en/index.htm [Accessed on February 4th, 2019].
30
Focusing on the region Developed Economies & European Union86, the report shows that, in 2007, 88% of the working women worked in wage and salaried jobs87 (against 82.1% of the male counterpart), 3.9% were employers88 (against 7.9% of men), 5.8% were own-account workers89 (against 9.3% of men), and 2.3% were contributing family workers90 (against 0.8% of men). Such gap in the status in employment indicates that women are less likely than men to engage in self- employment and to carry consequent risks.
Besides this, significant gaps existed also with respect to women’s working conditions and their participation in decision-making processes. The first and most evident one is undoubtedly the gender pay gap91. According to the Report on equality between women and men (2008)92 published by the European Commission, the pay gap between men and women had remained unchanged at 15% across all sectors, and had narrowed by only one point since 2000. Moreover, in 2008, 76.5% of part-time workers were women, and temporary
86 Such regional group includes: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom.
87 For the sake of clarity, wage and salaried workers is intended as: “persons in paid employment jobs, where the incumbent holds an explicit or implicit contract and receives a basic remuneration which is not directly dependent on the revenue of the unit for which they work; also known as
‘employee’.” Definition provided by the ILO report.
88 Employer: a self-employed person with employees.
89 Own-account worker: a person who is self-employed with no employees working for them.
90 Contributing family worker: an own-account worker who works without pay in an establishment operated by a related person living in the same household.
91 The Gender Pay Gap is “the difference between the amounts of money paid to women and men, often for doing the same work” (Cambridge Dictionary).
92 European Commission, Equality between women and men – 2008, Brussels (2008). Full text available at http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=2033 [Accessed on February 4th, 2019].
31
employment contracts were more common for women than for men (15.1%, one point more than men).
Today, after ten years, some progress has been made, both globally and at the EU level. However, despite the efforts of recent years to achieve better gender equality in the workplace, the results are not yet satisfactory.
The 2018 ILO report, World Employment Social Outlook - Trends For Women 201893, shows how today more women than ever before are both educated and participating in the labour market, although progress in emerging countries is not as positive as it is in developing and developed countries.
Globally, the rate of unemployment for women is still quite high (6%) and certainly higher than that of men (5,2%).
In the European context, women still tend to be employed less and, when they work, they are employed in lower-paid sectors.
They are also still paid much less than men, with an average gender pay gap at 16%.
1.2.2 Women on top-level positions before quotas
The most evident and worrying disparities, however, could be observed in top management positions of big corporations.
Before the wave of mandatory gender quotas and voluntary measures adopted by countries to deal with the problem of the under-representation on women on corporate boards, the female presence in positions of power used to be very low,
93 International Labor Organization, World Employment Social Outlook - Trends For Women 2018.
Geneva (2018). Full text available at: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/-- -dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_619577.pdf [Accessed on February 4th, 2019].
32
even in the most developed countries. Moreover, the pace at which this was increasing was very slow until recent years.
According to the report Women Board Directors of Fortune Global 200 companies94, issued by the Corporate Women Directors International (CWDI)95, in 2004 women held only 10.4% of all board seats in the Fortune Global 200 companies.
All of the 78 listed U.S. companies had women on their boards, with a percentage of 17.5% out of all board directors, while Japan, with 27 listed companies, only had 3 women holding board seats out of 431 board members (0.7%). Europe was doing better than Japan, but still worse than the U.S.
companies. The United Kingdom had 12.5% of its board directors being female, Germany had 10.3%, the Netherlands 8.6%, followed by Switzerland (7.7%), France (7.2%), and Italy (1.8%). The most alarming fact was that 53 companies had no women directors at all, including some of the largest companies in the world: Germany’s DaimlerChrysler, Japan’s Toyota and France’s AXA.
Three years later, in 2007, the situation in Europe was still not too flattering. According to the Women and Men in Decision-making 2007, a study published by the EU Commission96, men in corporate boardrooms of leading companies accounted for nearly 90% of all the board members, while women at the head of businesses (as CEOs,
94 The Fortune Global 200 companies is a subset of the Fortune 500 companies, a list of the largest publicly held American companies based on total revenue.
95 Corporate Women Directors International (CWDI) is a project of the GlobeWomen Research and Education Institute, an organization based in Washington, DC, USA.
96 European Commission, Women and men in decision-making 2007. Analysis of the situation and trends, Brussels (2008). Full text vailable at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-08- 390_en.htm?locale=en [Accessed on February 4th, 2019].
