Legislating a Woman’s Seat on the Board: Institutional Factors Driving Gender Quotas for Boards of Directors

Journal of Business Ethics

Volumn 128, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 233-251

  Terjesen, Siri ^a,b   Aguilera, Ruth V ^c,e   Lorenz, Ruth ^d  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^d LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^e ESADE BUSINESS SCHOOL   (Spain)

Author keywords

Board gender codes; Board gender quotas; Corporate governance; Gender equality; Left leaning political coalitions; Path dependency; Publicly traded firms; State owned enterprises; Welfare state

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894277629     PISSN: 01674544     EISSN: 15730697     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2083-1     Document Type: Article

References (101)

1. Adams, R. B., & Kirchmeier, T. (2013). Making it to the top: From female labor force participation to boardroom gender diversity. Working paper.
2. Aguilera, R. V., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2004). The spread of codes of good governance worldwide: What’s the trigger? Organization Studies,25(3), 415–443.
3. Aguilera, R. V., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2009). Codes of good governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review,17(3), 376–387.
4. Aguilera, R. V., Desdender, K., & Kabbach de Castro, L. R. (2012). A bundle perspective to comparative corporate governance. In T. Clarke & D. Branson (Eds.), Sage handbook of corporate governance. New York: Sage.
5. Aguilera, R. V., Goyer, M., & Kabbach de Castro, L. R. (2013). Regulation and comparative corporate governance regulation. In M. Wright, D. S. Siegel, K. Keasey, & I. Filatotchev (Eds.), Handbook of corporate governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. (2003). The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review,28(3), 365–447.
7. Aguilera, R. V., Williams, C., Conley, J., & Rupp, D. (2006). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility. A comparative analysis of the UK and the US. Corporate Governance: An International Review,14(3), 147–157.
8. Ahern, K. R., & Dittmar, A. K. (2012). The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. Quarterly Journal of Economics,127(1), 137–197.
9. Amable, B., Gatti, D., & Schumacher, J. (2006). Welfare-state retrenchment: The partisan effect revisited. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,22(3), 426–444.
10. Arfken, D. E., Bellar, S. L., & Helms, M. M. (2004). The ultimate glass ceiling revisited: The presence of women on corporate boards. Journal of Business Ethics,50(2), 177–186.
11. Bednar, M. (2012). Watchdog or lapdog? A behavioral view of the media as a corporate governance mechanism. Academy of Management Journal,55(1), 131–150.
12. Benz, M., & Frey, B. S. (2007). Corporate governance: What can we learn from public governance? Academy of Management Review,32(1), 92–104.
13. Bilimoria, D. (2006). The relationship between women corporate directors and women corporate officers. Journal of Managerial Issues,18(1), 47–61.
14. Bøhren, Ø. and Staubo, S. (2013). Changing organizational form to avoid regulatory constraints: The effect of mandatory gender balance in the boardroom. Journal of Corporate Finance, forthcoming.
15. Borre, O., & Scarbrough, E. (1995). The scope of government (Beliefs in government series). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Branson, D. M. (2012). An Australian perspective on a global phenomenon: Initiatives to place women on corporate boards of directors. Legal Studies Research Paper Series.
17. Brooks, C., & Manza, J. (2007). Why welfare states persist: The importance of public opinion in democracies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Current employment statistics. http://www.bls.gov/ces/. Retrieved Aug 4.
19. Catalyst. (2013). Quick take: Women on boards. New York: Catalyst.
20. Clark, N. (2010). Goal at Deutsche Telecom: More women as managers. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/business/global/16quota.html.
21. Crouch, C. (2001). Welfare state regimes and industrial relations systems: The questionable role of path dependency theory. In B. Ebbingshaus & P. Manow (Eds.), Comparing welfare capitalism: Social policy and political economy in Europe, Japan and the USA (pp. 105–124). London: Routledge.
22. Dagens Næringsliv. (2002). Gabrielsens kvinner. 8/4.
23. Dahlerup, D. (2006). Women, quotas and politics. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
24. Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella, A. A. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review,28(3), 371–382.
25. Davies (of Abersoch), L. (2011). Women on boards. (The Davies report.) London, UK government.
26. Davies (of Abersoch), L. (2013). Women on boards. Second progress report. London, UK government.
27. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy,65(2), 135–150.
28. Economist. (2011a, July 21). Still lonely at the top. The Economist.
29. Economist. (2011b, July 21). The wrong way to promote women. The Economist.
30. Englestad, F., & Teigen, M. (2012). Firms, boards and gender quotas: Comparative perspectives. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
31. Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). The social foundations of postindustrial economies. New York: Oxford University Press.
32. European Commission. (2011). The quota-instrument: Different approaches across Europe. Working paper.
33. European Commission. (2012). Women in economic decision-making in the EU: Progress report. A Europe 2020 initiative. European Union.
34. European Commission. (2013). Women and men in leadership positions in the European Union 2013: A review of the situation and recent progress. European Union.
35. European Corporate Governance Institute. (2013). http://www.ecgi.org/. Retrieved June 2.
36. Eurostat. (2012). Key data on education. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=978-92-9201-242-7. Retrieved May 23.
37. Fagan, C., González Menéndez, M., & Gómez Anson, S. (2012). Women on corporate boards and in top management: European trends and policy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
38. Freidenvall, L., Dahlerup, D., & Skjeie, H. (2006). The Nordic countries: An incremental model. In D. Dahlerup (Ed.), Women, quotas and politics (Vol. 10). London: Taylor & Francis.
39. Gladman, K. & Lamb, M. (2012). GMI ratings’ women on boards survey.
40. González Menéndez, M. C., & Martínez González, L. (2012). Spain on the Norwegian pathway: Towards a gender-balanced presence of women on corporate boards. In C. Fagan, M. C. González Menéndez, & S. Gómez Anson (Eds.), Women on corporate boards and in top management: European trends and policy (pp. 169–197). Chippenham, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
41. Gornick, J. C., Meyers, M. K., & Ross, K. E. (1997). Supporting the employment of mothers: Policy variation across fourteen welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy,7(1), 45–70.
42. Government Administration Services. (2011). [Prime Minister] Kjell Magne Bondevik’s second government. Oslo, Norway. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/the-government/previous-governments.html?id=85847. Retrieved Aug 8.
43. Government of the Netherlands. (2007). Coalition agreement. http://www.government.nl/Government/Previous_governments/Balkenende_IV_Government/Coalition_agreement. Retrieved May 9.
44. Greener, I. (2005). The potential of path dependence in political studies. Politics,25(1), 62–72.
45. Grosvold, J., & Brammer, S. (2011). National institutional systems as antecedents of female board representation: An empirical study. Corporate Governance: An International Review,19(2), 116–135.
46. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism the institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47. Henderson, A., & White, L. A. (2004). Shrinking welfare states? Comparing maternity leave benefits and child care programs in European Union and North American welfare states, 1985–2000. Journal of European Public Policy,11(3), 497–529.
48. Hibbs, D. A, Jr. (1977). Political parties and macroeconomic policy. American Political Science Review,71(4), 1467–1487.
49. Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A., & Paetzold, R. L. (2000). The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies,37(2), 235–255.
50. Hillman, A. J., Shropshire, C., & Cannella, A. A. (2007). Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal,50(4), 941–952.
51. Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal,50(6), 1385–1399.
52. Huse, M. (2011). The golden skirts: Changes in board composition following gender quotas on corporate boards. In Australian and New Zealand Academy Meeting, Wellington, NZ
53. Huse, M., Nielsen, S. T., & Hagen, I. M. (2009). Women and employee-elected board members, and their contributions to board control tasks. Journal of Business Ethics,89(4), 581–597.
54. Imbeau, L., Petry, F., & Lamari, M. (2001). Left-right party ideology and government policies: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Political Research,40(5), 1–29.
55. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and post-modernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
56. Japan Times. (2013). Aeon sets 50 % female manager goal. Retrieved May 18, 2013, from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/05/18/business/aeon-sets-50-female-manager-goal/#.UcR1MNj4JIM.
57. Jones, T. M. (1983). An integrating framework for research in business and society: A step toward the elusive paradigm? Academy of Management Review,8(4), 559–564.
58. Kanter, J. (2012, October 23). Europe postpones vote on gender quota plan. New York Times.
59. Kay, A. (2005). A critique of the use of path dependency in policy studies. Public Administration,83(3), 553–571.
60. Krook, M. L. (2010). Quotas for women in politics: Gender and candidate selection reform worldwide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61. Levi, M. (1997). A model, a method, and a map: Rational choice in comparative and historical analysis. In A. S. Zuckerman & M. I. Lichbach (Eds.), Comparative politics: Rationality, culture, and structure (pp. 19–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62. Lipset, S. M., & Rokkan, S. (1967). Party systems and voter alignments. New York: Free Press.
63. Mandel, H., & Semyonov, M. (2006). A welfare state paradox: State interventions and women’s employment opportunities in 22 countries. American Journal of Sociology,111(6), 1910–1949.
64. Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., & Thomas, G. (1987). Ontology and rationalization in the Western cultural account. In G. Thomas, J. W. Meyer, F. O. Ramirez, & J. Boli (Eds.), Institutional structure (pp. 12–37). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
65. Molina, Ó., & Rhodes, M. (2007). The political economy of adjustment in mixed market economies: A study of Spain and Italy. In B. Hancke, M. Rhodes, & M. Thatcher (Eds.), Beyond varieties of capitalism: Conflict, contradictions, and complementarities in the European economy. New York: Oxford University Press.
66. Nellie McClung Foundation. (2013). Historyof women’s rights [in Canada and Québec]. http://www.ournellie.com/womens-suffrage/history-of-womens-rights. Retrieved July 16.
67. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68. OECD. (2006). Early childhood education and care. OECD Publishing: Paris. http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/37425999.pdf. Retrieved July 24.
69. Okhuysen, G., & Bonardi, J.-P. (2011). Editor’s comments: The challenges of building theory by combining lenses. Academy of Management Review,36(1), 6–11.
70. Orloff, A. (1996). Gender in the welfare state. Annual Review of Sociology,22(1), 51–78.
71. Ostensen Noss, C. (2006). Gender equality in Norway. Strasbourg: European Commission.
72. Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Science Review,77(1), 175–190.
73. Pande, R. & Ford, D. (2011). Gender quotas and female leadership: A review. Background paper for the World Development Report.
74. Parsons, T. (1959). Voting and the equilibrium of American political system. In E. Burdick & A. J. Brodbeck (Eds.), American voting behavior (pp. 80–120). Glencoe: Free Press.
75. Peacock, L. (2012). Compulsory women on boards quota for Dubai. Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-business/9733465/Compulsory-women-on-boards-quotas-for-Dubai.html. Retrieved June 29.
76. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review,94(2), 251–267.
77. Pollack, M., & Hafner-Burton, E. (2000). Mainstreaming gender in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy,7(3), 432–456.
78. Reding, V. (2012). The route to more women on supervisory boards: an intelligent quota instead of inflexible requirement. Speech to the European Commission. November 27.
79. Regierung Online. (2011). Der Ausbau der Kinderbetreuung geht voran. http://www.bundesregierung.de/nn_1272/Content/DE/Artikel-/2011/05/2011-05-17-zwischenbericht-kinderf_C3_B6rderungsgesetz.html. Retrieved March 6.
80. Rueschemeyer, D., Stephens, E. H., & Stephens, J. D. (1992). Capitalist development and democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
81. Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management Review,32(2), 549–572.
82. Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The Semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
83. Schmidt, M. G. (1996). When parties matter: A review of the possibilities and limits of partisan influence on public policy. European Journal of Political Research,30(2), 155–183.
84. Schwindt-Bayer, L. A. (2009). Making quotas work: The effect of gender quota laws on the election of women. Legislative Studies Quarterly,34, 5–28.
85. Smith, N., Smith, V., & Verner, M. (2006). Do women in top management affect firm performance? A panel study of 2,500 Danish firms. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,55(7), 569–593.
86. Sørensen, S. Ø. (2011). Statsfeminismen møter næringslivet: Om bakgrunnen og gjennombruddet for kjønnskvotering i bedriftsstyrer som politisk reform. Tidsskrift for kjønnsforskning,2, 102–119.
87. Stepstone. (2011). Frauenquote unerwünscht (survey). http://www.stepstone.de/Ueber-StepStone/presse/frauenquote-unerwuenscht.cfm.
88. Storvik, A., & Teigen, M. (2010). Women on board: The Norwegian experience. Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation.
89. Teigen, M., & Wängnerud, L. (2009). Tracing gender equality cultures: Elite perceptions of gender equality in Norway and Sweden. Politics & Gender,5(1), 21–44.
90. Terjesen, S., Hessels, J. and Li, D. (2013). Comparative international entrepreneurship research: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206313486259AQ35.
91. Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2009). Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review,17(3), 320–337.
92. Terjesen, S., & Singh, V. (2008). Female presence on corporate boards: A multi-country study of environmental context. Journal of Business Ethics,83(1), 55–63.
93. Torchia, M., Calabrò, A., & Huse, M. (2011). Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics,102(2), 299–317.
94. Trautman, L. (2012). Board diversity: Why it matters. Working paper. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2047750. Retrieved Dec 24.
95. Traxler, F., Blaschke, S., & Kittel, B. (2001). National labour relations in internationalized markets: A comparative study of institutions, change and performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
96. Valiente, C. (1997). State feminism and gender equality policies: The case of Spain (1983–1995). In F. Gardiner (Ed.), Sex equality policy in Western Europe. London: Routledge.
97. van Oorschot, W., Opielka, W., & Pfau-Effinger, B. (2008). Culture and welfare state: Values and social policy in comparative perspective. London: Edward Edgar.
98. Van Voorhis, R. A. (2002) Different types of welfare states? A methodological deconstruction of comparative research. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 29(4), 3–18.
99. Vasudeva, G. (2013). Weaving together the normative and regulative roles of government: How the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund’s responsible conduct is shaping firms’ cross-border investments. Organization Science, 24(6), 1662–1682.
100. Westphal, J. D., & Milton, L. P. (2000). How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Administrative Science Quarterly,45, 366–398.
101. Wikigender. (2013). Gender Equality. http://www.wikigender.org/index.php/New_Home. Retrieved Nov 28.