From the article
"Breaking the glass ceiling

Reding said that after decades of empty promises and failed attempts at self-regulation, it was time for the European Commission to take action.

Today, men comprise 91% of executive board members, 85% on non-executive board members and 96.8% of the boardroom chairs. Women account for 60% of new university graduates."

Yes... That's an interesting point. It's also ehm... not at all relevant :-)

It takes time to get from a University diploma to a publicly traded company's boardroom. The real question is how many college graduates were there at the time when the average board member got his/her degree!!!

It's beyond infuriating.

1. we do not live in a free market society, and we never have, and we never will. We live in a collection of representative democracies - whose economics policies tend toward free marketing for SOME industries.

People don't want to do the research required to learn about such companies, and have appointed representatives to do it for them.

2. The EU founding principles includes subsidiarity - which is a subsidiary (in this case the members states) should act on any issues where it can more effectively be dealt with at that level.

Or basically the lowest possible level / most local government should handle any issues where feasible.

This is an issue of removing competition between states. If one state regulates their economy differently than another HQs of large offending businesses could move to the next country. For this regulation to be effective it must be EU wide.

The expansion of the EU's boarders is very well controlled. Some would consider the expansion of an Empire to be a positive step toward increasing the power. The EU has strict limits (morrocco attempted to join but was rejected on the basis of not being in Europe) and it strictly controls who should be allowed join (though Greece shouldn't have been allowed into the Euro-zone) Bulgaria and Rumania have not been allowed use the Euro currency, nor have their citizens been granted freedom of movement and right to work in the EU. As such they are carefully controlling the RATE of growth, the RATE of economic integration of new economies joining the common market. And limiting the impact so the transition can be predicted and business can adapt.

3. Because in a society where higher level thinking is not encouraged, and the general public has simple ideas painted for them by politicians, there is no room for shades of grey, there is simply black and white.

4. More time? it has been hundreds of years of oppression. Women have had the power to vote for a different number of years depending on the country (and new applicants which didn't allow them to vote would not be allowed to join the EU - which is an example of the ability of the EU to project it's power beyond it's boarders)

@redhouse - it is an example the women are applying themselves (and being more included by education) They are doing better in universities, but they later in life tend to be excluded from higher level managment positions, either because of their personal life (starting a family) or preference for a more friendly co-operative environment (which allows for those 9% of female executive board members who thrive in a cut throat board exec world)

There are countless examples of women managing large and successful charities where this culture of management is very different.

Have i addressed all your whinges?

1. I most certainly do *not* appoint representatives to find out how many female board members a company employs. It would be the *absolute last thing* I'd ask these people to do.

2. So what's your conlusion? I hope it's not that the principle of subsidiarity has been respected in this case, because I believe my country, yours, and any other EU country I know can take care of itself perfectly well.

3. lol

4. And that's a good thing. Countries that have not introduced women's suffrage have no part in the EU. That being said, women's suffrage has very little to do with the subject at hand. That's about *equal* rights, and I'm all for equal rights and in fact, I believe there is still terrain to be won in the equal rights area. This topic is about giving women *special* rights. That's something I strenuously oppose. Down with that affirmative action horse-crap. Like you say, women perhaps prefer to start a family, or to work in a more level co-operative environment (in the Nordic countries for example, you basically see all state and government jobs filled with women and company jobs filled with men, this measure would be an absolute horror for these countries, since you'd have to recruit people with a government background to lead your company: no bueno). And you know what? Perhaps lots of women like to work in the cut throat board exec world like many men do. Why not have honest competition for these jobs?

This Reding plan is absolutely terrible. It violates nations' (not states, we're not the USE, we're the European Union, we have sovereign states with armies, governments, different alliances etc.) and if we want to go that way, I'm cool with that: but we have to *decide* to go that way and not have it forced upon us by a plethora of measures that eventually get us there. And I vote no.

*nations' rights

4. No, the topic of equal rights and equal opportunities crosses over quite clearly into a question of culture.

There is a business culture and practice which is excluding women. The political culture is now one which includes women and thus gives them the power to change the rest of our society.

Fundamentally, I would consider to be a good thing.

2. Fair point, the principle of subsidiarity has been ignored largely where and when nations states have felt like ignoring it. (as far as i can tell) I would argue in favour of this being an EU wide action so companies are not choosing where to do their business based on local laws - that would be a free market with a level playing field for all.

How and ever, in reality i think that individual governments like to pass the buck up to the EU and allow decisions to be made at a higher level to then use the EU as a scapegoat - they can tell their electorate that the were forced by the EU (not even blaming any individual country) Meanwhile when campaigning to people who are in favour they are able to say, 'Yes, we supported Europe-wide action on this issue' and thus get the best of both worlds.

- on an aside, i think recruiting to government people who have business expierence is a great idea, that they can then go back to business after a single term might also benefit business...

On a pedantic note, we are member nations of the EU. are google 'EU member ' and the first suggestion is states not nations... but it is a largely trivial distinction (the state UK is made up of three and a bit nations (england, wales, scotland and some of ireland)... the nation of ireland is ruled by two states (the republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland)

"There is a business culture and practice which is excluding women. The political culture is now one which includes women and thus gives them the power to change the rest of our society."

-Where, in heaven's name? Which company is particularly misogynous?

You know, companies who discriminate women because they are women fail automatically, because they don't have the best people at the helm to do the job and they will simply lose the competition battle against companies who do.

Companies now realize that women are very important both in their workforce, but also as customers (the two are obviously related, if you want to attract women as customers, you better have some on your payroll). Particularly auto companies learnt this lesson during the past decades. We don't need Viviane Reding to tell us that.

@ redhouse: "Why can't *consumers* (we do still live in a free market society, don't we? I didn't get a memo on any revolution) just *punish* companies that they feel are understaffed with women at the top?"

- No, we don't live in a free market society, you're mistaken. We have what's known as a "mixed economy", and have done for a long time.

- Consumers do not generally behave in the way you indicate. When you are out shopping, do you honestly do this? You decide which brand of breakfast cereal to purchase depending on the gender balance of the cereal company's board of directors, do you? Honestly? No, you don't, and neither do other consumers. This is not an issue which can be resolved by consumer choice alone.

@Jamie,

There's no "issue". Have you ever seen a MEP on the campaign trail for this rule?

Also, to answer your question, YES, I do consider morals when I go shopping. For instance, I stopped taking gasoline from BP stations after the Gulf of Mexico thing. *That* was a real issue. *This* isn't.

So... to be clear, these companies could hire persons who are have male sex organs but have female gender, right? They could keep their all-male-by-birth status if they hire transgendered folks, yes?

Touché.

No, I'm being serious, redhouse. Is the EU progressive enough to recognize these transgendered company board executives who wish to change in the women's locker room without their passports?

'You know, companies who discriminate women because they are women fail automatically, because they don't have the best people at the helm to do the job and they will simply lose the competition battle against companies who do.'

False, if there is a culture among business professionals across any given industry - a best practice and how they all think they 'should' behave - then no single company will have the advantage.

Your simplistic market models rely entirely on rational economics which assumes that all humans are rational agents without taking into account cultural influences (ie that some male dominated industries, like computer games, tend to produce misogynistic games for a male audience - thus excluding the majority of the female audience, and decreasing the interest of girls in computer games and resulting in a reinforcement of the industry male domination; or perhaps the female dominated fashion industry, which has a model of female body that similarly excludes part of the audience)

There may be a process where the 'free market' slowly changes toward what you describe, but there are barriers which prevent change, such as vested interest in the current system, and monopolistic behaviour across companies.

This is an example where it is possible for government to relieve the worst problems of a free market system by regulating it.

@dubmdell, i suspect the EU does not determine gender/sex of citizens, and that powre is left up to individual member states.

As such, your question could easily vary by nation.

"False, if there is a culture among business professionals across any given industry - a best practice and how they all think they 'should' behave - then no single company will have the advantage."

-Evidence, orathaic, evidence. Which line of business, or which business, is particularly misogynous? The burden of proof is on *you*. *You* make an accusation against businesses that they deliberately *exclude* women *because* they are women and it's up to you to prove right here, right now, that they do.

"Your simplistic market models rely entirely on rational economics which assumes that all humans are rational agents without taking into account cultural influences (ie that some male dominated industries, like computer games, tend to produce misogynistic games for a male audience - thus excluding the majority of the female audience, and decreasing the interest of girls in computer games and resulting in a reinforcement of the industry male domination; or perhaps the female dominated fashion industry, which has a model of female body that similarly excludes part of the audience)"

You have *got* to be kidding me. How about games like Pokemon and the Sims? Haven't the companies who made these benefited from the fact that girls / women respectively enjoyed these games? Have they not scratched their head and thought "hey look, with 50% of the world's people are women and our games are so far addressing men, this could be an interesting market!"'?

"There may be a process where the 'free market' slowly changes toward what you describe, but there are barriers which prevent change, such as vested interest in the current system, and monopolistic behaviour across companies."

I want evidence of the all-men-against-the-girls conspiracy. Now.

"This is an example where it is possible for government to relieve the worst problems of a free market system by regulating it. "
I can hardly believe this.

Tl;dr, for businesses to be the best, they have got to attract both female customers as well as female personnel. Those who don't, lose market share or simply disappear. The market will solve this problem and is doing so as we speak.

@dub again lol. I refer you to what I said about transgendered people earlier :P

I'm from the U.S. by the way....

>>Reding pushes 40% female quota on corporate boards

As a female, I have my own opinion.

I don't think it's a government's right to push who you hire. They can say "well, make sure you hire on merit" but what if the female candidates just don't have merit and the males are far and above any female candidates?"

For instance, I work as a contractor in IT, which is primarily men. I have rarely worked with females in the programming and IT world and although there are talented women out there in this industry, they are hard to find. Most of the women I have worked with are definitely the bottom of the barrel in talent and I personally would not hire them for my own company.

So if the government thinks it can mandate who to hire for CEOs, what's to stop them from pushing it to all industries. There are just some industries with the lack of applicants of the opposite gender.

My husband is a male nurse. He is one of the few among hundreds of females. What if the government mandated 40% male nurses -- where would they even find that many?

Equality is a great idea, but forcing it is ridiculous and where will it stop.

Instead, if they want equality, how about providing funds to help educate minorities and help minority owned businesses. The U.S. has these programs (which incidentally aren't that helpful unless you have a LOT of time to work the red tape and I don't).

Typical government looking for votes by playing the sex card.
The glass ceiling isn't real. More men get MBAs then women and that is why they fill corporate boards.

Adjusting for education and work experience, women get the same pay etc. as men do. The difference is women are less likely to get degrees like engineering or an MBA (high paying degrees) and women get less job experience then men because they are more likely take time off work to raise kids.

"If member states and companies show us that they have made all the necessary arrangements that we think should be sufficient to reach the 40%, and that despite all the efforts they have made in reaching out to qualified women through having a transparent election procedure and in giving preference to equally qualified women, then that would mean there would be no sanctions,"

That should account for the IT, particle physics and any other boys industry out there.

Thanks Moondust, that's a very interesting contribution. I'd hoped women step up and disagree with the measure, because I personally find it harms the position of women; all women who would have gotten the top jobs on their own merits will now be mistrusted by men who feel the only reason she got the job was because of this draconian 40% rule.

Thanks Fasces.

@ulytau,

I don't understand what you're implying :(

@ redhouse: "The market will solve this problem and is doing so as we speak."

1. First you say that this "isn't a real issue"... Now you're describing it as a problem. Make up your mind!

2. Evidence, redhouse, evidence. Prove that the market is solving this problem. The burden of proof is on *you*. *You* claim that the market is solving this problem and it's up to you to prove right here, right now, that it is.

You're too focused on semantics

You're too focused on not answering part 2 of my post. MAN UP.

Burden of proof? you are making the claim that if the market was free people would naturally hire the best.

Please provide some evidence.

'You have *got* to be kidding me. How about games like Pokemon and the Sims? Haven't the companies who made these benefited from the fact that girls / women respectively enjoyed these games? ' - yes, because after thirty years the industry has slowly begun to change as new companies are setup targeting a new audience.

That doesn't mean that the old companies don't still exist and still target the male audience...

'I want evidence of the all-men-against-the-girls conspiracy. Now.' - i never made such a claim, and you are making yourself look like an idiot be intentionally misinterpreting my words.

You make it clear that you are not interested in dialogue, while not supporting your own position with evidence.

I question your position and make an alternative claim, you state that i have no evidence without providing your own.

i'm done wasting my time answering your questions until you are willing to engage in a discussion.

In the past 6 months 44 % of new uk board members have been women (see BBC for details). Would you look at that? The issue is solving itself without any need for any expensive and unwelcome EU meddling!

No doubt, however, in ten years time they'll claim credit for it regardless. And no doubt the same sort of fools who believe the EU is the only think that stopped Europe fighting WW3 will believe that as well.

@moondust, thanks for your perspective.

I would like to point out the huge difference between american and european cultures.

if i was in the US i might prefer to own a gun, as i live in europe i prefer to not.

Similarily, if i lived in the US i might argue that government involvement was negative, while in the EU i do claim the opposite.

Each super-state is entitled to do things it's own way, and diversity is a great thing.

So, I might claim that what is good for america isn't necessarily good for Europe, because of the cultural differences. Which essentially dismisses your opinion, perhaps a little unfairly, you could equally say that my opinion as a man doesn't reflect fairly on female culture and thus should be entirely ignored.

However, i will go further, there is a reason that boys are doing badly in elementary school in america. They have few male role-models - about 98% of american elementary school teachers are female (the reverse problem which afflicts board room / CEO employment) This leaves many young boys in schools behind as they don't see 'being academic' and achieving at school as a 'boyish' thing to do (or often this is the case - many boys do have academic fathers, but i doubt that is a majority) This is a problem which i think should be addressed to improve learning for those boys who are being left out.

In America i would not suggest that the federal government step in to fix this issue, i think it would be better solved at a local level, by local school boards. There is a massive difference here - no local school is going to jump state and setup across the border in order to escape harsh hiring rules, in the EU companies are free to move capital and jobs across border because of the common market which redhouse approves so much of. (i assume, i suspect he thinks the EU should be nothing but a common market with no regulation of that commercial space)

@octavious: to quote to opening article: 'Today, men comprise 91% of executive board members, 85% on non-executive board members and 96.8% of the boardroom chairs. '

board members are less of an issue, 40% of boardroom members by 2020 guarentees what you claim will happen anyway - thus making this whole argument moot.

If this regulation will change nothing then what have you to complain about? (ok, to be fair, it was redhouse who complained...)

aside, it is still the case there are fewer chairs and executive board room members of those 44% appointed in the UK - AND 44% is still less than parity.

for a british prespective see: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/224476

Why is parity important?

"board members are less of an issue, 40% of boardroom members by 2020 guarentees what you claim will happen anyway - thus making this whole argument moot."

It does make a whole argument moot, orathaic: yours!

If society can deal with a "problem" (there is no problem *at all*, but let's assume for the sake of conversation there is) then the government should *never* involve itself in this problem.

"aside, it is still the case there are fewer chairs and executive board room members of those 44% appointed in the UK - AND 44% is still less than parity. "
"Why is parity important? "

Parity is not important. When I went to University, women studied a lot of stuff that wasn't economically relevant, such as psychology, history, etc.. Women are - in general - not as money-driven as men are and you will find much less women than men wanting boardroom positions (also for other reasons such as women, compared to men, being usually the ones that invest more time in the children).

"However, i will go further, there is a reason that boys are doing badly in elementary school in america. They have few male role-models - about 98% of american elementary school teachers are female (the reverse problem which afflicts board room / CEO employment) This leaves many young boys in schools behind as they don't see 'being academic' and achieving at school as a 'boyish' thing to do (or often this is the case - many boys do have academic fathers, but i doubt that is a majority) This is a problem which i think should be addressed to improve learning for those boys who are being left out."

Then their fathers will have to take responsibility, imposing a rule that requires a certain percentage of primary school teachers to be men will simply result in a shortage of teachers. I also don't see how differences between the US example of Moondust and my EU example are at all relevant.

Tl;dr
It's a terrible rule, society can take care of this. (Societies, that is, the different European societies)

@orathaic

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-31/women-as-directors-beat-men-only-boards-in-company-stock-return.html

There ya go. Companies with women in their boardrooms perform better, so in a capitalist society company will hire women to stay competitive, so the Reding plan is not necessary. Thanks for playing though.

Em, so you are claiming that the Reding plan will do nothing bad (as it will happen anyway) but i'm claiming that it isn't happening fast enough because your naive assumptions about human behaviour and rational decision making are flawed.

Well done for trying!

Did you even see the link?

"I think these policies go too far."

"And I think these policies don't go too far enough!"

'If society can deal with a "problem" (there is no problem *at all*, but let's
assume for the sake of conversation there is) then the government should
*never* involve itself in this problem.'

I believe you will find that in a democracy government is of the people, by the people and for the people - i do not see how you can imagine that government is not a part of society - society CAN solve this problem; and good governance is the best way to do so - as years of promised self-regulation by business uas NOT done so.

'Parity is not important. When I went to University, women studied a lot of stuff that wasn't economically relevant, such as psychology, history, etc.. Women are - in general - not as money-driven as men are and you will find much less women than men wanting boardroom positions (also for other reasons such as women, compared to men, being usually the ones that invest more time in the children).'

When a society becomes dominated by corporations which hold more power than governments, then it is impprtant for the decision makers in these institutions to be both able to consider both male and female perspectives - the fact that money may not interest some women just mean businesses should find a different incentive - because as you have shown businesses with women at the top do better.


'Then their fathers will have to take responsibility, imposing a rule that requires a certain percentage of primary school teachers to be men will simply result in a shortage of teachers. '

I'm glad you find a problem wity everything, but do not attempt to find solutions - generating new problems is not a bad thing if they can help solve greater issues - if you don't think boys being disenfranchised by their education system is a bad thing then i'm sure solving this problem isn't important to you - but i hope you never get mugged by some disenfranchised teenaged boy who has dropped out and no other way to make money...

women-as-directors-beat-men-
only-boards-in-company-stock-return.

I saw this much of the link, don't have time to explain why you're wrong all day.

Actually dubmdell i agree, not far enough.

The policy should also require that 40% of boardroom member be male.

orathaic,

Let's agree to disagree.

Personally, I see two positive developments;
1. The number of women in their corporate boards is slowly on the rise
2. The companies that have women in their corporate boards outperforms companies without them.

The EC decision will only frustrate this development, since in the future, women in the board will be suspected to have acquired their position only on the merits of being women, whereas currently, they are there because the company believed they were the best person for the position.

The second problem is that I don't see how the EU should be taking measures like this. Why can't Ireland, or the Netherlands, or any other country take care of this?

The third problem is consumers: women have a gigantic purchasing power. If women are so concerned about this problem, why do you never see them on the streets booing certain corporations that they feel are misogynous?

And again, I ask you, which companies do you feel are particularly misogynous?

I have addressed your second issue when discussing subsidiarity.

Your first is an issue; but only the best women AVAILABLE will get these positions - howeer i agree that they may have less say or weight than they would if they earned the positions on merit alone.

And to your last question, i suspect the powerless feelng most peoppe have when a government makes a decision they don't like is equally apparently when a company does - there are countless examples of countries having revolutions whereas there are few examples (which i am aware of) where companies have been destroyed by grass roots activism.

Companies have huge advertising budgets to propoganda with, while grass roots movemets have far less sway over public opinion. As such the game is heavily stacked in favour of corporations.

A small effect may be a blip on their profits which isn't worth fixing - whereas the games industry now has some female bosses who are expanding their audiece (by makig good games for girls) and protecting their female customer from sexist abuse (in online games such as COD, where bullying is a standard part of the culture)

There may be potential for massive improvement whih current all male boards do not see or appreciate. (or the majority do not see, though some men are not completely blind)

Do i feel companies are particularily misyognous? Well advertising is, it tends to reinforce cultural stereotyping and hurts both men and women - but mostly women because the culture which exists has been busy oppressing women for about ten thousand years (and free markets haven't stopped this overnight, whatever you might think)

But lets agree to disagree and move on - should ~10% of male board members be gay to discourage homophobia?

I've got a cunning plan. Why not choose 100% of board members based on their ability to do the job?

Sorry, I know that doesn't really add anything to the debate, but I've read the whole damned thread and it just seems crazy.

Yeah, I don't really know what to say anymore. There's simply not enough substance to this debate.

Yes Octavious, lets just assume that the world will be a better place on it's own and not have ANY laws!

@Octavious
>>I've got a cunning plan. Why not choose 100% of board members based on their ability to do the job?
Here here.
>>I've read the whole damned thread and it just seems crazy.
Ditto.