Quotas for women on boards: all the pros and cons in one place

The UK has just voted against an EU-wide quota.

The UK is opposing attempts to impose a 40 per cent quota for women on all boards for companies listed within the EU, and has just recieved enough support to block it. According to the FT, a draft letter signed by nine labour and business ministers said:

We agree with the commission’s stance that there are still too few women on the boards of publicly listed companies

[But] we reiterate that any targeted measures in this area should be devised and implemented at national level. Therefore, we do not support the adoption of legally binding provisions for women on company boards at the European level.

The FT has reported that many businesses are opposed to female quotas, with  Business Europe, the largest employers group in the EU, saying that they fail to address the real problems with equality in businesses.

It's a fraught issue, and over the last few years there's been much back-and-forth about whether quotas damage or promote women's interests. It's irritating to see the same arguments trotted out again and again, so here's a summary of some of the strongest in both directions:


1. Here's a pretty strong one to start with: quotas are the quickest and most effective way to ensure more equal numbers of men and women on boards.

2. Quotas force the break up of elite circles that might otherwise remain unchallenged.

3. If women are promoted into positions of power, they can act as positive role models for others.

4. Once on the board, women are more likely to hire more women.

5. Quotas are not disciminatory, they simply correct existing discrimination. Is there existing discrimination? Well yes, if you a) believe that there are as many competent potential female board members as their male counterparts and b) take stock of the current imbalance in numbers.


1. Quotas discriminate against the individual men who happen to be running against a woman for a seat.

2. If women are employed through quotas, they will be seen as "token", will be less respected and will have less power.

3. Quotas set women against each other, competing for a certain number of "women's seats", which might destroy co-operation and unity.

4. Instating a quota might lend businesses to view them as a ceiling rather than a floor on the number of women, stalling progress on equality in the long run.

So there they are. Have I missed any? Please leave a comment....

The first female doctor qualifies despite all male board. Photograph: Getty Images.

Martha Gill writes the weekly Irrational Animals column. You can follow her on Twitter here: @Martha_Gill.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.