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.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.