Gender equality within boards: comparing quota and soft law

• Published in: European journal of law and economics Vol. 57; no. 1-2; pp. 1 - 35
• Main Authors: Harnay, Sophie, Llense, Fabienne, Rebérioux, Antoine, Roudaut, Gwenaël
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01-04-2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Affirmative action; Commercial Law; Committees; Compliance; Economics; Economics and Finance; Empowerment; European Integration; Females; Flexibility; Gender equity; Gender inequality; Law and Economics; Public Finance; Quotas; Timing; Women; Gender inequalities; Leadership positions; Company boards; Quota; G34; Soft law; J78; K22; Board committees; G38; J16
• ISSN: 0929-1261; 1572-9990; 1572-9346
• DOI: 10.1007/s10657-024-09795-y

In 2011, Britain and France introduced affirmative action policies aiming at improving board gender mix in listed companies. While the reforms were similar in terms of target and timing, Britain opted for a ‘soft law’ (comply or explain) approach, while France enacted a mandatory quota. Using difference-in-differences analyses, we examine the differential impact of these two reforms on board composition and on women empowerment within boards. We first show that the quota has been associated with a more rapid adjustment of the gender mix without significant disruptive effects on board composition. However, we report that the quota has induced a more limited access of women to monitoring committees within boards, relative to soft law. As these committees are the most influential, this evidence shows that the quota came at a cost when considering within-board women’s influence.