{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018467220683287166, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.373529411764705, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Gender quotas in corporate decision-making bodies – regulatory promotion of equality of results in the EU

ABSTRACT EU and its member states utilise the paradigm of equality of results in the area of gender equality. In addition to preferences in standardised jobs, states have also been using quotas in corporate and political bodies. Those seem to be best testing grounds, as the arguments supporting their use of quotas are non-controversial. The nature of their work also allows for a laxer application of formal equality, originally tailored to highly competitive activities that necessarily hinge on merit. Regarding quotas in decision-making bodies generally, the argument from democracy stresses the lack of legitimacy for decisions reached by unbalanced representation of genders. This attenuates the normative strength of adopted policies and regulations and renders their acceptance and enforcement difficult. A supporting argument is one from diversity, positing a greater quality of decisions reached and better business performance due to greater responsiveness to the need of the voting/consumer base. The democracy and diversity arguments both are not grounded in distributive justice. However, their utilitarian logic appeals to a market democracy and makes them forerunners in terms of quota justifications. Arguments that, in turn, are based on distributive justice echo anti-subordination theory and stress the quotas’ impact on rebalancing of power. A critical mass of women in decision-making bodies should enhance female social capital. This should symbolically spill over into a newfound self-respect for the whole community, and lift women up through ancillary instruments such as female professional networking, mentoring and sponsorship. One of the main reasons for this that the bluntness of the quota system severs the informal social phenomenon of networking. The ‘gatekeeper’ phenomenon is based on the homophily principle that has traditionally hindered women from ‘rising through the ranks’. In this way, quotas also protect from unconscious bias, which influences social solidarity and disrupts reproduction of set centres of power.