Prague 15 th June 2013 Arni Hole Director General

1. Affirmative legal actions – to whatextent, why and howcan they be used ?Norwegian experiences Prague 15th June 2013 Arni Hole Director General Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion Norway

2. Equal chances or equality in outputs ? • Everyone is pro equal chances and gender equality • Anti-discrimination and gender equality laws secures formal rights and equal opportunities • How to make real and substantial equality come true, when social structures , culture and traditions and may be lack of other supportive measures, constitute obstacles to outputs/results ?

3. Continued…. • How to develop a toolbox for implementing a political economy of equality ? • What are the possibilities, legally and otherwise ? • What works and what do not work ?

4. Some excamples from Norway: • § 21 in the GE-law, securing that all govermental appointed committees, councils, working groups etc, shall have no less than 40 % of each gender (since 1988) • The Municipal Law has, since 1993, a requirement of 40 % of each gender in all committees appointed by the elected Municipal Council

5. Continued: • The Father’s ”quota” in the paid Parental Leave law, since 1993, now 14 weeks not transferable to the mother • The legal regulations on gender balance for election to boards of governors (NON-EXECUTIVE) from 2003, 2008 and 2009

6. Continued: • Some other important, strong legislation to improve equality: The positive duty to be pro-active and report annually on gender equality in the GE law since 2003- for all private businesses and public institutions, in the law against ethnic discrimination since 2009,in the laws ensuring the rights of persons with disabilities since 2009, and from 2013 in the new law concerning the rights of LHBT in all fields of society

7. What is needed to make a legal affirmative action effective ? • Ex:The regulation for gender balance for the elected boards of governors in certain company laws, may not have been so effective without a comprehensive and universal system of family provisions to make it possible for women – as men – to have both careers and children. • The women were already in the labour market displaying their competence and education when the regulations came…..

8. Continued… • Important: A culture – both in business and public life, where the values of equality is deeply embedded • Key word: Talents are evenly divided among the genders; 62 % of graduates are women • An understanding of the need for a society and it’s private sector as well, to employ all talents as to compete and grow • The smart economy: Harvest the profit of the investments in higher education !

9. What happened in 2002/2003 ? • The then conservative/liberal/christian demo. Goverment decided to amend five company laws with a requirement of 40 % of either sex for elections to the boards of governors; the most wellknown: The PLCs, the listed companies • No quotas for administrative positions; that would not be legal in Norway (even if we have the right to moderate legal affirmative action when competing for jobs…) • Legal sanctions for not complying with the rules follows the same pattern as 35 years back; concerning requirements for setting up a legally operating board (any company) Can be dissolved by court or have a large fine • 2 years of transition to meet requirements (the PLC’s had 4) • The ordinary privately owned Companies (240.000) were not regulated, because they do not have a broad spread of shares/seeking investments from many sources or owned by the public (state or municipalities)

10. Company laws were amended in 2003, 2008, 2009 • What were the political expectations to be met by the law amendments ? • To what extent have expectations been met ? • Other spin-off effects ? • Lessons learned how to change corporate cultures, removing hindrances of gender stereotypes as to recruit able persons to positions, regardless of gender ?

11. Expectations: • To break the gender biased corporate culture notion of ”economic decisionmaking as a male domain” • To increase real numbers of the underrepresented gender in elections to board of governors of the listed (and 6 other types ) companies • To harvest profit /return on investment in free higher education

12. Further: • To widen democratic representation in the upper echelons of economy;where legally possible • To boost gender equality – in a general sense • To stimulate new images of women and men • To eradicate the indirect discrimination of women beeing ”seen” only as mere representations of their sex, (group stereotyping women) rather than able persons/individuals with many capacities

13. Results and effects: • Real numbers; 40 % or more, of the underrerpesented gender elected to boards of governors in seven different company types (appr. 2000 companies; appr.300 listed companies) • An abundance of able female individuals ”seen”, invited to be om short-lists, and elected to such positions • Changes in corporate cultures and mental images of what competences an elected board of gov.’s should possess

14. Spin-offs: • Excellent open and exciting public discussions on gender equality in its deepest and most profound sense • New and relevant social and economic research, also for further policy making • A new understanding of why universal systems of early child care, paid parental leave (incl.earmarked father’s leave ), flexibility in work life as to reconcile work and family, etc. are of vital importance to change corporate cultures, enhance gender equality and employ all talents…. (along with keeping up the fertility rate)

15. Still: • Dissappointment in the sense that these gender balanced boards of governors did not – ”immediately” - recruite and hire female CEO’s (top managers), probably this will change over time • General Assemblies did not - ”immediately” – choose female chairpersons of the boards (only 8 % of the listed companies’ boards have a female chair) • The regulations did not have an ”immediate” spin-off effect down the line in the corporations: more women in line management; though this is increasing (between 20 and 30 %)

16. What now ? • However, after Parliament voted pro, corporate sector did set up good and relevant programmes for diversity and for recruiting /shortlisting persons of both genders for boardroom elections and for competing for top management • I wonder if this would have happened without the legal regulations ? (Hardly…)

17. Summing up: • The legal regulations were never seen as a ”quick fix” to all aspects of gender equality or corporate life…. • It was seen, and is seen, as one tool in a rich tool-box to increase GE, boost eradication of hindrances to recruit and retain the best persons of either gender to boards of governors • To change corporate cultures /increase diversity - to cope with global competetion • To get return on investment in education

18. Why legal actions ? • It is not a human right to be elected to a board room, most men do not sit on boards. But it is a human right to be seen and acknowlegded as a competent person, not biased by stereotyping of your sex. • Not to be seen, could be indirect, gender based discrimination • Benjamin Disraeli (former liberal British PM ) once said: ”Genuin politics is to have power, and to distribute it”.