One of the most exciting corporate law changes for 2008 to watch is the transformation of corporate governance in Europe. In particular, ever since the WSJ carried a story last month about gender and corporate governance in Norway, which the Economist followed this past week, I have been very excited for the study of gender and organizational change in corporations. As the WSJ reported, “A 2003 law requires every publicly traded company in Norway to have a certain number of women on its board by Jan. 1 or risk being shut down.” The magic percentage of women directors that Norway wants to see is 40 percent. Similarly, Spain has introduced legislation to increase the number of women directors. Board diversity has been an issue of many academic papers but much of the debate has been focused on normative issues or based on tracking board diversity through a small number of board members. With Norway’s legislation coming into effect, we have an important experiment where we can test a number of hypotheses. My hunch has always been that only marginal increases in board diversity in terms of gender or race would not make a significant difference to a company’s bottom line because any push for organizational change by these new board members would face the same sort of problem that any sort of change faces in large organizations-difficulties in implementation because of firm bureaucracy, path dependence and general firm intransigence to manage change effectively. Here we have a wonderful case study at the country level where more or less overnight the percentage of new directors has changed. I suspect that with significant institutional change, there will be less path dependency for Norwegian companies. A critical mass of new board members may question some of the business as usual assumptions of previous boards. On gender specific issues, perhaps some of these new boards will implement more effective policies for flexible work schedules to keep talented women from exiting the workforce. Over time, we will be able to amass enough data to see if the quality and effectiveness of Norwegian companies’ corporate governance improves and if this change may be due in part to changes in the boardroom. Will Norwegian companies perform better than other European companies? There are potentially interesting policy implications for this development in the United States. I hope that academics track the implications of these changes closely.
| Bookmark
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200e54fd9ab228834
Links to weblogs that reference Norway and Gender Diversity in Corporate Boards:
1. Posted by Law Student on January 9, 2008 @ 13:44 | Permalink
Thanks for this post! I'm always puzzzled why companies don't realize the economic value of women. As a woman, perhaps I'm biased, but from my perspective companies only benefit.
Much has been made of the increased competition in law school and medical school. Well, duh! Once women were admitted in significant numbers, the talent pool doubled and the quality of the applicant pool went up. Literally, the graduates of today's law schools and medical schools are twice as talented as graduates from 50 years ago because the schools can choose from twice as many applicants and take only the best. (Add in minorities, etc, and you can see why today's students are smarter than ever).
In video games, companies that have been able to appeal to women have also had record profits. The Sims--one of the first to include women on the development team and the best selling game to women--set records in the industry. The Wii, in addition to appealin to all ages, also appeals to more women and has become a best seller.
Without women in significant numbers in the company, and on the board, businesses kise out on talent and they lose out on opportunities with their female customers. Since women spend more money than men, this is a stupid mistake for companies to make. (American men are third in consumer spending. American women and Japanese women are the world's top consumer spenders).
These examples make it seem obvious that companies need to pay attention to women, and it is hard to do that without putting women in significant positions of power in your company.
- Jake on Goodbye blaw
- Joe on Goodbye blaw
- Anon on SpongeBob at
- Former Customer on Talbots & J.
- Lutz Barz on Jack Welch,
- Jake on Mixed Signal
- ohwilleke on Another Look
- ohwilleke on Co-ops to th
- ohwilleke on Simplicity L
- ohwilleke on Jack Welch,
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |






