Feminizing Capital: A Corporate Imperative

Darren Rosenblum
{"title":"Feminizing Capital: A Corporate Imperative","authors":"Darren Rosenblum","doi":"10.15779/Z388S0H","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The economic crisis has upended the divide between the public sector and the corporate world, as governments engage in mass intervention in the private sector. This crisis has exposed the need for new leadership in the corporate world. Gendered understandings of economic relations have surfaced – some argue that testosterone encourages excessive greed in boom cycles and fear in bust cycles, or that women can help clean up the mess. This Article explores capital’s Achilles heel – the exclusion of women from its leadership ranks – and one innovative remedy for this shortcoming. Despite a plethora of political representation quotas for women throughout the world, only Norway has instituted a quota to integrate women into corporate leadership. Passed in 2004, the Corporate Board Quota forces all publicly-listed companies to repopulate their boards to reflect a forty percent floor for either gender by the deadline of January 1, 2008, upon penalty of dissolution. This draconian penalty induced all covered corporations to comply. Norway’s dramatic intervention to feminize capital reflects a public/private symbiosis in which the public norm of gender equality infuses private efforts, even as private goals such as economic growth drive public policy. Relying on studies that showed the advantages of a broader pool of corporate leadership, Norway succeeded in transforming its corporate boards. Gender balance has increased and we await the results with regard to corporate performance. Such novel economically and socially optimal remedies for entrenched inequality support the rising purchase of a public/private symbiosis. Although U.S. jurisprudence eschews quotas, the economic crisis has begun to diminish free-market proponents’ fear of public intervention. The CBQ’s novel interaction between the public and private sectors heralds the beginning of a broader conversation about the relationship between effective corporate governance and gender.","PeriodicalId":326069,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Business Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Berkeley Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z388S0H","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

The economic crisis has upended the divide between the public sector and the corporate world, as governments engage in mass intervention in the private sector. This crisis has exposed the need for new leadership in the corporate world. Gendered understandings of economic relations have surfaced – some argue that testosterone encourages excessive greed in boom cycles and fear in bust cycles, or that women can help clean up the mess. This Article explores capital’s Achilles heel – the exclusion of women from its leadership ranks – and one innovative remedy for this shortcoming. Despite a plethora of political representation quotas for women throughout the world, only Norway has instituted a quota to integrate women into corporate leadership. Passed in 2004, the Corporate Board Quota forces all publicly-listed companies to repopulate their boards to reflect a forty percent floor for either gender by the deadline of January 1, 2008, upon penalty of dissolution. This draconian penalty induced all covered corporations to comply. Norway’s dramatic intervention to feminize capital reflects a public/private symbiosis in which the public norm of gender equality infuses private efforts, even as private goals such as economic growth drive public policy. Relying on studies that showed the advantages of a broader pool of corporate leadership, Norway succeeded in transforming its corporate boards. Gender balance has increased and we await the results with regard to corporate performance. Such novel economically and socially optimal remedies for entrenched inequality support the rising purchase of a public/private symbiosis. Although U.S. jurisprudence eschews quotas, the economic crisis has begun to diminish free-market proponents’ fear of public intervention. The CBQ’s novel interaction between the public and private sectors heralds the beginning of a broader conversation about the relationship between effective corporate governance and gender.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
资本女性化:企业的当务之急
随着各国政府对私营部门进行大规模干预,经济危机颠覆了公共部门与企业界之间的鸿沟。这场危机暴露出企业界需要新的领导层。对经济关系的性别理解已经浮出水面——一些人认为,睾酮在繁荣周期中鼓励过度贪婪,在萧条周期中鼓励恐惧,或者女性可以帮助收拾残局。本文探讨了资本的阿喀琉斯之踵——将女性排除在领导阶层之外——以及一种创新的补救方法。尽管世界各地都有过多的女性政治代表配额,但只有挪威制定了将女性纳入企业领导层的配额。2004年通过的公司董事会配额规定,要求所有上市公司在2008年1月1日截止日期前重新增加董事会成员,使男女比例达到40%,否则将处以解散罚款。这一严厉的处罚促使所有受保公司遵守。挪威对资本女性化的戏剧性干预反映了一种公共/私人的共生关系,在这种共生关系中,性别平等的公共规范注入了私人的努力,甚至像经济增长这样的私人目标也推动了公共政策。有研究表明,更广泛的企业领导层具有优势,挪威依靠这些研究成功地改革了公司董事会。性别平衡有所增加,我们正在等待有关公司业绩的结果。这种针对根深蒂固的不平等的新颖的、经济上和社会上最优的补救措施,支持了越来越多地购买公共/私人共生关系。尽管美国的法律避免配额,但经济危机已经开始减少自由市场支持者对公共干预的恐惧。CBQ在公共和私营部门之间的新颖互动预示着有关有效公司治理与性别之间关系的更广泛对话的开始。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Social Responsibility of Business Is Not Social Responsibility: Assume That There Are No Angels and Allow the Free Market's Touch of Heaven Piercing the Corporate Veil: Historical, Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives Effectively Discharging Fiduciary Duties in IP-Rich M&A Transactions The Enigma of Hostile Takeovers in Japan: Bidder Beware National Security Review in Foreign Investments: A Comparative and Critical Assessment on China and U.S. Laws and Practices
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1