It took almost ten years, but EU member states agreed last week on a European quota for women in top companies. Within five years at the latest, at least 40 percent of supervisory boards must be women, according to the member states. A quota of 33 percent is also allowed, but then one third of the boards of directors and supervisory boards combined must consist of women. That sounds like a big step, but does this women’s quota make sense? And where is the Netherlands?
“The world is not built for women in all kinds of ways,” says MEP Lara Wolters (PvdA). She is the negotiator for the proposal on behalf of parliament and now has to agree with member states exactly what it will look like. “For example: I have to ask that these negotiations not be scheduled in the evening, because then it is my son’s bath and bedtime. Men are less concerned with that.”
European Parliament already agreed in 2013
Already in 2013, the European Parliament voted in favor of a women’s quota, but the member states did not agree on the exact content. The Netherlands and Germany, among others, were obstructive. They felt that this policy should be regulated at the national level. Wolters notes that Member States now agree to it and then invoke an exception, because they already have national legislation.
In the Netherlands, for example, a women’s quota was set up for the business community at the beginning of this year. According to Wolters, that does not go far enough. After all, only a quota of one third on the supervisory board applies here. “You want to achieve maximum diversity.”
Read alsoCompanies confused about top women’s quota
Nevertheless, the Netherlands has been reluctant to implement a policy for equality between men and women for years, says Ody Neisingh, advisor at the organization Women Inc. She explains this by the ‘motherhood ideology’, which is strongly present in the Netherlands. “A woman is better at taking care of the children, or so it is thought,” she says. “A woman spends on average 1.5 times as much time on unpaid care as a man.” According to Neisingh, the lack of women at the top also has to do with the fact that Dutch women often work part-time to be able to combine work and care. Research by Women Inc. it appears that a third of parents think childcare is too expensive†
“We always have the impression that we are doing well and are very emancipated, but if you look at the numbers, it is very disappointing,” she says. “That’s unjustified self-assurance.” In 2020, only 14 percent of the CEOs of the 100 largest publicly traded companies were women. There are also companies with no women on the board or the supervisory board.
We always have the impression that we are very emancipated, but that is very disappointing
Until Tuesday, this was also the case for Sligro Food Group NV, mainly known as a catering wholesaler. “Two female commissioners will be appointed on Wednesday, Angelique de Vries-Schipperijn and Inge Plochaet,” says spokesman Wilco Jansen. “We searched very specifically for this” [naar vrouwen], because we want to meet the quota.” The two board members are male. “We’re not going to replace them just because they’re men. That would be the world upside down.”
Although the European women’s quota is part of a positive development towards greater equality, this measure alone is not enough, warns Neisingh. “We see it rather as a temporary means of correction to remove inequality and to create role models for other top women,” she says. “That is why another part of Dutch law is interesting, namely the target figure scheme.” This arrangement is not only about the top, but also about the layers below. And: large companies must draw up an action plan. The disadvantage of this ‘target figure’ is that it is non-binding, says Neisingh.
There is still a threat of non-commitment
The European quota also threatens to become too non-committal if countries continue to eat away at the binding agreements, Wolters sees. For example, member states want to be given the option to impose sanctions themselves if companies do not comply with the agreements. The 2013 plan, on the other hand, proposed generally applicable sanctions, such as fines, canceling invalid appointments and excluding European subsidies. She is also against countries that invoke an exceptional position. “I don’t want it to become a toothless proposal, because that way each Member State creates carte blanche for itself.”