Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 128, Issue 2, pp 233–251 | Cite as

Legislating a Woman’s Seat on the Board: Institutional Factors Driving Gender Quotas for Boards of Directors

  • Siri TerjesenEmail author
  • Ruth V. Aguilera
  • Ruth Lorenz


Ten countries have established quotas for female representation on publicly traded corporate and/or state-owned enterprise boards of directors, ranging from 33 to 50 %, with various sanctions. Fifteen other countries have introduced non-binding gender quotas in their corporate governance codes enforcing a “comply or explain” principle. Countless other countries’ leaders and policy groups are in the process of debating, developing, and approving legislation around gender quotas in boards. Taken together, gender quota legislation significantly impacts the composition of boards of directors and thus the strategic direction of these publicly traded and state-owned enterprises. This article outlines an integrated model of three institutional factors that explain the establishment of board of directors gender quota legislation based on the premise that the country’s institutional environment co-evolves with gender corporate policies. We argue that these three key institutional factors are female labor market and gendered welfare state provisions, left-leaning political government coalitions, and path-dependent policy initiatives for gender equality, both in the public realm as well as in the corporate domain. We discuss implications of our conceptual model and empirical findings for theory, practice, policy, and future research. These include the adoption and penalty design of board diversity practices into corporate practices, bottom-up approaches from firm to country-level gender board initiatives, hard versus soft regulation, the leading role of Norway and its isomorphic effects, the likelihood of engaging in decoupling, the role of business leaders, and the transnational and international reaction to board diversity initiatives.


Corporate governance Gender equality Board gender codes Board gender quotas Welfare state Left-leaning political coalitions Path dependency Publicly traded firms State-owned enterprises 



We are grateful to Section Editor Professor Thomas Clarke, the five reviewers, Miguel Glatzer, and Siri Øyslebø Sørensen for their comments on earlier versions. We also thank the policy makers involved in this legislation in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland for acting as our sounding board.


  1. Adams, R. B., & Kirchmeier, T. (2013). Making it to the top: From female labor force participation to boardroom gender diversity. Working paper.Google Scholar
  2. Aguilera, R. V., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2004). The spread of codes of good governance worldwide: What’s the trigger? Organization Studies, 25(3), 415–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aguilera, R. V., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2009). Codes of good governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 376–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aguilera, R. V., Desdender, K., & Kabbach de Castro, L. R. (2012). A bundle perspective to comparative corporate governance. In T. Clarke & D. Branson (Eds.), Sage handbook of corporate governance. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Aguilera, R. V., Goyer, M., & Kabbach de Castro, L. R. (2013). Regulation and comparative corporate governance regulation. In M. Wright, D. S. Siegel, K. Keasey, & I. Filatotchev (Eds.), Handbook of corporate governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. (2003). The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 365–447.Google Scholar
  7. Aguilera, R. V., Williams, C., Conley, J., & Rupp, D. (2006). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility. A comparative analysis of the UK and the US. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14(3), 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ahern, K. R., & Dittmar, A. K. (2012). The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(1), 137–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Amable, B., Gatti, D., & Schumacher, J. (2006). Welfare-state retrenchment: The partisan effect revisited. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(3), 426–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Arfken, D. E., Bellar, S. L., & Helms, M. M. (2004). The ultimate glass ceiling revisited: The presence of women on corporate boards. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(2), 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bednar, M. (2012). Watchdog or lapdog? A behavioral view of the media as a corporate governance mechanism. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benz, M., & Frey, B. S. (2007). Corporate governance: What can we learn from public governance? Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bilimoria, D. (2006). The relationship between women corporate directors and women corporate officers. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(1), 47–61.Google Scholar
  14. Bøhren, Ø. and Staubo, S. (2013). Changing organizational form to avoid regulatory constraints: The effect of mandatory gender balance in the boardroom. Journal of Corporate Finance, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  15. Borre, O., & Scarbrough, E. (1995). The scope of government (Beliefs in government series). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Branson, D. M. (2012). An Australian perspective on a global phenomenon: Initiatives to place women on corporate boards of directors. Legal Studies Research Paper Series.Google Scholar
  17. Brooks, C., & Manza, J. (2007). Why welfare states persist: The importance of public opinion in democracies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Current employment statistics. Retrieved Aug 4.
  19. Catalyst. (2013). Quick take: Women on boards. New York: Catalyst.Google Scholar
  20. Clark, N. (2010). Goal at Deutsche Telecom: More women as managers. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from
  21. Crouch, C. (2001). Welfare state regimes and industrial relations systems: The questionable role of path dependency theory. In B. Ebbingshaus & P. Manow (Eds.), Comparing welfare capitalism: Social policy and political economy in Europe, Japan and the USA (pp. 105–124). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Dagens Næringsliv. (2002). Gabrielsens kvinner. 8/4.Google Scholar
  23. Dahlerup, D. (2006). Women, quotas and politics. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella, A. A. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 371–382.Google Scholar
  25. Davies (of Abersoch), L. (2011). Women on boards. (The Davies report.) London, UK government.Google Scholar
  26. Davies (of Abersoch), L. (2013). Women on boards. Second progress report. London, UK government.Google Scholar
  27. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Economist. (2011a, July 21). Still lonely at the top. The Economist.Google Scholar
  29. Economist. (2011b, July 21). The wrong way to promote women. The Economist.Google Scholar
  30. Englestad, F., & Teigen, M. (2012). Firms, boards and gender quotas: Comparative perspectives. Bingley, UK: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). The social foundations of postindustrial economies. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. European Commission. (2011). The quota-instrument: Different approaches across Europe. Working paper.Google Scholar
  33. European Commission. (2012). Women in economic decision-making in the EU: Progress report. A Europe 2020 initiative. European Union.Google Scholar
  34. European Commission. (2013). Women and men in leadership positions in the European Union 2013: A review of the situation and recent progress. European Union.Google Scholar
  35. European Corporate Governance Institute. (2013). Retrieved June 2.
  36. Fagan, C., González Menéndez, M., & Gómez Anson, S. (2012). Women on corporate boards and in top management: European trends and policy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Freidenvall, L., Dahlerup, D., & Skjeie, H. (2006). The Nordic countries: An incremental model. In D. Dahlerup (Ed.), Women, quotas and politics (Vol. 10). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  38. Gladman, K. & Lamb, M. (2012). GMI ratings’ women on boards survey.Google Scholar
  39. González Menéndez, M. C., & Martínez González, L. (2012). Spain on the Norwegian pathway: Towards a gender-balanced presence of women on corporate boards. In C. Fagan, M. C. González Menéndez, & S. Gómez Anson (Eds.), Women on corporate boards and in top management: European trends and policy (pp. 169–197). Chippenham, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  40. Gornick, J. C., Meyers, M. K., & Ross, K. E. (1997). Supporting the employment of mothers: Policy variation across fourteen welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy, 7(1), 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Government Administration Services. (2011). [Prime Minister] Kjell Magne Bondevik’s second government. Oslo, Norway. Retrieved Aug 8.
  42. Government of the Netherlands. (2007). Coalition agreement. Retrieved May 9.
  43. Greener, I. (2005). The potential of path dependence in political studies. Politics, 25(1), 62–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Grosvold, J., & Brammer, S. (2011). National institutional systems as antecedents of female board representation: An empirical study. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(2), 116–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism the institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Henderson, A., & White, L. A. (2004). Shrinking welfare states? Comparing maternity leave benefits and child care programs in European Union and North American welfare states, 1985–2000. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3), 497–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hibbs, D. A, Jr. (1977). Political parties and macroeconomic policy. American Political Science Review, 71(4), 1467–1487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A., & Paetzold, R. L. (2000). The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies, 37(2), 235–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hillman, A. J., Shropshire, C., & Cannella, A. A. (2007). Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 941–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1385–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Huse, M. (2011). The golden skirts: Changes in board composition following gender quotas on corporate boards. In Australian and New Zealand Academy Meeting, Wellington, NZ Google Scholar
  52. Huse, M., Nielsen, S. T., & Hagen, I. M. (2009). Women and employee-elected board members, and their contributions to board control tasks. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 581–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Imbeau, L., Petry, F., & Lamari, M. (2001). Left-right party ideology and government policies: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 40(5), 1–29.Google Scholar
  54. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and post-modernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Japan Times. (2013). Aeon sets 50 % female manager goal. Retrieved May 18, 2013, from
  56. Jones, T. M. (1983). An integrating framework for research in business and society: A step toward the elusive paradigm? Academy of Management Review, 8(4), 559–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kanter, J. (2012, October 23). Europe postpones vote on gender quota plan. New York Times.Google Scholar
  58. Kay, A. (2005). A critique of the use of path dependency in policy studies. Public Administration, 83(3), 553–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Krook, M. L. (2010). Quotas for women in politics: Gender and candidate selection reform worldwide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Levi, M. (1997). A model, a method, and a map: Rational choice in comparative and historical analysis. In A. S. Zuckerman & M. I. Lichbach (Eds.), Comparative politics: Rationality, culture, and structure (pp. 19–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Lipset, S. M., & Rokkan, S. (1967). Party systems and voter alignments. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  62. Mandel, H., & Semyonov, M. (2006). A welfare state paradox: State interventions and women’s employment opportunities in 22 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 111(6), 1910–1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., & Thomas, G. (1987). Ontology and rationalization in the Western cultural account. In G. Thomas, J. W. Meyer, F. O. Ramirez, & J. Boli (Eds.), Institutional structure (pp. 12–37). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  64. Molina, Ó., & Rhodes, M. (2007). The political economy of adjustment in mixed market economies: A study of Spain and Italy. In B. Hancke, M. Rhodes, & M. Thatcher (Eds.), Beyond varieties of capitalism: Conflict, contradictions, and complementarities in the European economy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Nellie McClung Foundation. (2013). History of women’s rights [in Canada and Québec]. Retrieved July 16.
  66. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. OECD. (2006). Early childhood education and care. OECD Publishing: Paris. Retrieved July 24.
  68. Okhuysen, G., & Bonardi, J.-P. (2011). Editor’s comments: The challenges of building theory by combining lenses. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Orloff, A. (1996). Gender in the welfare state. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 51–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ostensen Noss, C. (2006). Gender equality in Norway. Strasbourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  71. Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Science Review, 77(1), 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pande, R. & Ford, D. (2011). Gender quotas and female leadership: A review. Background paper for the World Development Report.Google Scholar
  73. Parsons, T. (1959). Voting and the equilibrium of American political system. In E. Burdick & A. J. Brodbeck (Eds.), American voting behavior (pp. 80–120). Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  74. Peacock, L. (2012). Compulsory women on boards quota for Dubai. Telegraph. Retrieved June 29.
  75. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pollack, M., & Hafner-Burton, E. (2000). Mainstreaming gender in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(3), 432–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Reding, V. (2012). The route to more women on supervisory boards: an intelligent quota instead of inflexible requirement. Speech to the European Commission. November 27.Google Scholar
  78. Regierung Online. (2011). Der Ausbau der Kinderbetreuung geht voran. Retrieved March 6.
  79. Rueschemeyer, D., Stephens, E. H., & Stephens, J. D. (1992). Capitalist development and democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  80. Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 549–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The Semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  82. Schmidt, M. G. (1996). When parties matter: A review of the possibilities and limits of partisan influence on public policy. European Journal of Political Research, 30(2), 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schwindt-Bayer, L. A. (2009). Making quotas work: The effect of gender quota laws on the election of women. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Smith, N., Smith, V., & Verner, M. (2006). Do women in top management affect firm performance? A panel study of 2,500 Danish firms. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 55(7), 569–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sørensen, S. Ø. (2011). Statsfeminismen møter næringslivet: Om bakgrunnen og gjennombruddet for kjønnskvotering i bedriftsstyrer som politisk reform. Tidsskrift for kjønnsforskning, 2, 102–119.Google Scholar
  86. Stepstone. (2011). Frauenquote unerwünscht (survey).
  87. Storvik, A., & Teigen, M. (2010). Women on board: The Norwegian experience. Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation.Google Scholar
  88. Teigen, M., & Wängnerud, L. (2009). Tracing gender equality cultures: Elite perceptions of gender equality in Norway and Sweden. Politics & Gender, 5(1), 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Terjesen, S., Hessels, J. and Li, D. (2013). Comparative international entrepreneurship research: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management. doi: 10.1177/0149206313486259AQ35.
  90. Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2009). Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Terjesen, S., & Singh, V. (2008). Female presence on corporate boards: A multi-country study of environmental context. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(1), 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Torchia, M., Calabrò, A., & Huse, M. (2011). Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2), 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Trautman, L. (2012). Board diversity: Why it matters. Working paper. Retrieved Dec 24.
  94. Traxler, F., Blaschke, S., & Kittel, B. (2001). National labour relations in internationalized markets: A comparative study of institutions, change and performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Valiente, C. (1997). State feminism and gender equality policies: The case of Spain (1983–1995). In F. Gardiner (Ed.), Sex equality policy in Western Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  96. van Oorschot, W., Opielka, W., & Pfau-Effinger, B. (2008). Culture and welfare state: Values and social policy in comparative perspective. London: Edward Edgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Van Voorhis, R. A. (2002) Different types of welfare states? A methodological deconstruction of comparative research. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 29(4), 3–18.Google Scholar
  98. Vasudeva, G. (2013). Weaving together the normative and regulative roles of government: How the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund’s responsible conduct is shaping firms’ cross-border investments. Organization Science, 24(6), 1662–1682.Google Scholar
  99. Westphal, J. D., & Milton, L. P. (2000). How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 366–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wikigender. (2013). Gender Equality. Retrieved Nov 28.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Siri Terjesen
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ruth V. Aguilera
    • 3
    • 5
  • Ruth Lorenz
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Management and EntrepreneurshipKelley School of Business, Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.School of Economics and Management, Lund UniversityLundSweden
  3. 3.College of BusinessUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA
  4. 4.London School of EconomicsLondonUK
  5. 5.ESADE Business School, Universitat Ramon LlullBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations