It si no secret I am true believer in use of quatas to make changes happen. Professor John C.Langlie http://www.bi.edu/research/academic-homepage/?ansattid=fgl90028 has done some interesting research on what has happended. When our minister Mr.Gabrielsen (part of the conservative government) launched it his argument was that it would increase the competetive power for business. Prof.Langlie has investigated a couple of key indicators on the effect of the law.
1. If it was lack of competetive capacity the share of ASA companies (the one that where included in the law) would sustain. The effect is it has gone down in Norway compared with i.e Denmark, so the company owners enjoyed competetive power they would maitain their ASA form. The number of companies has gone down from 540 to 350 from 2001 to 2008 which is the period he has been researching.
2. The share of women in the board-room would not stop at 40% but reflect the population of 50% if the law would just train the business leader. Fact is that stopped at 40%.
3. The business would learn by exposure and hence increase, but fact is that this does not take place. The share of women in the AS companies (not included in the law) has stopped on 12%. Also there is no substantial increase in women holding top-leader position, with the exception of the ASA companies who has now 15% share of CEO's beeing women, compared with 8% before the law.
4.The compentency of the women entering the boardroom is theorectical strong, but they lack experience as CEO (only 31%) compared with 64% for the men.
5. The short term value for the companies did not react negative where they had a women in the board already, but the men only board held companies had a short term declined of 3.5%. This can imply the extra cost of searching women but also the expected fall in results.
6. The long term value for the companies with no women in the boardroom faced a loss of 20% in shareholder value compared to the companies with women.
On a general reference the thought that women entering the boardroom gives competetiveness is false according to this research. The fact is interesting and one of many facts and in this discussion.
For me the story of quotas of women to the boardroom in Norway is about access to power. Companies noted on the stock-exchange (ASA) is dominated by the peoples money in Norway through our funds from the oil. I think it is just reasonable that the women in our population shall have access to the decisons made in this room. If that in a mid-term perspective (7 years as this research is about) causes some temporarily losses, I do think it is an ok price to pay. The large upside is that in Norway we are now seeing in the public space talented women their opinions and sucesses but also mistakes and how they move on. And I do hope sincerly that in a longer term (20 years?) we will see that the law and the chock gave us a better and more democratic representative business world in Norway, but also way outside of Norway as beeing a front-runner.
1. If it was lack of competetive capacity the share of ASA companies (the one that where included in the law) would sustain. The effect is it has gone down in Norway compared with i.e Denmark, so the company owners enjoyed competetive power they would maitain their ASA form. The number of companies has gone down from 540 to 350 from 2001 to 2008 which is the period he has been researching.
2. The share of women in the board-room would not stop at 40% but reflect the population of 50% if the law would just train the business leader. Fact is that stopped at 40%.
3. The business would learn by exposure and hence increase, but fact is that this does not take place. The share of women in the AS companies (not included in the law) has stopped on 12%. Also there is no substantial increase in women holding top-leader position, with the exception of the ASA companies who has now 15% share of CEO's beeing women, compared with 8% before the law.
4.The compentency of the women entering the boardroom is theorectical strong, but they lack experience as CEO (only 31%) compared with 64% for the men.
5. The short term value for the companies did not react negative where they had a women in the board already, but the men only board held companies had a short term declined of 3.5%. This can imply the extra cost of searching women but also the expected fall in results.
6. The long term value for the companies with no women in the boardroom faced a loss of 20% in shareholder value compared to the companies with women.
On a general reference the thought that women entering the boardroom gives competetiveness is false according to this research. The fact is interesting and one of many facts and in this discussion.
For me the story of quotas of women to the boardroom in Norway is about access to power. Companies noted on the stock-exchange (ASA) is dominated by the peoples money in Norway through our funds from the oil. I think it is just reasonable that the women in our population shall have access to the decisons made in this room. If that in a mid-term perspective (7 years as this research is about) causes some temporarily losses, I do think it is an ok price to pay. The large upside is that in Norway we are now seeing in the public space talented women their opinions and sucesses but also mistakes and how they move on. And I do hope sincerly that in a longer term (20 years?) we will see that the law and the chock gave us a better and more democratic representative business world in Norway, but also way outside of Norway as beeing a front-runner.
