So bad such laws. It is good to promote equality and woman in boards and all, but here it is a prime to mediocrity. You will not get a board seat because you are the more competent but because you are a:
- woman
- hispanic
- a pinguin
- ...
> While there is no penalty for missing the target, companies that do achieve it will win public praise.<p>What kind of law is that? Ruling by the sanction of the victim [1]?<p>Also, you can be gender-fluid [2], right? You can be a woman while serving on the board, and a man otherwise.<p>[1]: <a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sanction_of_the_victim.html" rel="nofollow">http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sanction_of_the_victim.htm...</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://gender.fandom.com/wiki/Genderfluid" rel="nofollow">https://gender.fandom.com/wiki/Genderfluid</a>
Hopefully they'll define this quota in terms of sex rather than gender identity. Otherwise this is a pointless endeavour.<p>Their press release seems to imply this will be the case but, well, you never know these days. There's a lot of confusion and contention around this issue.<p>Here's an interesting article about a similar consultation in the UK and its outcome, in terms of collecting statistics on the female to male ratio in boardrooms: <a href="https://sex-matters.org/posts/the-workplace/fca-women-on-corporate-boards" rel="nofollow">https://sex-matters.org/posts/the-workplace/fca-women-on-cor...</a>
There is a paywall so I couldn't read the article. I'm curious if some male board members are going to start identifying as women. Does this directive have any rules regarding that?