3.3.6 Reflection

The progress that was made in increasing the number of women on boards for the period 2013-2020 clearly left much to be desired and the objective of the temporary target figure was, therefore, not fulfilled. The percentage of women on company boards increased, but not enough and mainly at the supervisory board level. It is questionable whether this progress can be fully attributed to the target figure when considering that many large Dutch companies still do not have any women on their boards.

The proposed Dutch quota is a step in the right direction in the pursuit of getting more women into the corporate top. However, the proposed quota is not as progressive as the author hoped. It can, for example, be questioned why the quota only applies to the supervisory board and not to the management board. The quota should also be made applicable to the management board in order to make sure that the goal of having 30 percent women on both boards is actually achieved this time. Only by applying the quota to the management board as well will the quota concern the real positions of power in a company.

It is also not clear why exceptions apply in the event of reappointment of current supervisory board members. For instance, if a supervisory board member is appointed for four years in 2020, that board member can be reappointed in 2024 for four more years. If that supervisory board member is a man it may, therefore, take up to eight years before he can be replaced by a woman. The result thereof could be that up to a period of eight years after the entry into force of the legislation, supervisory boards could still be comprised by men only. If after eight years the quota legislation automatically lapses, it could be the case that these companies still do not have women in their boards.

The exception that the quota for the supervisory board does not apply in the event of exceptional circumstances also does not seem justified. Nobody can see into the future and risks lie in the heart of entrepreneurship. Why would an exceptional circumstance be a valid justification for maintaining an underrepresentation of women in the supervisory board?

As regards the appropriate and ambitious targets, the proposed targets are little more than an extension of the former target figure, albeit that the targets in the proposal have to be formulated in an ambitious manner. However, it is left to the company to decide what constitutes ‘ambitious’ in its specific case. A company could, for instance, start off with a target of 10 percent if there are not yet any women on the boards. The proposed target may, therefore, be less progressive than the former target figure because the company can set its ‘ambitious’ target at less than 30 percent. Moreover, it is questionable why the government believes the target will be successful this time. Perhaps because companies can set a lower target than the former target figure of 30 percent? Instead of enforcing the target figure it seems, therefore, that the government is looking for somewhat artificial solutions in order to be able to say that the target figure has been met and that the legislation is, therefore, a success.