Since they work for business boards, would they be an opportunity for European foundations too?
Should a time-limited quota be introduced in relation to gender diversity on foundations’ boards? When Alliance magazine’s editors asked us this question, our answer was: the matter is complex and needs unpacking, but ultimately, yes.
In 2011, France enacted the so-called Copé-Zimmerman law to impose a gender quota of a minimum of 40 per cent women for boards of companies with over 250 employees. Interestingly, this law divided even that section of French public opinion which supported greater gender equality. Some praised it, seeing it as a much-needed tool to eliminate discrimination and promote de facto equality. Others, however, feared that women might end up being perceived as ‘numbers’: they would be on boards just because of their sex. Today, though, as Fondation de France’s recent study conducted by researcher Hazal Atay (Sciences Po) and Anne Cornilleau (head of studies, FdF) affirms, France is the world’s leading country in terms of gender-parity within boards of companies (more than 46 per cent in 2021), the ratio having tripled since the enactment of the law.
Should European philanthropy learn from that? For sure. Quotas exist to enforce norms and regulations that then lead to shifts in mentalities and wider changes in societies’ practices. It is important to note that in France, philanthropy is not subject to quotas. Board parity, as our study shows, stands at 30 per cent and foundations that have higher levels of gender parity (understood in France as a female/male balance) are corporate foundations that have adopted companies’ regulations from the 2011 law into their practices. Conversely, in France as elsewhere in Europe, the sector has a majority of female staff but, as you climb up the hierarchy, philanthropy gets more masculine. To be sure, gender quotas are not the perfect solution, but they are a crucial step towards greater equality, especially when considering boards.
Not through quotas alone
This, we think, is precisely why quotas should be limited in time. To us, the matter is one of defining legally and numerically gender equity which can then lead to more equality, and to greater (quota-free) social justice. In other words, quotas are not to be thought of as permanent measures – though they should be set up for long enough for mentalities to shift – but as reparative measures that lead to greater diversity and inclusion.
Quotas are not to be thought of as permanent measures – though they should be set up for long enough for mentalities to shift – but as reparative measures that lead to greater diversity and inclusion.
Indeed, parity on boards is not just about the female/male balance, but more widely about promoting diversity and inclusion: whether we are talking about non-binary sex and gender identification, sexual orientation, racial and ethnic backgrounds, disabilities and so forth. We know that it is not always possible to collect data for all such categories. For instance, while in France it is possible to collect sex-based data, it is not possible to directly do so on ethnic or racial backgrounds. These norms change from country to country but precisely for this reason, gender equality as much as diversity will not be reached just through quotas.
Instead, quotas speak to wider sets of practices that ought to be enforced with two ambitions. First, to shift long-standing power dynamics and allow for the wider sharing of roles and responsibilities. Second, to truly encourage pluralism, meant as favouring the inclusion of all individuals irrespective of their backgrounds, orientation, paths, and experiences. These practices may include among others: time-limited mandates for board members, the establishment of application processes explicitly promoting diversity within boards, the allocation of decision-making roles such as president of the board or treasurer to women and members of minorities, the setting up of DEI training programmes to raise awareness among members of boards, management, employees and volunteer teams.
Taking our own initiatives
Today, a regulation at the EU level on gender and diversity quotas seems hard to imagine (if only because all this is very much dependent on member states’ sovereign prerogatives). However, we believe that, as a sector, we can think collectively about solutions that allow us to make a clearer commitment to gender equality and diversity. In addition to discussing these matters within our respective organisations, we can take part in the wide array of debates that European and international networks provide and encourage our colleagues to do so. Learning from each other and sharing our experiences is a key strength of our sector. To take a step further, it may also be worth considering measures that could be set up at the level of philanthropic networks in Europe. For instance, we could start systematising data collection for boards (and beyond) of member organisations on gender and, when possible, on other diversity criteria. Data allow us to have a concrete vision and foster actionable change: setting a threshold quota is only possible once we get a precise picture of how the European sector looks.
We believe that, as a sector, we can think collectively about solutions that allow us to make a clearer commitment to gender equality and diversity.
Precisely because an EU regulation looks difficult, the creation of unified European labels and charters for the philanthropic sector may have a role to play. We know from other sectors how powerful labels can be. Not only do they have a collective driving effect, but they also function as legitimising (and, conversely, delegitimising) tools. What if European philanthropic networks allocated a unique European label on gender equality and diversity for their members?
We are aware that setting up such multi-faceted measures takes time. However, we also believe that a shift towards greater gender equality and diversity for the sector is crucial for its coherence and legitimacy, as we keep striving for more social justice and inclusion.
FIND OUT MORE
