Jamaica has an impressive number of extraordinary women who occupy prominent positions in politics, business, academia and civil society. It therefore gives me great pleasure to join here in the celebration of International Women’s Day and to acknowledge the extensive contribution that women make to human societies worldwide.

It is nevertheless an obligation to deplore that — across the world — women continue to be under-represented in top positions of government and corporate boards, the EU being no exception in this respect.

Research shows that more women attain tertiary education than men in many developed and developing countries. In the EU member states, 60 per cent of university graduates are women. Women account for 60 per cent of the EU workforce at all levels. However, gender balance in positions of leadership in the workforce remains disappointing, despite having improved in the last few years and despite gender equality having been enshrined in the EU Treaty and in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Women occupy, on average, 13 per cent of board seats of the largest publicly listed companies in EU member states, but only three per cent chair boards. Women parliamentarians across EU member states average 24.7 per cent; and of the major political parties, only 10 per cent of the leaders are female. Even in the European Parliament only 35 per cent of members are women.

Even if it may be argued that the low numbers are the result of women not ‘leaning forward’, this is in itself an indication that not enough is being done in the family, in school, in the workplace, in the media, not only to encourage women to apply for those top positions but also to provide women and men with structures that would allow them to better balance work and family commitments, which have more often than not pushed women to give up higher career goals in order to continue to shoulder most of the burden of family care.

More worryingly, the gender balance in the ‘power rooms’ might actually be a reflection of selection processes which favour men over women.

The imbalance is not only an individual rights issue, not allowing women to reach positions they deserve and to deploy their full potential, but it is also inefficient for society at large, as bias in selection processes based on gender or other form of discrimination might deprive us of seeing the best candidate in the job. If societies want to reach their full potential, they need to make full use of all their human resources.

In order to counter what appears to be the result of an uneven playing field, several countries in the EU have introduced quotas to promote increased representation of women in political bodies and businesses; in the same way that quotas have been introduced to promote the insertion in society of people with disabilities or persons belonging to other minority groups.

Politics

In politics, quotas are implemented to help redress the imbalance caused by the under-representation of women in public life. There are two forms of quotas which are generally used, those integrated by law through the countries’ legal system or those employed by the political parties.

The first is a way of guaranteeing that a certain percentage of the parliamentary seats will be occupied by women while quotas which are established by the political parties themselves aim to give balance in the gender of the candidates the parties select.

Eight EU member states currently use legal quotas, while 15 have voluntary party quotas and five have no quotas. An assessment of the data from all the member states with some type of quota system in place has shown that they have attained an average of around 30 per cent representation of women in politics. This is higher than the overall EU average, which is 27 per cent.

In some instances, gender quotas have led to significant improvements in the number of women at the representational level; but the success of quotas is dependent on many factors, including the design of the system and the electoral environment in which they are implemented.

Implementing quotas does not automatically guarantee an increase in the number of women at the parliamentary level. And there is evidence that such an increase can also take place in the absence of quotas. I cite the examples of Finland and Denmark, which have higher than average female representation in Parliament (39 per cent and 47 per cent respectively), yet neither has implemented quotas. However, empirically, quotas have been proven as the most effective way of achieving a better gender balance.

Corporate Boards

The same challenge of gender balance exists in boardrooms, yet studies show that a better balance makes sense not only from an equality point of view but from an economic point of view. A 2012 report titled Women in economic decision-making in the EU: Progress report: A Europe 2020 initiative shows that companies with a higher share of women in senior decision-making positions have consistently outperformed their competitors that are without that asset.

One study showed that companies with more women on their boards outperformed their rivals with 42 per cent higher return in sales, 66 per cent higher return on invested capital and 53 per cent higher return on equity. In November 2013, the European Parliament voted to support a draft legislation which would see companies listed on the stock exchange putting into effect measures that will ensure that at least 40 per cent of non-executive board positions are held by women.

At the national level, EU countries are moving to introduce quotas for business boards, and the movement is extending rapidly.

Opponents of the quota system argue that its use is in conflict with principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and describe it as a form of discrimination against men. Proponents of quotas argue, on the other hand, that they are not a form of discrimination against men but a much-needed response to centuries of discrimination against women and a vital tool in the effort to create a level playing field.

Opponents argue that women selected where quotas are in place are less competent than their male counterparts, and less respected because they are perceived to have received the position because of the quota system and not on their own merits.

Supporters argue that quotas serve as a form of encouragement, as selected women will serve as role models for other women and even create more choice for companies, parties and voters, who will be able to choose from a larger pool of candidates.

No matter which side of the debate we take, we should not allow affirmative action to be prevented, and we should speak up against resistance to measures that would advance women’s position in society. This is for the benefit of all members of society.

Gender equality is a human rights issue and a question of social justice, but it is also instrumental to the attainment of the growth and development our societies need.

— Ambassador Paola Amadei is head of delegation for the European Union in Jamaica