Today we feature a visitor post from our colleague over in regulations college, Aaron A. Dhir, who’s an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School and a Senior Research Scholar at Yale Law School. Aaron’s reserve on boardroom variety is out next month and it is causing quite a stir.
So we asked him to tell us a little about the problem of diversity quotas on boards and why, regardless of the controversy, his research suggests that it might be a good idea. Having less variety in the governance of business corporations is quickly becoming one of the most talked about topics in corporate and business governance. It offers ignited a heated global controversy, leading policymakers to wrestle with difficult questions that lay at the intersection of market activity and interpersonal identity politics. My new book, Challenging Boardroom Homogeneity, will be released the following month by Cambridge University Press. In this post, I concentrate on quotas.
- Personal Property Tax/Vehicle Tax
- Nonwork-Related Use of the Internet
- It offers heavy visualization, with real-time visual information stream
- NEED FOR THE STUDY
- Whats your biggest marketing problem right now? Write it down
While quotas are anathema in america, their existence in Europe is striking. In their most potent form, quotas mandate particular degrees of gender balance in the boardroom. Countries such as Norway, France, Italy, Iceland, Belgium, and (just last month) Germany have all used this path. In Germany, both genders must constitute at least 30 percent of the supervisory planks of specific German …