The Norwegian equality-experiences: Lawmaking and other tools Praha 22 nd May 2013 Arni Hole Director General Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion Norway

2 Equal opportunities or/and equal results ? The Political Econonomy of Equality has to be acknowledged, understood and practised (among politicians, the social partners, Ministries and civil society) Equality and fullfillment of human rights is smart economy Talents are evenly divided among the genders – and among persons of all backgrounds and abilities – they have to be ”harvested” and fully utilized

3 Continued: How to develop a toolbox for implementing a political economy of equality ? What are the possibilities, legally and otherwise ? What works and what do not work ? What produces results/output/equality in real life to be measured and counted, not merely ”nice talk” of equal opportunities ?

4 Continued: Someone once said : ”Everyone is for equality, but no one is accountable” Accountability is a key-word, as is measuring and reporting – to the Goverments, to Parliaments; from the local levels, from the social partners, from the boardrooms in the large companies…. Transparency, visibility, public discussions on goals and results

5 Tools: A strong national legal framework for equality (on both genders, disability, ethnicity,LHBT, age), with positive duties to report on equality on all levels (in 4 different equality laws) and a § 21 (in the GE Act) to secure gender balance in all public appointed committees, councils etc (affirmative action since 1988 !) To be matched with a strong national Working Environment Law, ensuring non-discrimination in work life and a ”mirror” of certain §§ from GE Act A national Municipal Act (regulating the way the 429 Municipalities work) also reflecting the § 21 in the GE Act

6 Continued: Strong and targeted family policies through legal acts, economic provisions and different regulations to support equality; and let me focus mostly on GE, both women and men: – full coverage of early child care to an affordable price, from 1 year up to 6 (pre-school included) –Paid parental leave from work; 49 or 59 weeks (80 % of your salary); 14 weeks a quota for the father (cannot be transferred to the mother) and 14 weeks for the mother. The rest to be shared. (father’s quota was intro. In 1993 with 4 weeks)

7 Continued: The right (by law)to stay at home with sick children (from work) with pay up to 10 days pr parent up to the child is 12(mother and father alike); single providers have 20 days. The right by law to apply for one year of leave (without pay) for each parent after the 1st year of parental leave The right to negotiate shorter hours (with less pay), flexible hours, part-time for both sexes

8 Continued: After-school services for children up to 12 years of age (paid by parents) Taxing spouses separately Tax-deductions for all families with children below 18 A basic tax deduction for all individuals working and paying tax Progressive taxing plus top-tax Tax deductions for single providers

9 Continued: The most comprehensible law is the National Insurance Act; a joint venture between the State, the Employers, the Employees and self- employed paying tax into this scheme, beeing negotiated by the Social Partners (the tri-partite coop) since 1966, before Norway struck oil. To secure minimum pensions, sick- insurance, unemployment, disability pensions, paid parental leave, etc.

10 Real freedom, regardless of gender Due to all the Acts and the legal based provisions I have mentioned, every grown person have the possibility to choose BOTH work/career and family, not to be ”forced to choose” EITHER – OR. And to feel secure from direct and indirect discrimination,by strong laws and a national machinery to handle complaints To be in a tax positon from holdning a job, is personal freedom; and sustains the welfare The idea of equality is deeply embedded in Norwegian Culture, since long

11 Continued: However, one has to always revive and work for real equality in ”real life ”! Step by step, hard work. Repete and repete. Prove that it is good for economy and welfare. To achieve real equality in output, not only in rethorics, Governments and Parliaments have to secure measures and means; to implement the politics of equality : To the best of personal and national economy One has to start in schools, with the pupils, the teachers and the families – to combat gender stereotypes, often harmful and destructive

12 Radical legal tools, affirmative actions: A few is already mentioned: § 21, the duty to report on equality both in public and private business, the father’s quota, the Municipal Act… But, in 2003 the Goverment saw the need to move faster and further – in corporate sector (the stock listed companies)and the large public owned companies, and a few other company types Little had happened in corporate sector by 2002, as to GE and gender balance;even if girls were graduating with 62 % from the U&Colleges, political repr from women were all time high and 79 % women (betw 16 and 66)working…

13 Continued: The then conservative Cabinet decided to amend five company laws with a requirement of 40 % of either sex when elections to the board of governors; the most wellknown: The PLCs No quotas for administrative positions; that would not be legal in Norway (even if we have the right to moderate legal affirmative action when competing for jobs…) Legal sanctions for not complying with the rules follows the same pattern as 35 years before for not complying with the regulations for setting up a legal board etc, for any company: Can be dissolved by court or have a large fine 2 years of transition to meet requirements The ordinary privately owned Companies ( ) were not regulated, because they do not have a broad spread of shares/seeking investments from many sources or owned by the public (state or municipalities)

14 So, company laws were amended in 2003, 2008, 2009 What were the political expectations to be met by the law amendments ? To what extent have expectations been met ? Other spin-off effects ? Lessons learned how to change corporate cultures, removing hindrances of gender stereotypes as to recruit able persons to positions, regardless of gender ?

15 Expectations: To break the gender biased corporate culture notion of ”economic decisionmaking as a male domain” To increase real numbers of the underrepresented gender in elections to board of governors of the listed (and 6 other types ) companies To harvest profit /return on investment in free higher education

16 Further: To widen democratic representation in the upper echelons of economy;where legally possible To boost gender equality – in a general sense To stimulate new images of women and men To eradicate indirect discrimination of women beeing ”seen” as mer representations of their sex, (group stereotyping women) rather than able persons/individuals with many capacities

17 Results and effects: Real numbers; 40 % or more, of the underrerpesented gender elected to boards of governors in seven different company types (appr companies; appr.300 listed companies) An abundance of able female individuals ”seen”, invited and elected to such positions Changes in corporate cultures and mental images of what competences an elected board of gov.’s should have

18 Spin-offs: Excellent open and exciting public discussions on gender equality in its deepest and most profound sense New and relevant social and economic research, also for further policy making A new understanding of why universal systems of early child care, paid parental leave (incl.earmarked father’s leave ), flexibility in work life as to reconcile work and family, etc. are of vital importance to change corporate cultures, enhance gender equality and employ all talents…. (along with keeping up the fertility rate)

19 Still: Dissappointment in the sense that these gender balanced boards of governors did not – ”immediately” - recruite and hire female CEO’s (top managers), probably this will change over time General Assemblies did not - ”immediately” – choose female chairpersons of the boards (only 8 % of the listed companies’ boards have a female chair) The regulations did not have an ”immediate” spin-off effect down the line in the corporations: more women in line management; though this is increasing

20 What now ? However, after Parliament voted pro, corporate sector did set up good and relevant programmes for diversity and for recruiting /shortlisting persons of both genders for boardroom elections and for competing for top management I wonder if this would have happened without the legal regulations ? (Hardly…)

21 Summing up: The legal regulations were never seen as a ”quick fix” to all aspects of gender equality or corporate life…. It was seen, and is seen, as one tool in a rich tool-box to increase GE, boost eradication of hindrances to recruit and retain the best persons of either gender to boards of governors To change corporate cultures /increase diversity - to cope with global competetion To get return on investment in education

22 Today the regulations are not much debated in Norway Nevertheless, we know there will be resistance if we suggest legal regulations for elections to the boards of the largest privately ltd companies (appr ) We certainly know we have to work along all avenues and with a multitude of tools to break the still gender- segmented labour market in Norway

23 Why legal actions ? It is not a human right to be elected to a board room, most men do not sit on boards. But it is a human right to be seen and acknowlegded as a competent person, not biased by stereotyping of your sex. Not to be seen, could be indirect, gender based discrimination Benjamin Disraeli (former liberal British PM ) once said: ”Genuin politics is to have power, and to distribute it”. I believe this is what we have done through the toolbox I have scetched for you – to a certain extent. Follow suit !