GENDER POLICIES IN NORWAY A MODEL FOR THE EU? Lecture by H.E. Tove Skarstein, Ambassador of Norway Corvinus University of Budapest, 13 November

Why we need to focus on gender policies? Equality is both a human right case and a business issue and a part of the Nordic Model for sustainability: Gender equality as a key to economic stability, innovation and growth. Human Capital is a decisive part of our economy. In Norway Human Capital constitutes 82 % of our national wealth. Oil constitutes only 7 %. Traditional patterns die hard; sometimes it takes legal and radical affirmative actions like quotas to produce results. We have a history through several Cabinets of combining traditional work for equal opportunities/equal chances/equal treatment, with radical affirmative actions.

Use of gender quotas in Norway We need instruments, not necessarily costly ones, but aiming to move politics and behavior in the right direction. To change traditions and stereotyping! Started in the 70’s with voluntarily gender balance (40 – 60% or more) in all the political parties, but one. Today we have parity in the Cabinet, 40 percent women in the Parliament, 38 percent women in the elected Municipal Councils. We do not have parity laws as regards political elections in Norway.

“Affirmative actions” from Norway (political life and labour-market) : 40 % of either sex to all governmental appointed committees, councils, working groups and delegations etc. in the Gender Equality Act : similar regulation of gender balance was introduced in the Municipal Act; Great significance for local democracy. (These two legal amendments do not cost a cent!) : Statutory PARENTAL (not “maternety”) leave: Father’s quota within the Parental Leave Scheme. Originally 4, now 12 weeks. Initiative for family/work life balance. Mental change in how one perceives gender roles, both in the business community and among fathers and mothers : Obligatory reporting on gender equality: positive duty to enhance/promote Gender Equality and report annually, was introduced legally in the Gender Equality Act and reflected in the Accountancy Act: transparency, naming and shaming.

Quota for company boards (2003) Four different company laws were amended with a requirement of 40 % of either sex on the companies’ elected boards of directors/supervisors. (Not for management jobs) For Public Limited Companies (PLC’s, often listed on the stock exchange) in January 2006 with a period of transition to January The National Business Register enforces the rules and sanctions may apply; a company may be dissolved by court if not complying, or have a considerable fine. For the 3 other types of companies regulated at the same time, publicly owned, amendments were enforced by January 1 st By 2006, after a transition period of 2 years, they were all in place, with 43 % on an average.

Debated, but bipartisan introduction of quota Broad public consultation and open hearings before submitting the bill to Parliament in The issue created heated discussions in the media and in the general public debate. Many men from the corporate sector, shareholders, women top leaders, uttered that this could not be done. These legal requirements were proposed by a conservative /liberal Cabinet (3 parties) – and endorsed by the opposition, but one party. It was truly bi-partisan and passed by large majority in Parliament.

Results: enforcement and unfounded fears At the time of its introduction, it was believed (in Cabinet) that these companies would sort it out themselves, with a “sleeping law”. The PLCs did not sort it out themselves, when measured after 2 years. So the legal requirements were enforced in January Several top Norwegian business leaders say today that they were opposed in principle to gender balance regulations, but believe the law has been effective and are happy with the results. Fears of not finding enough qualified women to fill board seats proved unfounded. Another expressed fear, that “women would not take on such responsibilities”, was totally nonsense. Norwegian companies are doing quite well. None of them “fled”.

Competence still prevails All candidates regardless of gender to board positions of PLC’s, are nominated by an election committee set up by the General Assembly in a PLC, and it is for the General Assembly to elect the board members from a short list. Does anyone really believe that an election committee would look for incompetent candidates? Or that a responsible General Assembly of shareholders would elect incompetent persons? Quite the contrary: A study from last year shows that gender balance on boards, or diversity, gives more focus on competence, long term planning, less conflicts. Norway has still not used quotas for elections to the boardrooms of the private ltd. companies (mostly SME’s, family owned, but some quite large). These companies have today 17 % women on an average members elected to their boards.

Supplementary actions to promote female competence The corporate sector in Norway as in other Nordic countries, does operate successful recruitment programs in order to sustain a competence pool from where to elect women to boards and for inviting individuals to compete for corporate management top jobs: “Female Future” (The Main Business Federation) “Futura” (The Financial Sector Employers Fed.), Need to recruit talents from both halves of the educated population, and they have to compete for the best persons; using family friendly work life as to recruit men – women. Initiated after the bill was accepted in Parliament.

Broadening the scope of the quotas? Norwegian law does not apply radical affirmative actions for top management jobs or any other type of jobs. Mild “positive discrimination” possibility in our Gender Equality Act (if two persons have the same competence in the competition for a certain job, it is not discrimination to choose/hire the one from the underrepresented gender at the workplace or the specific level of administration). This goes for both private and public sector. Today the regulations are not much debated in Norway, they are not controversial anymore. There will be resistance if we suggest legal regulations for elections to the boards of the largest private ltd companies (appr )

Why such a remedy? Because back in 2002 women were almost totally absent in the board rooms of the PLCs. Only 7 % of elected board members were women; today the score is 40 %. Return on investment in education for girls, as well as boys, and a decent societal development. The regulation serves as an instrument to “see” and employ women’s competences. Legal actions for gender balance are not a goal in itself, only a tool.

The case for affirmative action Fundamentally, a moral base: Equal opportunity for all – independent of your gender. It is about democracy and representation. Quotas may be necessary to ensure equal outputs. Secondly, sound economics! Our human capital is vital. A modern, competitive economy needs all talents, the best heads and hands, regardless of gender. Modernity demands diversity! Use of quotas and other equality policies recommended, if combined with modern, gender neutral family laws, ample parental leave and father’s quotas, full coverage of early childcare-places at an affordable price and flexibility in work life for parents with sick children!

Quotas are not a not a quick fix to achieve gender equality! If quota laws are to be effective, certain other conditions have to be in place, like the welfare measures just mentioned. Women have to be visible in the labour-market; as a pool of competence. The men and fathers have to “come home”. However, it pays off in economic terms, ensures a sound diversity in economic decision-making, and paves the way for breaking the gender-segmented labour market. Thus also vital to equal pay for work of equal value. Further, good for fertility rates: important in an ageing Europe. Birthrates being highest in Iceland with the replacement level (2.14 children pr. woman) 1.95 in Norway, 1.90 in Sweden, and 1,8 in Finland and Denmark (high in European comparison), only 1.25 for Hungary.

Main principles of gender policy – shared in the Nordic region We aim at employing all able persons in gainful work to contribute to value-adding and paying taxes back to common good, receiving services in return! We invest in families, children and youth, and expect a solid return on that investment. We seek trough the state to create welfare systems as frameworks for enabling people to adequate choices, frameworks not without duties and requirements. Any individual should to have true choices, not only a rhetoric rights; One should not, as a woman, be “forced” to choose either work or family/children, due to the lack of early child care institutions or parental leave or flexibility in work life. We perceive these values to be the core of a welfare state; they are presented in the Norwegian presidency of the Nordic Council of Ministers programme for 2012.

Mission of the Nordic Coutries To have more freedom for every individual; being man or woman, boy or girl. Narrow gender roles are not very productive. They can even be harmful. It is about liberating the individual citizen from all forms of subordination and dependency within the family and civil society. To improve our economy and our welfare, through engaging all women and men in gainful, paid work and thus paying taxes back to the common good. 78% of women (16-66 years of age) are working in Norway, 80% in Iceland, and similar in all the Nordic countries. (Main challenge for Hungary: low activity rate especially among women – emancipation and increased economic growth through gender equality and higher female labour-market participation.)

Mission accomplished? – Not yet! The wage gap between women and men per hour for work of equal value is resistant. 17 % on average in the EU and 15 % in Norway (interestingly enough “only” 14% in Hungary). There is no acceptable reason for this to prevail. Measures are being taken in EU, the Nordic Council of Ministers and in Norway. The gender segmented labor market, due to historical reasons. The labour market is thus not effective enough, in any of our Nordic Countries. Statistics show that women in Norway are increasingly choosing more untraditional, but not the men. (The EU measures focus much on the professional choices of women, but the real challenge lies with the boys and men !)

Mission accomplished? – Not yet! The challenge of engaging boys and men more in the equality project. Equality is a win-win situation for men and boys, also when it comes to reconciliation of work and family life. The Nordic Countries have been in the lead for many years in stating, arguing and documenting that GE is about both genders. We cooperate closely in research and development and share lessons learned in a systematic way within this region. Violence in close relations, domestic violence, often gender based, still poses a challenge in our nations. The Nordic countries all have comprehensive plans in place, strong laws, not accepting impunity. The issue is not privatized any more, but still a long way to go to eradicate the evil. We all engage in the EU’s, Council of Europe’s and the UN’s initiatives and measures.

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 /more diversity - to cope with global competition. To get return on investment in education. 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 acknowledged as a competent person, not biased by stereotyping of your sex.

A model for Hungary or the EU? EU Commission’s (V.Reading’s) proposal for EU-level introduction of quotas not universally welcome by MSs. – Several old and new MSs strongly against. Proposals also in the Hungarian Parliament (both on gender quotas and paternity leave): not approved. Quotas can only help if seen in a broader perspective, and if timing is right: otherwise it may backfire. Traditions, culture. Economic realities. Legal environment. Need for consultation (e.g. tripartite dialogue in Norway): broad consensus. Need for a system of welfare policies that facilitate gender equality.

Thank you very much for your attention!