By Lydia Parker

Many have argued that the highest tiers of the business world are the last remnants of the all-male working environment, a glass ceiling that women have been unable to shatter as of yet. Though efforts within the past few years have led to an increase in the number of female board members for major U.S. companies, overall these increases have been minor and have yet to affect widespread change in the makeup of corporate boardrooms across the country.

California’s recent mandate to appoint female board members at publicly traded companies headquartered in the state represents a well-intended effort that will hopefully encourage an increase in female representation at high levels of business, though this newly passed bill may do little itself to usher in this change.

On Sept. 30, California governor Jerry Brown signed a bill “mandating that all publicly traded companies with headquarters in the state have at least one woman on their boards by the end of next year” according to an article from The Wall Street Journal. The bill also mandates that “by 2021, companies with at least five directors would need to have two or three female directors, depending on the size of the board” or risk financial penalties for failure to comply.

Brown explained his decision to sign the bill, citing “recent events in Washington D.C.—and beyond—” such as the Brett Kavanaugh hearings before the Supreme Court, which “make it crystal clear that many aren’t getting the message.” Though Brown admitted that questions raised concerning the legality and ethics of the bill “may indeed prove fatal to its ultimate implementation,” he felt that the bill was necessary.

According to The Wall Street Journal article, critics of the bill have argued that its implementation will only be somewhat effective, as only a small number of companies will be immediately affected. Others, like the California Chamber of Commerce, argue that it breaches both the U.S. and California state constitutions regarding discrimination, as it may lead to qualified men being “rejected or displaced” in efforts to appoint women to company boards.

Further, the article states, “The Supreme Court has previously ruled that a corporation’s internal affairs, such as the makeup of its board, are governed by the statutes of the state in which it is chartered, not headquartered,” putting the bill at risk of numerous constitutional breaches.

The issue of female underrepresentation in business, especially in higher positions of power and influence, clearly remains largely unresolved. Though progress is being made each year and can be seen with each passing quarter, this progress is frustratingly slow-paced. The Wall Street Journal cites efforts made by Massachusetts, Illinois, Colorado and Pennsylvania to address “gender imbalance” through “nonbinding resolutions” in recent years, which could point to more states taking similar actions to those in California in the future.

If California’s new legal precedent is able to increase female representation in the corporate boardroom, other states, particularly those with higher numbers of large U.S. companies or startups, may follow in California’s footsteps.

As with any governmental intrusion into the internal affairs of companies, there are critics who argue that California’s state government is overstepping its legal or ethical boundaries in passing this bill. Though the deconstruction of gender barriers to positions of power in the business world should be the ultimate goal, it is important that the actions taken by our representatives actually achieve this goal. It is also is a legitimate critique that while this bill may increase the number of women in the boardroom, it does little to bolster the inclusion of other underrepresented groups in regards to race or sexual identity.

Gov. Brown’s passing of this bill is an important step toward greater female inclusion and representation at the highest levels of business. That being said, it should be considered a step toward a much larger issue of representation that must be addressed in the future. Further, as this bill has received much criticism for its legal and ethical reaches, it is questionable whether it will be able to achieve the full breadth of its goals in its implementation going forward.

Companies across the country should be actively working to increase female representation in the corporate boardroom, and it is evident that many actually are. However, as The Wall Street Journal reports, “the lack of turnover is slowing change” in boardrooms, as “the average director at an S&P 500 company stays on more than eight years and the majority of boards have no term limits.” Numbers show that women are increasingly filling positions of power in the business world, especially within the last few years, though the rate of growth is slower than preferable.

Is it advisable, then, for state governments to take similar legal action toward the inclusion of women in the boardroom? Perhaps, if future state policies or mandates are able to avoid the legal criticism garnered by California’s bill in their efforts to increase representation for women. Gov. Brown himself admitted, this new mandate may crumble under questions of legality in its implementation.

Lydia Parker, FCRH ‘20, is an English major from Beverly, Massachussettes.