Quotas are still a topic of lively debate and continue to stir strong opinions. For some, quotas are seen as a legitimate way to advance equality; for others, they spark frustrations and suspicions, whether openly voiced or not. Debate around quotas remains a perennial hot topic in discussions of equality. So, to better understand the underlying issues, let's look closer at the famous 40% threshold. So, to better understand the underlying issues, let's look closer at the famous 40% threshold.
First, some background
It is worth remembering that quotas are intended to speed up—and sometimes kick-start—the process of increasing women’s representation in roles that have long been male-dominated. They are supposed to make things equal. France is a pioneer in gender equality. In 2000, a law required political parties to have an equal number of men and women on their lists, otherwise they would be sanctioned. In 2011, the Coppé-Zimmerman law set a 40% quota for women on boards of directors. Most recently, the Rixain law (2021) enforced parity in governing bodies with a target of 40% by 2030. And it’s not only happening in France. The latest Inter-Parliamentary Union report shows that, across 48 countries using gender quotas, women make up an average of 32% of MPs, compared to 19% in countries without such measures.
But why 40%? What happens after that threshold? To clarity the issue, Marie Donzel, Alternego expert and author of Inégalités justifiées published in 2024 by Rue de l'échiquier, agreed to answer a few questions.
Demonstrate your ambition: a key political challenge.
Marie Donzel believes that setting a threshold of 40% is partly in response to a political issue. In northern countries, from the 2000s onwards, having quotas of 40 or 50% was accepted by legislators, and the situation was quickly noticed by other neighboring European countries. Norway, for example, imposes a quota of 40% women on the boards of directors of public companies. The same requirement has been imposed on large publicly traded companies since 2008. “With all the so-called ‘affirmative action’ measures, aiming low keeps people small, while aiming high conveys an ambition, a clear strategy,” the specialist explains. “But 50% seems unrealistic in the business world. Especially for small groups, such as boards of directors.” We should demand enough to be taken seriously, and to achieve greater parity. But that’s not the only benefit.
Beyond exceptions: the challenge of critical mass.
To understand the importance of reaching this target of 40%, Marie Donzel spotlights the work of Serge Moscovici on active minorities. “According to the social psychologist, there are two main conditions for minorities to transform their environment,” Donzel says. “First, the awareness of being a minority. This is not primarily about numerical representation, but the experience of being treated as less legitimate. And then you need to build a critical mass, there needs to be enough of you.” That critical mass means that you are no longer the exception. “A threshold of 20% just doesn’t generate the same effects,” observes Marie Donzel. “There may be a few exceptions—a handful of women accepted by the group that sets the standard, as if it were their place to decide who is allowed in.”
Normalizing the presence of women: social expectations.
So what is the goal in reaching this critical mass? For Marie Donzel, it’s very clear: “This establishes what is considered normal.” She illustrates this phenomenon through the lens of French politics: “In France, there is nothing to oblige the Prime Minister to form a gender-balanced government, yet appointing a majority of men would now be considered abnormal. The 2000 law produced this norm and social expectation.” This standardization is international and supported by French law. As of January 1, 2025, 27% of all national parliamentarians were women, compared to 11% in 1995. As if success were a given. Any drastic change would be seen as a step backwards. Donzel, an equality specialist, underlines: “As we know, political or economic crises often set back the rights of women and all minorities, so this ‘norm’ must not be taken for granted.” The same trend is observed in corporate management. “If a company has established the norm with one or two initial executive committees or management committees comprised equally of men and women, this inevitably creates an expectation for those that follow,” the expert concludes.
Changing working methods in droves: cultural shifts
When a critical mass of women is reached, we sometimes see cultural changes take root with organizations. Marie Donzel uses Obama’s advisors and their amplification strategy as an example. “When he was elected, Obama hired a gender-balanced team. After a few meetings, he noticed that his advisors paid special attention to how they responded to comments from their female colleagues. He often heard phrases like: “I’d like to go back to what X said,” “Thank you to Y for this example.” When he questioned them about it, they explained that these strategies helped counteract the minimization and invisibility of their contributions by male colleagues.” Being gender-balanced is a start, but if the culture doesn’t encourage equality, it’s all for nothing. As the expert explains, “this kind of strategy is effective if, and only if, you’re dealing with someone who understands and shares the ambition, and who supports the changes that need to be made.”
An ambitious threshold that generates frustration: a backlash is underway.
By their very nature, quotas disrupt long-established rules that have shaped how people set their ambitions. In Norway, the criteria for applying the 40% quotas to boards of directors have been revised, which means that from 2028 nearly 9,000 new companies will be affected, even though to date only 20% of directors are women. In France, the Rixain law will accelerate the process for governing bodies, with an initial target of 30% to be reached by March 2027. “So yes, of course people are complaining about it,” confirms Marie Donzel. In some companies, the backlash is already starting to happen. The expert points out that, at senior decision-making level, only one position usually opens up every three years or so. “It’s a long wait. And some men have been thinking about it for 10 or 15 years. It might be difficult to accept if they see a colleague overtaking them. From an individual perspective, it can be a very negative experience, and generate real frustration towards the company itself.” Ultimately, quotas raise many questions: who are our real competitors? When is a fight fair? All these issues emerge as parity appears on the horizon, and the sharing of power seems more tangible.
Rendering quotas acceptable: speaking the truth.
As tension sets in, it’s vital to change the discourse because, according to Marie Donzel, the argument claiming that diversity = good performance now falls on deaf ears. “Some employees say that they’re all for company performance, but what about their own career performance? There’s real tension between the concern for individual career performance and company performance,” she explains.
So what to do? The expert advises people to speak the truth. “Some of my clients are very clear with their managers, saying that ‘if two people have equal skills, we will indeed choose women for now. Gender is a secondary criterion; the first is still the person’s skillset.’ If that type of competition bothers male leaders, it’s up to them to prove they are the best choice for the job.” The challenge is clear: let’s stop pretending and start acknowledging that things will be difficult for employees, but that it’s a necessary—and not permanent—situation.
In conclusion
Reaching close to 40% takes women out of the “exception” zone, as hitting that threshold forces organizational change and can drive cultural change.
However, in getting closer to parity and power sharing, the system inevitably comes up against individual frustrations and feelings of unfairness. The challenge for companies is no longer to sell the idea of diversity, but to accept that the transition will be difficult. Marie Donzel summarizes it as follows: “There is no such thing as easy performance.” So, to ensure the long-term success of these measures and manage the backlash rationally, it is urgent to speak the truth.
