Abstract
ABSTRACT While enough ink has been spilled debating boardroom gender diversity, there is little analysis from a regulatory standpoint in relation to the divergence found in legal strategies across countries. It is this gap which this article seeks to address. In doing so, the article explores the nexus between the rationales and the policy approaches/legal strategies adopted by countries, through the specific comparative examples of Norway and the United Kingdom. This methodology, akin to reverse engineering, helps to explain what determines a country's choice for a mandatory quota or discretionary targets. While offering this explanation, the nuances of hard law versus soft law as policy approaches are examined, specifically within the realm of corporate governance. Next, based on the connections so deduced, an attempt is made to theorise how a legal strategy is derived, and, furthermore, how an optimum strategy can be formulated, although subject to national context.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
