A favor, contra, ou assim-assim? Posições e discursos de membros dos órgãos de gestão sobre limiares de representação legalmente vinculativos, mérito e igualdade

44 | 2021

Sara Falcão Casaca*, Maria João Guedes**, Susana Ramalho Marques***, Nuno Paço****

* Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
SOCIUS – Centro de Investigação em Sociologia Económica e das Organizações/CSG – Investigação em Ciências Sociais e Gestão – Lisboa, Portugal
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7944-5007
** Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
SOCIUS – Centro de Investigação em Sociologia Económica e das Organizações/CSG – Investigação em Ciências Sociais e Gestão – Lisboa, Portugal
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4342-2620
*** SOCIUS – Centro de Investigação em Sociologia Económica e das Organizações/CSG – Investigação em Ciências Sociais e Gestão, Lisboa, Portugal
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7116-7252
**** SOCIUS – Centro de Investigação em Sociologia Económica e das Organizações/CSG – Investigação em Ciências Sociais e Gestão, Lisboa, Portugal
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9930-460X

For, against, or somewhere in the middle? Positions and discourses of board members about legally binding thresholds of representation, merit and equality

This paper seeks to analyse the positions and discourses of board members serving in companies that are legally bound by a minimum balanced threshold of representation between men and women. The results show that, despite the lack of a marked opposition to legally binding affirmative action measures, the current Law is far from consensual. The greater opposition and resistance is voiced by male board members, while female board members make up the majority of those who contradict the narrative that binding measures may compromise meritocracy. Women tend to deny any experience of discrimination throughout their professional careers, but, contradictorily, they also admit having to provide more proof of competence than their male colleagues. Such a narrative suggests that the conditions in which they serve on boards is still pervaded by inequality in relation to their male peers.

Keywords

companies, affirmative action, merit, gender equality, board members

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22355/exaequo.2021.44.05
[ Download pdf ] [ View pdf ]