Gender equality at the top: five lost years
‘A women's quota does not automatically lead to a balanced ratio between the number of men and women in the boardroom.’ That was the main conclusion of the article I wrote for Management Scope in 2021. Now, in 2026, I am sitting here again with the figures in front of me, and I have to be honest: I wish I had been wrong back then, but unfortunately that is not the case.
Since 2022, publicly traded companies have been legally required to reserve at least one-third of the seats on their supervisory boards for women. That sounds like a milestone – and it is, if only symbolically. But there is a fundamental limitation to that requirement. First, it applies to about ninety listed companies. That is a small percentage of the Dutch business community. Second – and this is the most bothersome point – the executive board remains exempt. While it is precisely there that strategic decisions are made. It is precisely there that the real power lies. And it is precisely there that women still rarely feature.
Moreover, when the law was finally introduced in 2022, the supervisory boards of those publicly traded companies already consisted of an average of one-third women. The quota thus served to confirm an existing situation rather than change anything. The flywheel effect that proponents had hoped for – that women at the top would become role models and thereby influence the management layers below – has not, or has barely, materialized.
Furthermore, a better representation of women on the supervisory board is no guarantee of the same representation on the executive board. There is cautious growth, but no real breakthrough.
Seven-headed dragon
This comes as no surprise, given the nature of the obstacles. In my research, I described a ‘seven-headed dragon’ of barriers. That dragon is still alive. The most persistent head is gender stereotyping. Leadership is, largely unconsciously, still associated with traits we consider ‘masculine’: assertiveness, decisiveness, dominance. Women who display those traits run into the notorious double bind. They are labeled as aggressive or unsympathetic. Women who act more caring and empathetic are considered by many to be less suitable for the top. The yardstick is designed for someone they are not – and the only way to break through that is more women at the top, to gradually erode the stereotype.
Then there is the Dutch part-time culture. A large percentage of Dutch women work part-time. That is not evidence of free choice, no matter how often that argument is used, but rather reflects the shortage of good, affordable childcare, combined with deep-rooted social expectations about who takes care of the children. The management echelon still operates on the fiction of the ‘ideal employee’: always available, always present, with no responsibilities at home. For those for whom that fiction does not hold true, advancing in their career is exceptionally difficult. A talented woman who collects her children at four o’clock is still asked: ‘Do you have a free afternoon?’ That sentence, a seemingly innocent remark, tells you everything about the prevailing culture.
New threats
The barriers are therefore largely the same as five years ago. But new threats have emerged. The most visible is the counter-movement. What began as a political debate in the United States is seeping into Dutch annual reports and company websites. Terms such as diversity and inclusion are quietly disappearing, sometimes because international shareholders or customers in the US implicitly – or explicitly – expect it.
Organizations that have pursued robust diversity policies for years are suddenly faced with a complex balancing act: what obligations do I have under Dutch law and toward my Dutch employees, and what image do I present in the international context? I understand the complexity. But I do not accept the conclusion, as diversity policies that disappear as soon as the wind changes were never more than a tick in a report.
Fix the system, not the women
In the debate on gender equality, two currents stand opposed to each other. The first, liberal feminism, emphasizes the autonomy of the individual: women have their own choices, and the path to the top is open as long as they have the right qualifications. Mentoring programs, leadership training, networks – all focused on the individual.
I think we are past that stage. Organizations are gendered: they are built on norms, expectations, and cultures historically determined by men. As long as we only tinker with women, we leave that fundamental architecture untouched. The other school of thought—which includes socialist feminism—argues that the organization itself must change. It is not the woman who must become better for the organization; the organization must become better for the woman.
That calls for different interventions. Not a mentorship program for ambitious women on top of their already packed schedules, but a thorough analysis of how roles are structured, how meetings are scheduled, how success is defined, and who speaks up and who is interrupted. It also calls for a different structure of care responsibilities and the distribution of those responsibilities between men and women, so that care responsibilities no longer automatically fall on women’s shoulders.
You have to want it
But all of this is pointless if management does not believe in it. Without the unconditional support from executives and supervisory board members, diversity initiatives fail, time and time again. And I am not referring to signing a charter. I am referring to conveying a sense of urgency as if it were a strategic priority – because it is.
I hear two types of arguments in these discussions. The first is the business case: diverse teams make better decisions; diverse organizations are more profitable. There is research that supports this, but also research that indicates a negative relationship. That business case is apparently necessary to convince stakeholders of the importance of diversity, but it should not be the case that when the economy takes a turn for the worse, diversity is the first casualty to disappear from the agenda. That business case is an opportunistic argument, and opportunistic arguments are assailable.
The second argument is stronger: equal opportunities are a fundamental human right. Women are entitled to fair treatment, regardless of whether that increases a company’s return. What if the woman applying for a position in your organization is not just any woman, but your daughter, mother, sister, wife, or friend? Would you then still be guided by the ‘business case argument,’ or perhaps then take a stand for women’s rights, as they, too, deserve equal opportunities?
The walls behind the door
The quota was a necessary first step. It opened a door that had remained closed for far too long. But behind that door are walls, and those walls must be torn down. This calls for an expansion of legislation – including a quota for the board of directors, and for large unlisted companies as well. And it requires fair, objective hiring processes: establish criteria for a position in advance, ensure diverse selection committees, and train your managers to recognize unconscious biases. Above all, it requires a willingness to critically examine your own culture. What do we accept within the organization, and do stereotypes play a role in the choices we make?
It has been five years since my previous piece, and my message is essentially the same, but the urgency is greater. Because the time we lose through hesitation costs women their careers. The gauntlet has been thrown down once again. It needs to be picked up.
Essay by Rosalien van ’t Foort-Diepeveen, former assistant professor at Nyenrode Business University in the field of gender equality and diversity and earned her PhD on this topic. Published in Management Scope 06 2026.