COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION-General Secretariat of the Council/Library Blog,update

Documents destinés à la presse lundi 14 mars 2022

● Conseil de l'UE   14/03/2022 11:14 | Communiqué de presse | Les États membres arrêtent leur position sur une directive européenne visant à renforcer l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes dans les conseils d’administration   Les ministres de l'emploi et des affaires sociales sont parvenus aujourd'hui à une "orientation générale" sur une proposition de législation de l'UE visant à améliorer l'équilibre hommes-femmes parmi les administrateurs non exécutifs des sociétés cotées. "L'accord intervenu aujourd'hui au Conseil constitue une étape importante. J’appelle de mes vœux le début rapide des négociations avec le Parlement européen pour parvenir à une adoption définitive de cette directive qui permettra de lutter contre le plafond de verre auquel les femmes sont encore trop souvent confrontées dans le monde du travail." Élisabeth Borne, ministre française du travail, de l'emploi et de l'insertion Cette directive vise à fixer un objectif quantitatif pour la proportion de membres du sexe sous-représenté au sein des conseils d'administration des sociétés cotées. Les entreprises devraient ainsi mettre en place des mesures pour atteindre l'objectif minimal, d'ici à 2027, soit de 40 % de membres du sexe sous-représenté pour les administrateurs non exécutifs, soit de 33 % pour tous les membres de leur conseil d’administration En cas de non-respect de ces objectifs, une entreprise serait tenue de procéder à des nominations ou à des élections d'administrateurs en appliquant des critères clairs, univoques et formulés en termes neutres. Les États membres devront également veiller à ce que, lorsqu'elles choisissent entre des candidats possédant des qualifications égales quant à leur aptitude, à leurs compétences et à leurs prestations professionnelles, les sociétés accordent la priorité au candidat du sexe sous-représenté. Ajustements nationaux éventuels Les pays qui ont mis en place des mesures, telles que des objectifs nationaux pour parvenir à une représentation plus équilibrée des femmes et des hommes peuvent suspendre les exigences prévues par la directive en matière de nomination ou d'élection. Il en va de même s'ils ont déjà accompli des progrès leur permettant de se rapprocher des objectifs fixés dans la directive. Dans sa position, le Conseil a également précisé qu'il appartenait à chaque État membre (plutôt qu'aux entreprises) de choisir entre les deux objectifs proposés, à savoir 40 % pour les administrateurs non exécutifs ou 33 % pour tous les membres du conseil d'administration. Des progrès ont été réalisés mais le déséquilibre persiste Si des progrès ont été accomplis sur la voie d'une plus grande égalité entre les hommes et les femmes dans les conseils d'administration, ils restent inégaux. En octobre 2021, seuls 30,6 % des membres des conseils d'administration et à peine 8,5 % des présidents des conseils étaient des femmes dans l’Union européenne. L’écart entre les Etats membres est important. Ceux dans lesquels des mesures ont été mises en place progressent beaucoup plus vite que ceux dans lesquels il n’en existe pas. Effets positifs sur le marché du travail Une proportion plus élevée de femmes aux fonctions de décision économique devrait avoir des retombées positives dans toute l'économie. En outre, les femmes représentent environ 60 % des nouveaux diplômés universitaires dans l'UE. Ainsi, un meilleur équilibre entre les hommes et les femmes dans les conseils d'administration des entreprises permettrait également de tirer un meilleur parti du grand nombre de femmes hautement qualifiées que compte l'Europe. Prochaines étapes L'accord intervenu aujourd'hui entre les États membres ouvre la voie aux négociations entre le Conseil et le Parlement européen en vue de parvenir à une position commune.

Library blog Monday 14 March 2022

● General Secretariat of the Council   'Reclaiming Populism: how economic fairness can win back disenchanted voters’ by Eric Protzer and Paul Summerville   The success of populism in Western societies has given rise to a wave of academic papers and books that try to explain why populists are succeeding in some countries while failing to gain a foothold in others. Reclaiming Populism: how economic fairness can win back disenchanted voters by Eric Protzer and Paul Summerville introduces a new perspective on populism, with the authors considering it a consequence of economic unfairness. 'Reclaiming Populism: how economic fairness can win back disenchanted voters’ by Eric Protzer and Paul Summerville 14 March 2022   Guest blogger: Analysis and research team of the Council of the European Union How can Western societies’ different experiences with populism be explained? According to Eric Protzer and Paul Summerville, the answer lies in economic unfairness, and one of the central points in their argument is that however much they might disagree with populists’ discourse and proposed solutions, mainstream politicians should not dismiss the legitimacy of the concerns around economic unfairness of citizens who support populists. The authors begin by explaining the shortcomings of dominant theories on the causes of populism. Neither cultural factors – immigration, social media, generational differences – nor economic factors – economic inequality, trade shocks, the global financial crisis – can satisfactorily explain when, where and why populism succeeds. Some of these factors can certainly amplify the success of populism. For others, what appears to be decisive is not so much the factor itself (such as a trade shock) but rather the government’s response to it. According to Protzer and Summerville, contemporary populism is rooted in structural economic unfairness that has been almost half a century in the making. They argue that what matters to citizens is not so much equal outcomes, but rather fair outcomes – even if these are unequal. Public policy regimes that leave citizens vulnerable to economic unfairness are thus more prone to seeing populists succeed. The second chapter develops the concept of economic fairness and its crucial importance for today’s most prosperous societies. Biological evolution gave human beings a fairness instinct, and cultural evolution has promoted fairness above other competing values in the developed world because it critically enables stable and productive cooperation. Unfairness, conversely, can cause societal friction. Fairness implies that the rewards from cooperation are principally divided according to individual contribution. Fairness, therefore, is not the same as equality: in fact, equalising outcomes breaks the relationship between reward and contribution. To prove their point, in the third chapter, Protzer and Summerville show a consistent and statistically significant correlation between low social mobility (an important type of economic unfairness) and the geography of populism. They explain how a high level of social mobility can act as a firewall against illiberal populism. Then, they trace the causal chain leading to populism through the lens of fairness. The authors claim that in developed societies, unfairness exists where there is too much focus on the maximisation of wealth, or, conversely, where aggressive redistribution to enforce equal outcomes creates a situation in which reward does not depend on effort anymore. Chapter 4 discusses how to build a fair economy and reclaim populism based on the twin virtues of equal opportunities and fair but unequal outcomes. In such a society, economic rewards are largely decided by contribution, and fairness is possible. The authors highlight a range of policies that address different aspects of equal opportunities and fair but unequal outcomes, from education and healthcare to regional economic policies and taxation. Finally, the fifth chapter introduces a method for identifying the binding constraints to economic fairness in a given country, exploring the underlying blockages (political, institutional, cultural) that have prevented their correction, and making corresponding policy recommendations. The authors then briefly examine prospective binding constraints to economic fairness in the US, the UK, Italy and France, and suggest policies that could be considered to address those constraints – taking into account cultural and economic sensitivities. To prove their point, the authors distinguish between two clear categories of political parties: populist parties and, diametrically opposed to them, mainstream political parties. There is little scope for considering how in some countries those mainstream parties, while not qualifying as full-blown populist parties, might have taken on some populist features. Whereas this nuance might not be so important for the argument put forward in Reclaiming Populism, it is a very real element of current politics in many Western societies. On another critical note, despite the authors’ caveat that performing a rigorous diagnostic is a very detailed process, when reading the case studies the reader sometimes gets the feeling that the authors are jumping to conclusions, reducing complex political constellations to oversimplified causal relationships. What makes the book worth reading nonetheless is that its theoretical and statistical consideration of the underlying causes of populist success is followed up with concrete suggestions for action by politicians and policymakers. By understanding the roots of economic unfairness, the authors think that ‘policymakers and public leaders can offer credible answers to populist political sentiments – and thereby reclaim them for the liberal democratic project’. That is important not only in terms of addressing current threats from illiberal populism, but also in terms of building up resilience to future challenges to economic fairness. What sticks after having read Reclaiming Populism is the authors’ appeal to take populist voters very seriously and not brand them as a ‘basket of deplorables’ or ‘les gens qui ne sont rien’, but instead earnestly address their grievances, which stem from a sense of lasting and genuine economic unfairness. For this reason, the authors decided to change their working title ‘defeating populism’ to ‘reclaiming populism’. The Council’s Analysis and Research Team had the pleasure of receiving a presentation on Reclaiming Populism by the authors. One of the key questions discussed concerned the fact that the dynamics described in the book, if well managed by mainstream politicians, might prevent populists from taking power – but what should be done if populists are already in power? One might argue that they have no real incentive to address economic unfairness, since this might actually erode their voter base. Whether the poor economic track record of populists will lead voters away from them and back to mainstream political parties remains to be seen. Council Library users may request the book via the online catalogue Eureka. Reclaiming Populism: how economic fairness can win back disenchanted voters This post does not necessarily represent the positions, policies, or opinions of the Council of the European Union or the European Council. The Council Library reading room is open on Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 12.00 to 15.00. The Info Desk remains open online from Monday to Friday.