Document Type



This paper will first provide a critical, comparative look at the Canadian and the federal American responses to the under-representation of women on boards of large, publicly traded corporations. There will be a discussion about the competing conceptions which emerge in addressing the regulation of women on boards in the United States and Canada and why each jurisdiction implemented its policy when it did. The conceptions arising out of questions about under-representation of women on boards tend to fall within two categories: business case rationales and normative rationales. Given the competing conceptions of this issue, this paper will attempt to demonstrate how the regulatory regimes fit within these conceptions and the solutions which follow each conception. An argument will be advanced that not only does each disclosure regime fail to provide a solution to the underlying issue it is attempting to regulate, but also neither regime even advances the goal the regulators purport to be advancing. Finally, a closer look at the polarizing reactions to Bill 826 provides a hint as to the future direction of the American and Canadian debates. This paper will be one of the first to discuss Bill 826 and what it may mean for the U.S. and Canada.

First Page


Last Page