CALL
FOR PAPERS ANNOUNCEMENT:
Inaugural Meeting of the AALS Section
on Economic Globalization and Governance
2014 AALS Annual Meeting
Section Meeting: January 3rd,
8:30 am to 10:15 a.m.
New York, New York
After several years of consideration,
in August, 2013 the Section on Economic Globalization and Governance (“SEGG”)
received approval as a provisional section of the AALS. SEGG is sponsoring a Call
for Papers for its program during the AALS 2014 Annual Meeting in New York
City. A description of the subject of the Call for Papers appears below.
Comparative Corporate Governance Meets
Demands for Greater Diversity:
In
Favor of Hard, Soft or No Legal Supports for Enhancing Board Diversity?
The centerpiece of SEGG’s inaugural panel is
the legislative and regulatory efforts to promote greater ethnic and gender
diversity on corporate boards which have been launched around the world in the
past few years. The international drive to enhance board diversity is of
paramount importance because board-centric governance remains preeminent in virtually
all business entities of substantial scope. Second, globalization has enhanced
the breadth and influence of corporate affairs, and hence the power of
corporate boards of directors worldwide. Third, the project of enhancing board
diversity remains complex and contested, as is evident in the variety of
approaches extant, their results, and the myriad opinions surrounding them. For
this reason, greater academic attention to this subject is warranted.
Gender-parity laws appear to be achieving particular
prominence. Parliaments in Italy, the Netherlands, Iceland and Belgium have
enacted gender-based laws recently; Norway’s and Spain’s (very different) quota
laws have existed for several years. France adopted a 40% quota law in
2011. Australia adopted a “comply
or explain” law effective January, 2012; and last year the UK also endorsed a
similar disclosure-based rule. In November 2012 the EU Commission proposed
legislation embracing 40% representation of “the under-represented sex” in
non-executive board positions by 2020.
Here in the U.S., the SEC now requires public
companies to enunciate whether they consider diversity in evaluating board
candidates and “how diversity is considered.” Finally, in response to data
emerging from a UC Davis study, in August 2013 the California Senate passed a
resolution calling for the state’s companies to have more women on their
boards. Mirroring this increase in hard and soft regulations to promote
diversity, there is greater study of board diversity and its effects in
management and law journals and by management consultants. For example, studies
by McKinsey, the Conference Board and Catalyst support the value-added of
greater board diversity.
Perhaps ironically, alongside this push for greater
demographic diversity on boards, there is greater pluralism in conceptualizing the
role and functions of corporate directors, consistent with the waning
absolutism of shareholder primacy theory. In sum, international interest in
corporate governance has never been greater, and it is paralleled by interest
in enhancing the demographic diversity of corporate boards. This drive reflects
a twin concern for promoting both economic growth (diverse boards may better
counter wealth-destroying groupthink and perhaps even excessive managerial
agency costs) and also promoting social justice (diverse boards reflect
meritocratic values and may bolster more sustainable, socially responsible
business practices).
Nevertheless, controversies abound. Will diversity
lead to unproductive dissension on boards? Must diversity come at the cost of
wealth-enhancing “experience”? Can the disclosure approach achieve meaningful
results or are quotas or other substantive requirements warranted? What forms
of diversity are most important to achieving particular corporate and social
welfare objectives relevant to business? What legal approaches, if any, are
optimal for enhancing the kind of board diversity that matters? In what fashion
do experiments in enhanced diversity signal evolution in international models
of corporate governance? What patterns emerge with clarity from the complex
academic studies of board function, and operation – and how do these relate to
enhanced calls for more diverse board composition? This inaugural panel of SEGG
seeks to address these questions through a discussion incorporating the results
from this Call for Papers with expert commentary.
If you are interested in presenting a
paper, please submit a summary of no more than three double-spaced pages, by
e-mail, on or before Friday, October 25th, 2013. In addition to the
summary, you may also submit a complete draft of your paper. Direct your
submission and any inquiries about this Call for Papers to:
Professor
Faith Stevelman
Professor of Law, New York Law School
Visiting
Professor; Director, Center on Law, Business and Entrepreneurship,
University
of Washington School of Law
stevelmn@uw.edu
Papers may be accepted for publication
but must not be published prior to the Annual Meeting. The Executive Committee
of the SEGG will review and select papers for presentation at the program. The
authors of the selected paper will be notified in or before Monday, November 11th,
2013; commentators will be selected by the Executive Committee. Call for Papers
participants in the Section’s program will be responsible for paying their
annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses.
Regrettably, only full-time faculty
members of AALS member law schools are eligible to submit papers. Foreign,
visiting (without a full-time position at an AALS member law school) and
adjunct faculty members; graduate students; fellows and non-law school faculty
are not eligible to submit. Faculty members at fee-paid non-member schools are
also ineligible.
Suggestions for future SEGG programs may also be directed to the
Executive Committee via Professor Stevelman’s email.
SEGG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, 2013
Chair, Faith Stevelman, Professor, NYLS; Visiting, University
of Washington School of Law
David Hunter, Professor, American
University, Washington College of Law
Tayyab Mahmoud, Professor, Seattle University School of Law
Geoffrey P. Miller, Professor, NYU Law
School
Anita Ramisastry, Professor, University of Washington School
of Law
Edward L. Rubin, Professor, Vanderbilt University School of
Law