Last Tuesday, women’s groups around the world celebrated the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day. The 8th of March honours the achievements of women. It is a mixture of Mother’s Day and of Valentine’s Day and focuses on women’s economic, political and social achievements against a backdrop of prejudice and systems often designed by men for men.

We have to acknowledge the courage, and often the sacrifices, of many women to whom we, today owe a high degree of our freedom, progress, independence, rights and almost unlimited job opportunities, while also accepting that there is still a long way to go. Parisian women called for freedom, equality and fraternity during the French Revolution in 1789, while in the 20th century the struggle for women to acquire certain basic rights still goes on. A case in point is the European Parliament’s voting down an extension of maternity leave last year and you get a glimpse of the current views even after so many years of development of the concept of equality.

In the last years, western economies tried to grapple with the idea that women bring a particular approach to leadership and management that was badly needed and which was overlooked in past decades. A woman’s ability to listen, consider different point of views and to think outside the traditional way of doing things would make a difference at companies nowadays. Though one cannot claim that these abilities are some kind of gene, women have had to play conciliatory roles in many circumstances whether at home or in society. This allowed women to develop the concept of consensus, including everybody, finding pathways that steadily led to progress. These skills are extremely important for modern businesses and women are increasingly acknowledged for their ability in this respect even if progress has been slow and the number of women in top positions is still few and far between when compared to men.

The National Commission for the Promotion of Equality (NCPE) states that both gender stereotypes on the roles and participation of women and men in employment and the lack of flexibility and support structures for women may hinder equality of opportunities in decision-making positions.

Besides, self-confidence may also play a part as regards the under-representation at boardroom level. In view of the way women present themselves, company bosses may overlook the need for encouragement and acknowledgement that women need when playing in a world that is traditionally a male playing field. However, in spite of the prominent roles and the record of high qualifications that women are achieving at universities in the EU, as well as the achievements in different walks of life, the need to set quotas for women’s participation in certain positions is still valid.

In this regard, Lord Davies of Abersoch CBE, former UK Minister of Trade, Investment and Business, suggested in his just-published Women on Boards report that British major companies should aim for a minimum of 25 per cent female representation by 2015 in order to walk towards gender balance on corporate boards.

Apparently, the fastest and most effective measure is supposed to be introducing legislation and compulsory quotas. In fact, in February 2002, Norwegian government gave a deadline for July 2005 to private listed companies to raise the proportion to 40 per cent of women on the company board – from the previous 6.8 per cent in 2002. Full rate was reached by 2009 and today 44.2 per cent of directors in Norway are women.

Chapter 456 of the Laws of Malta mentions positive actions “for the purpose of achieving substantive equality for men and women”. Apparently, the compulsory quotas may fit into this statement. However, there are those who argue against quotas. Diana Worman, diversity adviser of London Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, shuns boardroom quotas because of the belief that this measure is discriminatory anyway if it is not associated with culture change, flexible working and training schemes for women to make it to top positions.

NCPE encourages women to participate in life-long learning and vocational training in order to enhance their skills, as they will be in a better position to advance their careers.

Striking the right balance between family commitments and work responsibilities will always be the prime concern of women although it should also be the same for men. Family-friendly measures go a long way to facilitate this balance and there are still wide variations of such benefits across the EU. However the need for adequate support structures for women who are still charged with caring responsibilities of often both children and elderly are critical when designing policies for women to take up a more active role in employment and especially senior positions.

Discovering and utilising the talent that women have is a measure of building social capital and enhancing innovation and success without the need for a Copernican revolution. It is not a gender numbers battle. It is about deleting all the barriers that hamper women’s success in the competition and basing management recruitment on skills, experience and merit. It is about common sense and good governance. Harriet Harman, former UK Minister for Women and Equality, even said that “if Lehman Brothers had been Lehman Sisters it would not have failed”. While such an assertion has its own weaknesses, concepts such as corporate social responsibility, ethical financing, responsible consumption and other value-based approaches, which appear to be the modern mark that distinguishes the best from the ordinary, sit very well with the female gender. They have been doing it for ages in their roles as spinsters and stay-at-home mothers.

Ms Soriano is a Spanish journalist at the Foundation for Human Resources Development.