The European Commission is reportedly on the verge of publishing draft legislation proposing minimum requirements for each and every member state that would see stock market-listed companies facing sanctions if they do not reserve at least 40% of their non-executive board positions for women by 2020.

Although there is a great deal of empirical evidence suggesting, and indeed proving, that a greater board presence for women makes economic and commercial sense in so many ways, the proposal smacks of a case of political correctness and equal rights taken to an extreme.

And while fully acknowledging that more needs to be done to shatter that glass ceiling that professional women can become trapped under, which holds women and the companies they work for back, the very notion of legislating on board gender quotas borders on transgressing the very concept of competitiveness and the tenets of the single market that Europe prides itself on so much.

And while that glass ceiling is a great disincentive for qualified women entering the job market or for professional women considering returning to the workforce, a forced, EU-wide imposition of any quota could be a very dangerous thing indeed.

Companies, listed or not, need to be at full liberty to choose the best man or woman for the post. Moreover, by singling out public companies, for there is no way of regulating private companies in such a way, the Commission also stands to place companies obliged to fill that quota at a disadvantage.

The fact of the matter is that companies, especially given today’s challenging economic environment, must be free to choose the board directors that they want to have. And since we are in fact speaking of stock exchange-listed companies, decisions over who occupies board seats is not down to the Gordon Geckos of this world or to groups of men smoking cigars around a boardroom table but, rather, it is down to its shareholders – large and small alike. If they, or their customers, demand more women on the board, it will be done.

Moreover, a flat 40% EU-wide quota as is being suggested risks placing Malta at serious disadvantage.

Scandinavia in general, for example, has a far higher proportion of women on company boards. Norway, which is not an EU member state, in 2006 announced penalties for public companies with fewer than 40% of women on their boards, and the rate is currently at 42%. France, Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium have also taken similar steps. In Latvia, Finland and Sweden, meanwhile, women account for some 25% of board seats while in Germany the figure is 16%.

In southern Europe, women account for less than 10 % of boards in Malta, Greece, Italy and Cyprus. As such, if a level percentage were to be established across the EU, Malta would have a lot more ground to cover in the same amount of time, possibly the greatest amount.

Also in Malta, unfortunately, many of the best women for the job are taken out of action far too early in life. They have children and do not return to work. And no matter what incentives the government offers, a year of tax breaks and the like, many women would still rather dedicate their energies to raising children. This is merely a cultural trait, and one that will take an awful long time to be reversed. And reversed it must be, just not in the coercive and dangerous way the Commission is proposing. This state of affairs, at the end of the day, means that in Malta there tends to be a smaller pool of female talent to choose from.

As such, different countries need different strategies tailored for their own exigencies. And that is what Malta, along with the United Kingdom, appears to be favouring in this context.

No doubt, the EU’s rapidly-ageing population and its skills shortage – two areas where Malta can be expected to feel the pinch in the decades to come – means that it is now more than ever necessary to capitalise on everyone’s skills, men and women alike, and the EU, and Malta in particular, undoubtedly needs to do more to get more women into the labour market and into higher, decision-making positions.

Moreover, a number of studies have showed a link between more women being in senior positions and companies’ financial performance. Action in the area could also be very good public relations for those companies that choose to impose such quotas on themselves. After all, a recent EU-wide survey found that 88% of people believed that, given the same qualifications and skills, women should be equally represented in top business jobs and 75% said they were in favour of legislative measures to enforce this.

In Malta, the figures are slightly different. A good 90% either ‘totally agreed’ or ‘tend to agree’ that women should be equally represented at the top, and 81% felt there should be legally-binding measures compelling companies to do so.

But, on the other hand, only 55% of Maltese agreed that business is dominated by men with insufficient confidence in women, and only 38% agreed with monetary fines for companies failing to meet established quotas.

While these quotas are being proposed as a temporary measure aimed at shattering the glass ceiling, after which they would presumably be removed, the economy, and in particular the Maltese economy in its present state, could ill-afford any such mandatory meddling in company affairs.

More and more concerted effort undoubtedly needs to be taken but what Malta needs are its own concerted solutions to its own particular challenges in the area, and not this kind of friendly fire from the Commission, which would undoubtedly stand to threaten Malta’s competitiveness and its economic survival.