“Recruiters face the uncomfortable challenge of reconciling the obligation to avoid discrimination with the need to promote diversity.”
While the Rixain Law (2021) sets quotas for women in corporate leadership, labor law prohibits discrimination based on gender. However, this seemingly paradoxical mandate is not contradictory, as recruiter Bruno Fadda explains in an op-ed for Le Monde.
–
Recently, about a dozen leaders of large companies pledged to promote women to positions of power[1]. Rightfully so, they highlighted the need to improve gender diversity at all levels of organizations, including at the top, while acknowledging the progress still to be made.
This collective awareness led to the adoption in 2021 of the law aimed at accelerating economic and professional equality, known as the “Rixain Law.” This law imposes quotas for women in the governing bodies of large companies by 2030.
The legislation stems from the observation that women are underrepresented in leadership and governance positions. By introducing quotas, it seeks to address this imbalance and promote gender diversity in boards of directors. Companies with over 1,000 employees must ensure that at least 30% of their senior executives and members of governance bodies are women by March 1, 2026, rising to 40% by March 1, 2029. Failure to comply may result in financial penalties of up to 1% of their payroll starting March 1, 2031.
This societal movement is evident in recruitment processes, where executives often explicitly request their partners (recruitment or executive search firms) to identify only female candidates.
However, recruitment players face a significant obstacle—the law. Article L.1132-1 of the French Labor Code prohibits any discrimination in hiring, including so-called “positive discrimination.” Concretely, gender cannot be used as a criterion to exclude a male candidate from a recruitment process. The risk is legal. Recruitment professionals assisting companies must remind their clients of this, if necessary, adopting a firm advisory stance that aligns with current legislation, even under significant pressure.
Are we not facing a paradox here? How can we promote greater gender diversity and equality without considering gender? And when it comes to all aspects of diversity, how can we build more inclusive companies without acknowledging the criteria that define this diversity? Doesn’t this put companies in the uncomfortable position of having to reconcile the obligation to avoid discrimination with the need to actively promote diversity?
In reality, the two laws can and must coexist, along with their respective objectives: equality of opportunity on the one hand, and gender diversity and inclusion on the other. This requires distinguishing between two approaches and two timelines.
Recruitment Procedures: Ensuring Fairness and Equity
The sole objective of recruitment procedures is to ensure fair and equitable practices, guaranteeing that the most suitable candidate, regardless of gender, is chosen based on their ability to assume the responsibilities assigned to them. In accordance with the principle of equal opportunity, only professional qualifications (skills, experience, potential) should matter. As it stands, recruitment is not intended to address inequalities deeply rooted in society.
Other levers exist to address these cultural imbalances. These include education and initial training, which combat the early transmission of stereotypes, and daily corporate strategies to develop a pool of female talent through initiatives like mentoring, ongoing training, and proactive internal mobility.
Attempting to use recruitment to address these disparities would not only be illegal (a sufficiently compelling reason to avoid it) but could also be counterproductive—for the selected candidate, who may feel chosen for reasons unrelated to their talent, expertise, and demeanor, and for the company, which risks compromising its competence.
Occasionally, companies may face a choice between two equally qualified candidates. In such cases, they can responsibly make a decision based on other criteria. This is the proactive approach adopted by Christine Lagarde at the helm of the European Central Bank, with a compelling argument: “Otherwise, in 160 years, we will still be at the same point.”
A Complementary Balance
The paradox is only apparent. The two laws are indeed complementary: the anti-discrimination law protects against immediate biases, while the Rixain Law helps correct historical imbalances. Companies can and must respect the balance created by these two laws and, more importantly, embrace their spirit by adopting a comprehensive approach to diversity and inclusion.
Human resources consulting and services professionals have a major responsibility in this broader effort. They must develop recruitment and talent management practices that not only comply with legal requirements but also strengthen collective commitment to equal opportunity, inclusion, and diversity. This is how we can truly transform our organizations and, ultimately, society itself.