Your report notes optimistically that female membership on British corporate boards now "edges up to 13.3%" (Number of women appointed to boards doubles since Lord Davies set 25% target, 2 July). Alongside this is a feature on Norway's quota system, in which "the state said at least 40% of the board members of listed companies should be women" (Norway's 40% rule proves mixed blessing for 'golden skirts', 2 July).

The article reported comments that the policy is somehow not benefiting women in business, and not actually supporting equality. "The figure is now 42% and a prominent group of Norwegian women, nicknamed the golden skirts, have turned themselves into multiple board directors," it states. It is unfortunate that the derogatory term "golden skirts" was used. The impact on company profits can be debated, but the effect on gender equality is clearly positive in the Norwegian case.

In a research project on gender in the boardroom I have led – funded by the Norwegian Research Council – we have interviewed board members about their experiences since the quota was introduced. We found that the new make-up did influence the decision-making process. Greater female representation seems to make meetings a little more pleasant, the preparation material is tidier and more comprehensive, and the processes more formal. Our respondents call it professionalisation.

This is in line with results from other research projects. It is very hard to analyse the impact on profitability, and research on the economic effect of more women on boards is inconclusive. What is beyond doubt, however, is that the policy has paved the way for women to influence corporate decision making.

The article implies that the quota has not created more female managers: "In fact, most golden skirts are non-executive directors," it says. And it points out the discrepancy between women's board representation "and their single-digit share of executive positions".

While it will take time for the quota policy to affect the number of board executives, it is very unlikely that the overall impact will be negative. As Elin Hurvenes, leader of the Professional Boards Forum in Oslo, pointed out: "Now headhunters are starting to look to the boards and pick up women for executive jobs."

Norway may be a small country but it takes a lot of women to fill up the boards of its 361 listed companies. And companies initially not regulated by the quota law, such as the Norwegian agricultural co-operatives, voluntarily adopted the 40% rule. Women are now on the boards in significant numbers, and not as passive "skirts".

They have formed networks and are actively administering their share of the power to make decisions. The experience women gain from corporate boards is qualifying them for executive jobs. Norwegian women's representation on the boards of listed companies was 3% in 1993, 7% in 2003 and is now 42%. Lawmakers who are committed to gender equality should take note of this.