1. Egalitarianism
2. Non-Discrimination

The bill should be supported because it enhances gender equality in the workplace by requiring large employers to actively pursue and report on specific gender equality targets. This aligns with the principle of egalitarianism, ensuring more equitable treatment and opportunities for all genders in the workplace. By setting clear targets and holding employers accountable, the bill aims to reduce gender-based disparities and foster a more inclusive work environment. Additionally, the bill addresses the issue of non-discrimination by mandating that employers take concrete steps to promote gender equality, thus helping to dismantle systemic barriers that have historically disadvantaged certain genders. The flexibility in target selection allows employers to tailor their strategies to their unique contexts while ensuring progress is made in critical areas of gender equality [Judgment].

1. Propertarianism
2. Value-Neutral / Epistemic Objection

The bill should be opposed because it imposes additional regulatory burdens on large employers, which may be perceived as onerous and inconsistent with efficient business operations. From a propertarian perspective, the requirement for companies to meet government-mandated targets could be seen as an overreach that infringes on the autonomy of private enterprises. It may lead to increased administrative costs and divert resources away from other business priorities. Furthermore, the compulsory nature of the targets could result in employers focusing on compliance rather than genuine improvements in gender equality, potentially leading to tokenistic measures rather than meaningful change [Judgment]. Additionally, the bill could adversely affect business competitiveness in government procurement processes, as non-compliance would limit access to government contracts, impacting revenue and growth opportunities.