Tag Archives: Quotas

Q is for Quota

21 Sep

There’s been a degree of press coverage of late around the suggestion, as put forward by Viviane Reading, who heads up equality and equal rights in her role as the European Union’s Fundamental Rights’ Commissioner, that European companies may soon be forced to implement a system of gender quotas at board level.

Predictably,  the Confederation of British Industry have responded to this with horror, thus:

“… the best and most sustainable way to promote diversity in the boardroom is by selecting candidates from as wide a talent pool as possible, and by making appointments based on merit.”

Well,  yes.  This is true.  But,  given that this “best and most sustainable way” doesn’t seem to be happening of its own free will, how about a bit of a push?

Read more about the back story, and what’s happening in other countries around the Q word, in my latest article for The Glass Hammer – by clicking here.

So are we tiptoeing towards quotas in the UK?

3 Jun

“Slowly, slowly, we approach the nervous foal with our hand out,  proffering a sugar lump,  or perhaps a chunk of carrot,  walking softly and gently on the balls of our feet so as not to startle him, speaking in a low, gentle, moderated voice so as not to cause him to veer up, startled and afraid”.

[As I'm sure David Attenborough never said].

But this approach is how these proposed new regulations from the Financial Reporting Council read,  when the nod towards the foal is so small as to be almost invisible – here’s the wording (my use of bold,  their use of underline):

“To encourage boards to be well balanced and avoid “group think” there are new principles on the composition and selection of the board, including the need to appoint members on merit, against objective criteria, and with due regard for the benefits of diversity, including gender diversity.”

And as Andrew Hill commented in the FT:

“it’s hard to understand why some companies feel threatened by the Financial Reporting Council’s decision to insist on annual re-election of boards and to nod, gently, towards gender diversity.”

Well, quite.

I await further media revelations as to which companies feel “threatened” and why … and what their share prices look like, too.

Not so wizard in Oz

26 May

It wasn’t until I started, as part of the consulting work which I’m doing for emberin, researching the status quo in Australian business circles with regard to women in corporate life, that I realised exactly where Australia currently sits on the gender diversity totem pole.

And the answer is … low. Here’s some data which I researched for an emberin paper on global best practices, sourced from such respected bodies as Catalyst, the FTSE 100 2009 survey of women on boards and Australian body the Equal Opportunities for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA) – pretty shocking, isn’t it?

Country % of women as board directors
United States 14%
Canada 13%
United Kingdom 12%
Australia 8.30%

As I read and researched for my paper, it became clear that the (in)famous Aussie macho, blokey culture, described here in a piece on The Glass Hammer, and also in an interview with emberin founder Maureen Frank, is a huge part of the problem.

The very few women who have made it to the top of a minority of leading Australian companies describe a sometimes hostile environment built of what federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick calls both “belief barriers” (cultural convictions around the maternal role and what an “ideal” worker looks like) and “structural barriers”, such as issues around childcare and attitudes towards flexible working.

One of the ways in which this culture may end up being changed via force is through the introduction of some new legislation which will apply to Australia’s top 200 listed companies. About six months ago, the Australia Securities Exchange (ASX) dropped a bombshell in which they outlined their proposals to expand the existing corporate governance principles to include a mandatory gender diversity policy, thus parachuting diversity to the top of the agenda for those ASX 200 companies.

Described by Broderick as “the first structural intervention we’ve had”, the plan will force companies to publish a gender breakdown of directors and senior employees and to set both objectives and targets for gender diversity.

In essence, the proposals mean that publicly listed companies will need to consider reviewing existing diversity policies, or creating new ones, to cover board and company wide diversity initiatives.

The recommendations will require listed companies to:

• Establish a “diversity policy” that includes measurable objectives relating to gender diversity as set by the board;
• Disclose in their annual report the measurable objectives for achieving gender diversity as set by the board in accordance with the diversity policy, and –
• Disclose in the annual report the proportion of women employees in the whole organisation, in senior executive positions and on the board.

The first step for ensuring compliance with these new regulations (currently scheduled to be implemented on 1 January 2011, with recommendations to be finalised by 30 June 2010) – is for listed companies to prepare a diversity policy for their boards and to create a diversity strategy to support the policy, which is of course where emberin come in.

What I think will be particularly interesting will be what will happen to those companies if they DON’T comply; presumably, there’ll be fines but will the next step be to follow in the steps of Norway (2008) and France (2009) and introduce quotas for female representation on boards?

The “quota” word is always a real debating point in this space; for some, it’s regarded as the only way to force specific and measurable change, and to accept that the situation of low female representation won’t fix itself; for others, it’s the complete opposite of a meritocracy and is tokenistic and insulting to women’s talent, implying as it does (perhaps) that they’re only present on the board or in the leadership team in order to make up the numbers.

I was reminded of this when I went to register for a diversity conference and was faced with the following pop-up survey as part of the registration process:

“Do you think the UK should impose quotas to increase the number of women at the boardroom level?”

The instant answers were interesting but unhelpful:

53% voted yes, 47% voted no.

My own view on quotas is that they should be the last chance saloon, an “if all else fails” tool if establishing and monitoring targets hasn’t worked and nor have any of the other cultural change mechanisms available to companies who are really serious about increasing the number of women in key corporate roles.

A few months ago, Deutsche Telekom (DT) announced that they were introducing quotas in order to fill 30% of their middle and upper management jobs with women by 2015. This is a bold move and the company hopes to shift the female numbers from the 2008 level of 13%. The BBC report went on to say that DT will use tools like its recruitment policy and executive development programs to reach the targets, in addition to expanding the company’s parental leave, childcare and flexible working programs.

But, as with the ASX directive, it is unlikely that this comprehensive suite of measures will succeed without the final missing ingredient of monitoring – and, in all honesty, some kind of punitive measures.

More on IWD … and the continuing global gender gap

11 Mar

And so to the House of Commons, to celebrate International Women’s Day with the Plan team, assorted MPs, the Royal African Society and Plan’s supporters.

On the way there,  I read the Mirror’s IWD supplement,  guest edited by Sarah Brown; on the way home, I saw that President Obama had also celebrated IWD at the White House; both huge, mainstream improvements on the way in which IWD is now globally recognised and acknowledged.

Chaired by Labour MP Sally Keeble, the event was about celebrating IWD, discussing women’s issues in Africa and highlighting the impact of women on economic empowerment. I sat at the back of the room and scribbled,  so saw a lot of backs rather than the speakers and their associated slides – but here’s what I heard …

Plan CEO Marie Staunton (a really fabulous speaker and such an impassioned advocate for girls and women) opened up the debate with the statement that “Girls are invisible” – their work is unseen, taken for granted, doesn’t count,  doesn’t contribute to GDP – and yet where would many societies be without it? And, in a recession,  girls suffer more than boys: they are more likely to be pulled out of school early in order to contribute to the family income,  with all the future repercussions of that (outlined here,  at the launch of Plan’s “Because I am a Girl” book in January). 

But,  continued Marie, each year of completed primary school  adds an additional 10% onto an adult girl’s future earnings; and girls who go on to complete a full ten years’ worth of education are more likely to have smaller families and break the cycle of poverty.  Plan are tracking 142 girls in 9 countries and these preliminary findings add a huge amount of value to their work overseas, as do insights such as learning that girls who are menstruating and have no sanitary protection can’t go to school – so something as relatively simple as providing them with sanitary towels can have a massive impact on their capacity to gain an education, recognise their rights, gain a voice and empower their communities.

A speaker (I unfortunately missed her name – Tipi …?) from Comic Relief told us that the charity has a specific programme funding women and girls, and that their research has shown that,  “when women and girls prosper, communities thrive.”

Focussing on education, anti-violence campaigns and women’s issues (such as programmes which emphasise the benefits of later marriage) all support the wider community in countries all over Africa and elsewhere.

Finally,  we were joined by two amazing girls from a Walthamstow secondary school – Rhiannon and Ronan.  They had won an essay competition and had,  as their prize,  spent the recent half-term holiday with Plan in Ghana, helping to raise awareness of the issues which affect girls’ education. These two 15 years old blew me away – so confident,  self-assured, witty, compassionate.  It’s no small thing to stand up in front of a room full of “grown ups” and talk about your recent trip – and yet they did,  and were amazing. 

“Boys are prioritised in Ghana”,  they announced.

“Girls are expected to help at home rather than go to school.”

As honoured guests of a high school near Accra, our girls presented the prizes on school sports day – which, as they told us to laughter and applause,  also consisted of handing over boxes of “Always” to the winning girls’ teams.

(“What are ‘always’?” – asked the man standing next to me … and then rather looked as if he hadn’t when he received the hissed answer of “Sanitary towels!”).

I loved these girls; as a member of the Plan team said to me afterwards: “Young voices are so important – not only do they talk sense but they capture an audience …” 

Anyway,  R & R were accompanied by a Guardian journalist;  read more about their adventures here.

Elswhere,  I’ve had a couple of comments made to me as to the “need” to have an International Women’s Day in 2010; to those people,  I’d refer you to the just-released World Economic Forum’s annual Corporate Gender Gap report,  which shows that,  even in countries such as the US,  where awareness and resources are far higher,  the numbers of women in the workforce at all are not,  actually,  that high – and as for India? 

(My use of bold)

Taken from the press release ,  we can see that:

The United States (52%), Spain (48%), Canada (46%) and Finland (44%) have the highest percentage of women employees at all levels among the responding companies. India is the country with the lowest percentage of women employees (23%), followed by Japan (24%), Turkey (26%) and Austria (29%). At the industry level, the findings of the survey confirm that the services sector employs the greatest percentage of women employees. Within this sector, the financial services and insurance (60%), professional services (56%) and media and entertainment (42%) industries employ the greatest percentage of women. The sectors that display the lowest percentage of women in the 20 economies are automotive (18%), mining (18%) and agriculture (21%).

Female employees tend to be concentrated in entry or middle level positions and remain scarce in senior management or board positions in most countries and industries. A major exception to this trend is Norway, where the percentage of women among boards of directors is above 40% for the majority of respondents. This is due to a government regulation that mandates a minimum of 40% of each gender on the boards of public companies.

The average for women holding the CEO-level position was a little less than 5% among the 600 companies surveyed. Finland (13%), Norway (12%), Turkey (12%), Italy (11%) and Brazil (11%) have the highest percentage of women CEOs in this sample.

But,  in Norway,  where there’s been a mandated quota system for a couple of years now, we see a more marked shift,  which leaves me wondering why so many countries (and companies) run scared of interventions such as quotas and targets.  There’s more on this in a political context on my friend Lee Chalmers’ excellent blog.  And Lee also links to and comments on the recent Economist article on gendercide … read this and then make the case that we no longer have a need for International Women’s Day, OK?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers