Matthew Lynn of the Telegraph has written a piece entitled "Women don’t need quotas to win a place on the board" which considers the negative consequences of relying on quotas to promote gender equality in the Boardroom. Lynn's piece aims to counter Vince Cable's recent comments about the need to soon meet EU targets of 25% female participation on boards - otherwise face quotas such as exist in Germany, Norway, Italy and the Netherlands. Lynn argues that with current levels at 20% for FTSE firms, the UK as already making real progress on the boardroom gender front. Second, he identifies the risk of tokenism or the practice of making superficial gestures towards the inclusion of minority groups. This concern is valid as it would fail to be a real fix. Lastly, he argues that women are doing very nicely in the workplace and advancing up the corporate latter, so why use quotas for the boardroom. He further indicates it probably doesn't matter who sits on the board anyway.
Sorry, but this final comment misses the mark for me on several levels. Firstly, it does matter who monitors management, evaluates executive compensation trends, provides counsel to the CEO, and respresents shareholder interests in a firm. So whether you support quotas or not (which is his primary point), arguing it doesn't matter who sits on the board isn't going to go far with many corporate leaders on any side of this issue, as well as academics who in thier research seek evidence for the the value good governance can bring a firm. Next, the fact that women are advancng in the executive suite is independent from their role in the boardroom as monitors and advisors of executives.
What do you think?
Lynn's article can be seen here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/11393401/Women-dont-need-quotas-to-win-a-place-on-the-board.html
Comments
Post a Comment