Less than two weeks after the new government unveiled a cabinet with just one woman, we learn that the representation of women in our biggest organisations remains a low priority.
This is clearly demonstrated by the Women on Boards Traffic Light Index, which rates the ASX200 companies on their diversity practices. The report launched in Sydney today indicates that almost half of those companies have minimal compliance with basic gender diversity principles. Only 8% received a green light, recognising companies that have truly embedded diversity.
Speaking at the launch today, Women on Boards chairwoman and report author Ruth Medd said the results were disappointing. “While some ASX200 companies significantly improved their reporting on gender balance in 2013, better performance is still eluding many,” Medd said. “Unfortunately 15.5%, or 31 companies, rated red, meaning they show little or no compliance at all with basic gender diversity principles.”
A further 30% of companies rated only slightly higher at the bottom of the amber category. “So there are 90 companies that could benefit from lifting their game around diversity initiatives,” Medd said.
The remaining 110 companies have diversity policies and measurable targets in place. The 16 top-rating companies are those making real progress that have implemented innovative policies and best practice programs.
“Unsurprisingly there is a clear disparity in the gender balance practice in companies with female directors and those who have none,” Medd said. “Of the red-rated companies, 77% have no female directors while more than 80% of the green-rated companies have at least two females on their boards.”
Even still, progress in the top-rated organisations is still slow. The number of females in the leadership ranks in companies that received the green light has increased by 2% from last year.
“We cannot keep ignoring the stark reality that in corporate Australia in 2013 women still receive lower pay, fewer board seats and fewer senior executive roles,” Medd said. “Whether it stems from an unconscious bias, traditional work cultures or simple ignorance, companies cannot continue in this vein. This is why we ‘encourage’ the companies that are falling short in their gender diversity compliance and recognise those making real progress by publicly naming them alongside their ranking.”
New to the green rating in 2013 are Aurizon, Caltex and Suncorp Metway, joining the ASX, Commonwealth Bank, Commonwealth Property Office and CFS Retail Property Trust Group, MirvacGroup, National Australia Bank, Stockland, Telstra, Transurban Group, Westpac, Woolworths and Wotif.com as the companies leading gender diversity performance and reporting in Australia.
“There are a number of key factors that need attention,” executive director of Women on Boards Claire Braund said. “Firstly companies need to understand where they are with effective and transparent gender data sets then set rigorous measurable objectives to improve and pay attention to deliverables like reducing the gender pay gap and appreciating flexible working.”
*This article was originally published at Women’s Agenda
The Women on Boards Traffic Light Index neatly highlights the continuing imbalance of female representation still endemic within the upper levels of business and organisation power. As does the recent cabinet announcement reflect either much of the same, or indeed perhaps a more worrying situation if the leading liberal members are right, an intellectual grassroots gap of serious merit worthy female candidates. Nevertheless, it is all a particularly bourgeois feminism that does little to actually underscore the more prevalent disadvantage of being female and/all rural, ethnic and poor. Recently the gender wars have been framed around and for an elite level of society. Discussions of Julia Gillards leadership and the focus on the ASX100 companies, clearly deserve acknowledgment, but these have taken place within a conversation that has not given voice to females everywhere who face a lack of education, economic attainment and empowerment. In other words, the elite members of the feminist movement have ambitions and measurements of feminist success, that are wholly unrelated to the majority of women. It must be time the leading journalists, newspapers and media establishments give the ‘glass-ceiling’ conversation, that is ever present and graces the news prolifically, an equal share of space with the rest of ‘us’. The marginalised females, working and living within a crippling and insidious gender imbalance framework.
This is just one of those issues that will take time. If you’re a big Australian mining company, you want geologists, mineralogists and engineers on your board. And as long as women choose not to study those fields in large numbers, they will always be under-represented.
Taking engineering as just one example, according to RoboGals (data from Engineers Australia): “Only 9.6% of engineers in Australia are women, and the rate of women in engineering degree courses has remained around 14% since the 1990s.”
@ burnet alice – The issue of representation of women at board and upper levels of business and commerce might seem elitist to some. However it is by having women working at these levels which changes the internal culture of organisations to normalise gender equity at the more general workplace levels. Women at senior levels can challenge from the inside – much easier than knocking on the door and asking those in power to make appropriate changes.
And john 64, often the reason young women choose not to enter these professions, is the dominant male culture and non-female friendly workplace and practices. And if you think men in professions as opposed to trades are above all of that, think again. If industry wants to draw from the full pool of Australian talent, rather than half, then it needs to address gender issues. On that note, I love the way the term ‘merit’ is thrown about by men when they are only swimming in a merit pool that is really only half full.
Hi Suzanne Kelly. Thank you for your reply.
Indeed, I did certainly acknowledge senior corporate female representatives as being an important goal. What I was highlighting was the limited means for the majority of women to access this level of employment. Furthermore, ‘elite’ is not a pejorative term, but clearly delineates the small number of women that are in a position to even challenge the status quo. I would argue, a power shift within a democratic state, is only possible when the majority of members are given the means to actualise empowerment.
The fact remains, regardless of their gender, the media and those in power continue to emphasise female equality within a white upper class framework. Apart from this oversight, I would also dispute whether a gender neutral corporate power base, would even translate to a gender equal society.