Did you know that California is 50.3% female?

February 16, 2021 10:11 PM

Women Joining Corporate Boards in Record Numbers After Legislative Push
posted by aniola (15 comments total)

Census citation for title factoid.
posted by aniola at 10:12 PM on February 16, 2021

I'm not disputing the significance of this, but the resistance must have been remarkable considering that “California’s 662 publicly traded companies” have barely added one woman each, over two years; and as for NASDAQ’s requirement that its members have “at least one woman or member of an underrepresented minority on their boards, within two years”—the penalty for failing to do that is just having to say why they're noncompliant.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:07 PM on February 16, 2021 [3 favorites]

I was thinking "we're probably better at it over here in Norway", but it's actually a bit depressing here as well - only publicly traded companies have the required 40% female representation in boards, probably because they face real consequences for not complying. Of other corporations, over 70% still have an all-male board, despite a 2005 law with good intentions but no real teeth.
posted by Harald74 at 12:49 AM on February 17, 2021

Harald74, what sort of consequences would companies face for not having enough female directors?
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:04 AM on February 17, 2021

Publicly listed companies in Portugal are obliged to meet gender-balance quotas on their Executive and Non-Executive boards. The male domination is changing, but slowly. It's also a generational thing, I would expect that (here) in about a decade this will have naturally shifted closer to parity thanks in part to the law but also to the fact that there many more women in the workforce and with college/postgraduate/MBA degrees who are already in positions of leadership/middle management and working their way up. (More women than men in Portugal, more women with degrees than men too.) But the headwinds are fierce.
posted by chavenet at 1:08 AM on February 17, 2021

what sort of consequences would companies face for not having enough female directors?

Actually, that was a bit hard for me as a layperson to tell. My guess is that since it's a requirement in the Law of joint-stock companies, apparently on the same level as the requirements to have an actual board and a CEO etc. the consequences are similar. The different sanctions a company can expect for not complying starts with written warnings, and end up with with being taken off the stock market or put in "forced administration", whatever that is in English. Receivership?
posted by Harald74 at 3:37 AM on February 17, 2021 [3 favorites]

As of Feb 2020 in the UK, about 1/3 of all FTSE 350 Board roles are held by women. But that must be skewed towards the smallest 100 companies as they are apparently struggling to meet additional targets of 1/3 of Board roles held by women in FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 firms.

Typically when there's a demographic shift from previously all male, to at least 1/3 female, that's a tipping point that leads to increased female participation.
posted by plonkee at 4:40 AM on February 17, 2021 [3 favorites]

Is there research that shows more women on corporate boards tangibly lead to better material outcomes for the vast majority of women who aren't wealthy enough to be added to corporate boards, especially women of color and undocumented women?

I am highly skeptical of representation capitalism, but I'd love to read more about how this is a good thing for the other 16,996,087 women in California.
posted by Ouverture at 6:24 AM on February 17, 2021 [4 favorites]

Is there research that shows more women on corporate boards tangibly lead to better material outcomes for the vast majority of women who aren't wealthy enough to be added to corporate boards, especially women of color and undocumented women?

No, not really. 10 years after Norway’s quota was introduced, "We find no evidence of significant differential improvements for women in the post-reform cohort, either in terms of average earnings or likelihood of filling in a top position in a Norwegian business,” but the study could not rule it out, either.

I think gender quotas are the right thing to do, but I’d also like to see corporate boards (and regulatory agency advisory boards) have equal worker representation.
posted by jedicus at 6:38 AM on February 17, 2021 [5 favorites]

Topical article: A Hidden Hurdle in Efforts to Diversify Boardrooms

TL;DR version, many companies actively prevent non c-suite execs from taking board positions. Gatekeeping in layers.

The specific example given of a female senior executive at Salesforce asking Benioff directly for permission to join a board, being told no, taking the board seat anyway, and then being fired by Benioff was galling. Only Marc's direct reports could serve on boards. For anyone else, it would be "too distracting". His text to the fired exec expressed his disappointment with a heart emoji.
posted by zeypher at 7:27 AM on February 17, 2021 [3 favorites]

I think gender quotas are the right thing to do, but I’d also like to see corporate boards (and regulatory agency advisory boards) have equal worker representation.

Yes, I agree. It makes sense for worker representation on boards to lead to better outcomes for workers, who tend to be marginalized in terms of gender, race, and other identities as well compared to the rarefied few who ascend to the ranks of shareholder boards.
posted by Ouverture at 10:37 AM on February 17, 2021 [1 favorite]

BTW, Norway also has mandatory employee representation on boards. That might be a bigger driver of better outcomes than gender representation.

Maybe compulsory* paternity leave also helps level the playing field?

*) Compulsory in that the time is lost to the parents if the father does not take out his quota.
posted by Harald74 at 12:21 PM on February 17, 2021 [3 favorites]

"Researchers have found that women on boards impacts the company internally by increasing firm knowledge, board attendance and female retention rates, and externally, to the public and investors through participating in charity and Corporate Social Responsibility (Adams & Ferreira, 2009; Billimoria, 2006; Kim & Starks, 2016; Williams, 2003; Bear et al., 2010; Sealy, 2008)." -- Kimberly M. Kaneshina, The Impact of California Senate Bill 826 on Employee Perspectives and Stock Performance on California Tech Firms
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:26 PM on February 17, 2021 [1 favorite]

Another potential source of women for board seats are academics.

And you know, my university is delighted for us to do that, in case anyone is looking...
posted by ec2y at 6:46 PM on February 17, 2021 [1 favorite]

They say the next anti-unionization push will be led by a woman.
posted by likethemagician at 6:57 AM on February 18, 2021