We can move further and faster to bring diversity to the board room

Conservative Party Vice Chairman calls for government action to expose disadvantage and discrimination in the hiring of non-white candidates.

In a move designed to put the focus on gender diversity in the workforce, the government recently published regulations which include the requirement for listed companies to disclose the number of women and men within their organisation as a whole and at senior and board levels. The government has now also called on all executive headhunting firms to publish the numbers of men versus women they place in senior positions.

But the government should look into going further. Whilst gender balance is one measure of workforce diversity, ethnicity is another. Championing workforce diversity should be about improving both.
 
The regulations should be extended so listed companies also have to set out the number of employees from both white and black and ethnic minority (BME) backgrounds within their workforce as a whole, as well as at senior and board level.

Just as there is under-representation of women at senior levels there is also under-representation of those from non-European ethnic backgrounds. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics estimate that around 12 per cent of the population in England and Wales has a non-white ethnic minority background.

By contrast, the overall proportion of ethnic minority male and female directors on the board of FTSE 100 companies is only 4.4 per cent and 1.3 per cent respectively, according to analysis published this year by Cranfield University. And only seven of the 48 male directors from minority backgrounds, are known to be British.
 
It is a real concern that there may not always be a level playing field when it comes to applying for a job. The All Party Parliamentary Group on Race and Community has just published a report on ethnic minority female unemployment which concludes that discrimination can be found at every stage of the recruitment process - when assessing applications, during interviews, at recruitment agencies and also in the work place itself. Just having a non-European name may stop a candidate from getting an interview.
 
To throw light on this the government could consider introducing a further disclosure regulation with listed companies required to breakdown, by gender and ethnicity, the total number of job applicants, interviewees and new employees over the past year. This would certainly help to highlight companies and sectors where either, ethnic minority candidates and women are just not applying in any number, or where they are not getting interviews.

Some may explain a low level of interviews to minority background applicants by the fact that not enough qualified candidates are applying.
If this really is the stumbling block, it should reinforce the need for companies to undertake more outreach work and mentoring to achieve, over time, a workforce representative of today's society.

Appointing people to jobs on merit and experience is absolutely right. But the proposed new regulations are about taking companies one step further towards focusing on what they need to do to increase diversity in the workforce.

Companies with diverse boards are more effective and outperform their rivals. If a company's workforce and senior management are representative of its customers, it is more likely to make decisions which respond to their needs and hence ultimately benefit the business. And that virtuous circle is one which every company should be looking to square.

Alok Sharma is MP for Reading West and Conservative Vice Chair with special responsibility for BME communities

The way things were and often still are. All white men. Source: Getty

Alok Sharma is the MP for Reading West and Vice Chairman of the Conservative Party with special responsibility for BME communities.

Getty
Show Hide image

In your 30s? You missed out on £26,000 and you're not even protesting

The 1980s kids seem resigned to their fate - for now. 

Imagine you’re in your thirties, and you’re renting in a shared house, on roughly the same pay you earned five years ago. Now imagine you have a friend, also in their thirties. This friend owns their own home, gets pay rises every year and has a more generous pension to beat. In fact, they are twice as rich as you. 

When you try to talk about how worried you are about your financial situation, the friend shrugs and says: “I was in that situation too.”

Un-friend, right? But this is, in fact, reality. A study from the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that Brits in their early thirties have a median wealth of £27,000. But ten years ago, a thirty something had £53,000. In other words, that unbearable friend is just someone exactly the same as you, who is now in their forties. 

Not only do Brits born in the early 1980s have half the wealth they would have had if they were born in the 1970s, but they are the first generation to be in this position since World War II.  According to the IFS study, each cohort has got progressively richer. But then, just as the 1980s kids were reaching adulthood, a couple of things happened at once.

House prices raced ahead of wages. Employers made pensions less generous. And, at the crucial point that the 1980s kids were finding their feet in the jobs market, the recession struck. The 1980s kids didn’t manage to buy homes in time to take advantage of low mortgage rates. Instead, they are stuck paying increasing amounts of rent. 

If the wealth distribution between someone in their 30s and someone in their 40s is stark, this is only the starting point in intergenerational inequality. The IFS expects pensioners’ incomes to race ahead of workers in the coming decade. 

So why, given this unprecedented reversal in fortunes, are Brits in their early thirties not marching in the streets? Why are they not burning tyres outside the Treasury while shouting: “Give us out £26k back?” 

The obvious fact that no one is going to be protesting their granny’s good fortune aside, it seems one reason for the 1980s kids’ resignation is they are still in denial. One thirty something wrote to The Staggers that the idea of being able to buy a house had become too abstract to worry about. Instead:

“You just try and get through this month and then worry about next month, which is probably self-defeating, but I think it's quite tough to get in the mindset that you're going to put something by so maybe in 10 years you can buy a shoebox a two-hour train ride from where you actually want to be.”

Another reflected that “people keep saying ‘something will turn up’”.

The Staggers turned to our resident thirty something, Yo Zushi, for his thoughts. He agreed with the IFS analysis that the recession mattered:

"We were spoiled by an artificially inflated balloon of cheap credit and growing up was something you did… later. Then the crash came in 2007-2008, and it became something we couldn’t afford to do. 

I would have got round to becoming comfortably off, I tell myself, had I been given another ten years of amoral capitalist boom to do so. Many of those who were born in the early 1970s drifted along, took a nap and woke up in possession of a house, all mod cons and a decent-paying job. But we slightly younger Gen X-ers followed in their slipstream and somehow fell off the edge. Oh well. "

Will the inertia of the1980s kids last? Perhaps – but Zushi sees in the support for Jeremy Corbyn, a swell of feeling at last. “Our lack of access to the life we were promised in our teens has woken many of us up to why things suck. That’s a good thing. 

“And now we have Corbyn to help sort it all out. That’s not meant sarcastically – I really think he’ll do it.”