Seven FTSE 100 boardrooms without a single woman

Cable: "Doing nothing is not an option anymore”

Vince Cable has warned the seven remaining FTSE 100 companies without a single woman in their boardrooms that “doing nothing was not an option anymore”.

 In a letter sent to the chairman and chief executive of each business, he made clear that he wanted a “significant female presence” on every board by 2015.

There were 21 FTSE 100 companies solely directed by men at the beginning of the Coalition government two and a half years ago, but mining specialists Xstrata, Glencore, Kazakhmys, Vedanta and Antofagasta, chemicals manufacturer Croda and Melrose, which specialises in performance improvement of businesses, are still to make changes in the way they’re managed.

The Business Secretary added that it was “not about equality, [but] good governance and good business”, and that “diverse boards [benefit] from fresh perspectives, opinions and new ideas which ultimately serve the company’s long term interests”.

This announcement came five days after the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, held a panel about women in economic decision-making, where Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, called for greater gender equality in companies.

She accused companies of only giving jobs to women when they are “a basket case, a lost cause”, and that gender diversity and inclusiveness were important for humanity, as well as business.

Out of the 2500 people who attended the conference, 83 per cent were male, which accurately mirrors reality, as women currently make up only 16 per cent of all FTSE boards.

Companies were also criticised for overturning the gender imbalance by simply appointing female non-executive directors, who arguably have less power and influence on a day-today basis.

Only 20 per cent of boards have female executive directors, and Burberry and Imperial Tobacco are the sole two FTSE 100 UK companies to be run by women – respectively Angela Ahrendts and Alison Cooper.

The European Commission proposed to resolve this by making it mandatory for companies to have 40 per cent female directors on their boards, but several EU nations, including the UK, are opposed to the idea.

UK ministers want companies to have at least one female director for every three men by 2015 but do not back quotas, preferring to encourage a voluntary approach.

A study published by Randstad UK last December showed that this opinion was shared by women currently working in business, with 73 per cent of respondents saying that “self-doubt” was the main reason for women holding back, and only 6 per cent backing compulsory quotas.

Vince Cable wants every FTSE board to have a significant women presence by 2015

Marie le Conte is a freelance journalist.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Brexiteers want national sovereignty and tighter borders – but they can't have both

The role of the European Court of Justice is a major sticking point in talks.

Why doesn't Theresa May's counter-offer on the rights of European citizens living and working in Britain pass muster among the EU27? It all comes down to one of the biggest sticking points in the Brexit talks: the role of the European Court of Justice.

The European Commission, under direction from the leaders of member states, wants the rights of the three million living here and of the British diaspora in the EU guaranteed by the European Court. Why? Because that way, the status of EU citizens here or that of British nationals in the EU aren't subject to the whims of a simple majority vote in the legislature.

This is where Liam Fox, as crassly he might have put it, has a point about the difference between the UK and the EU27, being that the UK does not "need to bury" its 20th century history. We're one of the few countries in the EU where political elites get away with saying, "Well, what's the worst that could happen?" when it comes to checks on legislative power. For the leaders of member states, a guarantee not backed up by the European Court of Justice is no guarantee at all.

That comes down to the biggest sticking point of the Brexit talks: rules. In terms of the deal that most British voters, Leave or Remain, want – a non-disruptive exit that allows the British government to set immigration policy – UK politicians can get that, provided they concede on money and rules, ie we continue to follow the directions of the European Court while having no power to set them. Britain could even seek its own trade deals and have that arrangement.

But the problem is that deal runs up against the motivations of the Brexit elite, who are in the main unfussed about migration but are concerned about sovereignty – and remaining subject to the rule of the ECJ without being able to set its parameters is, it goes without saying, a significant loss of sovereignty. 

Can a fudge be found? That the Article 50 process goes so heavily in favour of the EU27 and against the leaving member means that the appetite on the EuCo side for a fudge is limited. 

But there is hope, as David Davis has conceded that there will have to be an international guarantor, as of course there will have to be. If you trade across borders, you need a cross-border referee. If a plane goes up in one country and lands in another, then it is, by necessity, regulated across borders. (That arrangement has also been mooted by Sigmar Gabriel, foreign minister in Angela Merkel's government. But that Gabriel's centre-left party looks likely to be expelled from coalition after the next election means that his support isn't as valuable as many Brexiteers seem to think.)

On the Conservative side, a new EU-UK international body would satisfy the words of May's ECJ red line. On the EU27 side, that the body would, inevitably, take its lead from the treaties of the EU sans Britain and the ECJ would mean that in spirit, Britain would be subject to the ECJ by another name.

But it comes back to the Brexit dilemma. You can satisfy the voters' demand for non-disruptive control of British borders. You can satisfy political demand for sovereignty. But you can't have both. May – and whoever replaces her – will face the same question: who do you disappoint?

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496