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

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

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.