Increasing diversity in business is not only morally right - it's the key to success

Research has found that companies whose boards were made up of at least a third by women are 42 per cent more profitable - it makes perfect sense.

A fortnight ago I stood up to deliver a key note speech at the Women’s Business Forum conference. I took up the opportunity to discuss the importance of promoting diversity in the workplace with relish, as it is a topic that has been at the forefront of my mind throughout my career.

Women and their promotion to top flight positions is an important part of the picture. Despite the notable announcement a few weeks ago that Janet Yellen will become the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve - the first woman to occupy the post - there remains a lot of work to be done if women are to have the same opportunity to acquire executive positions as their male counterparts.

A recent report by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) found that female employment rates in the UK continue to lag behind those for men, despite the recent rise in the state pension age for women pushing the figure up slightly. Furthermore the study found that women are increasingly disappearing from executive jobs - women only occupy a quarter of the highest paid top ten per cent of posts.

That there is a dearth of female talent represented at board level in the UK is a truth universally acknowledged. White papers have been drawn up to address this dilemma. In the Davies Report, published in 2011 and penned by Lord Davies of Abersoch, Lord Davies proffers a solution to redress the current gender imbalance of UK boards, calling for strong voluntary action in the shape of FTSE100 companies signing up to the voluntary target of having 25 per cent of their boards comprising women by 2015.

Recommendations such as this are laudable and achievable and I believe are a more organic way of bringing about effective change than using the blunt instrument of legislation to introduce mandatory quotas. However, it is unequivocally true that rapid change is essential.

The issue of women on boards is part of a wider debate about encouraging diversity in the workplace. This matter is more essential and greater than the need to increase the number of female CEOs and board-level executives, although this is important it leaves itself open to accusations of "tokenism". Diversity is about effecting a cultural change in organisations and industries, transforming businesses from close-minded institutions to those that embrace diversity in all formats. The reasons for bringing about change are manifold but are more complicated than mere sexual politics and political correctness.

A recent piece of research found that companies whose boards were made up of at least a third by women are 42 per cent more profitable. Diversity in the work place is not only a healthy, laudable corporate ideal to embrace, it is also profitable. The 30 Percent Club, founded by Newton Investment Management's CEO Helena Morrissey, has a strapline under its tree logo that I think is particularly important: "Growth through diversity". It is this message - growth through diversity - that is so important. Simply put, companies are more likely to thrive with a diverse workforce.

It is my sincere belief that diversity should form the backbone of a well-rounded and robust business plan. This business tenet stems from a desire to create a culture whereby the best and brightest talent can lead regardless of gender, religion, race or sexual orientation. It is this objective, this vision, that has been the principal driver of the last 35 years of my life as a business-building lawyer.  

Diversity is a source of competitive advantage; a better business is a more diverse business. Assembling diverse teams enables more innovation, greater customer awareness, and generates better results. People, cultures and states are not homogeneous, they are heterogeneous - this is particularly true in today's global society. Consequently businesses should strive to be as diverse as the countries and regions they operate in. Creating this workplace balance is part of building a successful firm, but actions, not just words, are required to bring this about. Those businesses that do not encourage diversity should start doing so now, or else face quotas or, even more likely, falling revenues as more dynamic, diverse competitors steal a march.

The all-male board of Fisons Ltd in 1960 - how much has changed in 2013? Photograph: Central Press/Getty Images.

Co-CEO of DLA Piper

ILONA WELLMANN/MILLENNIUM IMAGES, UK
Show Hide image

How the internet has democratised pornography

With people now free to circumvent the big studios, different bodies, tastes and even pubic hair styles are being represented online.

Our opinions and tastes are influenced by the media we consume: that much is obvious. But although it’s easy to have that conversation if the medium we are discussing is “safe for work”, pornography carries so much stigma that we only engage with it on simple terms. Porn is either “good” or “bad”: a magical tool for ­empowerment or a destructive influence on society. Many “pro-porn” campaigners shy away from nuanced critique, fearing it could lead to censorship. “Anti-porn” campaigners, convinced that porn is harmful by definition, need look no further than the mainstream tube sites – essentially, aggregators of clips from elsewhere – to gather examples that will back them up.

When we talk about the influence of porn, the emphasis is usually on a particular type of video – hardcore sex scenes featuring mostly slim, pubic-hairless women and faceless men: porn made for men about women. This kind of porn is credited with everything from the pornification of pop music to changing what we actually do in bed. Last year the UK government released a policy note that suggested porn was responsible for a rise in the number of young people trying anal sex. Although the original researcher, Cicely Marston, pointed out that there was no clear link between the two, the note prompted a broad debate about the impact of porn. But in doing so, we have already lost – by accepting a definition of “porn” shaped less by our desires than by the dominant players in the industry.

On the day you read this, one single site, PornHub, will get somewhere between four and five million visits from within the UK. Millions more will visit YouPorn, Tube8, Redtube or similar sites. It’s clear that they’re influential. Perhaps less clear is that they are not unbiased aggregators: they don’t just reflect our tastes, they shape what we think and how we live. We can see this even in simple editorial decisions such as categorisation: PornHub offers 14 categories by default, including anal, threesome and milf (“mum I’d like to f***”), and then “For Women” as a separate category. So standard is it for mainstream sites to assume their audience is straight and male that “point of view” porn has become synonymous with “top-down view of a man getting a blow job”. Tropes that have entered everyday life – such as shaved pubic hair – abound here.

Alongside categories and tags, tube sites also decide what you see at the top of their results and on the home page. Hence the videos you see at the top tend towards escalation to get clicks: biggest gang bang ever. Dirtiest slut. Horniest milf. To find porn that doesn’t fit this mould you must go out of your way to search for it. Few people do, of course, so the clickbait gets promoted more frequently, and this in turn shapes what we click on next time. Is it any wonder we’ve ended up with such a narrow definition of porn? In reality, the front page of PornHub reflects our desires about as accurately as the Daily Mail “sidebar of shame” reflects Kim Kardashian.

Perhaps what we need is more competition? All the sites I have mentioned are owned by the same company – MindGeek. Besides porn tube sites, MindGeek has a stake in other adult websites and production companies: Brazzers, Digital Playground, Twistys, PornMD and many more. Even tube sites not owned by MindGeek, such as Xhamster, usually follow the same model: lots of free content, plus algorithms that chase page views aggressively, so tending towards hardcore clickbait.

Because porn is increasingly defined by these sites, steps taken to tackle its spread often end up doing the opposite of what was intended. For instance, the British government’s Digital Economy Bill aims to reduce the influence of porn on young people by forcing porn sites to age-verify users, but will in fact hand more power to large companies. The big players have the resources to implement age verification easily, and even to use legislation as a way to expand further into the market. MindGeek is already developing age-verification software that can be licensed to other websites; so it’s likely that, when the bill’s rules come in, small porn producers will either go out of business or be compelled to license software from the big players.

There are glimmers of hope for the ethical porn consumer. Tube sites may dominate search results, but the internet has also helped revolutionise porn production. Aspiring producers and performers no longer need a contract with a studio – all that’s required is a camera and a platform to distribute their work. That platform might be their own website, a dedicated cam site, or even something as simple as Snapchat.

This democratisation of porn has had positive effects. There’s more diversity of body shape, sexual taste and even pubic hair style on a cam site than on the home page of PornHub. Pleasure takes a more central role, too: one of the most popular “games” on the webcam site Chaturbate is for performers to hook up sex toys to the website, with users paying to try to give them an orgasm. Crucially, without a studio, performers can set their own boundaries.

Kelly Pierce, a performer who now works mostly on cam, told me that one of the main benefits of working independently is a sense of security. “As long as you put time in you know you are going to make money doing it,” she said. “You don’t spend your time searching for shoots, but actually working towards monetary gain.” She also has more freedom in her work: “You have nobody to answer to but yourself, and obviously your fans. Sometimes politics comes into play when you work for others than yourself.”

Cam sites are also big business, and the next logical step in the trickle-down of power is for performers to have their own distribution platforms. Unfortunately, no matter how well-meaning your indie porn project, the “Adult” label makes it most likely you’ll fail. Mainstream payment providers won’t work with adult businesses, and specialist providers take a huge cut of revenue. Major ad networks avoid porn, so the only advertising option is to sign up to an “adult” network, which is probably owned by a large porn company and will fill your site with bouncing-boob gifs and hot milfs “in your area”: exactly the kind of thing you’re trying to fight against. Those who are trying to take on the might of Big Porn need not just to change what we watch, but challenge what we think porn is, too.

The internet has given the porn industry a huge boost – cheaper production and distribution, the potential for more variety, and an influence that it would be ridiculous to ignore. But in our failure properly to analyse the industry, we are accepting a definition of porn that has been handed to us by the dominant players in the market.

Girl on the Net writes one of the UK’s most popular sex blogs: girlonthenet.com

This article first appeared in the 16 February 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times