The ‘business case’ for more women on boards – it’s enough to drive a man mad…

On behalf of Campaign for Merit in Business I recently sent a written submission to the DBIS inquiry on corporate governance, and I have yet to learn if I’m going to be asked to give oral evidence, as I did to a previous inquiry in 2012. I hope so, as I believe I’d be the only person to point out that the entire ‘business case’ for higher female representation on boards is based upon the false premise that appointing more women to boards will lead to enhanced financial performance, while the evidence clearly demonstrates a causal link with corporate performance decline.

But that doesn’t stop the proponents of ‘more women on boards’ from relentlessly lying (or implying) a business case exists. The list of written submissions to the DBIS inquiry is here. One is from the odious 30% club, which cites a number of studies and reports in support of their contention that more women on boards leads to improved corporate performance. The most recent is from the Credit Suisse Research Institute, September 2016, the 51-page-long mind-numbing The CS Gender 3000: The Reward for Change. The second page starts with this:

Gender diversity is an important element of corporate performance and talent management efforts. In its second, updated report the Credit Suisse Research Institute reconfirms the clear link [my emphasis] between diversity and improved business performance.

The begged question, of course, is whether the clear link is a causal link, or meaningless correlation.

On p.25 a section starts, with the title, ‘Does greater female participation make for greater impact?’ We find this in the second paragraph on p.27:

Lower leverage, higher payouts and higher return on capital employed lend support to the idea that diversity implies better returns for lower risk. In addition, our HOLT analysis shows that companies with a number of female top managers hold meaningfully lower excess cash on their balance sheets. Figure 29 again shows a linear relationship as we see for the dividend payout ratio, 15% lower for companies with 25% women, 18% for those with 33% and 26% for those with 50%. While we still do not argue causality, [my emphasis] there is a consistency in our findings that demonstrates that greater gender diversity at senior levels leads to [my emphasis] greater returns for a company…

In the course of a single sentence, the report doesn’t ‘argue causality’, then goes on to… er… argue causality. It’s enough to drive a man mad…

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The ‘business case’ for more women on boards – it’s enough to drive a man mad…

  1. cheannaich says:

    ” the evidence clearly demonstrates a causal link with corporate performance decline”. Sorry Mike,
    Do you really think that the DBIS inquiry care or are remotely interested in evidence not supporting the narrative? Foregone conclusion I would guess.

  2. sanity2014 says:

    One of the main reasons Hillary Clinton lost the election is because she did not have any viable business plan to turn America’s fortunes around. Her main selling point was to simply become the first female president. (regardless of merit) Likewise, the campaign for more females on boards of companies seem to be just like Hillary’s campaign.
    To simply have more women on boards. ( regardless of merit.)
    And that’s why the campaign will end in failure, taking down formerly viable businesses along with it. Time to get over the ‘more women on boards’ illusions.

  3. epistemol says:

    Smoke and mirrors again.

    It’s business as usual!

  4. boggojones says:

    I’d love to see a study on just how being female (or a member of a minority) supposedly increases company productivity. What is the mechanism at work, precisely? What female factors can be identified and quantified? Someone surely must have done such a study by now . . . no? I wonder why.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s