Abstract
This chapter examines the situation of women on boards in the UK. The chapter begins by providing an overview of the country’s political and economic context, outlining gender equality trends and the nature of workplace equality and diversity policies in the UK. Second, the chapter discusses the UK corporate governance system and its landmark ‘comply or explain’ approach. Third, the chapter outlines trends in gender representation on FTSE boards, analyzing national-level policy on women on boards over almost two decades, with an emphasis on the relatively successful Davies Review (2011–2015). The achievements and limitations of this voluntary approach are then critically discussed, drawing particular attention to the effectiveness of a multi-stakeholder approach, but also to the fragility of change secured through voluntary measures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
ACCA. (2007). A guide to directors’ responsibilities under the Companies Act 2006. London. Retrieved from http://www.accaglobal.com/content/dam/acca/global/PDF-technical/business-law/tech-tp-cdd.pdf
Arcot, S., Bruno, V., & Faure-Grimaud, A. (2010). Corporate governance in the UK: Is the comply or explain approach working? International Review of Law and Economics, 30(2), 193–201.
Azmat, G. (2015). Gender Gaps in the UK Labour Market: Jobs, pay and family-friendly policies. London: Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics.
Centre for Women & Democracy. (2015). Sex & Power. Who runs Britain? Retrieved from http://www.cfwd.org.uk/uploads/Sex%20and%20Power.pdf
Companies Act 2006. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/pdfs/ukpga_20060046_en.pdf
Coverdill, J. E., & Finlay, W. (1998). Fit and skill in employee selection: Insights from a study of headhunters. Qualitative Sociology, 21(2), 105–127.
Davies, M. (2011). Women on boards—The Davies report, No. URN 11/745. London: GEO/BIS.
Davies, M. (2015). Improving the gender balance on British Boards—Women on boards review five-year summary. London: GEO/BIS.
Doldor, E. (2013). Gender diversity on boards in the UK: State of play and prospects for change. Brussels: European Parliament, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs.
Doldor, E., Vinnicombe, S., Gaughan, M., & Sealy, R. (2012). Gender diversity on boards: The appointment process and the role of executive search firms. Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Doldor, E., Vinnicombe, S., & Sealy, R. (2016). Accidental activists: Headhunters as marginal diversity actors in institutional change towards more women on boards. Human Resource Management Journal, 26(3), 285–303.
European Commission. (2016). Country Report United Kingdom 2016. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/csr2016/cr2016_uk_en.pdf
Faulconbridge, J. R., Beaverstock, J. V., Hall, S., & Hewitson, A. (2009). The ‘war for talent’: The gatekeeper role of executive search firms in elite labour markets. Geoforum, 40(5), 800–808.
Fawcett. (2016). Gender pay gap and causes briefing. Retrieved from http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Equal-Pay-Day-2016-Short-brief.pdf
Glassdoor. (2016). Which countries in Europe have the best gender equality in the workplace? California: Glassdoor Llewellyn Consulting.
Hamori, M. (2010). Who gets headhunted and who gets ahead? The impact of search firms on executive careers. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(4), 46–59.
Hampton, P., & Alexander, H. (2016). Hampton-Alexander Review FTSE Women Leaders: Improving gender balance in FTSE leadership. Retrieved from http://ftsewomenleaders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/CRT067309H_V4_AW_Web_2.pdf
Institute of Business Ethics. (2011). Business ethics and board diversity, Issue 21. Retrieved from http://www.ibe.org.uk/userassets/briefings/ibe_briefing_21_business_ethics_and_ board_diversity.pdf
International Monetary Fund. (2016). World economic outlook database. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/weodata/index.aspx
Jewson, N., & Mason, D. (1986). The theory and practice of equal opportunity policies: Liberal and radical approaches. Sociological Review, 34(2), 307–334.
Khurana, R. (2002). Searching for a corporate savior: The irrational quest for charismatic CEOs. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kirton, G., Greene, A. M., & Dean, D. (2007). British diversity professionals as change agents– Radicals, tempered radicals or liberal reformers? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(11), 1979–1994.
OECD. (2010). A family affair: Intergenerational social mobility across OECD countries. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/eco/public-finance/chapter%205%20gfg%202010.pdf
OECD. (2016). Society at a glance 2016: OECD social indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264261488-en
Office for National Statistics. (2014). Ownership of UK quoted shares: 2014. Retrieved from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/investmentspensionsandtrusts/bulletins/ownershipofukquotedshares/2015-09-02
Office for National Statistics. (2017). UK labour market: Jan 2017. Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/jan2017
Olchawski, J. (2016). Sex equality: State of the Nation 2016. London: Fawcett Society.
Oswick, C., & Noon, M. (2014). Discourses of diversity, equality and inclusion: trenchant formulations or transient fashions? British Journal of Management, 25(1), 23–39.
Özbilgin, M. F., & Tatli, A. (2011). Mapping out the field of equality and diversity:Rise of individualism and voluntarism. Human Relations, 64(9), 1229–1253.
Sealy, R., Doldor, E., & Vinnicombe, S. (2016a). The Female FTSE Board Report: Taking stock of where we are. City University, Queen Mary University of London & Cranfield University.
Sealy, R., Doldor, E., Terjesen, S., Vinnicombe, S., Anderson, D., & Atewologun, D. (2016b). Expanding the notion of dialogic trading zones for impactful research: The case of women on boards research. British Journal of Management, 28(1), 64–83.
Seierstad, C. (2016). Beyond the business case: The need for both utility and justice rationales for increasing the share of women on boards. Corporate Governance an International Review, 24(4), 390–405.
Seierstad, C., Warner-Søderholm, G., Torchia, M., & Huse, M. (2015). Increasing the number of women on boards: the role of actors and processes. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–27. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2715-0
Singh, V., & Vinnicombe, S. (2005). The Female FTSE Board Report. Cranfield University.
Singh, V., Terjesen, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2008). Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: How do men and women differ? European Management Journal, 26(1), 48–58.
Social Mobility Commission. (2016). State of the nation 2016: Social mobility in Great Britain. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/569410/Social_Mobility_Commission_2016_REPORT_WEB__1__.pdf
The Financial Reporting Council. (2010). The UK approach to corporate governance. Retrieved from https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/1db9539d-9176-4546-91ee-828b7fd087a8/The-UK-Approach-to-Corporate-Governance.aspx
The Financial Reporting Council. (2014). The UK corporate governance code. Retrieved from https://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/Corporate-Governance/UK-Corporate-Governance-Code-2014.pdf
Tienari, J., Meriläinen, S., Holgersson, C., & Bendl, R. (2013). And then there are none: On the exclusion of women in processes of executive search. Gender in Management, 28(1), 43–62.
Vinnicombe, S., Doldor, E., Sealy, R., Pryce, P., & Turner, C. (2015). The Female FTSE Board Report: Putting UK progress into a global perspective. Cranfield University.
Voluntary Code of Conduct for Executive Search Firms. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/326241/bis-14-950-standard-voluntary-code-of-conduct-for-executive-search-firms.pdf London: BIS URN 14/950.
World Economic Forum. (2016). The global gender gap report 2016. Geneva: The World Economic Forum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
Provisions of the Voluntary Code of Conduct for Executive Search Firms (2014 version)
-
1.
Succession Planning: Search firms should support chairmen and their nomination committees in developing medium-term succession plans that identify the balance of experience and skills that they will need to recruit for over the next two to three years to maximize board effectiveness. This time frame will allow a broader view to be established by looking at the whole board, not individual hires; this should facilitate increased flexibility in candidate specifications.
-
2.
Diversity Goals: When taking a specific brief, search firms should look at overall board composition and, in the context of the board’s agreed aspirational goals on gender balance and diversity more broadly, explore with the chairman if recruiting women directors is a priority on this occasion.
-
3.
Defining Briefs: In defining briefs, search firms should work to ensure that significant weight is given to relevant skills, underlying competencies, and personal capabilities and not just proven career experience, in order to extend the pool of candidates beyond those with existing board roles or conventional corporate careers.
-
4.
Longlists/Shortlists: When presenting their longlists, search firms should try to ensure that at least 30 percent of the candidates are women—and, if not, should explicitly justify to the client why they are convinced that there are no other qualified female options, through demonstrating the scope and rigor of their research. Search firms should seek to ensure that the shortlist is appropriately reflective of the longlist, discussing with their clients each woman on the longlist and aiming to have at least one woman whom they would ‘strongly recommend’ that the client should meet.
-
5.
Candidate Support: During the selection process, search firms should provide appropriate support, in particular to first-time candidates, to prepare them for interviews and guide them through the process.
-
6.
Supporting Candidate Selection: As clients evaluate candidates, search firms should ensure that they continue to provide appropriate weight to intrinsic competencies and capabilities, supported by thorough referencing, rather than over-valuing certain kinds of experience. Search firms should, as necessary, advise their clients on how to run their interview process to demonstrate the required rigor and professionalism and share best practices on how to avoid unconscious gender bias.
-
7.
Induction: Search firms should provide advice to clients on best practice in induction and ‘on boarding’ processes to help new board directors settle quickly into their roles.
-
8.
Embedding Best Practice: Search firms should ensure that best practices in supporting clients on enhancing board gender diversity are well-documented and shared internally and that adherence to the Code is effectively monitored.
-
9.
Signaling Commitment: Search firms should signal their commitment to supporting gender diversity on boards, and their adherence to the Code, through their websites, marketing literature and client discussions. They should share data on their track record on their website as appropriate and include case studies of their success.
-
10.
Broadening the Candidate Pool: Search firms should seek to broaden their own databases of potential candidates, leveraging as appropriate external lists produced by organizations such as Cranfield. They are encouraged to invest time into developing relationships with the pipeline of future female candidates.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Doldor, E. (2017). UK: The Merits and Shortcomings of a Voluntary Approach. In: Seierstad, C., Gabaldon, P., Mensi-Klarbach, H. (eds) Gender Diversity in the Boardroom. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57273-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57273-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-57272-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-57273-4
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)