UK: The Merits and Shortcomings of a Voluntary Approach

  • Elena Doldor


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.


  1. ACCA. (2007). A guide to directors’ responsibilities under the Companies Act 2006. London. Retrieved from
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Centre for Women & Democracy. (2015). Sex & Power. Who runs Britain? Retrieved from
  5. Coverdill, J. E., & Finlay, W. (1998). Fit and skill in employee selection: Insights from a study of headhunters. Qualitative Sociology, 21(2), 105–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies, M. (2011). Women on boards—The Davies report, No. URN 11/745. London: GEO/BIS.Google Scholar
  7. Davies, M. (2015). Improving the gender balance on British Boards—Women on boards review five-year summary. London: GEO/BIS.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2016). Country Report United Kingdom 2016. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fawcett. (2016). Gender pay gap and causes briefing. Retrieved from
  14. Glassdoor. (2016). Which countries in Europe have the best gender equality in the workplace? California: Glassdoor Llewellyn Consulting.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Hampton, P., & Alexander, H. (2016). Hampton-Alexander Review FTSE Women Leaders: Improving gender balance in FTSE leadership. Retrieved from
  17. Institute of Business Ethics. (2011). Business ethics and board diversity, Issue 21. Retrieved from board_diversity.pdf
  18. International Monetary Fund. (2016). World economic outlook database. Retrieved from
  19. Jewson, N., & Mason, D. (1986). The theory and practice of equal opportunity policies: Liberal and radical approaches. Sociological Review, 34(2), 307–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khurana, R. (2002). Searching for a corporate savior: The irrational quest for charismatic CEOs. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. OECD. (2010). A family affair: Intergenerational social mobility across OECD countries. Retrieved from
  23. OECD. (2016). Society at a glance 2016: OECD social indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. Google Scholar
  24. Office for National Statistics. (2014). Ownership of UK quoted shares: 2014. Retrieved from:
  25. Office for National Statistics. (2017). UK labour market: Jan 2017. Retrieved from
  26. Olchawski, J. (2016). Sex equality: State of the Nation 2016. London: Fawcett Society.Google Scholar
  27. Oswick, C., & Noon, M. (2014). Discourses of diversity, equality and inclusion: trenchant formulations or transient fashions? British Journal of Management, 25(1), 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Singh, V., & Vinnicombe, S. (2005). The Female FTSE Board Report. Cranfield University.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Social Mobility Commission. (2016). State of the nation 2016: Social mobility in Great Britain. Retrieved from
  36. The Financial Reporting Council. (2010). The UK approach to corporate governance. Retrieved from
  37. The Financial Reporting Council. (2014). The UK corporate governance code. Retrieved from
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. World Economic Forum. (2016). The global gender gap report 2016. Geneva: The World Economic Forum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena Doldor
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Business and ManagementQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations