Women in the boardroom
If the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women can have its way, it wants women to have an equal (50:50) share with men in the decision-making process in public, private sector, political, economic and digital spaces.
In a statement it released last week, the committee said “[targets] of 30 percent representation of women in decision-making are incompatible with the … core aim of elimination of discrimination because such target sent the message that inequality was justifiable.”
Breaking the proverbial glass ceiling that prevented women from working on equal footing with their male counterpart has been a work in progress for ages in countries that believe in gender equality.
In the corporate world, the application of that virtue is hamstrung by the legal doctrine that the election or appointment to the board of directors is the exclusive prerogative of the stockholders.
Hence, it’s up to them to decide whether or not to make gender a factor in the choice of directors as an incident to their right of stock ownership.
In the absence of a law modifying that right, making room for females in the board is often done through friendly persuasion or by presenting it as good public relations, especially if the corporation is engaged in a business that has women as their target market.
Some countries that have more enlightened views on gender equality had taken the legislative route to narrow the gender gap in the C-suite. That approach is able to override the cultural or social norms that usually make it difficult to accomplish that objective.
In 2012, a law was passed in France requiring all listed companies to have 40 percent of their board members female by 2017.
In 2018, Canada enacted a law that compelled all listed companies to have a female-member proportion in their board of at least 30 percent by 2019.
And in 2022, the European Union (EU) reached an agreement among its member-countries that by June 2026, all EU-listed companies should achieve 33-percent female membership in their boards.
Note that the requirement on mandatory female membership applies only to listed companies or companies whose stocks are traded in the stock exchange.
Since these companies solicit funds from the public through the stock exchange, the government has the authority and responsibility to lay down some rules on their management, including the criteria to be observed in the composition of their highest policymaking body.
Although the Philippines has made significant strides in gender equality, the clearest proof of which may be the election of two female presidents, the enactment of a law similar to those earlier mentioned is not going to be easy.
It is doubtful if that idea would appeal to the male-dominated Congress to even consider putting it on its agenda considering the numerous economic problems of the country that are crying for its attention.
As things stand at present, filial affiliation or in-law relationship with the majority stockholders plays a significant role in the election of female members to the board. This does not come as a surprise in light of close family ties in the Philippines.
Lately, however, there has been an increase in the number of women who are not family members who are elected as independent directors in companies other than those that are listed, that, under existing laws, are required to have independent directors in their board.
The jury is still out on whether this is a case of tokenism (or a symbolic gesture to give the appearance of gender equality in the workplace) or a genuine recognition of the value of the participation of women in the decision-making process of businesses that are imbued with public interest.
But one thing is sure, the days when the phrase “me Tarzan, you Jane” with its sexist undertone was considered an accepted mantra in business management are over.
