Global Women wants 30% target for female directors in updated NZX code

Global Women chairwoman Sue Sheldon

Diversity champion Global Women wants to see a minimum target of 30% female board composition of NZX-listed companies as a best-practice standard benchmarked globally by 2020.

The leadership lobby group included the target in a submission to the NZX's proposed changes to corporate governance reporting requirements, the first review since 2003.

According to New Zealand's gender diversity statistics, women comprised 16% of board members and 28% of senior management at December 2015. That compares to 21.5% of women on ASX200 boards and 26% on the UK's FTSE100 boards.

The Human Rights Commission, in its latest submission to the NZX, says the number of female directors has increased by only 5% since 2013.

Global Women says mandatory reporting on board composition and transparency of diversity policies in listed companies, consistent with the ASX requirements and the New Zealand Corporate Governance Forum guidelines, is an effective way of delivering considerable financial and non-financial benefits to New Zealand.

While stopping short of calling for quotas, the group says without visible and clear gender targets, "progress to parity simply will not be achieved."

It also wants to see the objectives and reporting expanded beyond senior management and board gender diversity to include pay equity and other types of diversity, particularly ethnicity given New Zealand's rapidly growing Asian and Pacific Island populations.

The overall gender pay gap across public and private sectors is at 11.8%, up from 9.9% in 2014.

NZX's draft document recommends issuers develop a diversity policy but doesn't prescribe what should be in it, leaving it up to listed companies to determine appropriate metrics and targets to report to and seek to meet. Existing reporting requirements in the listing rules on diversity policies will remain mandatory in the code.

The Ministry for Women says a rule review later in the year should also consider how the NZX could further strengthen diversity requirements, pointing to work undertaken by Mervyn Davies in the UK which recently set a new minimum target of 33% for women's representation on boards of FTSE 300 companies within the next five years.

Global Women and law firm Chapman Tripp also called for the NZX to establish a corporate governance council, similar to the one set up by the ASX in 2002 to bring together business, shareholder, and industry groups to improve governance and reporting practices.

The law firm says providing a forum for the various stakeholders to discuss their views will assist in developing one single code for NZX issuers to comply with rather than the various stakeholders publishing their own views as has already occurred with the corporate governance forum and which it understands the NZ Shareholders' Association is also considering.

The New Zealand Superannuation Fund says it is concerned that in several respects the New Zealand market is falling behind international standards, ranking 15th out of 25 countries in a 2014 KPMG ACCA review of corporate governance requirements.

Fund chief investment officer Matt Whineray expressed disappointment its submission in the first round of consultation had largely been ignored in the "comply or explain" recommendations, with the revised NZX code having a heavier reliance on commentary that can be "easily ignored."

Both the super fund and the Corporate Governance Forum say reporting on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors are now considered best practice in leading corporate governance guidelines. The NZX's consultation document notes New Zealand is behind but then leaves it to a generic statement in the commentary, Mr Whineray says.

The forum says while the updated code is a good improvement, there are important areas of weakness and a number of recommendations were "too generic to be meaningful, important points of governance had been downgraded to commentary, compared to, for example, the ASX corporate governance code, and the use of conditional wording undermines the rigour of the code as currently drafted."

It suggests better clarity in three key areas – board composition and performance, reporting and disclosure, particularly on risk, and respect for shareholder rights.

One example is the draft code being silent on shareholders' rights on material transactions that can transfer or destroy shareholder value. The code also doesn't provide recommendations for protecting the proper exercising of shareholder rights at annual or special shareholder meetings.

After considering feedback, the NZX hopes to get approval from the Financial Markets Authority for the revised code by the end of this year for implementation in the first quarter of 2017.

(BusinessDesk)

 


12 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

12 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

Blah,Blah, Blah.
It all sounds like the suits are applying a great deal of obsufication.
They don't want their boozy lunches interrupted by women wanting to get things done.
I am a male on the wrong side of 70 so was bought up in an era when men totally dominated the business world and women stayed home to rear the brood. Thank god it is changing. Women are after all at least 50% of the population some say slightly more and their contribution should be listened to, sought and acted upon.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I would much rather have the directors selected on the basis of skillset and experience than their sex.

I think there are a tremendous amount of talented female directors out there and boards should have diversification as an important requirement of their board composition, but such a measure would actually serve to undermine their position with the sad interpretation being that they are only on the board to satisfy a demographic requirement, not for their skills and experience.

I would much rather see the Institute of Directors heavily subsidise their courses for females (as they recently did for <40 year olds) to encourage woman participation at a director level.

By mandating a quota would only serve to undermine the quality female directors now and in the future.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Surely, the composition of a board of directors is up to the shareholders; not the NZX or government social engineers. It is no wonder people favour property investment over the sharemarket, with more direct control over their money.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Wouldn't they have to prove scientifically that 30% of the female population is competent to sit on boards before making such blanket rules first?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

As a woman, I would only ever want to be appointed to a role for my skillset and expertise not because I qualify due to being a woman and/or a particular ethnicity. Having such a quota in my view actually undermines women and their abilities and competence.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Then it will be 20% of that 30% should be black, and 20% white etc etc. This is not what buisness needs. It should be best person for the job end of story, that could be 90% female.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

looking at the disastrous tenure of Jenny Shipley in her various positions would this not be a rational counter argument to any gender quota and add more weight to a selection based on skill-set

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Add the MOTHER OF ALL BUDGETS to that list

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

If women can do the job then give them the job simply stating that we want such and such is not an argument and in my view somewhat sexist.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

In my limited experience women sit just under the glass ceiling because that is where they like to be. It doesn't mean they are not capable of higher positions but they want to avoid the stress and heart attacks that comes from more responsibility.
But at a board level you need the diverse thought that women bring to any discussion.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

'The overall gender pay gap across public and private sectors is at 11.8%, up from 9.9% in 2014.' Surely the NBR can do better than repeat this old chesnut add hoc.
As a mid 50's male MY pay gap is significantly more than that but only because 15 years ago I made the choice to cut back on my work, travel and career to be a stay at home parent. The best choice I've ever made but unsurprisingly it has impacted on the $ I earnt and the $ I could expect to earn.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Just look at how the quota system is working out for the Spring Boks currently.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot

Forex

Sym Price Change
USD 0.7033 0.0006 0.09%
AUD 0.9205 -0.0001 -0.01%
EUR 0.6526 0.0010 0.15%
GBP 0.5622 0.0008 0.14%
HKD 5.4628 0.0046 0.08%
JPY 78.1630 0.1440 0.18%

Commods

Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1243.7 -4.580 2017-03-23T00:
Oil Brent 50.6 -0.100 2017-03-23T00:
Oil Nymex 47.7 -0.360 2017-03-23T00:
Silver Index 17.6 0.010 2017-03-23T00:

Indices

Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 7062.6 7079.1 7062.6 0.18%
NASDAQ 5812.3 5842.8 5821.6 -0.07%
DAX 11914.2 12043.7 11904.1 1.14%
DJI 20645.1 20757.9 20661.3 -0.02%
FTSE 7324.7 7346.4 7324.7 0.22%
HKSE 24396.4 24420.8 24327.7 -0.06%
NI225 19066.3 19296.0 19085.3 0.94%
ASX 5708.0 5768.4 5708.0 0.93%