When I wrote on Monday about the appointment of Mark McInnes as CEO of Premier Investments your comments were loud and clear: not enough time in the sin bin for your liking.

Reality is though, McInnes’ good fortune comes at the hands of an all male board who apparently rate financial performance over values (although we’ve seen from the DJ’s case that there’s an inextricable link between the two, when it comes to potential for reputational impact).  I don’t know whether any focus groups were held with The Just Group’s mostly-female customer base about the McInnes decision but again the comments on this blog show they might be advise to do so…

Anyway your feedback got me thinking about whether a mixed gender board might have reached a different conclusion: maybe they would, maybe they wouldn’t, but your comments indicate there would certainly have been a very robust debate had more women been allowed a conscience vote. 

We know from Catalyst research that the bottom line performance of companies is higher when there are more women on the boards – up to 35% higher in fact.  This is partly because when there is more diversity on the board composition there is likely to be different perspectives, greater innovation, more questioning and a more balanced approach to governance and risk taking. 

—————————————-

Now since the role of a board is to bring these very attributes to the table, on behalf of the shareholders who appoint them and in order to maximize shareholder returns, why are we settling for anything less than the best? 

——————————————-

And when I say “we”, I really do mean “we”: if you have superannuation funds invested in industry funds, or any retail super fund, or most corporate super funds, the majority of your retirement savings will presently be sitting in the shares of stock exchange listed companies that are controlled by board directors.  These directors make every day decsions like who to appoint as their next CEO, how to invest the capital of the company (ie your retirement savings that are invested with them), and many other operational and business decisions that impact women more than men since women control 80% of household purchase decisions.

A quick scan of the Women on Boards 2011 Board Diversity Index shows that as at February this year, on the ASX200 companies there are a total of 1430 board seats, of which 156 or 10.9% of which are held by women.

Importantly, all of the following companies still have no women at all on their boards.  Unless they’re still applying the old “we want more women but can’t find them” banter, one can only assume that these are Australia’s most misogynist public boards:

Quite a lot, isn’t there.  And that’s just the ASX200 – when you get to the ASX201-300 companies the women directors are rare as hen’s teeth.

It’s interesting when you scan this list to see that there are so many media and retailing companies on it.  Sure, the energy and mining stocks are blokey frontiers, but with all the women in media and retailing, and with women so often being the target audience of these sectors, you’d think these companies would have seen the light.

And as for the mining, energy and materials stocks… as these organisations navigate the Government’s proposed mining super profit tax and carbon taxes, I would have thought some fresh perspectives would have been just what the doctor ordered! 

—————————————-

My tip for you: write a letter to Company Secretary of your superannuation fund and ask them whether any of your money is invested in these stocks.  If it is, ask them how they’re going to produce the 35% upside potential that women could bring to the board.

—————————————-

It’s your money, so if you want to maximise your chances of a comfortable retirement, why not go ahead an have your say??