Pratit 15P159Ashwin 15P164

Shanmuganandam 15P169VInith Vemana 15P177

Ronak Batra 15FPM1082015

Women in Board Room-India, US

Managerial Communication

ContentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................2

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................3

PURPOSE.....................................................................................................................................................5

SCOPE..........................................................................................................................................................7

METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................................................8

LIMITATIONS...............................................................................................................................................9

ASSUMPTIONS.............................................................................................................................................9

Importance of Women in Corporate governance and general trends in the US boards............................10

Women Directors Make a Difference........................................................................................................11

Impact on Corporate Governance.............................................................................................................13

Finding Qualified Women..........................................................................................................................13

General trends in the US boards:..............................................................................................................15

INDIAN LAWS.............................................................................................................................................18

Companies Act 2013..............................................................................................................................18

INDIAN WOMEN LABOUR FORCE..............................................................................................................19

More Women Work in Rural India than in Cities...................................................................................19

The Gender Pay Wage Gap is shrinking in India.....................................................................................19

India's Labor Force Is Growing...............................................................................................................19

REPRESENTATION BY GENDER AT ALL LEVELS...........................................................................................20

INDIAN BOARDROOM............................................................................................................................20

IMPACT OF NEW LAW...........................................................................................................................20

INVISIBLE AND UNRECOGNISED............................................................................................................21

UNTAPPED TALENT................................................................................................................................22

INDIA INC STARTS GROOMING WOMEN FOR BOARDROOM ROLES......................................................22

INDIA.........................................................................................................................................................24

US..............................................................................................................................................................25

CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION.....................................................................................................28

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The modern world has been trying to herald women as independent and free being who has

become or atleast is becoming increasingly "on it's own" In different spheres of life, including

the public, political and economic. But this doesn't make the truth less evident. Women's

participation in "man's world" has been the focal point of many debates and it is still not

arguably satisfactory to say that women are being given a fair play chance. Looking at the

corporate scenario of world economies, it becomes clear that women's participation in top

leadership positions and boardrooms is still at ground zero level. How many women directors

or CEOs does the world know? Certainly not many. Despite having proved their worth in

bringing significant contribution to the bottom line productivity of the company and made more

stable, reliable and profitable decisions for company's good interests; women (wherever they

are made part of the director's board) are not appreciated completely.

In this report, we have tried looking at the corporate scenario in two big economies of the

world, US and India, and try to gauge the current corporate practices with respect to women's

participation in boardrooms. We have explored the idea of bringing gender equality for the

higher goal of good governance, which is way more important than the superficial

implementation of gender equality but is also not possible without having a significant number

of women on directors' board of a company. Given that only 5% of US Public companies have

women on directors' board and India incorporating the new law in 2013 as per which each

enlisted company needs to have at least one women director on board, it seems women's

participation still has a really road towards achieving gender equality in boardrooms.

This report investigates the various conditions that have slowed down this progress and

conditions that can really accelerate the same in these two economies. We have further tried to

analyse how gender equality is a step towards achieving boardroom diversity that has been

considered extremely important for successful perpetuation of business. One might come to

believe that gender equality is being advertised for the sake doing good to women community

but there is more to it than meets the eye.

The repory outlines the predictions and suggestions made with respect to women's

participation and good corporate governance, which are definitely not absolute because of the

limitations attached to the topic. Our purpose is not just to research and present a case for

increasing women's participation for the diversity's sake but also to underline the undermining

of the value of the notion of diversity as an important perpetrator of success.

INTRODUCTION

Since it has been long debated as to how the diversity of executive and non-exclusive directors

in the board room of the corporate houses can be multiplied, gender has been thought as a

solution to this predicament. The perspective behind arguing for the need for diversity in the

board room comes from the fact that diverse backgrounds, perspectives and experiences can

be harnessed for improving the functionality of the board, by enabling them to view a problem

with multiple viewpoints.

With bringing in Gender in the equation, it is clear that the quota of women board directors had

to be sorted next. The jurisdictions of several countries have taken steps, both big and small, in

this direction for encouraging women participation in board room of the corporates. Whatever

the size and number of these steps may be, but the agenda behind them remains more

powerful which is to bring in more women employees into the management roles at leading

public companies. And this new age organizational set up is leading the way to openness and

diversity in thought as far as the decision making is concerned.

Jane Diplock, a director sitting on boards of more than one company including Singapore

Exchange Limited and Australian Financial Services Group Pty Limited, has said that "My own

view is that business should see at this issue is no longer about equal opportunity, or even

merely a matter of choice. It is clearly a matter of good governance." The workplace equality in

terms of gender has largely been driven by the arguments for equal opportunities and

promotions based on merit; but the last century did not see much change in terms of women

employees in the decision making positions.

Since merit involves making significant contribution towards bottom line productivity, several of

the recent studies have revealed that there is a direct correlation between the number of

women directors on board and the bottom line productivity. It is a direct positive correlation

which implies increase in financial bottom line with respect to increase in women board of

directors. But companies across the globe were not convinced and challenged the causation

which slowed the process of change in the gender ration of board members.

Now more and more governments are changing their perspective on the issue, perhaps due to

rising pressure for increasing productivity, and setting up new benchmark for bringing in more

women directors on board. Quotas are being set to include women directors such as Malaysia

announcing 30% of the directors to be comprised of women members in listed companies

within next 5 years. But it is important to remember that while dealing quota implementations,

it can be a tricky decision to make regarding the various recruitment that may take place

consequently.

There is always a fear that it may lead to under-qualified employments and in order to tackle

this fear, one must realise that the compulsion of quotas should be more diligently

implemented. It should only be imposed where absolutely necessary. This is in keeping with the

view that the larger goal is that of good governance and not just random gender equality

quality. Gender equality, without a doubt, will be greatly beneficial to those who adopt it and if

adopted healthily then might also erase the need to impose quotas. The diversity in knowledge

and expertise that gets added as a result of gender equality are invaluable to any corporation

looking to increase productivity in an on-going competitive world economy.

Another managing director, Liselott Kilaas, says "In essence, the scope of the board's oversight

has increased significantly. Further the processes by which the oversight is being excercised

have become better defined and more rigorous. All of this requires a broader skillet and wider

perspective in the board. Again, there is implied need for more board diversity." It is needless

to say that a woman director on board will definitely have a different opinions than a man

director because both comes from different backgrounds of experience and hence process

information differently. This naturally implies more number of perspectives upon a situation.

Since good corporate governance cannot be achieved unless decisions are made after weighing

in all possible and diverse perspectives which are effectively needed to make more balanced

and successful decisions.

Furthermore, how can a company add more diversity to its boardrooms and increase good

governance if it keeps going back to the same source of talent? Looking up potential and

qualified women directors can dramatically change the atmosphere of a company and also its

profits. Women should also come forward and show interest in sitting at the board of a

company whereby they can contribute and as well as gain more insight and expertise by adding

in and taking back more enriching perspectives. This seems to be a great way of ensuring

gender equality and good governance in corporations.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to analyse the demographics of corporate arena in USA and India

with respect to women's participation in the director's board/top management. The purpose of

studying the participation of women directors on board of companies is to reveal the how much

the trend has evolved over time and over different demographics; and further how much is still

left to be done before a certain gender parity can be achieved. The entire debate of 'women on

board' started with the idea of good governance which is invariably linked with the idea of

board diversity resulting from gender equality. Having a fair number of women on the board of

directors and also other executive/non executive roles in corporations cam ensure greater

bottom line finances, better return on investments and better decision making. But despite

these and many more benefits that accompany women participation in board rooms, we don't

witness much turnover of the measures taken for the same.

The Deloitt report "Women in the boardroom: A Global Perspective" outlines the efforts of 49

countries to increase the number of women occupying board seats. It stated that the European

countries continue to lead on gender diversity in the boardroom, with Norway, France, Sweden

and Italy all ranking high on the list of encouraging women participation. Whereas, countries in

the Americas and Asia Pacific region have made least progress in this regard. According to the

report the regional breakdown of women chairs is something like: EMEA- 5 percent, the

Americas- 4 percent and Asia-Pacific- 4 percent.

It seems quite awful to know that women hold only 9.5% of all board seats at 200 leading

Indian companies listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange. In complete contrast to this scenario in

Asia's third largest economy, is the European counterpart Norway, which has the best

boardroom gender ratio with nearly one in three corporate director being a woman. In the US,

even though women have outnumbered men on college campuses, in earning a third of law

degrees and medical degrees and, also in earning undergraduate business degrees since 2002;

they have not moved up to positions of power at the level that they should have been.

Therefore the purpose of this report is to understand the reasons behind this disparity between

men and women in positions of power in corporations and analyze the measures taken to clear

this gap that has been in existence for too long. The idea is to research upon the apparent

progress that countries like the US (the developed) and India (the developing) have been

making towards gender equality in the boardroom and how each has different regulations

regarding the subject. The purpose of this report is also to understand the delays in progress of

getting more "women on board" despite the regulations that have been put into

implementation mode and how far is their scope of success in doing the same.

SCOPE

When one considers gender equality as a means of increasing boardroom diversity and

perspectives and further contribute to and implement good corporate governance, it is

necessary to keep in mind that women are under represented at the board level in most global

economies. A report titled 'Women on Boards: a Policy, Process and Implementation Roadmap'

by law firm Khaitan & Co in association with Biz Divas, a national network of professional

women stated that amongst the 1470 public listed companies in India, the number of women

directors on board were 350, representing a meagre percentage of 4% of the total number of

Independent directors on Board.

Unlike Norway, France and Italy who have made Women on board a compulsory requirement,

some of the largest economies like US, China and Japan have no quotas for women in

boardrooms. Norway has witnessed women representation in boards shoot up from 7% (2003)

to 41% (2013). Norway's implementation could only be made successful by posing serious

penalty for non-compliance as grave as dissolution which is not the case with other countries.

Other countries that have not implemented penalties have seen far less results with the worse

of scenarios being of those like US where there is no regulation in the first place to have women

on board. This is the reason behind the slow rate of growth in terms of women's participation in

boardrooms in countries like US, China and Japan.

India has also recently joined the bandwagon of countries like Norway by enacting the New

Companies Act 2013, replacing the old 1956 Law. The objective of the Act is to bring more

accountability and robust corporate governance by bringing in more women on board. The New

Act requires every listed company and every public company - with a minimum paid up share

capital of Rs 100 crore or an annual turnover of at least Rs 300 crore, to appoint atleast one

woman director. The New Companies Act has already initiated changes in the corporate board

rooms in India. In four-and-a-half months since the SEBI board meeting in February, 2014, 91

women had been appointed to 97 directorship positions in 94 companies (as of 30th June

2014). India may well be a good success story for the other developing countries, and possibly

to developed ones too like the US, if the it is able to demonstrate an actual change in the

women representation on board as well as their presence in senior leadership scene.

The scope of this study and analysis of women representation on corporate boards in two

different economies will reveal to us the intricacies of the ground level changes needed to

speed up the process of bringing more women to perform top leadership roles in corporations.

The scope can be as vast as possible therefore to facilitate a human understanding only two

economies have been chosen for study. This might not be an all encompassing view but it can

be of great value as far as insight into the process and workings of gender equality on board

and good governance are concerned.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology involves the study of all this data collected and analysed for the purpose of

gaining an insight into how to implement good corporate governance by infusing diversity of

perspectives and knowledge and experience in boardrooms through introducing gender

equality.

The methodology of studying the demographics of the corporate centric in US and India

included looking at the various trends in women's participation on board and the various

regulations or conditions that gave rise to these trends. The reasons behind the slow or fast

rate increase in the number of women on board, wherever applicable respectively.

LIMITATIONS

The methodology undertaken while preparing this report was based upon the information and

data collected through various sources like the journals, online sources, research reports

conducted by variousorganisations in the field of women's participation in boardrooms. This

implies that it is not feasible to consider the corporate scenario in every country across the

globe and hence our choice of only two economies, US and India.

Furthermore the only limitation is not just the physical feasibility of the research conducted but

also the psychological set up of people belonging to different cultures regarding gender roles

and how they are perceived. In some cases, data may not be accurate or reliable for predicting

a 'trend' because there may not be enough history attached to it. Even the discourse of

Feminism talks about the various lapses in the history of women's emancipation and women's

participation in the public space, be it political, economic or social. These lapses are similar to

the lapses in the corporate history of women's participation and make it extremely difficult to

draw definite conclusions or make definite predictions.

ASSUMPTIONS

There are certain assumptions which work as fundamentals or entry points upon which a

research is undertaken and the assumptions on which the research on women's participation in

boardrooms are undertaken (which have also been a part of this research) are:

Any research initiated into probing the trends in the corporate houses with respect to

women's participation can not be materialised without paying attention to the long

history of gender bias that has always prevented women from entering the so called

"man's world". The stereotypes about women being "unfit" for performing certain roles,

particularly top leadership roles, is not new in the corporate culture. It is an assumption

that can not be ignored because it is the very fundamental prejudice posing a hurdle in

women's climb up the corporate ladder.

Another major assumption or prejudice that has become the stereotypical behavioural

norm is women's "natural" preference for domestic affairs over and above their

professional affairs. Despite the proven fact of increase in bottom line financial

productivity being in direct correlation with increased number of women directors on

board, this assumption is still prevelant. Women have proven, irrespective of their rare

participation, that they are completely capable of balancing both domestic and

professional matters with equal diligence.

Importance of Women in Corporate governance and general trends

in the US boards

Corporate governance reform has been a hot topic for a number of years. Congress, the

Securities and Exchange Commission, the media, and large shareholders have been pressuring

corporations to improve their governance. In the face of the public failure of companies such as

Enron and WorldCom, some boards have been accused of being asleep or at least acquiescent,

often focusing on short-term earnings and permitting runaway CEO compensation. While many

companies are demanding more competent directors, the traditional pool of directors is no

longer adequate to meet the need for independent, outside board members required by

Sarbanes-Oxley and other reform guidelines – particularly since CEOs are limiting the number of

boards on which they serve. Nominating committees and search firms are enlarging the scope

of their search for qualified directors and dipping into new pools of candidates, including

women. Yet some of the largest companies still have no women directors, and of those that do,

only a small percentage have more than two women directors. The most recent Catalyst report

(2005 Catalyst Census of Women Board Directors of the Fortune 500) indicated that women

held only 14.7 percent of all Fortune 500 board seats. Among the Fortune 500 companies, 53

still had no women on their boards, 182 had one woman, 189 had two, and only 76 had three

or more women directors.

Does it matter to corporate governance whether women serve on a board or not? If so, does it

make a difference how many women serve? Is there a critical mass that can bring significant

change to the boardroom and improve corporate governance?

Based on interviews and discussions with 50 women directors, 12 CEOs, and seven corporate

secretaries from Fortune 1000 companies, we have tried to show that a critical mass of three or

more women can cause a fundamental change in the boardroom and enhance corporate

governance.

Our study extends current research and writing on corporate governance, particularly work that

draws attention to the importance of boardroom behavior and dynamics. In addition to

employing critical mass theory, we build on research on minority and majority influence on

group decision-making as well as tokenism theories.

Women Directors Make a Difference

We find that women do make a difference in the boardroom. Women bring a collaborative

leadership style that benefits boardroom dynamics by increasing the amount of listening, social

support, and win-win problem-solving. Although women are often collaborative leaders, they do

not shy away from controversial issues. Many of our informants believe that women are more

likely than men to ask tough questions and demand direct and detailed answers. Women also

bring new issues and perspectives to the table, broadening the content of boardroom discussions

to include the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. Women of color add perspectives that

broaden boardroom discussions even further. The number of women on a board makes a

difference. While a lone woman can and often does make substantial contributions, and two

women are generally more powerful than one, increasing the number of women to three or more

enhances the likelihood that women’s voices and ideas are heard and that boardroom dynamics

change substantially. Women who have served alone and those who have observed the situation

report experiences of lone women not being listened to, being excluded from socializing and

even from some decision-making discussions, being made to feel their views represent a

“woman’s point of view,” and being subject to inappropriate behaviors that indicate male

directors notice their gender more than their individual contributions.

Adding a second woman clearly helps. When two women sit on a board, they tend to feel more

comfortable than one does alone. Each woman can assure that the other is heard, not always by

agreeing with her, but rather, by picking up on the topics she raises and encouraging the group to

process them fully. Two women together can develop strategies for raising difficult and

controversial issues in a way that makes other board members pay attention. But with two

women, women and men are still aware of gender in ways that can keep the women from

working together as effectively as they might, and the men from benefiting from their

contributions.

The magic seems to occur when three or more women serve on a board together. Suddenly

having women in the room becomes a normal state of affairs. No longer does any one woman

represent the “woman’s point of view,” because the women express different views and often

disagree with each other. Women start being treated as individuals with different personalities,

styles, and interests. Women’s tendencies to be more collaborative but also to be more active in

asking questions and raising different issues start to become the boardroom norm. We find that

having three or more women on a board can create a critical mass where women are no longer

seen as outsiders and are able to influence the content and process of board discussions more

substantially.

Impact on Corporate Governance

Having a critical mass of women directors is good for corporate governance in at least three

ways.

• The content of boardroom discussion is more likely to include the perspectives of the multiple

stakeholders who affect and are affected by company performance, not only shareholders but

also employees, customers, suppliers, and the community at large.

• Difficult issues and problems are considerably less likely to be ignored or brushed aside, which

results in better decision-making.

• The boardroom dynamic is more open and collaborative, which helps management hear the

board’s concerns and take them to heart without defensiveness.

Finding Qualified Women

Are there enough qualified women available to substantially increase the representation of

women on Fortune 1000 boards without sacrificing the quality of decision-making? If being a

Fortune 1000 CEO is a prime qualification – as it has been often in the past – the answer is No,

because few Fortune 1000 companies are led by women. But being a CEO isn’t critical for all

board members. In fact, many white men on these boards don’t meet that qualification.

Although our respondents consider it important to have some CEOs on a board, they see no

reason why all board members must be CEOs and some good reasons why not all members

should be CEOs. Indeed, because women tend to bring new perspectives, a new and desirable

leadership style, and a willingness to tackle tough issues, they arguably have more of what it

takes to contribute to boards than some CEOs, whom our respondents see as having more narrow

views and sometimes being more willing to smooth-over tough issues than to process them fully.

Male CEOs looking for board candidates may still be drawn to men with whom they are

comfortable and with whom they socialize, but some CEOs themselves recognize that that is not

necessarily good for corporate governance.

Our respondents were adamant that women should not be brought on as tokens simply because

they are women. To serve boards well, women need high-level corporate experience or the

knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to contribute to board discussions. Although boards may

have to reach a bit deeper into the senior-management ranks to find more women, women who

have succeeded in business careers in corporate America are eminently qualified to contribute to

these boards – as are successful women entrepreneurs, lawyers, nonprofit executives,

consultants, and academics.

To improve board governance, our research shows that boards should actively seek qualified

women board members and not be satisfied with just one or two women on their boards.

Nominating committees should not try to be “gender-blind.” Rather they should consider

increasing the number of women an important part of their role and should insist that search

firms bring them diverse slates of candidates that always include qualified women. Since

corporations say they value “outside the box” thinking, they need to look outside the box to

recruit women, who bring a new perspective and style that enhances the quality of discussions

in the boardroom.

General trends in the US boards:

Increasing board size to add female directors is common:

Women as a percentage of new board members across all companies has increased. And just

about 15% of S&P 1500 companies have increased the number of female-held directorships

since 2013.

However, 51% of the companies that increased directorships held by women last year did so by

increasing board size. This raises questions around whether boards are holistically refreshing or

simply adding more directors to the board.

It also explains why the larger the board size, the more likely it is for the board to include

female directors. Only 54% of S&P 1500 companies with a board size of seven directors have at

least one female director versus 98% for those with 12 directors.

As we can see from the infographic above Women directors as a part of the board members has

been increasing over the years with the general trend being increasing the size of the board to

accommodate the Women directors.

1. Female directors bring different experience to the board:

A review of male and female directors reveals that female directors tend to be younger, less

tenured, and more likely to serve on multiple company boards than their male counterparts.

They are also less likely to be current CEO’s.

2. Gender diversity is rising slowly:

Despite efforts to advance board diversity by institutional investors and other groups, progress

toward gender parity on US boards is minimal. Indeed, the proportion of women on boards has

increased only 5 percentage points over the last 10 years. Only 16% of S&P 1500 boards seats

held by women-less than the proportion of seats held by male directors. 15% of S&P midcap

400 and 12% of S&P SmallCap 600 directorship are held by women

Boards of larger companies are significantly more

gender diverse. While 98% of Fortune 100 companies

have at least one woman on their boards, only two-

thirds of SmallCap companies

INDIAN LAWS

Companies Act 2013

The Companies Act, 2013 was approved in August 2013. The 2013 act was intended to enhance

self-regulation, strengthen board governance, encourage corporate democracy, and reduce the

number of required government approvals.

One of the major goals of the 2013 act is to improve board diversity and to enhance the

responsibilities and accountability of executive directors, managerial personnel, and

independent directors. One of the new requirements pertains to the appointment of women

directors to company boards.

Under section 149(1) of 2013 Company’s Act, the following category of companies need to

comply with the requirement of having at least of one woman

(i) Every listed company, within one year from the commencement of second proviso

to sub-section (1) of section 149

(ii) Every other public company that has paid–up share capital of one hundred crore

rupees or more, or a turnover of three hundred crore rupees or more within three

years from the commencement of second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 149

Companies meeting these criteria are required to comply within one year; newly incorporated

companies meeting the criteria must appoint a woman director within six months of

incorporation. The board is required to fill any vacancy of a board seat previously held by a

female director no later than the next board meeting or three months from the date of such

vacancy, whichever is later.

INDIAN WOMEN LABOUR FORCE

More Women Work in Rural India than in Cities

Overall, the labour force participation rate for women is falling: from 37% in 2004-05 to

29% in 2009-10.

In 2011-2012, women comprised 24.8% of all rural workers, down from 31.8% in 1972-

73.

In 2011-2012, women comprised 14.7% of all urban workers, a small increase from

13.4% in 1972-73.

13.4% of Indian working women have a regular salaried job compared to 21.2% of

working men (aged 15–59).

The Gender Pay Wage Gap is shrinking in India

Women earn 56% of what their male colleagues earn for performing the same work.

The more educated a woman is, the wider the gender pay gap.

The gender pay gap increases as women advance in their careers.

India's Labor Force Is Growing

India will add 110 million people to its labour force in the next 10 years, including youth

and women entering the workforce.

Over the next 40 years, India is projected to add 424 million working-age adults.

If India can increase women's labour force participation by 10 percentage points (68

million more women) by 2025, India could increase its GDP 16%.

REPRESENTATION BY GENDER AT ALL LEVELS

INDIAN BOARDROOM

Women hold only 9.5% of all board seats at 200 leading Indian companies listed on the Bombay

Stock Exchange. Along with Japan and Portugal, Asia’s third largest economy has one of the

lowest percentage share of women directors in the world, according to a report by Catalyst, a

not-for-profit that promotes gender equality in business. The report only analyzed the

composition of BSE 200 companies, and not all listed Indian firms. In Norway, which has the

best boardroom gender ratio, nearly one in three corporate directors is a woman.

In 2013, India enacted a new Companies Act, replacing the original 1956 law. It mandated that

all companies listed on stock exchanges must have at least one woman on its board of

directors. Firms had till October last year to comply with the new norms.

IMPACT OF NEW LAW

A new law may have forced India Inc. to open the boardroom doors to women, but years of

sidelining them has led to a high dropout rate among professionals resulting in a shortage of

women to fill such positions.

Around 530 out of 5,711 listed firms have been fined by the Bombay Stock Exchange for not

having at least one woman director by the deadline. Other companies appointed relatives such

as wives and mothers-in-law who are seen as proxies. Research by Catalyst, a non-profit

focusing on women in business, finds the shortage is due to the fact that far more women drop

out of the corporate workforce early on in India than in other countries.

Catalyst's 2013 report "First Step: India Overview" found that nearly half of Indian women drop

off the corporate employment ladder between junior and mid-levels, compared with 29

percent across Asia as a whole. The main reason cited is the lack of support given to women

who want to return to work after having a baby, such as extended maternity leave, crèche

facilities and flexible hours.

INVISIBLE AND UNRECOGNISED

Studies conducted by Catalyst, Mckinsey, Credit Suisse and others repeatedly show that board

diversity leads to better performance in terms of productivity and profitability. A 2012 report by

the Credit Suisse Research Institute, for example, found that stocks of large cap companies with

at least one woman board director outperformed those with all-male boards by 26 percent

over a period of six years.

Yet, despite increased efforts by companies and governments around the world to lift the

number of women in senior corporate roles, their presence remains stubbornly low. Women

hold just 12 percent of boardroom seats worldwide, and only 4 percent of board chairmen are

women, according to a June report by Deloitte after studying almost 6,000 firms in 49 countries.

In India - despite the prominence of a few businesswomen such as Biocon Managing Director

Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar or HSBC country head Naina Lal Kidwai

- the lack of women on boards is even more pronounced. Just 7.7 percent of board seats are

held by women in India, compared with 17.5 percent in South Africa and 15.6 percent in the

United Kingdom, the Deloitte report showed. As in other countries, Indian women climbing the

corporate ladder face the usual unconscious gender biases, being perceived as unambitious,

not capable enough, or misplaced home makers, experts say

UNTAPPED TALENT

Research conducted by Genpact estimates there are 1.5 million qualified Indian women like

Anand, who have dropped out of corporate jobs largely because they cannot find suitable

employment after starting a family.

The Career 2.0. programme, launched on Facebook in May, has resulted in more than 1,000

applications and more than 10 women being hired at middle and senior levels such as assistant

vice president.

Catalyst's Irde says that initiatives like these, together with mentorship programmes and

policies such as child care facilities and flexible working hours, are key to boosting the number

of women breaking through the proverbial glass ceiling.

INDIA INC STARTS GROOMING WOMEN FOR BOARDROOM ROLES

The proportion of women in senior positions has declined in Indian companies. According to a

study by Grant Thornton, the proportion of women in senior positions has fallen from 19 per

cent in 2013 to 14 per cent in 2014. In fact, globally too, the proportion of senior roles filled by

women is 24 per cent, exactly the same proportion as in 2013, 2009 and 2007.

It is only 5 per cent higher than the number recorded 10 years ago, the International Business

Report said. As a result, the study, which has been conducted between November 2013 and

February 2014 by undertaking more than 6,700 interviews, shows that number of Indian

companies supporting quotas for women on executive boards of large listed companies has one

up to 64 per cent against 44 per cent last year. The proportion of senior roles for women stood

at 38 per cent for China, 37 per cent for Eastern Europe and 35 per cent for Southeast Asia.

The report notes that though women are signing up for college in increasing numbers —

globally, the ratio of women to men in tertiary education is 108 to 100 — this doesn’t appear to

be translating into better, or better-paid, jobs for women. One reason for this may be that

women are not studying the subjects that are likely to lead to senior management positions

Naina Lal Kidwai, director, Asia Pacific & Country Head, HSBC India, said, “We can always do

better. Corporate will have to hire more women and give them equal opportunity. Women

don’t want incentives, they want equal opportunity. Having an enabling organization is certainly

something corporate can work on. The promotion to senior position should be on true

meritocracy”.

Kiran Mazumdar Shaw, chief of Biocon, said that women themselves will have to make bold

choices to move up the ladder.

The debate on having women at senior positions has also gained momentum because of the

recent directives from SEBI and the new Companies Act, 2013. With the Companies Act, 2013,

making it mandatory for companies to appoint at least one woman director on their board and

including activities related to promoting gender equality and women empowerment under the

CSR norms, India Inc has woken up to the need of taking women seriously in board rooms. In

fact, many companies have already started work on training women employees for leadership

roles.

Last month, SEBI aligned its norms to the Act, making it compulsory for every listed company to

appoint at least one woman director. The directive comes into force from October 1. According

to indianboards.com, a joint initiative by Prime Database and National Stock Exchange (NSE), as

many as 966 of the 1,456 companies listed on the NSE, do not have a woman director on their

board currently. In fact, accounting regulator Institute of Chartered Accountants of India is

working on creating a pool of trained women chartered accountants for appointment on board

of firms

INDIA

A new law stipulating the mandatory presence of atleast 1 women in the board has forced India

companies to open the boardroom doors to women, but years of side-lining them has led to a

high dropout rate among female professionals resulting in a shortage of women to fill such

positions.

Around 530 out of 5,711 listed firms have been fined by the Bombay Stock Exchange for

not having at least one woman director by the deadline. Other companies appointed

relatives such as wives and mothers-in-law who are seen as proxies.

Research by Catalyst, a non-profit focusing on women in business, finds the shortage is

due to the fact that far more women drop out of the corporate workforce early on in India

than in other countries.

Catalyst's 2013 report "First Step: India Overview" found that nearly half of Indian

women drop off the corporate employment ladder between junior and mid-levels,

compared with 29 percent across Asia as a whole.

The main reason cited is the lack of support given to women who want to return to work

after having a baby, such as extended maternity leave, crèche facilities and flexible hours.

In India - despite the prominence of a few businesswomen such as Biocon Managing

Director Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar or HSBC country

head Naina Lal Kidwai - the lack of women on boards is even more pronounced.

Just 7.7 percent of board seats are held by women in India, compared with 17.5 percent in

South Africa, 15.6 percent in the United Kingdom and 12 percent worldwide average.

Indian women climbing the corporate ladder face the usual unconscious gender biases,

being perceived as unambitious, not capable enough, or misplaced home makers.

% Percentage Change

Percentage of women on boards:

India S&P CNX Nifty 50

8.3 2.7 (2012)

Percentage of women on boards 6.7 0.5 (2012)

Percentage of women on boards of

listed companies

9.0 n/a

US

Women in USA make up a majority of the U.S. population. Women are 50.8 percent of the U.S.

population.

They earn almost 60 percent of undergraduate degrees, and 60 percent of all master’s

degrees.

They earn 47 percent of all law degrees, and 48 percent of all medical degrees.

They earn more than 44 percent of master’s degrees in business and management,

including 37 percent of MBAs.

They are 47 percent of the U.S. labor force, and 59 percent of the college-educated,

entry-level workforce

Although they hold almost 52 percent of all professional-level jobs, American women lag

substantially behind men when it comes to their representation in leadership positions:

They are only 14.6 percent of executive officers, 8.1 percent of top earners, and 4.6

percent of Fortune 500 CEOs.

They hold just 16.9 percent of Fortune 500 board seats.

In the financial services industry, they make up 54.2 percent of the labor force, but are

only 12.4 percent of executive officers, and 18.3 percent of board directors. None are

CEOs.

They account for 78.4 percent of the labor force in health care and social assistance but

only 14.6 percent of executive officers and 12.4 percent of board directors. None, again,

are CEOs.

In the legal field, they are 45.4 percent of associates—but only 25 percent of non-equity

partners and 15 percent of equity partners.

In medicine, they comprise 34.3 percent of all physicians and surgeons but only 15.9

percent of medical school deans.

In information technology, they hold only 9 percent of management positions and

account for only 14 percent of senior management positions at Silicon Valley startups.

In recent years, however, the percentage of women in top management positions and on

corporate boards has stalled.

Their presence in top management positions today remains below 9 percent.

The percentage of women on all U.S. corporate boards has been stuck in the 12.1 percent

to 12.3 percent range over the past decade.

At almost 17 percent, women’s representation on Fortune 500 boards is slightly higher,

but it hasn’t budged in eight years.

% Percentage Change

Percentage of women on boards:

S&P 5007

18.7 1.7 (2012)

Percentage of women on boards

(U.S. statistic of the Credit Suisse

Gender 3000, a global population)

13.7 0.4 (2012)

Percentage of S&P 500 companies

with two or more women on the

board

68.0 2.0 (2013)

Percentage of Fortune 250 board

seats held by women

18.5 n/a

Percentage of female directors

elected in the past year at Fortune

250 companies

22.4 4.3

Percentage of boards with up to 25

percent female board members

(sample of 250 public companies)

76.0 6.0 (2012)

Percentage of boards with more

than 26 percent female board

members (sample of 250 public

companies)

24.0 6.0 (2012)

Percentage of boards that have 18.0 3.0 (2012)

increased the number of female

directors serving on the board

(sample of 250 public companies)

Women of color face an even wider gap

The representation of women of color in corporate leadership roles is worse still. Women of

color are 36.3 percent of our nation’s female population and approximately 18 percent of the

entire U.S. population. They make up about one-third of the female workforce.

And yet…

Women of color occupy only 11.9 percent of managerial and professional positions. And

of those women, 5.3 percent are African American, 2.7 percent are Asian American, and

3.9 percent are Latina.

Women of color hold only 3.2 percent of the board seats of Fortune 500 companies.

More than two-thirds of Fortune 500 companies have no women of color as board

directors at all.

Although women in USA have outnumbered men on college campuses since 1988, they have

earned at least a third of law degrees since 1980, were fully a third of medical school students by

1990, and, since 2002, have outnumbered men in earning undergraduate business degrees since

2002, they have not moved up to positions of prominence and power in America at anywhere

near the rate that should have followed.

In a broad range of fields, their presence in top leadership positions—as equity law partners,

medical school deans, and corporate executive officers—remains stuck at a mere 10 percent to

20 percent. Their “share of voice”—the average proportion of their representation on op-ed

pages and corporate boards, as TV pundits, and in Congress—is just 15 percent.

In fact, it’s now estimated that, at the current rate of change, it will take until 2085 for women to

reach parity with men in leadership roles in our country.

CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION

Even though the prospects of a women reaching top leadership in the United States of America is

higher than that of India, the overall situation needs to improve drastically for women to have

parity with men.

The organisations have to focus on inclusion at all levels right from the beginning to

ensure that they have a healthy pipeline to move up the ladder.

Questions have been raised as to whether legislation or quotas can be the solution. We

believe board members should be appointed not because of their gender, but their

professional experience, ability, and qualifications.

The female voice is valuable in boardrooms because it supplements discussions with a

different perspective. The same principle may apply to grooming young talent and

building boards with a diversified cultural and ethnic background. These are of special

importance to businesses in the dawn of social media and are essential for sustainable

development.

We need to create an environment that would enable our women to break the glass

ceiling. Stereotypes, bias, and brutally long working hours are discouraging our women

executives from reaching for the top.

We need to provide enough positive reinforcement so that more women will find it

rewarding to make sacrifices for advancement in their careers. These are often tough

personal choices, and smart companies would use them as opportunities to attract and

retain the right professionals instead of driving them away. So we need to be more

innovative and accommodating in terms of employment arrangements to promote

diversity.

Family-friendly policies are crucial so that our female professionals can shine in the

different stages of their lives. By the same token, we need to look seriously within our

talent pools and find the right young men and women who can—sooner rather than

later—carry the baton and lead our businesses in meeting the challenges of tomorrow.