Female FTSE Report 2020

The Female FTSE
Board Report 2020

Taking Targets Seriously
Professor Susan Vinnicombe CBE
Cranfield University, Cranfield School of Management
Dr Elena Doldor Supporting sponsor
Queen Mary University of London
Dr Valentina Battista
Michelle Tessaro
The Female FTSE
Board Report
2020
Supporting sponsor:
Sponsor’s foreword
If you have a board that largely looks and thinks the same,
with similar experience, it will have a narrow view on a world
that is changing fast, regardless of how talented its members
are.
In unsettled times, it is perhaps a natural reaction to maintain the status quo and avoid change. But in fact,
accelerating progress on diversifying the boardroom is now more important than ever. Faced with exceptional
challenges, businesses will need creativity, different perspectives and experiences to navigate the year ahead
and stimulate long-term growth.
Invisible barriers
Gender diversity has long been a focus for many boardrooms and evidence shows that UK boards have
taken action to improve female representation. But there is no doubt that progress needs to be accelerated.
A colleague of mine, Arun Batra, recently described to me the ‘invisible barriers’ that are holding businesses
back.
Arun, who works with UK boards to identify how they can improve diversity and inclusion within their own
organisations, explained that some barriers are so deep-rooted they can be invisible. Longstanding policies
and procedures, as well as attitudes and behaviours, need to be carefully unpicked to understand how they
can inadvertently favour some people over others.
Boards need to challenge themselves and ask questions about some of the historic pillars their organisation
was built around. For example, is the recruitment process suited to a certain type of person? Does it exclude
certain pools of talent from applying? Does the promotion process allow certain individuals to display their
strengths more easily?
Targets enable cultural change

Targets are a natural part of how business works. They set a clear vision and keep an organisation on track
– it is how boards are largely measured. The diversity and inclusion ambitions of a business are no less
commercially important and, if treated in the same way as other priorities, they will be held to account in the
same way.
However, in our experience at EY, we know that targets alone will not drive the necessary change in the
long-term. Last year our UK & Ireland business upped our own diversity targets to double the representation of
female and ethnic minority talent amongst our Partnership by 2025 to 40% and 20% respectively. Those clear
goals provide a focus for our leadership and our entire business and reinforce the cultural values of our firm.
But critically, in partnership with these targets are the initiatives that we have put in place to help make
it happen. At the same time as doubling our targets and looking hard at our culture, we also doubled our
investment in the coaching and sponsorship programmes we have for our high-performing female and ethnic
minority talent – for example, EY’s Future Leaders Programme and CareerWatch.
It is undeniable that diversity of thought at board level can deliver direct business success, but
it can also spark a much-needed ripple effect that can filter throughout the organisation,
the sector it operates in, the economy and more widely. UK businesses have a
responsibility beyond delivering profits; they must also lead with purpose, using their
resources to positively contribute to society.
Like many businesses EY is investing in improving gender diversity within our own
organisation, but we know there is more to do. To that end EY has collaborated
with Cranfield in this report to share our mutual experiences, fire-up momentum
and ultimately help drive social change.
Alison Kay
Managing Partner for Client Service
EY UK & Ireland
3
Professor Sir Peter Gregson’s
foreword
I’m delighted to contribute the foreword to this leading

research. Every year the publication of this report prompts
us all to challenge ourselves as to whether we are doing
enough either individually or as an organisation.
As the father of three daughters, at the beginning of their careers, I’m determined that they, and other
women, should be offered the same opportunities and life chances that I have had. I am proud of the
work undertaken by Professor Sue Vinnicombe CBE at Cranfield University to ensure that more women,
both now and in the future, have the opportunity to play leading roles in some of the world’s largest
companies.
Looking back on previous years, it has often been a case of two steps forward, followed by one step back
in the struggle for more diversity at the upper echelons of our leading companies. I’m pleased that this
year we have again made strides forward and look set to hit the Hampton-Alexander targets for women
on boards of FTSE 100 companies. While this achievement should be acknowledged, we should stop and
ask ourselves whether reaching the target has truly changed the cultural diversity of the boardroom.
The report highlights once again, that while more women are being appointed to boards, there is
still a dearth of women holding executive roles. With that fact in mind, we must see meeting the
Hampton-Alexander targets as a stepping stone on a continuing journey, and redouble our efforts
for greater diversity in the boardroom.
I look forward to this report once again prompting vital discussions about how we strive for greater
diversity, exceed targets and achieve true parity in the boardroom.
Professor Sir Peter Gregson

Vice-Chancellor and Chief Executive
Cranfield University
4 The Female FTSE Board Report 2020

Contents
Executive summary 6
FTSE 100 companies with female directors 7
FTSE 250 companies with female directors 7
Section 1: Introduction 9
Section 2: FTSE 100 companies 10

2.1 FTSE 100 companies with female directors 10
2.1.1 FTSE 100 companies with women in executive roles 11
2.1.2 Women in senior non-executive roles 12
2.2 The characteristics of female directors 19
2.2.1 Multiple directorships 19
2.2.2 Age 19
2.2.3 Tenure 20
2.3 Trends in board composition 21
2.4 The relationship between women on the board and women
in the executive pipeline 22
Section 3: FTSE 250 companies 26
3.1 FTSE 250 companies with female directors 26
3.1.2 FTSE 250 companies with women in executive roles 27
Section 4: Taking targets seriously 29
4.1 The adoption and implementation of voluntary diversity targets:
Existing evidence 29
4.1.1 Diversity targets in the wider context of gender equality in
the UK workforce 29
4.1.2 Mapping out targets 30
4.1.3 Diversity targets beyond gender 32
4.2 Driving diversity through voluntary targets: Perspectives from
key stakeholders 32
4.2.1 Rationale for setting targets and framing strategies 32
4.2.2 Ambitiousness of targets 34
4.2.3 Accountability for targets 36
4.2.4 Changing processes and cultures to meet voluntary targets 38
4.2.5 Race and etnicity 40
4.2.6 COVID-19 and the D&I agenda 41
4.3 Conclusion and recommendations 43
Section 5: Concluding remarks 45
Appendix – Methodology for section 2 .4 46
Author biographies 50
5
Executive summary
This year we see a positive picture in terms of the number of
women on corporate boards. The percentage of women on
FTSE 100 boards is 34.5% and the equivalent figure for FTSE
250 boards is 31.9%, so hopefully all FTSE 350 boards should
hit the Hampton-Alexander target of 33% by the end of 2020.
In total 324 women hold 355 FTSE 100 directorships. The percentage of female non-executive directors
(NEDs) is at an all-time high of 40.8%, whilst the percentage of female executive directorships has risen
slightly this year to 13.2%. There has been more progress recorded on the FTSE 250 boards, where the
percentage of female NEDs is 37.6% and the percentage of female executive directors (EDs) is 11.3%. There
is quite a lot of variance across boards indicating that only 63% FTSE 100 and 53% FTSE 250 have reached
the target of 33% women in their boards.
June 2020 FTSE 100 % FTSE 250 %
Female-held directorships 355 34.5% 620 31.9%
Female executive directorships 31 13.2% 47 11.3%
Female non-executive directorships 324 40.8% 573 37.6%
Companies with female executive directors 28 28.0% 42 16.8%
Companies with at least one female director 100 100.0% 250 100.0%
Companies with at least 33% female directors 63 63.0% 132 52.8%

FTSE 100 companies with female
directors
Severn Trent and Taylor Wimpey rank first in terms of the percentage of women on their boards at 56%, not
the most likely companies to be in that position, showing that where there is commitment to diversity then
it can be implemented. At the other end of the ranking it is surprising to see companies such as Associated
British Foods, BT Group, Carnival, London Stock Exchange Group, Ocado Group, Wm Morrison Supermarkets,
Coca-Cola and Bunzl, all in sectors where there are many women.
There are 31 women holding executive roles in 28 companies, so, again, a marginal increase on last year.
Whilst the number of women in finance continues to grow, the number of women in Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) positions stays stubbornly low. Last year we had seven women in CEO roles; however, Véronique Laury
stepped down from Kingfisher, Direct Line fell out of the FTSE 100 list and Alison Cooper has announced her
departure from Imperial Brands, leaving four women CEOs. They have recently been joined by Alison Rose
at Royal Bank of Scotland, taking the total to five. We have a long way to go to make it 25 women CEOs by
2025!
The number of women in the Chair role has increased from five last year to eight this year, whilst the number
of women in the Senior Independent Director (SID) role has stayed the same at 21. There has been a big
increase in the number of board committees since last year (393 compared to 295) yet the percentage of
women chairing those committees has dropped slightly from 31% to 29%. It is essential that Chairs ensure
greater gender diversity of Committee Chairs especially as capacity expands, as it has this year. The most
popular committees for women to chair are remuneration (49) followed by audit/risk (29).
This year there were 28 fewer directors on FTSE 100 boards compared to last year. The majority of both male
directors (90%) and female directors (86%) hold only one seat. Men continue to be, on average, two years
older than their female equivalents, but interestingly the average tenure for female and male directors for
both executive and NED roles has narrowed this year (1.3 years more for male EDs and 0.5 years for male
NEDs). Five women and 23 men have been in their NED roles for longer than the recommended nine-year
period – in the latter group are five men holding Chair roles.
Due to the continuing slow progress of women into senior leadership roles (Executive Committee and Direct
Reports) we undertook a special investigation of the relationship between women on boards and the group
of women below the boards across FTSE 100 companies. Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), we
identify four configurations that are sufficient to result in a critical mass of women in senior leadership roles.
The two most significant pathways are when there is a critical mass of female NEDs and a critical mass
of female EDs and female interlinked board members; and a critical mass of female EDs and the female
interlinked board members and female committee chairs. Examples are Diageo, Burberry, Compass Group
and Taylor Wimpey. This analysis provides empirical support for the importance of women not just to be
appointed to NED roles, but to have influential roles which gives them a louder voice at the table.
FTSE 250 companies with

female directors
Progress on the FTSE 250 boards has been even better than on the FTSE 100 boards. There are 573 women
holding 620 directorships; 37.6% of the NEDS are women and 11.3% of the EDs are women. There are 42
FTSE 250 companies with female EDs. There are now seven women in CEO roles but 29 in Chief Financial
Officer/Financial Director (CFO/FD) roles. It is disappointing to see that women are not making much
progress into these vital executive roles.
7
Taking targets seriously
Voluntary targets have become the main mechanisms used
by British business to improve gender balance in leadership
ranks. Interviews in seven varied organisations that use
targets to drive their diversity and inclusion (D&I) agenda
revealed the following:
• Most of the organisations adopted voluntary targets because previous diversity initiatives had failed.
There had been little resistance to targets and this demonstrates how gender targets have become
relatively normalised in the UK. There is still work to be done to explain that diversity targets do not
compromise meritocracy, but rather enable it.
• Two features of targets emerged as critical: ambitiousness and accountability. Despite a general
emphasis on realistic targets, more ambitious targets were sometimes seen as a way of mobilising
organisations into action, even when they are not fully met. The trend was a target of 30%-40% women in
senior leadership roles, while fewer organisations had set ethnicity targets around 20%. Everyone agreed
that ethnicity is a far more challenging area to address, and one where future work is needed.
• In terms of accountability, there was significant variance around how organisations enforce their targets
– there was a concerted effort to tie targets to leadership performance in organisations with more
experience in using targets, but an ambivalence to do so in others. There was also a need for more clarity
on how to cascade holistic corporate targets to the level of various business units, and how to hardwire
accountability locally.
• Targets were seen as a tool for culture change. When implemented thoroughly and ambitiously, targets
created scrutiny and unrooted bias across key talent management processes (such as selection,
performance management, promotions, talent development), fostering a more data-driven approach to
people decisions and a more systemic focus on inclusion.
• Participants raised both dangers and opportunities regarding the impact of COVID-19 on the D&I agenda.
The forced lockdown normalises working from home, flexible working and reduced hours, challenging
assumptions about the structure of work. Organisations do need to address more proactively the long-
term effects of the current pandemic on the pipeline of female talent by taking tangible actions to buffer
the disproportionate impact the lockdown has had on women’s careers.
“Although it is good to see gender diversity steadily improve across

the boards of FTSE 350 companies, it is disappointing that
the executive gender diversity remains very low. Having,
or moving closer to, executive gender balance should
be an imperative for any company. Ideally all FTSE
350 companies lead by example and now develop clear
actionable targets, both at board and executive level.”
Charlotte Valeur
Chair, IoD

Section 1: Introduction
We launched our first women on boards report in 1999 when
no one spoke about the topic. Back then only 7% of directors
on FTSE 100 boards were women. Today there are 34.5%, so
we have certainly come a long way. But how far have we
really come?
In our 2017 report our ten-year analysis drew attention to the increasing percentage of women on the FTSE
100 boards but the decreasing percentage of women directors in senior board roles. Last year we extended
this observation by reporting on women directors’ consistently shorter tenures – a trend that pre-dates
both the Davies and Hampton-Alexander Reviews – and their slightly younger age (counter-intuitive since
women are more likely to have taken time out of their careers for family). This year we investigate whether
having women on corporate boards has an impact on the women in the executive pipeline. Both the Davies
and Hampton-Alexander Reviews were important not only in driving an increase in the number of women
on boards (because that change in itself was good for business) but also because that would surely help to
trickle down gender diversity to those important executive levels and the pipeline to them.
The UK chose to go down the road of targets rather than quotas because it was believed that it was more
likely to bring about the much needed broader cultural change rather than just increasing the number of
women on boards. We now realise that this is not a simple binary decision. Targets that are hard driven, such
as those in the UK, may be much more effective than soft quotas. Whilst much has been written about the
strengths of quotas, very little has been done on targets. In this report, as we reach the end of Hampton-
Alexander, we reflect on the nature of targets and on how companies have made them work – the ‘downs’ as
well as the ‘ups’ of the journey. We feel that the story of how the UK has used targets to make progress in the
number of women in leadership over the past ten years is worth documenting and the learning transferred to
other areas requiring change, namely race and ethnicity.
“While this has been a tumultuous year it is encouraging to see the

number of women on boards and in senior leadership positions on the
rise, with many firms reaching the Hampton-Alexander target by the end
of 2020. It is a clear sign that businesses are committed to addressing
the gender imbalance in senior business leadership. But there is still a
long way to go. Firms must continue to remove
roadblocks that prevent women from reaching
the top and ensure they have a voice in key
decision-making roles. A steadfast commitment
to building a fair and inclusive workplace is the
only way to bring about lasting change. And as
one target is reached, another more ambitious
one should take its place.”
Dame Carolyn Fairbairn

CBI Director-General
9
Section 2: FTSE 100 companies
The figures for women on the boards of FTSE 350 companies
and the various data on the women directors of FTSE 100
boards were downloaded from BoardEx on 1 June 2020.
2.1 FTSE 100 companies with female directors
Once again women continue their progress on FTSE 100 boards this year
in all respects. As of 1 June 2020, there are 355 female-held directorships
across the FTSE 100 corporate boards. The percentage of women on those
boards has risen from 32.1% last year to 34.5%, thus exceeding the 33%
by December 2020 target set by the Hampton-Alexander Review.
The percentage of female NEDs has increased to 40.8% and EDs to 13.2%. This is the biggest increase in the
past five years. In total 305 women hold 355 directorships.
Table 1: FTSE 100 directorships 2016-2020
FTSE 100 Directorships 2016-2020 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016
Female-held directorships 355 339 305 294 279
(34.5%) (32.1%) (29.0%) (27.7%) (26.0%)
Female executive directorships 31 28 25 25 26
(13.2%) (10.9%) (9.7%) (9.8%) (9.7%)
Female non-executive directorships 324 311 280 269 253
(40.8%) (38.9%) (35.4%) (33.3%) (31.4%)
Total female directors (NED and ED)* 305 292 264 259 244
Companies with female executives 28 25 22 21 20
Companies with at least one female director 100 100 100 100 100
Companies with at least 33% female directors 63 48 32 28 19
* The total number of female directors is lower than the number of female-held directorships because some women hold
more than one directorship
At present 63 companies have reached the target of 33%. Severn Trent and Taylor Wimpey hold top position
with 56% women on their boards, followed by Auto Trader Group, CRH, Rentokil Initial and Rightmove with
50% women on their boards. At the other end of the ranking there are 17 companies with 25% or less women
on their boards, with Bunzl last with only 17%. This is an interesting picture and clearly demonstrates how
sector does not determine the percentage of women on the board!

2.1.1 FTSE 100 companies with women in executive roles
The percentage of women in executive roles now stands at 13.2%. There

are 31 women holding these roles in 28 companies.
There continue to be three companies with two women in executive roles, i.e. Next, Whitbread and Royal
Bank of Scotland Group (Alison Rose was appointed CEO during the year). TUI, which also had two women in
executive roles last year, dropped out of the FTSE 100 in March due to a Coronavirus driven shares slump in
price. Alison Cooper is to stand down as CEO of Imperial Brands after nine years, reducing the already small
number of female bosses of FTSE 100 companies from six to five in October 2020. Last November Alison
Rose officially started as CEO of the Royal Bank of Scotland, the first woman to lead a major British bank.
In October 2019 Véronique Laury left the struggling Kingfisher. This means that there are only five women
in the CEO position now but a jump to 17 for the number of women CFOs/GFDs. The remaining women
executives work in operations, sales, communications, Human Resources (HR) and external affairs, with
two women in roles as Regional CEOs. Back in 2014 Egon Zehnder UK publicly committed to a target of 25
female CEOs in the FTSE 100 by 2025. In 2014 there were five female CEOs; now there are still five female
CEOs but if ITV falls out of the FTSE 100, as predicted, that number will reduce to four.
Table 2: The 28 FTSE 100 companies with female executive directors
Rank Company Female No. No. Executive Sector Women in

board female female roles executive roles
% directors EDs
Olivia (Liv) Ruth

1 Severn Trent Plc 56% 5 1 CEO Utilities - Other
Garfield
Group
Construction
1 Taylor Wimpey Plc 56% 5 1 Operations Jennifer (Jennie) Daly
& Building Materials
Director
Media
3 Auto Trader Group Plc 50% 4 1 COO Catherine Rose Faiers
& Entertainment
Media
3 Rightmove Plc 50% 4 1 FD Robyn Perriss
& Entertainment
Chief Operating
7 Burberry Group Plc 45% 5 1 & Financial General Retailers Julie Belita Brown
Officer
7 Royal Dutch Shell Plc 45% 5 1 CFO Oil & Gas Jessica Rodgers Uhl
Standard Life
7 45% 5 1 CFO Life Assurance Stephanie Jane Bruce
Aberdeen Plc
Land Securities Group

12 44% 4 1 Division MD Real Estate Colette O’Shea
Plc
Louisa Sachiko
12 Meggitt Plc 44% 4 1 CFO Aerospace & Defence
Burdett
GFD, Group
Amanda James; Jane
12 Next Plc 44% 4 2 Director - Sales/ General Retailers
Margaret Shields
Marketing
Speciality & Other

16 M&G Plc 43% 3 1 CFO Clare Jane Bousfield
Finance
16 Pennon Group Plc 43% 3 1 CFO Utilities - Other Susan Jane Davy
Pharmaceuticals and Emma Natasha

20 GlaxoSmithKline Plc 42% 5 1 CEO
Biotechnology Walmsley
11
Media
20 Pearson Plc 42% 5 1 CFO Sally Kate Johnson
and Entertainment
Alison Marie
Royal Bank of Group CEO,
20 42% 5 2 Banks Rose-Slade;
Scotland Group Plc Group CFO
Katie Murray
20 Vodafone Group Plc 42% 5 1 Group CFO Telecomm Services Margherita Della Valle
25 3i Group Plc 40% 4 1 GFD Private Equity Julia Susan Wilson
Group Talent
Engineering Jennifer Suzanne
25 Halma Plc 40% 4 1 and Comms
and Machinery Ward
Director
Chief People and

Intermediate Capital Speciality
25 40% 4 1 External Affairs Antje Hensel-Roth
Group Plc and Other Finance
Officer
RSA Insurance Group

25 40% 4 1 Group CFO Insurance Charlotte Claire Jones
Plc
Barratt Developments Construction Jessica Elizabeth

34 38% 3 1 CFO
Plc and Building Materials White
Kathryn (Kathy)
34 Diageo Plc 38% 3 1 CFO Beverages
A Mikells
40 Compass Group Plc 36% 4 1 Group CFO Leisure and Hotels Karen Witts
Media Dame Carolyn Julia

40 ITV Plc 36% 4 1 CEO
and Entertainment McCall
Legal & General Group Michelle Sylvia

40 36% 4 1 Division CEO Life Assurance
Plc Scrimgeour
Group HR
Louise Helen Smalley;
40 Whitbread Plc 36% 4 2 Director, Chief Leisure and Hotels
Alison Jane Brittain
Executive
47 Johnson Matthey Plc 33% 3 1 CFO Chemicals Anna Olive Manz
47 National Grid Plc 33% 4 1 ED Electricity Lucy Nicola Shaw
2.1.2 Women in senior non-executive roles

We continue to monitor the trend of an increasing percentage of women NEDs but a decreasing percentage
of women in senior NED roles.
This year the number of women holding Chair roles has increased to eight:
Annette Elizabeth Court Christine Mary Hodgson Fiona Catherine McBain

Chairman (Non-Executive) Chairman (Independent NED) Chairwoman (Independent NED)
Admiral Group Plc Severn Trent Plc Scottish Mortgage Investment
Trust Plc
Deanna Watson Oppenheimer Anita Margaret Frew Irene Mitchell Dorner

Chairwoman (Independent NED) Chairwoman (Non-Executive) Chairman (Independent NED)
Hargreaves Lansdown Plc Croda International Plc Taylor Wimpey Plc
Cressida Mary Hogg Therese Marie Esperdy

Chairman (Independent NED) Chairman (Independent NED)
Land Securities Group Plc Imperial Brands Plc

Accelerating women into the chairman role
1. Aim for 50/50 male/female shortlists – for more exposure to the process and to widen the pool.
2. Nomination committees to begin their succession planning by mapping the career paths of the last
five individuals in the Chairman role, to understand the pattern.
3. Each plc board, under the leadership of the SID, to consider how the strategic direction has changed
before drawing up a dynamic brief for the appointment – no recycled job descriptions.
4. Ensure more transparency in the appointment process by involving the outgoing Chair, asking him/
her to consider their strengths and perceptions on the changing expectations of the role. A Chair
network that is accessible online could be a useful collaborative exercise on diversity, championing
leadership.
5. Use externally facilitated boardroom reviews for context on what is required from the role before
starting the recruitment process. (Ensure the recruitment process is comparable for both men and
women.)
6. All executive search consultants involved to be advised on the need for a targeted recruitment
process, with buy-in on a new specification for the role and the need for fresh names on the longlist
due to changing skill requirements. The appearance of new names would be a sign that the process
is moving away from box-ticking.
7. Boardrooms to give serious consideration to setting up ‘shadow boards’ as a way of finding new
talent, growing the pool and diminishing group think in the interim. Shadow boards can open up
boardroom opportunity across gender and across industry sectors – and could be a good route for
future Chair recruitment. Examples of businesses setting up such boards include Pinsent Masons.
8. Boardrooms and Nomination Committees to actively use lists openly available (Cranfield University’s
annual 100 Women to Watch list) of women currently on plc boards and chairing committees.
Currently the most common committee chair role occupied by women is RemCom – which is under
strong investor scrutiny. But it also has a link to HR, which in turn is often denied a seat in the
boardroom. Circular thinking of female appointments needs to be avoided.
9. Boardrooms to actively consider initiatives such as being a host board with Board Apprentice as a
way to shine more light on their thinking on the background needed for appointments.
10.Nominations Committee to have a clear career plan for all NED appointments and for this to be linked
to a succession plan for the Chair role, with investor input.
This initiative is being led by Helen Pitcher OBE, Chairman of Advanced Boardroom Excellence.
The number of women holding SID roles has remained the same at 21:
Linda Ruth Cairnie Shirley Jill Garrood Yiu (Euleen) Kiang Goh
Associated British Foods Plc Hargreaves Lansdown Plc Deputy Chairman (SID) Royal Dutch Shell Plc
Baroness (Shriti Vinodkant) Vadera Susan (Sue) Michelle Clark Dame Susan Ilene Rice
BHP Group Plc Imperial Brands Plc Sainsbury(J) Plc
Paula Rosput Reynolds Julia Susan Wilson Dr Geertrui (Trudy) Elizabeth Schoolenberg
BP Plc Legal & General Group Plc Spirax-Sarco Engineering Plc
Vanda Murray Elizabeth (Liz) Anne Hewitt Christine Mary Hodgson
Bunzl Plc Melrose Industries Plc Standard Chartered Plc
Gillian L Platt Dr Vivienne Cox Deanna Watson Oppenheimer
CRH Plc Pearson Plc Tesco Plc
Helena Louise Ganczakowski Dr Gillian (Gill) Ann Rider Professor Doctor Youngme E Moon
Croda International Plc Pennon Group Plc Vice Chairman (SID)
Susan Saltzbart Kilsby Jacqueline de Rojas Valerie (Val) Frances Gooding
Diageo Plc Rightmove Plc Designated Employee Representative (SID)
Vodafone Group Plc
13
The number of board committees has increased from 295 to 393 this year, whilst the percentage of board
committees chaired by a woman is 29%, a slight decrease on last year (31%). It is disappointing that this
increase in positions has not been matched with an increase in the number of women appointed to board
committees. The majority of women committee chairs sit on Remuneration (49) with the next most populated
being Audit/Risk (29).
Figure 1: Chair of FTSE 100 board committees
29%
Committees that women chair
71%
Committees that men chair
“The continued and welcome progress of women on boards sadly doesn’t

yet translate to more women taking up CEO positions. It’s ironic that the
number of female leaders in the FTSE declines just as data emerges that
shows female-led countries have experienced six times fewer deaths
from Covid than their male-led counterparts.
Whether it’s creating more inclusive cultures,
driving superior financial returns or saving
lives, diversity delivers. It’s essential we
recognise, anchor and accelerate this trend as
an intrinsic part of our pandemic recovery.”
Ann Francke OBE

CEO, CMI

Table 3: Women who chair committees in the FTSE 100
Organisation name Role name Individual name
3i Group Plc Audit and Compliance Caroline Janet Banszky
Admiral Group Plc Nomination and Governance Annette Elizabeth Court
Audit Karen Ann Green
Group Risk Jean Craig Park
Anglo American Plc Remuneration Anne L Stevens
Antofagasta Plc Sustainability and Stakeholder Vivianne Amelia Blanlot Soza

Management
Remuneration and Talent Management Francisca Castro Fones
Ashtead Group Plc Remuneration Lucinda Jane Riches
Associated British Foods Plc Remuneration Linda Ruth Cairnie
AstraZeneca Plc Science Professor Sabera Nazneen Rahman
Auto Trader Group Plc Remuneration Jill Easterbrook
Aveva Group Plc Remuneration Jennifer Margaret Allerton
Aviva Plc Customer, Conduct and Reputation Amanda Jayne Blanc
Remuneration Patricia Anne Cross
Risk Belen Romana Garcia
BAE Systems Plc Remuneration Paula Rosput Reynolds
BP Plc Safety, Ethics and Environment Melody Boone Meyer

Assurance
Remuneration Paula Rosput Reynolds
British American Tobacco Plc Audit Holly Keller Koeppel
British Land Co Plc Remuneration Laura Katharine Wade-Gery
Audit Rebecca (Becky) Jane Worthington
BT Group Plc Digital Impact and Sustainability Leena Kumar Nair
Bunzl Plc Remuneration Vanda Murray
Burberry Group Plc Remuneration Orna Gabrielle Ni-Chionna
Coca-Cola HBC AG Remuneration Alexandra Papalexopoulou-Benopoulou
Compass Group Plc Remuneration Carol Ann Arrowsmith
CRH Plc Remuneration Heather-Ann McSharry
Croda International Plc Nomination Anita Margaret Frew
Remuneration Helena Louise Ganczakowski
DCC Plc Audit Jane Ann Lodge
15
Diageo Plc Remuneration Susan Saltzbart Kilsby
DS Smith Plc Remuneration Celia Frances Baxter
easyJet Plc Remuneration Dame Moya Marguerite Greene
Audit Julie Helen Southern
Evraz Plc Audit Deborah Jane Gudgeon
Experian Plc Audit Deirdre Ann Mahlan
Ferguson Plc Remuneration Jacky Simmonds
Flutter Entertainment Plc Risk Zillah Ellen Byng-Thorne
GlaxoSmithKline Plc Corporate Responsibility Lynn Laverty Elsenhans
Audit and Risk / Financial Expert Judy Carol Lewent
Glencore Plc Nomination Patrice E Merrin

Halma Plc Audit Carole Jean Cran
Remuneration Jo Nell Harlow
Hargreaves Lansdown Plc Remuneration Fiona Jane Clutterbuck
Risk Shirley Jill Garrood
Nomination Deanna Watson Oppenheimer
Hikma Pharmaceuticals Plc Remuneration Doctor Pamela (Pam) Josephine Kirby
HSBC Holdings Plc Group Remuneration Pauline F van der Meer Mohr
Imperial Brands Plc Remuneration Susan (Sue) Michelle Clark
Audit Karen Witts
Intercontinental Hotels Group Plc Remuneration Jo Nell Harlow
Corporate Responsibility Gillian (Jill) Clare McDonald
Intermediate Capital Group Plc Remuneration Virginia Anne Holmes
Risk Kathryn Purves
Intertek Group Plc Remuneration Doctor Gillian (Gill) Ann Rider
ITV Plc Audit and Risk Margaret Ewing
Remuneration Mary Elaine Harris
Land Securities Group Plc Nomination Cressida Mary Hogg
Legal & General Group Plc Remuneration Lesley Mary Knox
Lloyds Banking Group Plc Responsible Business Sara Vivienne Weller
M&G Plc Remuneration Robin Ann Lawther
Audit Clare Eleanor Thompson
Meggitt Plc Corporate Responsibility Nancy Lee Gioia
Remuneration Doctor Alison Jane Goligher
Melrose Industries Plc Audit Elizabeth (Liz) Anne Hewitt

Mondi Plc Remuneration Tanya Dianne Fratto
Sustainable Development Dominique Jacqueline Reiniche
National Grid Plc Finance Therese Marie Esperdy
Ocado Group Plc Audit Julie Helen Southern
Pearson Plc Remuneration Dame Elizabeth Pauline Corley
Nomination and Governance Doctor Vivienne Cox
Reputation and Responsibility Linda Koch Lorimer
Pennon Group Plc Remuneration Doctor Gillian (Gill) Ann Rider
Persimmon Plc Audit Rachel Elizabeth Kentleton
Corporate Responsibility Joanna (Jo) Ruth Place
Remuneration Marion Jane Sears
Phoenix Group Holdings Plc Remuneration Kory Beth Sorenson
Polymetal International Plc Safety and Sustainability Tracey Louise Kerr
Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc Remuneration Mary Elaine Harris
Corporate Responsibility, Sustainability, Doctor Pamela (Pam) Josephine Kirby

Ethics and Compliance
RELX Plc Audit Suzanne H Wood
Rentokil Initial Plc Remuneration Angela Charlotte Seymour-Jackson
Audit Julie Helen Southern
Rightmove Plc Remuneration Lorna Mona Tilbian

Rio Tinto Plc Sustainability Doctor Megan Elizabeth Clark
Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc Remuneration Irene Mitchell Dorner
Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc Innovation and Technology Doctor Yasmin Jetha
Board Risk The Rt. Hon. Baroness Sheila Valerie

Noakes
Royal Dutch Shell Plc Audit / Financial Expert Ann Frances Godbehere
RSA Insurance Group Plc Group Investment Sonia Ameena Baxendale
Group Remuneration Kathleen (Kath) Mary Shailer
Sage Group Plc Remuneration Annette Elizabeth Court
Sainsbury(J) Plc Corporate Responsibility and Jo Nell Harlow

Sustainability
Remuneration Dame Susan Ilene Rice
Schroders Plc Audit and Risk Rhian Lynn Davies
Scottish Mortgage Investment Nomination Fiona Catherine McBain

Trust Plc
17
Segro Plc Audit Carol Ann Fairweather
Severn Trent Plc Nomination Christine Mary Hodgson
Corporate Responsibility Dame Angela Rosemary Strank
Smith & Nephew Plc Remuneration Angela (Angie) Susan Risley
Smurfit Kappa Group Plc Audit Carol Ann Fairweather
Spirax-Sarco Engineering Plc Employee Engagement Caroline Ann Johnstone
Remuneration Jane Sarah Kingston
SSE Plc Remuneration Dame (Sue) Susan Bruce
Safety, Health and Environment Helen Margaret Mahy
Standard Chartered Plc Financial Crime Risk Gay Huey Evans
Remuneration Christine Mary Hodgson
Brand, Values and Conduct Jasmine Mary Whitbread
Taylor Wimpey Plc Remuneration Gwyneth (Gwyn) Victoria Burr
Nomination Irene Mitchell Dorner
Tesco Plc Corporate Responsibility Lindsey Jane Pownall
United Utilities Group Plc Remuneration Sara Vivienne Weller
Vodafone Group Plc Remuneration Valerie (Val) Frances Gooding
Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc Audit Belinda Jane Richards
WPP Plc Sustainability Sally Susman
“It is great to see that the number of women on boards has increased and
I hope that that the FTSE 350 hits the Hampton-Alexander target by the
end of 2020, but we must keep our eyes on
the bigger prize: A fundamental culture
change in business. The argument for
equality – and the increased value which
accompanies it – has been made time and
again. As we approach the 33% target, our
focus must be on increasing momentum,
particularly in the face of 2020’s
extraordinary changes to our society.
Now is no time for complacency.”
Amanda Mackenzie OBE

Chief Executive of Business in the Community
and member of the Hampton-Alexander steering group

The Female FTSE Board Report 2018 FTSE 100 Companies
21 21
The Female FTSE Board Report 2018 FTSE 100 Companies
3.2 The Characteristics of Female Directors

3.2 The Characteristics of Female Directors
2.2 The characteristics of female directors
3.2.1 Multiple Directorships
3.2.1 Multiple Directorships
2.2.1 Multiple directorships
In Figure 2 we see that the number of female directors is 264, an increase of five since November 2017,
In Figure 2 we see that the number of female directors is 264, an increase of five since November 2017,
In Figure whilst
2 we see that the
the number ofnumber of female
male directors is 669,directors
a decreaseisof305,
four an increase
since of 13fewer
2017. Slightly sincewomen
June hold
2019 and the
whilst the number of male directors is 669, a decrease of four since 2017. Slightly fewer women hold
number of male directors is 611, a decrease of 34. The same percentage of women as 1.5%
multiple directorships this year with 12.5% holding two (compared to 14.2% in 2017) and last year hold
holding multiple
three
multiple directorships this year with 12.5% holding two (compared to 14.2% in 2017) and 1.5% holding three
directorships (i.e. 14%), with seven women holding three seats each.
(compared to 9.7% in 2017).
(compared to 9.7% in 2017).
FIGURE 2: MULTIPLE DIRECTORSHIPS

FIGURE 2: MULTIPLE DIRECTORSHIPS
Figure 2: Multiple directorships
FEMALE DIRECTORS MALE DIRECTORS
FEMALE DIRECTORS MALE DIRECTORS
2 Seats 2 Seats
2 Seats 11.8% 2 Seats 9.8%
11.8% 1 Seat 9.8% 1 Seat
1 Seat 85.9% 1 Seat 90%
85.9% 90%
3 Seats
3 Seats 2.3%
305305 4 Seats
3 Seats
3 Seats 0.2%
611611 4 Seats
2.3% 4 Seats 0.0% 0.2% 4 Seats 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
2.2.2 Age
3.2.2 Age and Tenure
3.2.2 Age and Tenure
The average age to
Similarly of previous
female directors continues
years, the average tofemale
age of be twodirectors
years younger than the
is approximately twoaverage age ofthan
years younger male
the
directors male
Similarly with directors
to the gap at
previous slightly
years, the larger
average
57.4 years at 3.5 to
age of
compared years
female for NEDs.
directors
59.2 years.
is This difference
approximately
The gap is slightly largerininage
two years
NEDshas
youngerremained
than
compared
the consistent
to EDs.
over
malethe years at
directors of57.4
measuring it sinceto2003,
years compared albeit
59.2 years. Theit gap
hasisslightly narrowed
slightly larger in NEDsforcompared
NEDs. to EDs.
Women’s tenure, as in previous years, is less than men’s for both EDs and NEDs. We question why women’s
Women’s tenure, as in previous years, is less than men’s for both EDs and NEDs. We question why women’s
Table 4: FTSE
faster 100 directorships
rate than the men. Overby the
agepast
andfewtenure
years we have been drawing attention to the number of NEDs who
faster rate than the men. Over the past few years we have been drawing attention to the number of NEDs who
have held their roles for more than nine years (the maximum tenure recommended by the governance codes).
have held their roles for more than nine years (the maximum tenure recommended by the governance codes).
The numbers have fallen to an all-time low this year to five women and four men. Alison Carnwath has already
Directors
The numbers have Agefallen
announced that she will stand down asTenure
to an all-time low this year to five women and four men. Alison Carnwath has already
Chair of Land Securities later this year, thus reducing the number of
announced that she will stand down as Chair of Land Securities later this year, thus reducing the number of
FTSE 100Allchairs held
EDsby women back down
All to six.EDs
FTSE 100 chairs held by women backNEDs
down to six. NEDs
Men 59.8 54.5 62.1 4.1 4.8 3.8

TABLE 4: FTSE 100 DIRECTORSHIPS BY AGE AND TENURE
TABLE 4: FTSE57.9
Women
100 DIRECTORSHIPS
50.4 58.6
BY AGE
3.3
AND TENURE
3.5 3.3
Directors Age Tenure
Directors Age Tenure
All EDs NEDs All EDs NEDs
All EDs NEDs All EDs NEDs
Men 59.2 53.9 61.7 5.4 6.1 5.1
Men 59.2 53.9 61.7 5.4 6.1 5.1
Women 57.4 51.1 58.0 3.7 3.0 3.8
“It’s great57.4
Women tosee continued
51.1 progress
58.0 in terms
3.7 3.0 3.8
of the number of women on corporate boards,
but frustrating to see that we are not making
enough progress in the more important executive
roles, particularly CEO. We need to look at the
succession bench for the C-suite drill down into
the executive pipeline to make significant and
sustainable progress.”
Brenda Trenowden CBE,

Global Chair, 30% Club
19
2.2.3 Tenure
Interestingly the average tenure for female and male directors for both EDs and NEDs has narrowed this year
– 1.3 years more for male EDs and only 0.5 years for male NEDs. The number of men sitting on FTSE 100
boards for over the recommended nine years is 23, a reduction of three since last year, whilst the comparative
number for women is five, a slight increase since last year. The figure for the males includes four who have
Chair roles.
Table 5: Female non-executive directors over nine years
Time in role
Women in NED roles Company Sector NED role
(Yrs)
9.1 Paula Rosput Reynolds BAE Systems Plc Aerospace and Defence Independent NED
Pharmaceuticals
9.1 Judy Carol Lewent GlaxoSmithKline Plc Independent NED
and Biotechnology
Construction
9.2 Tessa Elizabeth Bamford Ferguson Plc Independent NED
and Building Materials
The Hon. Shih (Laura)

9.2 HSBC Holdings Plc Banking Independent NED
May-Lung Cha
Telecommunication
9.3 Renée J James Vodafone Group Plc Independent NED
Services
Table 6: Male non-executive directors over nine years
Time in role
Men in NED roles Company Sector NED role
(Yrs)
Leonhard (Lenny) H
9 Glencore Plc Mining Independent NED
Fischer
9.2 Lindsay Philip Maxsted BHP Group Plc Mining Independent NED
Matthew (Matt) John

9.3 Sainsbury(J) Plc Food and Drug Retailers Independent NED
Brittin
International Consolidated Chairman (Independent

9.3 Antonio Vázquez Romero Leisure and Hotels
Airlines Group SA (IAG) NED)
International Consolidated
9.3 Kieran Charles Poynter Leisure and Hotels Independent NED
Airlines Group SA (IAG)
9.3 Andrew Marvin Leslie JD Sports Fashion Plc General Retailers Independent NED
9.5 Brendan Robert Nelson BP Plc Oil and Gas Independent NED
Solomon (Sol) Dennis Media and

9.6 WPP Plc Independent NED
Trujillo Entertainment
Engineering and
9.8 Bruno Francois Angelici Smiths Group Plc Independent NED
Machinery
Admiral Sir Jonathon

10.1 Carnival Plc Leisure and Hotels Independent NED
Band

Malcolm William
10.2 BHP Group Plc Mining Independent NED
Broomhead
British American Tobacco Chairman (Independent

10.5 Richard George Burrows Tobacco
Plc NED)
Sir Anthony (Tony) John Media and

10.9 RELX Plc Chairman
Habgood Entertainment
Doctor Arturo Manuel

12 Fresnillo Plc Mining NED
Fernández Pérez
12 Juan Bordes Aznar Fresnillo Plc Mining NED
Doctor Alberto Bailleres Chairman (Non-Execu-

12 Fresnillo Plc Mining
González tive)
Media and Chairman (Independent

12.2 Derek Mapp Informa Plc
Entertainment NED)
Godefridus (Frits) Peter Containers and

12.3 Smurfit Kappa Group Plc NED
Beurskens Packaging
Hikma Pharmaceuticals Pharmaceuticals and

14.6 Mohammed Ali Al-Husry NED
Plc Biotechnology
15.8 Richard J Glasier Carnival Plc Leisure and Hotels Independent NED
17.2 Ramón Felipe Jara Araya Antofagasta Plc Mining NED
19.1 Sir Thomas (John) Parker Carnival Plc Leisure and Hotels Independent NED
Pharmaceuticals and
21.1 Marcus Wallenberg AstraZeneca Plc NED
Biotechnology
2.3 Trends in board composition

The number of FTSE 100 directorships in 2020 is 1028, consisting of 794 NEDs and 234 EDs. Both of these
figures represent a slight reduction on last year (800 NEDs and 256 EDs).
Figure 3: FTSE 100 board composition 2013-2020
1200
1000
805 826 838 806 788 791 800 794
800
600
400 307 291 279 268 258 259 256

234
200
0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015
2020
No. of FTSE 100 EDs No. of FTSE 100 NEDs
21
2.4 The relationship between women on the board and women
in the executive pipeline
Quota and voluntary target programmes have been adopted in a number of countries and have been largely
successful at increasing the numbers of women board members. However, most of these increases have come
from increases in the appointment of NEDs (BoardEx, 2020)1. Notwithstanding the industry target of 33% by
2020, the percentage of females in the FTSE 100 at the senior executive level (Executive Committee and Direct
Reports) averaged 28.6% as at June 2019 with significant variation across companies (Hampton-Alexander
Review, 2019)2.
The goal of board quotas and targets was the development of a critical mass of women on corporate boards,
a top down approach to improve gender diversity more broadly. Extant research offers much support for critical
mass theory which concludes that critical mass is necessary to overcome the disadvantages of tokenism and
numerical minority (Bilimoria, 20063 ; Konrad, Kramer and Erkut, 20084 ; Schwartz-Ziv, 20175; Torchia, Calabrò
and Huse, 20116). Indeed, a number of qualitative studies report that female board members often mention
critical mass as necessary for their presence to be normalised and for them to have influence at the board table,
particularly as it relates to gender issues (Chesterman and Ross-Smith, 20067; Ehrenberg et al., 20128 ).
There have been a number of studies exploring the effect of increases in the numbers of women on boards and
any subsequent increase in female representation at senior executive levels. While there is some evidence of
a ‘trickle-down effect’ from women on boards to senior levels (Bilimoria, 20064; Gould, Kulik and Sardeshmukh,
20189; Matsa and Miller, 201110 ; Skaggs, Stainback and Duncan, 201211 ), these were quantitative studies
employing econometric methods, typically regression techniques which imply singular causation, linear
relationships and additive effects. Correlational techniques are ill-equipped in determining causality and dealing
with the complexity of the interdependence of multiple causal variables (Fiss, 201112 ; Parente and Federo,
201913 ; Ragin, 200814 ). Given that organisations are highly complex social systems and outcomes are rarely
the result of a single factor or intervention, such methods can be inadequate in investigating and explaining
organisational phenomena.
1
BoardEx (2020) Global Gender Diversity Report.
2
Hampton-Alexander Review (2019) FTSE Women Leaders.
3
Bilimoria, D. (2006) ‘The Relationship Between Women Corporate Directors and Women Corporate Officers’, Journal of
Managerial Issues, 18(1), pp. 47–61.
4
Konrad, A.M., Kramer, V. and Erkut, S. (2008) ‘Critical Mass:. The Impact of Three or More Women on Corporate Boards’,
Organizational Dynamics, 37(2), pp. 145–164.
5
Schwartz-Ziv, M. (2017) ‘Gender and Board Activeness: The Role of a Critical Mass’, Journal of Financial and Quantitative
Analysis, 52(2), pp. 731–780.
6
Torchia, M., Calabrò, A. and Huse, M. (2011) ‘Women Directors on Corporate Boards: From Tokenism to Critical Mass’,
Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2), pp. 299–317.
7
Chesterman, C. and Ross-Smith, A. (2006) ‘Not tokens: Reaching a “critical mass” of senior women managers’, Employee
Relations, 28(6), pp. 540–552.
8
Ehrenberg, R.G., Jakubson, G.H., Martin, M.L., Main, J.B. and Eisenberg, T. (2012) ‘Diversifying the faculty across gender
lines: Do trustees and administrators matter?’, Economics of Education Review, 31(1) Elsevier, pp. 9–18.
9
Gould, J.A., Kulik, C.T. and Sardeshmukh, S.R. (2018) ‘Trickle-down effect: The impact of female board members on
executive gender diversity’, Human Resource Management, 57(4), pp. 931–945.
10
Matsa, D.A. and Miller, A.R. (2011) ‘Chipping away at the Glass Ceiling: Gender Spillovers in Corporate Leadership’,
American Economic Review, 101(3), pp. 635–639.
11
Skaggs, S., Stainback, K. and Duncan, P. (2012) ‘Shaking things up or business as usual? The influence of female
corporate executives and board of directors on women’s managerial representation’, Social Science Research, 41(4)
Elsevier., pp. 936–948.
12
Fiss, P.C. (2011) ‘Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research’,
Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), pp. 393–420.
13
Parente, T.C. and Federo, R. (2019) ‘Qualitative comparative analysis: justifying a neo-configurational approach in
management research’, RAUSP Management Journal, 54(4), pp. 399–412.
14
Ragin, C. (2008) Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Developing a critical mass of women on boards has not generally resulted in more gender balance at senior
executive levels; however, a number of companies have made noteworthy progress in reaching a significant
level of gender diversity for not only their boards but for executive and senior management levels as well.
More recently, a number of studies have begun to differentiate between board positions, in terms of their
influence and power, and to investigate the effect that female board members in positions of power, such
as CEOs or interlinked board members (when a board member sits on more than one board), have on their
organisations.
These studies conclude that all power is not equal and provide evidence that influential women can
overcome their token or numerical minority status and impact organisational deliberations and decisions
(Glass, Cook and Ingersoll, 201615 ; Glass and Cook, 201816).Given that different board roles carry different
levels of status, power and therefore influence, taking a more nuanced view of corporate boards by
disaggregating roles and investigating how the configurations and gender diversity of the various roles
combine to effect diversity outcomes may help to account for the variations across companies and provide
insight into improving gender diversity.
In order to study the configurational effects of corporate boards we developed a pilot study applying a
research method called Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), more specifically fuzzy set QCA (fsQCA).
QCA provides three main advantages over traditional quantitative methods. It allows for the analysis of
multiple conditions on an outcome, allows for the possibility of multiple pathways to the same outcome
and can handle asymmetry, a situation where a condition can be related in one configuration but not
necessarily in another.
QCA is a research tool that facilitates the empirical exploration of cases and their various configurations,
identifying which configurations are associated with an outcome. In other words, QCA allowed us to look
at which configurations of board roles had a critical mass of females and whether and how often these
configurations were associated with the outcome of interest, in this case, a critical mass of women at
senior executive levels.
In order to disaggregate various different aspects of board roles, five indicators (causal conditions)
were identified:
• a critical mass of female NEDs,

• a critical mass of female EDs,
• one or more female committee chairs,
• the presence of female interlinked board members,
• the presence of a female SID or Board Chair.
In order to proceed with a QCA analysis there are a number of steps to be followed including calibration,
applying a consistency threshold and a minimisation process to eliminate redundant conditions. A detailed
explanation of the methodological steps followed can be found in the Appendix. The final output, a Solution
Table, is found in Table 7.
15
Glass, C., Cook, A. and Ingersoll, A.R. (2016) ‘Do Women Leaders Promote Sustainability? Analyzing the
Effect of Corporate Governance Composition on Environmental Performance’, Business Strategy and the
Environment, 25(7), pp. 495–511.
16
Glass, C. and Cook, A. (2018) ‘Do women leaders promote positive change? Analyzing the effect of gender
on business practices and diversity initiatives’, Human Resource Management, 57(4), pp. 823–837.
23
Table 7: Solution table
Configurations for achieving gender diversity in senior executive levels
Casual conditions Solution
1 2 3 4
• •
Non-Executive Director x
• •
Executive Director
• • • •
Interlinked Board Member
• •
Committee Chair x
Senior Independent Director (SID)
or Board Chair
Consistency 0.93 0.92 0.89 0.89
Raw coverage 0.32 0.28 0.19 0.05
Unique coverage 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.02
Overall solution consistency 0.89
Overall solution coverage 0.44
•
Conditions are denoted by (present) x (absent). Blank spaces indicate “doesn’t matter” meaning that
condition can be either be present or absent.
“I am pleased to see continued progress for women on FTSE boards

in Executive and Non-Executive Director positions. Delighted to see
women in Non-Executive Director positions
at an all-time high. Those companies making
progress should be applauded. In particular
Severn Trent and Taylor Wimpey for achieving
56% women on their boards. Clearly those in
the bottom quartile are a surprise and with
plenty of opportunities to address given
the sectors they are in. I hope the progress
continues as we recover from COVID 19.”
Shirley Cooper,
Chair, International Women’s Forum

The solution table identifies four configurations that are sufficient to result in a critical mass of women at
senior executive levels. The ‘raw coverage’ score indicates the importance of a configuration in explaining
the outcome while ‘unique coverage’ indicates the share of the outcome explained exclusively by the
pathway. The first two pathways have the highest raw coverage scores but very low unique coverage,
indicating that companies are exhibiting both causal configurations and either one will lead to the outcome.
• The first pathway shows that when there is a critical mass of NEDs and a critical mass of EDs and female
interlinked board members are present, a critical mass at the senior executive level results.
• The second pathway shows that a critical mass of EDs and the presence of female interlinked board
members and female committee chair(s) are also sufficient to result in a critical mass of females in
executive teams. Examples of companies exhibiting both of these configurations include Burberry,
Severn Trent, GlaxoSmithKline and Diageo with 61.3%, 43.9%, 38.1% and 33.3% female representation on
their senior executive teams respectively.
• The third pathway indicates a formula that shows a critical mass of women in NED positions and the
presence of female interlinked board members and no female chairs is also sufficient for a critical mass
of women in the company’s senior management ranks. Companies in this configuration include Unilever
with 33.8% female senior executives and Next with 53.9%.
• The fourth pathway is perhaps the most interesting, even though it has the least coverage, offering a
pathway to a critical mass of senior executives even when there is not a critical mass of NEDs on the
board. It shows a configuration of female interlinked board members and one or more female chairs and
the absence of a critical mass of NEDs leading to a critical mass of female senior executives. An example
of this is NatWest Group with female representation on their senior executive of 34.8%. The relevant
conditions in this pathway at NatWest Group include a female chairing one of their committees and only
22% female representation in their NED roles but these women are highly interlinked board members,
serving on five or six boards each.
The pathways above indicate configurations that are sufficient for the outcome of a critical mass of females
in senior executive teams. Surprisingly, the presence of a critical mass of females in NED roles was only
present in two of the pathways. Perhaps this offers a partial explanation of why the increased presence of
women on boards, which is dominated by non-executive roles, has not translated consistently to improving
gender diversity at the executive levels of organisations and suggests that it is important to consider
whether women are also represented in other roles that may carry more status and ability to influence.
This pilot study was interested in looking at causal configurations and the degree to which various board
roles influenced gender diversity below the board. Combined, the four pathways in the solution are sufficient
to lead to a critical mass of women at senior executive levels 88% of the time. This solution explains 44% of
the outcome we were investigating. While this offers a substantive explanation, it also indicates that there
are other conditions that, together with these, may explain the remaining outcomes. Other conditions such
as the use of targets, how ambitious they are and any enforcement mechanisms used, is a good example of
an additional condition to consider.
The analysis does, however, provide support for the importance of ensuring that women on boards are not
just appointed to NED roles to fulfil a target but that they take up influential roles on the board, thereby
having a bigger voice at the table. Doing so is much more likely to lead to an increase in women in senior
executive roles, a space where women have been stalling for many years.
25
Section 3: FTSE 250 companies
There has been further encouraging progress in the number
of women on FTSE 250 boards. The percentage of women on
FTSE 250 boards has increased from 27.3% to 31.9% this year.
The number of companies who have reached the 33% target has risen to 132 (52.8%) so whilst overall FTSE
250 companies are close to meeting the target of 33% by the end of 2020, there are still many remaining
companies needing to make progress in their appointment of women to their boards.
3.1 FTSE 250 companies with female directors
Table 8: FTSE 250 directorships 2016-2020
June 2020 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016
Female-held directorships 620 537 462 453 406
31.9% 27.3% 23.7% 22.8% 20.4%
Female executive directorships 47 37 30 38 29
11.3% 8.4% 6.4% 7.7% 5.6%
Female non-executive directorships 573 500 432 415 371
37.6% 32.8% 29.1 27.8% 25.7%
Companies with female executive directors 42 34 29 37 26
16.8% 13.6% 11.6% 14.8% 10.4%
Companies with at least one female director* 250 247 240 242 235
100% 98.8% 96.0% 96.8% 94.0%
Companies with at least 33% female directors 132 88 59 53 39
52.8% 35.2% 23.6% 21.2% 15.6%
Table 3.1 FTSE 250 Companies with Female Directors - Since June 1st one company has reported an all
male board- Aston Martin*.

3.1.2 FTSE 250 companies with women in executive roles
The number of FTSE 250 companies with women in executive roles
has increased from 34 in 2019 to 42 in 2020.
Seven women hold the CEO role and 29 hold the CFO/FD role.
Table 9: The 42 FTSE 250 companies with female executive directors
Rank Organisation name Female No. No. Executive roles Women in executive
board % female female roles
directors EDs
Moneysupermarket.com
1 63% 5 1 CFO Scilla Grimble
Group Plc
Amanda (Mandy) Jane

7 Ascential Plc 57% 4 1 CFO
Gradden
7 Go-Ahead Group Plc 57% 4 1 Group CFO Elodie Brian
10 Assura Plc 50% 3 1 CFO Jayne Marie Cottam
Euromoney Institutional
10 50% 4 1 CFO Wendy Monica Pallot
vestor Plc
10 Games Workshop Group Plc 50% 3 1 GFD Rachel Frances Tongue
10 Greencore Group Plc 50% 5 1 CFO Emma Hynes
Chief Strategy and

10 Marks & Spencer Group Plc 50% 5 1 Transformation Katie Bickerstaffe
Director
10 Ninety One Plc 50% 4 1 FD Kim Mary McFarland
10 OneSavings Bank Plc 50% 4 1 CFO April Carolyn Talintyre
27 Brewin Dolphin Holdings Plc 44% 4 1 CFO Siobhan Geraldine Boylan
29 Essentra Plc 43% 3 1 CFO Lily Liu
Zillah Ellen Byng-Thorne,

CEO, CFO/Company
29 Future Plc 43% 3 2 Penelope (Penny)
Secretary
Ladkin-Brand
Alison (Preston) Jane

29 Genus Plc 43% 3 1 CFO
Henriksen
Helen Christine Gordon,

29 Grainger Plc 43% 3 2 CEO, CFO
Vanessa Simms
29 Redrow Plc 43% 3 1 GFD Barbara Mary Richmond
29 Senior Plc 43% 3 1 GFD Bindi Jayantilal Foyle
27
Direct Line Insurance Group Penelope (Penny) Jane
43 40% 4 1 CEO
Plc James
43 Trainline Plc 40% 2 1 CEO Clare Gilmartin
66 Britvic Plc 38% 3 1 CFO Rosemary Joanne Wilson
66 Ibstock Plc 38% 3 1 Division MD Kate Helena Tinsley
66 Lancashire Holdings Ltd 38% 3 1 Group CFO Natalie Kershaw
Jennifer Elizabeth
66 Rathbone Brothers Plc 38% 3 1 GFD
Mathias
Sally (Horrocks) Michelle

85 Beazley Plc 36% 4 1 GFD
Lake
Group Chief
85 Hiscox Ltd 36% 4 1 Joanne Musselle
Underwriting Officer
June Yee Felix, Bridget

CEO, Chief
85 IG Group Holdings Plc 36% 4 2
Commercial Officer
Elizabeth Messer
90 Dunelm Group Plc 33% 3 1 CFO Laura Elizabeth Carr
90 FDM Group (Holdings) Plc 33% 3 1 COO Sheila May Flavell
90 John Laing Group Plc 33% 3 1 CFO Luciana Germinario
CFO, Chief Human Birgit Conix, Doctor Elke

133 Tui Ag 31% 8 2
Resource Officer Eller-Braatz
Chief Commercial
134 Cineworld Group Plc 30% 3 1 Renana Teperberg
Officer
134 McCarthy & Stone Plc 30% 3 1 CFO Rowan Clare Baker
Capital & Counties Properties Michelle Veronica

149 29% 2 1 ED
Plc McGrath
Group Legal
149 Chemring Group Plc 29% 2 1 Sarah Louise Ellard
Director/Secretary
149 Hill & Smith Hldgs Plc 29% 2 1 Group CFO Hannah Kate Nichols
149 Law Debenture Corp Plc 29% 2 1 CFO Katie Elizabeth Thorpe
Rachel Elizabeth
149 PayPoint Plc 29% 2 1 FD
Kentleton
Spirent
149 29% 2 1 COO/CFO Paula Bell
Communications Plc
Susan (Su) Alina
149 Wetherspoon(J.D.) Plc 29% 2 1 ED - Legal
Cacioppo
HarbourVest Global Private L Carolina Espinal
184 25% 2 1 Director - SD
Equity Ltd de Carulla
184 PureTech Health Plc 25% 2 1 CEO Daphna (Daphne) Zohar
Tristia Adele Harrison,

216 TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc 20% 2 2 CEO, CFO Catherine (Kate) Elizabeth
Ferry

Section 4: Taking targets seriously
This year marks an important milestone in the UK’s journey for gender balance on boards. Over the last
decade, under the Davies and Hampton-Alexander Reviews, increases in women’s representation on
boards and in senior leadership have been substantive. As of November 2019, there were 32.4% women on
the boards of FTSE 100 companies and 29.6% women on the boards of FTSE 250. Importantly, women’s
representation in the two leadership layers below boards (Executive Committee and Direct Reports
combined) stood at 28.6%17 , suggesting some progress in expanding the voluntary targets from boards
towards lower senior leadership levels. Unlike many other countries, the UK has rejected mandatory
quotas, opting instead for voluntary gender targets as a key change mechanism. While targets were initially
unpopular when Lord Davies announced in 2011 the 25% goal for women on FTSE boards, over the past
nine years organisations have come to recognise the value in using targets to instigate the change that
other initiatives had thus far failed to achieve. Nowadays, from boards to leadership pipelines, targets are
becoming the main mechanisms used by British business to improve gender balance in leadership ranks18.
Other sectors such as media19, healthcare20 and the arts21 are also embracing diversity targets. In this
section, we seek to understand why, how and when targets work. To this aim, we review existing literature
on targets (Section 4.1) and explore how targets are used in practice in leading organisations based on the
experiences of senior leaders (Section 4.2).
4.1 The adoption and implementation of voluntary diversity

targets: existing evidence
In order to understand effective voluntary target setting, we reviewed academic and practitioner literature on
voluntary targets for diversity management. We note that while gender board quotas have been extensively
studied, there is limited academic research on voluntary diversity targets, but there is more practitioner
literature on the topic. We begin by locating the conversation about targets for women on boards and in
senior leadership in the wider context of gender equality in the UK workforce.
4.1.1. Diversity targets in the wider context of gender equality in the UK workforce
Extant research suggests that the effectiveness of board equality interventions (whether mandatory or
voluntary) depends on the institutional context of each country. Across several countries, there is evidence
that the following factors are conducive to effective gender equality interventions on boards and in senior
leadership: equal female participation in the labour market, gendered welfare state provisions, national-level
gender equality legislation and sanctions for non-compliance with workplace equality policies (including
board quotas and targets)22 ,23 ,24 . Therefore, the wider societal and political context in which targets are
embedded can impact their transformative potential by providing enablers or inhibitors for gender equality.
While the journey towards gender balance on British boards tells a rather optimistic story of voluntary
change, the broader landscape of gender equality in the UK workforce is more complex. The following trends
are noteworthy:
17
Hampton-Alexander Review (2019) Improving Gender Balance in FTSE Leadership.
18
Sealy, R., Doldor, E., & Vinnicombe, S. (2016). The Female FTSE Board Report: Taking Stock of Where we are.
19
BBC (2017) BBC Annual Report 2017/18.
20
Sealy, R. (2017) NHS Women on Boards: 50:50 by 2020.
21
Arts Council England (2020) Let’s Create: Strategy 2020-2030.
22
Terjesen, S., Aguilera, R. V., & Lorenz, R. (2015). Legislating a Woman’s Seat on the Board: Institutional Factors
Driving Gender Quotas for Boards of Directors. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(2),pp. 233–251.
23
Humbert, A. L., Kelan, E. K., & Clayton-Hathway, K. (2019). A rights-based approach to board quotas and how
hard sanctions work for gender equality. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 26(4), pp. 447–468.
24
Mensi Klarbach, H. & Seierstad, C. (2020) Gender quotas on corporate boards: Similarities and differences in
quota scenarios, European Management Review.
29
• In terms of overall gender equality, the Global Gender Gap Report ranks the UK 21 out of 144
countries, based on economic participation, educational attainment, health and survival, and political
empowerment25. While the UK ranks high in terms of equality in education and literacy, it is placed 58th
for economic participation and opportunity gap because of the large disparity between men and women’s
earnings and because of women’s low representation among legislators, senior officials and managers.
In terms of political representation, the UK ranks 20 out of 144. As of February 2020, women hold 34% of
Member of Parliament seats in the House of Commons and 27% in the Prime Minister’s Cabinet26.
• The gender pay gap between men and women’s full-time average wages in 2019 endured at 8.9%, a
decline of only 0.6 percentage points since 2012. The gender pay gap among all employees was 17.3% in
201927. Women remain over-represented in low-paid occupations, many of whom were deemed essential
jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The government’s decision to postpone the 2020 Gender Pay Gap
reporting in light of the current pandemic is unlikely to accelerate progress.
• The COVID-19 pandemic threatens to reverse gender equality progress on several fronts. The unequal
burden of care placed on working women during the lockdown will exacerbate already existing gender
inequalities and the gender pay gap, leading to potential reductions in working time and productivity,
reduced access to career-enhancing opportunities, increases in part-time or precarious employment or
even exit from the labour market. BAME women also have to contend with the disparate health effects
COVID-19 has had on Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Generations of future female leaders
are being pushed out of or stalled in leadership pathways by these amplified gender inequalities28 .
Taken together, these broader indicators of economic and political inequality suggest that at national level
the division of power and labour between men and women – in work and at home – remains problematic.
The UK context provides a neutral or at best a mildly positive institutional environment for gender equality;
despite visible and impactful voluntary initiatives for gender balance on boards and in senior leadership
(e.g. Davies and Hampton-Alexander Reviews), the legislative frameworks for broader societal gender
equality are not particularly forceful or comprehensive in the UK. Moreover, the current pandemic makes
gender equality even more fragile, raising the question of whether the current voluntary approach is robust
enough. As we examine the usefulness of voluntary targets in creating more gender balance in FTSE
leadership, it is important to acknowledge this contextual backdrop.
4.1.2. Mapping out targets

Our prior research, as well as industry evidence from other countries, indicates that diversity targets are
useful because they provide clear goals that make tangible otherwise abstract diversity commitments. By
specifying interim milestones and timelines, targets provide a disciplined approach to change and a sense
of urgency. Drawing on a recent taxonomy for corporate board quotas , and on industry research about
targets30 ,31 ,32 , we propose that two key dimensions are relevant to understanding targets:
Ambitiousness. Setting stretching but realistic targets is considered industry best practice. Ambitious and
achievable targets should be based on an honest assessment of obstacles and opportunities for change
for specific organisations, given their sector, current state and internal and external pipelines of talent.
26
Uberoi, E., Watson, C., & Kirk-Wade, E. (2020) Women in Parliament & Government Briefing Paper.
27
Office for National Statistics
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/
genderpaygapintheuk/2019#:~:text=The%20gender%20pay%20gap%20among,2019%2C%20and%20continues%20
to%20decline.
28
Doldor, E, & Athnanasopoulou, A. (2020). Female leaders have proved themselves during the COVID-19 crisis: Now it’s
time to empower a new generation. https://www.qmul.ac.uk/busman/newsandevents/general/items/cred-blog-series---
female-leaders-have-proved-themselves-during-the-covid-19-crisis---now-its-time-to-empower-a-new-generation.html
29
Mensi Klarbach, H. & Seierstad, C. (2020) Gender quotas on corporate boards: Similarities and differences in quota
scenarios, European Management Review.
30
Workplace Gender Equality Agency (2013) How to set gender diversity targets: Guidelines for setting and meeting
targets to increase gender diversity in the workplace, Commonwealth Government of Australia.
31
Employer’s Network for Equality and Inclusion (2015) Board Diversity - Targets vs quotas.
32
Virgin Money (2016) Empowering Productivity: Harnessing the Talents of Women in Financial Services.
Since the beginning of the UK’s journey with targets, FTSE 350 companies were initially encouraged by
the Davies Review to set themselves achievable individual board targets, to reflect their different starting
points on the journey to gender balance. While practitioner reports usually emphasise the importance of
realistic targets, academic literature33 provides a useful perspective on what might constitute indicators
of progressiveness for diversity targets:
• Leading the way in introducing targets within the sector,

• Requested end target,
• Scope of change from starting point,
• Implementation schedule.
From a goal setting perspective, targets are useful because they provide tangible end goals and interim
milestones. The extent of progress achieved will naturally reflect the ambitiousness of the goals
set. A study34 across 91 countries that examined the association between reporting requirements,
targets, quotas and the representation of women on public company boards, found that: (a) reporting
requirements accelerated female representation on boards; and (b) higher goals were associated with
increased female representation. It therefore seems necessary that companies consider, to a greater
extent, the importance of setting targets that are not just realistic, but also ambitious.
Accountability. Individuals and companies might employ a range of strategies to avoid complying with
weakly enforced diversity goals, as has been the case with women’s representation on FTSE boards prior
to the Davies Review. Even mandatory quotas with soft sanctions were found to be only marginally better
than not having any measure in place35 . Therefore, a second key aspect to consider in relation to targets
is accountability and enforcement mechanisms. The following conditions ensure effective self-regulation
once diversity targets are introduced36 ,37 :
• Reporting requirements and public monitoring of progress towards targets: this serves as a feedback
mechanism to identify compliant and deviant company behaviour, with reputational consequences. This
has been a longstanding effective practice in the UK private sector, particularly as high-profile yearly
reports such as the Hampton-Alexander Review scrutinise progress towards gender balance in senior
leadership.
• A credible threat that mandatory quotas will be imposed if diversity goals are not achieved. While hard
sanctions are incompatible with voluntary targets, the threat of mandatory EU legislation has been
effective for the acceptance of targets as change mechanisms across corporate Britain at the outset of
the Davies Review38. A similar effect was noted in other European countries with self-regulation39 . With
no national or EU quota threat looming, it will be interesting to observe whether self-regulation through
targets is at this point sufficiently embedded in the culture of British business.
• External peer pressure occurs when the increasing adoption of a good practice enhances legitimacy
among companies. Systemic change usually occurs through a mix of early adopters who set the trend
and late adopters who jump on the bandwagon; this does require a critical mass of adopters to instigate
bandwagon pressures on non-adopters. For adopters, peer pressure is also applied through diversity
charters such as the Finance Women’s Charter40 .
33
Mensi Klarbach, H. & Seierstad, C. (2020) Gender quotas on corporate boards: Similarities and differences in quota scenarios,
European Management Review.
34
Sojo, V., Wood, R., Wood, S., & Wheeler, M. (2016) Reporting requirements, targets, and quotas for women in leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 27, pp. 519-536.
35
Humbert, A. L., Kelan, E. K., & Clayton-Hathway, K. (2019). A rights-based approach to board quotas and how hard sanctions work
for gender equality. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 26(4), pp. 447–468.
36
Mensi-Klarbach, H., Leixnering, S., & Schiffinger, M. (2019) The carrot or the stick: Self-regulation for gender-diverse boards via
codes of good governance. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-17.
37
Doldor, E. (2017) Gender diversity on boards in the UK: The merits and shortcomings of a voluntary approach, in Gender Diversity in
the Boardroom: European Perspectives on Increasing Female Representation, by Seierstad, C., Gabaldon, P., & Mensi-Klarbach (eds.),
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 13-44.
38
Vinnicombe, S., Doldor, E., & Sealy, R. (2015). The Female FTSE Board Report: Putting UK progress into a global perspective.
39
Mensi-Klarbach, H., Leixnering, S., & Schiffinger, M. (2019) The carrot or the stick: Self-regulation for gender-diverse boards via
codes of good governance. Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 1-17.
40
HM Treasury (2016) Women in Finance Charter.
31
• Internal leadership accountability. Our prior research into inclusive talent management practices found
that a key driver for developing female talent across the organisation is commitment and accountability
from senior leaders and managers. Companies leading the way in terms of talent management hardwire
diversity target achievements to managerial responsibility, performance and reward41. Linking senior
leadership remuneration to progress on gender outcomes “will further focus the minds of all senior
Executives and incentivise them to take the issue seriously.”42 A 2019 McKinsey survey of US and Canadian
companies found that more than half of companies hold senior leaders accountable for progress on
gender diversity metrics, up from a little over a third in 201543, suggesting that businesses are becoming
more comfortable with putting in place more tangible mechanisms for leadership accountability.
4.1.3 Diversity targets beyond gender

We note that most academic and practitioner literature discusses gender targets and quotas; when broader
diversity targets are mentioned, there is less tangible detail and importantly very few examples of ethnicity
targets. This shows a lack of intersectional focus in practice and research on this subject.
4.2 Driving diversity through voluntary targets: perspectives

from key stakeholders
We explored, through a qualitative study, how companies use voluntary diversity targets to drive gender
balance in the organisation. We interviewed key stakeholders involved in setting and implementing voluntary
diversity targets in their organisations: Diversity & Inclusion and HR leaders, as well as senior business
leaders actively involved in driving the diversity agenda. Between June and August 2020, we carried out
interviews with nine key stakeholders (four males and five females) across seven organisations44. Of the
seven organisations investigated, three were professional service firms of very different sizes and the other
four were in finance, technology, automotive and telecoms. All but one (a small professional service firm)
were global organisations. Interviews explored experiences in introducing and implementing voluntary
diversity targets, probing on enablers and obstacles as well as ways of overcoming them. We summarise
below lessons learned across participants and organisations, using pseudonyms to preserve confidentiality.
4.2.1 Rationale for setting targets and framing strategies

Most of the organisations had had targets for several years. The main reason for having adopted targets in
the first place was that previous diversity initiatives had failed to produce tangible results, or had generated
only a slow pace of change. Two of the participating organisations had only introduced targets in the
past year. The newest to targets was a finance company where the Head of Diversity and Inclusion, with
experience implementing targets in other organisations, had very clear views:
We have set a target of 40% of women in senior leadership and we define senior
leadership as executive committee and direct reports, so in alignment with
Hampton-Alexander. I am not going to have different metrics internally and
externally. The 40% is through to 2025; we are going to have a five-year plan in
place. (Participant 2)
41
Vinnicombe, S., Doldor, E., & Turner, C. (2014) The Female FTSE Board Report 2014: Crossing the Finish Line.
42
Virgin Money (2016) Empowering Productivity: Harnessing the Talents of Women in Financial Services.
43
McKinsey (2019) Women in the Workplace 2019 Report.
44
The pandemic and the lockdown made it challenging to reach a wider range of organisations.

Another participant took a rather different view on targets:
I have tried to drive our diversity discussions around proportionality rather

than around a target. So the 30% cap [for female partners] is flawed in that
50% of the population is female... if your population of senior managers is 30%
female then it could be proportionate in the short term. (Participant 7)
In this case the organisation looked at the actual pool of talent for the partnership and acknowledged that
if it was 30% then it would not be realistic to set a target of female partners above that number. Once the
talent pool improves, the expectation was that the target becomes higher, based on the understanding that
the lack of women at the top is generally not due to a gender imbalance at entry level, but rather to flawed
promotion processes that disadvantage women. This is often referred to as the ‘broken rungs’.
The particular target agreed upon in this firm was important as it was seen not as a tick-box exercise but as
a business imperative. The target was approved centrally and everyone was expected to take it seriously.
This was not seen as a problem as financial targets and other targets were embedded in the business.
Across all organisations, framing diversity goals as any other business objectives that need to be quantified
via tangible targets was the main strategy used to ‘sell’ the idea of voluntary diversity targets.
It wasn’t difficult [to introduce targets] and I think that is because as a

business, we are very comfortable with the concept of targets and that’s
how we operate, particularly with financial targets that have to be met
and when you start as a junior you have to account for your hours – so as
a business the concept of targets is very comfortable and we are used to
having to meet those. (Participant 6)
Somewhat surprisingly, none of the participants reported resistance to introducing targets in the UK. This
suggests a degree of mainstreaming of the practice in the UK business environment over the last few years.
Interestingly, however, in companies headquartered in other countries less familiar with the practice, there
were issues of persuading their directors that targets were an appropriate way of working in the UK. In the
end:
It’s really all about pitching localisation: convincing people that we need to set an
agenda that’s resonant to our local context and makes us competitive in a local
market. We didn’t really face much resistance internally in the UK because it is a
few years since we had a pretty mature and involved conversation about D&I and
we are all clear that this is best practice. (Participant 4)
In contrast to the two new adopters of targets, a company headquartered in Sweden, had introduced targets
over ten years ago:
In Sweden we have a very good social security system and women are
working and it is easier to be independent and we have a very good
childcare system... but still when you look at the female representation
in a companyit is still lagging. (Participant 1)
33
On reflection it seems that the targets set by both the Davies and Hampton-Alexander Reviews have
normalised targets in the UK over the past ten years and helped them to be seen as best practice. All the
participants spoke about the targets they have developed for either, in the case of professional service
firms, the percentage of female partners, or in the case of all but one of the commercial companies, the
percentage of females in senior leadership. A smaller professional service firm had an additional target for
working flexibly as they felt this was linked with women’s ability to sustain their careers.
Whilst none of the participants reported resistance to setting gender targets in the UK, they did vary in terms
of how they framed targets, and particularly how they addressed the issue of meritocracy in relation to
targets. One company was at pains to point out that:
A target is not a quota – no woman wants to sit in a chair that is only

saved for her because she is a woman; every woman wants to get the
chair because they are excellent. At the end of the day, I choose the best
candidate and it doesn’t matter if it is a man or a woman. (Participant 9)
Clearly there is still work to be done to explain that diversity targets do not compromise meritocracy, that
meritocracy does not exist in most companies and that is the reason why white men tend to dominate
leadership levels in most organisations in the UK and beyond.
A theme less often mentioned was having to challenge the notion that setting targets can drive bad
behaviour from those seeking to game the system:
Setting targets uncovers bad behaviour, it doesn’t drive it because if

you’ve got a senior leader who is going to game the system to hit their
people target, I would bet they are gaming the system to hit their cost
target or their market share target… because that’s the way they are
running the business – so it uncovers bad behaviour, it doesn’t breed it.
(Participant 2)
4.2.2 Ambitiousness of targets

Across the seven organisations the general consensus was a target of 30%-40% women in senior leadership
roles; and in the two companies that set ethnicity targets, the goal was 20% ethnic minority representation
in senior leadership. The company in the financial sector specifically pegged their number to Hampton-
Alexander in order to achieve internal/external alignment. The two outliers in terms of aspiration and scope
were the companies in the automotive and the software development sectors:
More than 10 years ago we were quite ambitious with a target of 35%
women in leadership positions by 2020 and at that time we were around
18%; right now we are on 28.5%. A year ago, our top management team
saw it was moving too slowly, so now we have 50/50 commitment that we
should hire and promote so that we have a 50/50 gender balance when it
comes to leaders. (Participant 1)
In contrast, in the software and services company, a year ago they set a target of 30% women represented
overall by September 2022. As they explained:
We set the target a year ago and we set it for three years. We put more
emphasis on the fact that it was a 20% increase on where we were at the
time. In the tech industry women are less represented. (Participant 8)

There were differences in the targets set in the three professional services firms. In the smallest firm, they
had a target of 25% women partners, which they have exceeded at 27%, and are currently deciding what
to do next.
There are fewer women in businesses at partner level so we are having

to compete with a smaller pool of talent and so we have probably
focused more on the internal promotion whilst keeping a focus on the
external hiring as well. (Participant 5)
Alongside their target for women partners, they also had a target for employees working flexibly, which
started at 20% back in 2013/14 but now 42% of employees are working flexibly. At the top end, the large
global professional services firm had a target of 40% female partners by 2025:
We could have 40% of our partners female tomorrow but we would

have to take radical action, probably getting rid of a load of male
partners, but we could do it if we wanted to – however […] I don’t think
it’s about disenfranchising our majority. (Participant 7)
The third professional services firm had a target of 25% female partners. As the managing partner explained:
That is not particularly aspirational but in terms of the number of

partners we promote every year and the slowness with which our
partnership evolves... it takes some time to get from 17 or 18 to 25.
Ownership of that is quite difficult. (Participant 3)
Overall, the interviews suggested that in setting up targets, it is important for organisations to address
explicitly how they will strike a balance between being realistic and being ambitious in the targets chosen.
Perceived ambitiousness of targets is sometimes a contested issue within the same organisation:
Why would you make an impossible target because it just leaves

you incredulous […] They [senior leaders] can throw out aspirational
statistics, but I think they have more credibility if they can explain
why or how they are going to meet that target. (Participant 7)
Some of the resistance we got was from our senior executives who
were driving this but they were resistant to the number – they wanted
it to go higher. So we provided them with a lot of analysis as to why
this is a tangible goal historically in the market, and I would say they
fought us a lot on 30%, like really we could aim for a higher goal and
we were not being ambitious enough. (Participant 4)
Most participants were of the opinion that targets that are too stretching and ultimately impossible to meet
are demoralising; yet, a few others suggested that slightly overly ambitious targets are a useful way of
mobilising the organisation into action, even if they are not met:
We all understand that the targets are not there to be achieved – the
targets are there to set as a compass and to set a direction. It is fine to
put a target even if you don’t achieve it – there is a purpose other than
achieving the target. (Participant 8)
35
4.2.3. Accountability for targets
The second theme widely discussed in our interviews was that of accountability and enforcement of
targets. Targets used to be seen as the soft alternative to quotas but actually hard driven targets can be
more effective than weakly enforced quotas. This has been the story behind the success of both the Davies
and Hampton-Alexander Reviews, particularly in terms of increasing the number of women on corporate
boards; the targets set by both reviews were driven by new corporate governance requirements on gender
diversity reporting, the annual reporting through both reviews, the Investment Association’s red capping
of companies with no women on their boards, public recognition through awards for progress, and regular
media coverage. In practice, these mechanisms can apply more pressure than weakly enforced mandatory
quota laws. This suggests that the labelling of interventions as voluntary or mandatory is perhaps less
important than the enforcement mechanisms designed. An interviewee from a major professional services
firm raised this point:
Voluntary is an interesting word because in a way, whether it be voluntary

or mandatory, I don’t think it makes a huge amount of difference as it’s
more about consequences and as long as you are clear in what you are
wanting to achieve and the consequences of not doing it. (Participant 6)
There was significant variance around how organisations enforce their targets. There was a real concerted
effort to tie targets to performance in some of them, but an ambivalence to do so in others. Companies with
more experience in working with targets seemed to have more mature conversations about enforcement; in
contrast, organisations that were at the beginning of the journey in using targets, appeared more invested in
selling the idea towards implementation, rather than in hardwiring accountability. An obvious enforcement
mechanism is linking achievement of diversity targets to performance appraisal:
The analytics are absolutely essential (the solution is not the same for each
part of the business). The reporting on progress – I think semi-annually
is enough but it has to be embedded into the performance management
process. (Participant 2)
Whilst this is a sound principle, how it is embedded may be quite problematic. A particular challenge was
devolved accountability – translating the organisation’s broad target into local goals at business unit level:
I don’t think it’s hard to set the target but it is hard to get to that target...
how do you cascade that target down to individuals?... I think it’s a
collective responsibility (for partners) versus individual responsibility and
I think that is quite challenging. There is often a very good and reasonable
narrative within the sub-unit as to why it is not achievable... because they
are in different markets, be it from a geographical, cultural or business
sector perspective. The final piece that has enabled progress is that for the
very first time last year each partner had to have on their scorecard a ‘D&I’
goal prescribed, like mentoring a talented female manager or improving
the diversity of your client teams. (Participant 6)
Another managing partner of a professional services firm agrees:
I am held to account more than anyone by my oversight board and my

own personal goals now drive my reward. I haven’t given them hard goals
yet because it is really hard to dice and slice it in terms of practicalities.
(Participant 3)

A relatively straightforward answer to the issue of shared and devolved accountability for a firm-wide target
was to focus on the share of progress expected from each business unit, rather than on the end percentage:
Each division has to reflect its own target based on the company
target – and at the beginning they were like all really stressed […]
and we would say ‘hang on – not everyone needs to reach 37% – what
needs to happen is everyone needs to increase 20%’ and if everyone
does that then by simple maths it is supposed to work and we can
reach the corporate target gradually. (Participant 8)
This approach implies accepting uneven outcomes across business units, despite progress and effort
across the organisation. It is worth remembering that the targets set by both the Davies and Hampton-
Alexander Reviews were for each FTSE company; whilst FTSE 100 boards have met the overall target of
33% women on their boards, individual companies vary from 56% to 17%. This variance also occurred with
meeting the Davies target in 2015.
Whilst respondents were able to talk about how targets are followed up, it was less clear as to what
happened if targets were not met.
The 50/50 target is now part of the corporate KPIs and these are
followed up quarterly on the Executive Management Team, so the
accountability is partly there; it is the functional leader who is
responsible for driving this in their section, with the help of us who
provide the data. We are now working to develop a diversity dashboard
which makes it much more accessible for anyone to get the data
and to look at that and do your own analysis and draw your own
conclusions. (Participant 1)
In other settings, rather than driving the targets by tying results to performance assessment, peer pressure
is used:
In terms of accountability, the general managers meet for a quarterly

business review, which is when they are presenting their business
results. One of the things was on gender diversity... and it is like a walk
of shame if you didn’t do anything and the others did. (Participant 8)
Elsewhere, rather than top management owning the targets, they sit with HR – this was more often the case
in organisations at early implementation stages:
It mostly gets driven on the ground by HR. So it’s their heads that are
chopped if nothing changes in D&I. It is easy to say that accountability
should be on senior leaders, but I don’t think we have really unlocked
how to make that deal real. So, in an ideal world the responsibility is
on senior leaders to be accountable for this, but obviously it is also led
by a huge coalition of people across the board. (Participant 4)
37
These quotes demonstrate an eagerness in many cases to enforce targets but an uneasiness about how
it is accomplished. In professional service firms, where partners typically take collective responsibility for
goals, then it may be countercultural to apportion responsibility at the individual level. However, there is a
spectrum of accountability from having none to closely tying results to performance, with regular internal
reporting thus being able to exert peer pressure on those who are not driving the target sufficiently, as well
as being able to offer specific practical help to them.
4.2.4 Changing processes and cultures to meet voluntary targets

All the organisations emphasised the importance of a good and robust database in order to set and
implement their targets. Granular diversity metrics and a data-driven approach across processes and
hierarchical levels appeared critical in diagnosing and raising awareness of blockages in talent pipelines
and calibrating targets accordingly.
We can now cut all of our management data by ethnicity and by gender
means so that we get a much clearer lens into actually where there are
disproportionate outcomes and people know that. So, the fact that people
know we can see what’s happening makes them more conscious of their
decisions and in respect of any unconscious bias now we have a tool that
makes people think and if they don’t, we have tools that say ‘look what the
outcome was, you need to think’. So those tools have been really powerful
for different reasons. (Participant 6)
What has helped us a lot is that we have finally made some investments
in our data systems to provide us with the people data… Because it is
very easy to think or speculate that ‘now we are maybe only hiring young
women’, but when we are looking at the high potential talent pool and we
can see the detail and “oh no it’s still the same names that pop up!”. So, I
think that we have developed a lot there and made it easier also for anyone
to use the data. (Participant 1)
It’s one thing to say ‘I am a true believer’ and this is when data is so crucial
because it is the ‘aha’ moment: when you put the data in front of senior
leaders’ eyes, their unit or group and they see how poorly women are
represented there. This is where we have them with their ‘aha’ moment
and they sit less straight in their chairs because they might believe they
are true believers in equality, but when it comes down to showing the data
as it is in their teams… it shows them it is less fair. (Participant 8)
All the partners get to engage with the diversity dashboard which looks
at every client engagement and the diverse team that is working on that
client engagement. Those management tools have made a big difference
because we have visibility and can see through the narrative now.
(Participant 7)
Beyond increased representation, targets create scrutiny and challenge non-inclusive practices across
talent management processes, thereby contributing to culture change. Interviews provided ample examples
of how talent management processes have changed since bringing in diversity targets. One area was
recruitment and selection:

For a few years we have worked with changing the way we write job
advertisements because we realized we were very exclusive in the
way we wrote them. (Participant 1)
One of the things we have done in terms of our graduate intake is that
it is now blind for the first layer... so nobody knows your background,
ethnicity or gender. (Participant 3)
There were also efforts to make senior leaders more accountable and better equipped to hire from
more diverse pools of talent:
We are looking at various ways to help senior leaders develop…

including more intentionally diverse ways of how they develop
and mobilize their networks to create long-term relationships with
candidates so that when they get a role opening they can campaign
on their network – that is very different to what they saw prior to
before we did all of this work. Rather than them saying ‘oh we have
the perfect candidate for this role’ and just hiring another white male,
they hire someone they know well and is very well qualified based on
the activities that we are helping them with. (Participant 4)
Other areas where diversity targets have forced an increased scrutiny of bias include performance
management, promotion processes and developmental opportunities:
Over the past five years we have brought in support and structure
and rigour into the promotion process and we now have development
centres that run at different career levels. Beyond the HR processes
of development there is also probably more potential for devolved
sponsorship. So, a combination of the HR process being much more
substantive, but also actual leaders sponsoring and bringing them into
areas of the business where they can build their platforms and build
their roles. (Participant 5)
Whenever we have a selection decision for a senior leadership

role now we ensure we have a male and female on the panel and
we encourage a BAME to be one of those people. After panels we
run various arithmetics to look at the proportionality outcomes. If
we choose a disproportionate selection we go back and challenge
ourselves. (Participant 7)
A key benefit of targets is that they expand scrutiny from senior leadership levels downwards and create
a holistic focus on talent pipelines across the ranks. This is perhaps the most important systemic change
triggered, and one that was more comprehensively addressed by organisations with more experience in
using voluntary targets:
One of the positive things about having a target at partner level is the
work we do on the pipeline – if we want to promote 10 people in five
years’ time, what actions do we need to take now? What interventions
do we need to take at all these levels down, that are driving better
behaviour? (Participant 3)
39
A more specific manifestation of this systemic approach was to seek proportionality in people decisions
across all levels:
Unless you start by getting your emerging talent pipelines full of

proportionate outcomes, you will never fulfil your targets for different
ethnic groups or gender in five- or ten-years’ time. So you have to cascade
the objective of the 40% or 50% target for leadership role levels down to
your talent pipeline selection lines and talent investment, but also into just
retaining people. You have to retain females and BAMEs in your population
to be able to promote them in 10 years’ time; and that means you need to
give them bonuses at junior levels, and you have to promote them as fast-
track talent proportionately, and you have to look at your attrition statistics
and not look at certain types of people as cannon fodder and certain types
of people as the future – you’ve got to cascade it down as a cultural change
and that takes a lot of effort. (Participant 7)
In summary, a robust database and fine-tuned metrics were the starting point to making good use of
diversity targets but, in the process, organisations are identifying key decisions related to selection, job
advertising, work allocation and promotions as areas to manage well if they are to meet their targets.
Among companies with more experience in the journey of implementing voluntary targets, we noted a more
structured, holistic approach to talent management where inter-linked processes of talent identification,
retention, development, promotion and succession are scrutinised and challenged to unroot bias in people
decisions at all levels of the organisation. In these cases, there was a clear understanding that diversity
in leadership cannot be sustainably reached without managing more inclusively the entire workforce. In
practice, that meant cascading the organisation’s holistic target into more specific goals at lower levels and
applying the principle of proportionality in decision-making.
4.2.5 Race and ethnicity

Only two organisations out of the seven had set ethnicity targets at 20% representation. Everyone agreed
that this is a far more challenging area to address in D&I practice, and generally there appeared to be less
readiness to address racial diversity through voluntary targets:
It is much more complex. The main group (ethnicity) is not homogeneous

because you have different ethnicities and therefore the challenges are
very different and people find that topic much more uncomfortable. People
don’t have the fluency they might have around the gender conversation
and so if you find a formula that works for gender, it might not necessarily
mean it works for anything else. (Participant 6)
I think people are scared of race and they are not so scared of gender. So
people are now prepared to talk about maternity and getting married and
lifestyle decisions and the effects on careers. I think that is something that
people are much more able to coach and counsel on; but people are just not
comfortable to coach or counsel on decisions around race and the impact
that has on people. Race is also difficult because I think race, in some
respects, gets complicated by faith. (Participant 7)
Everyone agreed that they were significantly behind on their work on race and ethnicity compared to gender.
One of the main issues is collecting the data from a categorization point of view. In global companies,
this was complicated by the fact that the categories capturing racial and ethnic diversity vary across
geographies and are sometimes contested within the same country:

Everything we do is standardized which means when we collect
data for our region we have to consider data collection in France, in
Nigeria and in Saudi Arabia and so on. It is incredibly hard because
we have to be compliant for lots and lots of different country datasets.
(Participant 4)
This issue has now had a lot of public debate recently with individuals criticizing both the terms BAME and
People of Colour in the UK and other countries, because these aggregate terms incorporate many different
groups and mask the low number of Black individuals in leadership roles. As one interviewee put it:
When we look at our ethnicity numbers you can say “ok they are very
ethnically diverse as a team”. But when you look into it, you can see
that all of the ethnicity is driven by for instance South Asian people
and so actually it’s not that diverse. (Participant 6)
Moreover, gender targets cannot be implemented inclusively in organisations without addressing ethnicity
as well, because the career experiences of ethnic minority women are not identical to those of White women.
There is recognition that when we make progress on gender at senior levels it is more likely to inadvertently
benefit White women over women of colour in organisations. This is why historically we have advocated in
this report the importance of intersectional thinking, i.e. thinking about ‘what kind of women’ or ‘what kind of
people of colour’.
The Parker Review is currently discussing how to move forward on this thorny issue. The recent Black
Lives Matter movement has raised awareness about persistent racial inequalities and generated public
statements from senior leaders about racial equality at work. Recent experience reflects our participants’
comments – compared to gender diversity, many HR professionals and organisational leaders are not ‘race
fluent’. Race fluency45 refers to the degree of confidence and proficiency in understanding and articulating
differences in experiences and career outcomes for employees of different ethnic backgrounds (including
patterns of the experiences of White colleagues). This is the first stage of awareness-raising work necessary
for change before substantive commitments can be made. After deeper understanding and awareness
substantiated by increased race confidence, these commitments need to be backed up by much more
tangible and forceful D&I actions within organisations, at personal and systemic levels, including by the use
of voluntary targets to address ethnic inequalities at work.
4.2.6 COVID-19 and the D&I agenda

We enquired about the impact of COVID-19 on targets and the D&I agenda more broadly. Participants
stressed both dangers and opportunities for D&I. One participant was very concerned about the impact:
Huge impact [...]. I will start internally. It took out our momentum –
for the first few weeks and months we were busy as an organization
on surviving and moving everyone to work from home and making
sure we were able to deliver. It took away the spotlight from our
gender agenda, but now we are working on bringing it back on track.
(Participant 8)
Others were keener to reflect on the positive outcomes of the health pandemic in terms of increased
acceptance of flexible/remote working, whilst noting the differential effects on women and ethnic minorities:
45
Adapted from Atewologun, D. (2018). Minority ethnic careers in professional services firms. In Research Handbook of Diversity and
Careers. Edward Elgar Publishing, and http://deltaalphapsi.com/our-insights/race-fluency/
41
I don’t think our focus will change. We are incredibly blessed that [the
organisation] has prioritized D&I and also with our ability to work from
home. So actually, working from home has been more effective than
working in the office. The thing that worries me is the differential effects of
Covid-19 on groups such as women and BAME. (Participant 4)
Covid has demonstrated that we can be working remotely, and I am now

hearing White males in their 50s previously stalwarts of people tied to the
office, now seeing the benefit of this alternative working. (Participant 6)
A participant pointed out that two immediate downsides were women shouldering most of the
responsibilities back home and that disrupted their ability to work and the fact that more women are losing
their jobs. While many participants reflected on the uneven effects of the lockdown on women’s careers,
there were few tangible ideas about how this impact will be mitigated to preserve the organisation’s gender
balance goals in the long term:
The biggest downer is that although we tell ourselves that we are in the journey
for equality and equal rights, then came Covid and brought us 100 years
back. […] I realized that equality wasn’t achieved because men and women
are carrying the equal burden, it was achieved because women were able
to outsource their gender roles and have nannies and cooks and cleaners.
The second you couldn’t have that because there was lockdown […], it came
back to being the woman’s responsibility. And for me, this is the most
depressing part. (Participant 8)
People are at home with kids or with their elderly parents and invariably
that is going to impact women more than it is going to impact others. […]
Anecdotally, we are hearing feedback from women ‘I don’t even care about
being promoted any more’ and that is something never heard before at [our
organisation] until now. So that is very troubling for us. (Participant 4)
On the upside, remote and flexible working was seen as a chance to level the playing field when it comes to
accessing career-enhancing opportunities, regardless of location:
Covid gives us a massive opportunity to do [central resourcing] because

we are not geographically tied any more – that person could be sat in
Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham or London, it makes not a blind bit
of difference to the client because we are not travelling to the client. So
people in various geographic locations can have wider opportunities if
we can centralize them and have a bit more oversight when giving the
opportunities out. (Participant 3)
I think we should challenge ourselves as an organization on location-based

roles going forward. My position would be that you would clearly have to
explain why a role has to be location-based now if everyone is working
remotely. Now that opens up your talent market around diversity… that
could be amazing. (Participant 2)
Clearly there need to be many serious discussions everywhere on the future structure of work, but as one
managing partner summed up:

We have done surveys and people’s mental health oscillates and it does
feel as if we are in for the long haul as people’s mood goes down, but
90% of the people said they didn’t want to return to the office full-time.
(Participant 3)
Working from home, flexible working and the possibility of reduced hours to save jobs re all on the agenda as
we move forwards. However, organisations should remain vigilant to the gendered effects these alternative
ways of working can have on people’s careers, particularly in the context of the lockdown. If these initiatives
are used appropriately they could go some way to protecting those most vulnerable to the negative fallout of
the lockdown.
4.3 Conclusion and recommendations

The evidence reviewed and the interviews with senior leaders involved in driving targets point to a few key
issues when it comes to using voluntary diversity targets:
• Attitudes towards targets are changing and targets are becoming normalised D&I practice across leading
British and global companies. While the use of gender targets is widespread and seen as relatively
unproblematic, companies feel less equipped to address race and ethnicity in general, and through
targets. Corporate commitments to racial equality at work need to materialise through more tangible
actions.
• In making the case for diversity targets within organisations, it is important to address concerns about
meritocracy by explaining that targets do not undermine, but rather enable meritocracy. Moreover,
framing diversity goals, as with any other business objective that requires tangible indicators, enhances
the acceptance of targets.
• Ambitiousness of targets chosen is best considered within a specific organisational and sectoral
context. However, while there is emphasis on setting realistic targets in practitioner literature, academic
literature and some of our interview accounts suggest that more ambitious targets can drive increased
representation and mobilise organisations into action. We thus encourage organisations to consider the
value of more stretching targets.
• Accountability remains a pressing issue in the implementation of targets. Devolved accountability
needs to be specified in greater detail in the implementation of targets by articulating how the overall
corporate target will be cascaded at local level. Moreover, organisations more mature in their journey of
using targets are more prepared to hardwire accountability for targets’ achievement through leadership
performance and remuneration. There is unease to use these practices in organisations early on in
the journey. Effective accountability mechanisms are essential in order to embed target setting in
organisational cultures.
• Targets can be a tool for culture change rather than a tick-box exercise, when implemented long-term,
thoroughly and ambitiously. Targets create scrutiny and unroot bias across key talent management
processes, fostering a more data-driven approach to people decisions and a more systemic focus on
inclusion.
• Looking ahead, organisations need to address more proactively the long-term effects of the current
pandemic on the pipeline of female talent. Despite a general awareness that the lockdown has
had disparate effects on women’s careers, there are no tangible actions considered to buffer this
disproportionate impact. Conversely, the pandemic opens up opportunities to progress the D&I agenda
through an enhanced focus on flexible/remote working and on wellbeing.
We would like to thank senior leaders in the following organisations who shared their insights and experiences
with us in the context of our research: Amdocs, EY, Foot Anstey, Grant Thornton, Google, M&G Prudential, Volvo.
43
EY sharing practice: Using targets in the UK firm
Public targets
In 2019, EY published a commitment to double the proportion of female and ethnic minority talent in its UK
partnership to 40% female and 20% BAME by July 2025. In July 2020, EY went further by announcing new
anti-racism commitments, including a goal that 15% of its BAME Partner appointments would be Black.
To embed a focus on achieving this public commitment, each business unit has a new suite of D&I metrics
based on improving the representation and inclusion of female and BAME talent at all levels of the firm.
These metrics are given the same level of focus and scrutiny as any other business KPIs.
• To achieve the Partner representation shift, there is an in-year target to improve female Partner
representation by 2% and BAME Partner representation by 1%. The aim is to increase that percentage
each year until 2025.
• EY monitors recruitment at every level of the firm through a diversity lens, from apprentices through to
Partner level.
• Resourcing teams at EY utilise data to analyse and monitor work allocation rates, checking for any
potential differences based on gender or ethnicity. This is monitored through monthly reports reviewed by
Service Line Talent Leaders and D&I Partner Sponsors and forms part of EY’s quarterly business reviews.
• EY conducts regular surveys amongst its people, at both a UK and global level. These surveys include
questions around inclusion to assess the firm’s culture. For example, questions such as “At EY, I feel my
contributions are recognized and appreciated” and “EY provides a work environment where I feel free to
be myself” are closely monitored for any divergencies based on gender or ethnicity.
• In addition, underperformance, promotions, pay and bonuses are also tracked closely.
What makes them effective?

The steps taken by EY’s Resourcing team are having a particularly positive impact and are encouraging
powerful conversations across the UK business and putting gender and ethnic diversity at the front of mind
in crucial ‘business as usual’ decision making.
EY’s actions to accelerate the diversity of its UK Partnership are also driving change. In the first year after
introducing the targets, female representation in the UK partnership grew 2% to 22% female Partners and
improved by 1% to 11% ethnic minority Partners.
EY’s people surveys have helped to engage the firm’s business leaders who want to understand their teams
and take action to create a more inclusive culture. Over the last four years, there has been greater parity in
the survey responses from men and women, albeit there is still more work to do in closing the gap for some
other minority groups.
Year-end promotion and progression outcomes are scrutinised closely. EY has developed mechanisms to
capture potential promotion and progression decisions at an earlier stage in the process to ensure that
interventions can be made when required. This has been a priority for all areas of the UK business.
EY recognises the importance of transparent reporting and published its gender pay gap six months ahead of
the Government’s regulatory deadline. EY has also gone beyond the Government’s regulations by publishing
its ethnicity pay gap, sexual orientation and disability pay gaps. In 2020, the firm has also committed to
publishing its Black pay gap.
Transparency is key to EY’s business and values; having targets allows the data to be accessible and
visible to all.
Lessons learned
Data and targets are a key focus for EY but the firm is clear about the importance of cultural and behavioural
change and that targets should not be prioritised at the expense of understanding the underlying barriers to
diversity and inclusion. Targets are only part of the picture and will not stand alone without a commitment to,
and action plan to achieve, a culture of equality.

Section 5: Concluding remarks
FTSE 350 companies should be congratulated on their

progress of appointing women to their corporate boards.
FTSE 100 boards have already met the Hampton-Alexander
target and are at 34.5% women on their boards with FTSE
250 only a little behind them at 31.9%.
Last year we raised the concern of possible symbolic appointments since women NEDs were likely to
have shorter tenures than their male counterparts and very few of them were promoted into senior roles.
Interestingly tenure is less of an issue this year, but we continue to see few women in either SID or Chair
roles (there is a slight increase to eight women in Chair roles this year). This is worrying. We have seen huge
numbers of women being appointed into NED roles over the past ten years, when the Davies Review was
established, so there is simply no excuse for why more women are not being promoted into these roles. This
year we saw a significant rise in the number of board committees, yet no rise in the percentage of women
chairing them – why is this?
The number of women in executive roles remains stubbornly low. Given the recent evidence demonstrating
the success of female political leaders in managing the health pandemic, it is time to reflect on why we
still have 95 male CEOs in the FTSE 100. Our analysis this year of the relationship between having a critical
mass of women on FTSE 100 boards and the number of women in senior leadership positions clearly
shows that it is not enough just to have a critical mass of women NEDs. It is essential to also have women
in influential roles on the board who have voices that are going to be heard and acted on, such as EDs,
committee chairs and women with interlocking board roles.
We finish the report with a study of how varied organisations are using voluntary targets to drive gender
balance internally. What we have found is that whilst the UK was unusual in driving gender balanced
boards and senior management teams through targets (and not quotas), the Davies and Hampton-
Alexander Reviews have established targets as a normal business practice and the targets set by them
have shaped the targets set by organisations internally. This is a very worthy legacy from the Reviews
and hopefully offers some useful lessons on how to energise the work addressing the lack of ethnicity on
boards and beyond. When implemented thoroughly and ambitiously, targets contribute to culture change by
creating systemic scrutiny and change across talent management processes and hierarchical ranks. Key
challenges moving forward are to find more effective ways of embedding accountability for targets within
organisations, to ensure a more intersectional approach in target setting and to address proactively the
effects of the pandemic on pipelines of female talent.
45
APPENDIX – Methodology for section 2.4
Data and methods

In order to determine the influence of different board roles we first disaggregated the roles into the following
five indicators (causal conditions):
• a critical mass of female NEDs,

• a critical mass of female EDs,
• one or more female committee chairs,
• the presence of female interlinked board members,
• the presence of a female Senior Independent Director (SID) or Board Chair.
The outcome of interest was the presence of a critical mass of female senior executives. The definition of
senior executives for this study includes members of the Executive Committee and their direct reports.
A database was assembled with details on the causal conditions above for FTSE 100 companies with
information found on BoardEx. Data for the FTSE 100 senior executive levels was obtained from the
Hampton-Alexander Review 20193 (the 2020 Hampton-Alexander Review was not available at the time of
writing this report). The six conditions above (five conditions and one outcome) were analysed using QCA,
specifically fuzzy set QCA (fsQCA).
Calibration
In order to proceed with an fsQCA analysis, values in the conditions need to be assigned a fuzzy
membership score through the process of calibration. Calibration is a process where interval variables are
transformed into fuzzy set membership scores between 0 and 1, representing the degree of membership in
a condition. 0 represents full non-membership while 1 represents full membership in a set. A crossover point
is identified and represents the point of maximum ambiguity (i.e. neither in nor out of the membership) (Fiss,
201114; Ragin, 200816). The process of calibration requires the identification of qualitative anchors for full
membership, full non-membership and a crossover point in the membership set.
Calibration allows us to determine the extent to which each of the conditions and the configurations are
in the set of ‘critical mass’. Theoretical and practical knowledge assists in identifying these qualitative
anchors. The qualitative anchors for determining what critical mass is in this study will be grounded in
critical mass theory. Critical mass theory posits that until a minority group reaches a threshold in terms of
numbers or percentages of the overall group, their degree of influence is compromised. A critical mass then,
is the point at which the numerical minority is mitigated, and more fulsome participation is realised. Extant
research pegs critical mass anywhere between 25% and 33% (Bilimoria, 20064; Ely, 199546 ; Kanter, 197747
; Konrad, Kramer and Erkut, 20086). For this study, 33% has been chosen to represent full membership in the
critical mass set, while 0% will represent full non-membership. The crossover point will be set at 25%, the
lower bound of critical mass discussed above, which was selected to represent neither critical mass nor the
absence of critical mass. Any values at 25% or above will be assigned a membership score of .5 or above
and will be based on their relative position of being in the full membership set of critical mass. Any values
below 25% will be assigned a membership score of less than .5 and reflect their relative position in being in
the non-membership set of critical mass. These qualitative anchors were used to calibrate the percentage of
women NEDs, EDs and senior executive management.
The condition for female chairs was calibrated by specifying full membership for companies having one
female committee chair and full non-membership for companies with no female chairs. This crossover point
was set at the mid-range of .5.

The condition for interlinked board members was first calculated by taking the total number of public
boards all the women board members sat on for each company and then taking the the average.
This average was calibrated where 1 represented full non-membership reflecting the fact that female
board members who sit on one board only are not interlinked; 4 was selected to represent full
membership, which was the highest average in the sample and a crossover point was set at 2.
Finally, the presence of SIDs or Board Chairs is a dichotomous variable and therefore does not
require calibration. 1 was assigned to those companies that had either a female SID or female Board
Chair and 0 was assigned where there were none. Table 1A summarises the threshold values for
calibration.
Table 1a: Threshold values for calibration
Crossover (point of maximum

Condition Fully in Fully out
ambiguity)
Critical mass female of NEDs 33% 25% 0%
Critical mass female of NEDs 33% 25% 0%
Female interlinked board members 1 0.5 0
Female interlinked board members 4 2 1
Senior executives 33% 25% 0%
SID or Board Chair* 1 0
This condition is already dichotomous and therefore does not need to be calibrated
*
Procedure
In order to identify causal configurations fsQCA proceeds in three steps. The first step is to
construct a truth table that will consist of 2k rows where k is the number of causal conditions.
In this case we have five causal conditions indicating 32 possible configurations. Membership
scores are assigned to the causal configuration based on the degree of their membership in the
configuration. Gender diverse cases, i.e. those companies with a value greater than .5 in the fuzzy
set, are included in the truth table. In total 87 cases (companies) had a membership score greater
than .5 in the causal configuration and are included in Table 2A. These are distributed across nine
unique configurations.
46
Ely, R.J. (1995) ‘The Power In Demography: Women’S Social Constructions Of Gender Identity At Work’, Academy of Management
Journal, 38(3), pp. 589–634.
46
Kanter, R.M. (1977) ‘Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women’, Source: American
Journal of Sociology, 82(5), pp. 965–990.
47
Table 2a: Possible and empirical configurations for causal conditions
SID/
Inter Committee Senior Raw PRI SYM
NED ED Board Cases
Linked Chair Executive consist. consist. consist.
Chair
1 0 0 1 1 37 0.744356 0.568206 0.719728
1 0 1 1 1 17 0.717251 0.565934 0.710345
1 1 0 1 1 10 0.874236 0.791908 0.852255
1 1 1 1 1 8 0.982434 0.978626 1
1 0 0 1 0 8 0.812195 0.588236 0.763889
1 1 0 1 0 3 0.991119 0.984127 1
1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 1
0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 1 1 1 0.8375 0.442857 0.442857
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 0
1 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 0
0 0 1 1 0 0
0 1 1 1 0 0
1 1 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
1 0 0 0 1 0
0 1 0 0 1 0
1 1 0 0 1 0
0 0 1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0 1 0
0 1 1 0 1 0
1 1 1 0 1 0
0 0 1 1 1 0
0 1 1 1 1 0

The next step in the analysis is to apply minimum consistency and frequency thresholds. Applying a
minimum consistency threshold ensures that the configurations consistently lead to the outcome. Those
configurations at or above the minimum consistency threshold are assigned a 1, which signifies that the
configuration leads to the outcome most of the time. Those configurations whose consistencies are less
than the threshold are assigned a 0, representing considerable inconsistency in leading to the outcome.
We selected the recommended consistency threshold of .8 (Greckhamer et al., 201848 ). Table 3a shows
the final configurations to be analysed.
Table 3a: Causal configuration table
SID/
Inter Committee Senior Raw PRI SYM
NED ED Board Cases
Linked Chair Executive consist. consist. consist.
Chair
1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1
0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 0 1 0 3 1 0.991119 0.984127 1
1 1 1 1 1 8 1 0.982434 0.978626 1
1 1 0 1 1 10 1 0.874236 0.791908 0.852255
0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0.8375 0.442857 0.442857
1 0 0 1 0 8 1 0.812195 0.588236 0.763889
1 0 0 1 1 37 0 0.744356 0.568206 0.719728
1 0 1 1 1 17 0 0.717251 0.565934 0.710345
A final step is logical minimisation using an algorithm to identify and eliminate redundant conditions
and produce a final solution table (see Table 7). The algorithm takes into account both the degree of
inconsistency and the set membership scores to weight the relevance of each case. The configurations
remaining are each sufficient to produce the outcome.
48
Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P.C. and Aguilera, R.V. (2018) ‘Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best
practices in strategy and organization research’, Strategic Organization, 16(4) Sage Publications Ltd, pp. 482–495.
49
Author biographies
Susan Vinnicombe, CBE

MA PhD FBAM CCMI
Professor of Women and Leadership
Director - Gender, Leadership and Inclusion Centre
Cranfield School of Management
E: s.m.vinnicombe@cranfield.ac.uk
Susan held the Deloitte Ellen Gabriel Endowed Chair in Women’s Leadership at Simmons College, Boston,
USA from 2013-2016. Her particular research interests are gender diversity on corporate boards, women’s
leadership styles and the issues involved in women developing their managerial careers. Susan is Deputy
Dean of the Fellows of the British Academy of Management and has been presented with the British
Academy of Management Richard Whipp Lifetime Achievement Award in 2017. She has been identified as
one of the top ten most influential people in Human Resources in the UK in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.
Susan has also been honoured by The International Alliance of Women (TIAW), who awarded her the TIAW
World of Difference 100 Award in 2013, and the International Women’s Forum award ‘Making a Difference’
in 2016 which recognises those who have made a significant contribution to the development of women
leaders. Susan was a member of the Davies Steering Committee and is now a member of the Advisory Board
of Sir Philip Hampton/Dame Helen Alexander’s review on the lack of women in the executive pipeline and
that of Sir John Parker’s Review of the lack of ethnicity on FTSE 100 boards. Susan is Vice Patron of the
charity Working Families. Susan was awarded an OBE in the Queen’s New Year’s Honours List in 2005 and
a CBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List in 2014 for services to gender equality.
Dr Elena Doldor
Reader in Organisational Behaviour
Co-Director - Centre for Research in Equality and Diversity
Director - MSc in International Human Resource Management
Queen Mary University of London
School of Business and Management
E: e.r.doldor@qmul.ac.uk
Elena’s research expertise is in the careers and leadership experiences of women and ethnic minorities in
organizations. Her work uncovers organizational processes accounting for the lack of diversity in leadership.
Across different projects she has examined head-hunters’ board selection practices and their impact on
gender balance on corporate boards; promotion processes and leadership journeys for women and ethnic
minority professionals in corporations and professional services firms; gender bias in 360 developmental
feedback provided to leaders; diversity targets; and gendered experiences of organisational politics for
leaders. She has published in journals of recognized international excellence such as The Leadership
Quarterly, Human Relations, Human Resource Management Journal, and British Journal of Management.
Elena has co-authored the Female FTSE Report since 2009, which has informed the Davies and Hampton-
Alexander Reviews. She has led the research on targets in this year’s report. Her research has been
sponsored or endorsed by organizations such as Aviva, EY, KPMG, Barclays, the Equality and Human Rights
Commission, and the Government Equalities Office. Elena is a regular speaker at international academic and
practitioner conferences (e.g. IBM Business Connect, European Parliament, Professional Women’s Network)
and regularly draws on her expertise to advise organizations and policy makers on ways of supporting
women leaders. As a business psychologist, she has been involved in diversity management and leadership
development programmes. Elena is a member of the British Academy of Management and was a Fulbright
scholar at Northwestern University, USA. In 2020, she was elected Representative-at-Large on the executive
committee of the Academy of Management, Gender and Diversity in Organisations Division.
Dr Valentina Battista
Lecturer in Human Resource Management
Director - MSc in Management and Human Resource Management
E: V.Battista@cranfield.ac.uk
Valentina’s research focuses on the interactions between technology and Human Resource Management
(HRM). In particular, she investigates the impact of technology advancement on work, the workforce and
the workplace. Valentina regularly attends academic and practitioner conferences on the future of work,
presenting the findings from her research. Prior to joining academia, Valentina held managerial roles working
closely with the people management function and supporting the decision-making process in different
organisations.
Michelle Tessaro
Doctoral Researcher
E: michelle.tessaro@cranfield.ac.uk
Michelle’s research focuses on the lack of women in leadership positions and the impact that women
on boards have in improving gender diversity below the board. Prior to joining academia, Michelle held
a number of senior management finance roles in Canada, Europe and Asia. She has over 20 years of
senior leadership experience in a number of different sectors leading business growth, driving profitability
improvements, establishing and scaling operations, and building operationally focused teams. Currently
Michelle is a consultant and a non-executive director for an agri-business in Canada. Michelle is also a
Certified Management Accountant, received her MBA from the Richard Ivey School of Business in Canada
and is a member of the British Academy of Management.
51
Gender, Leadership and Inclusion Centre
www.cranfield.ac.uk/som/expertise/changing-world-of-work/gender-leadership-and-inclusion-centre
www.cranfield.ac.uk/som/expertise/changing-world-of-work/gender-and-leadership/female-ftse-index
The Female FTSE Board Report 2020

Female FTSE Report 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Female FTSE Report 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Female FTSE Report 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Female FTSE

Board Report 2020

Targets enable cultural change

I’m delighted to contribute the foreword to this leading

Professor Sir Peter Gregson

4 The Female FTSE Board Report 2020

Section 2: FTSE 100 companies 10

June 2020 FTSE 100 % FTSE 250 %

Female-held directorships 355 34.5% 620 31.9%

Female executive directorships 31 13.2% 47 11.3%

Female non-executive directorships 324 40.8% 573 37.6%

Companies with female executive directors 28 28.0% 42 16.8%

Companies with at least 33% female directors 63 63.0% 132 52.8%

6 The Female FTSE Board Report 2020

FTSE 250 companies with

“Although it is good to see gender diversity steadily improve across

8 The Female FTSE Board Report 2020

“While this has been a tumultuous year it is encouraging to see the

Dame Carolyn Fairbairn

Table 1: FTSE 100 directorships 2016-2020

FTSE 100 Directorships 2016-2020 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016

Female-held directorships 355 339 305 294 279

(34.5%) (32.1%) (29.0%) (27.7%) (26.0%)

Female executive directorships 31 28 25 25 26

(13.2%) (10.9%) (9.7%) (9.8%) (9.7%)

Female non-executive directorships 324 311 280 269 253

(40.8%) (38.9%) (35.4%) (33.3%) (31.4%)

Companies with female executives 28 25 22 21 20

Companies with at least 33% female directors 63 48 32 28 19

10 The Female FTSE Board Report 2020

The percentage of women in executive roles now stands at 13.2%. There

Table 2: The 28 FTSE 100 companies with female executive directors

Rank Company Female No. No. Executive Sector Women in

Olivia (Liv) Ruth

Land Securities Group

Speciality & Other

Pharmaceuticals and Emma Natasha

25 3i Group Plc 40% 4 1 GFD Private Equity Julia Susan Wilson

Chief People and

RSA Insurance Group

Barratt Developments Construction Jessica Elizabeth

Media Dame Carolyn Julia

Legal & General Group Michelle Sylvia

47 Johnson Matthey Plc 33% 3 1 CFO Chemicals Anna Olive Manz

47 National Grid Plc 33% 4 1 ED Electricity Lucy Nicola Shaw

2.1.2 Women in senior non-executive roles

Annette Elizabeth Court Christine Mary Hodgson Fiona Catherine McBain

Deanna Watson Oppenheimer Anita Margaret Frew Irene Mitchell Dorner

Cressida Mary Hogg Therese Marie Esperdy

12 The Female FTSE Board Report 2020

Figure 1: Chair of FTSE 100 board committees

“The continued and welcome progress of women on boards sadly doesn’t

Ann Francke OBE

14 The Female FTSE Board Report 2020

Organisation name Role name Individual name

3i Group Plc Audit and Compliance Caroline Janet Banszky

Admiral Group Plc Nomination and Governance Annette Elizabeth Court

Audit Karen Ann Green

Group Risk Jean Craig Park

Anglo American Plc Remuneration Anne L Stevens