Harassment and gender equity

Gender equity, harassment and preventions

A couple of days ago, I thought that I hit on a strategy to prevent harassment and systemic bigotry (essentially) against women, especially those in the workplace...and perhaps, beyond. It seemed that everywhere one turned, women were subjected to abuse. Even Dustin Hoffman, so admired by many, has been scooped up in these revelations. 

In my hubris (because that is what it was), I identified 3 areas for consideration including political, economic and social systems. I believed,  possible only in the intellectually blind, that through quotas, encouragement and those arguments acknowledging the qualifications of women for leadership positions, the scourge could be erased. 

Wrong.

Stupid me. 

My partner asked...what happened to common decency, aka, civility?

I guess one would need to revisit Jane Austin to find such a period?

My research was faulty. 

Political

In many countries, women in legislative functions are a relatively recent phenomenon. (1907-Finland;1919-UK; 1922-Sweden; 1963-Singapore; 1973-Switzerland). the problem is that merely representing women...or having female elected reps is not enough, especially if an election comes without executive authority/power. 

So, if we consider the Nordic countries, it was not until the 1970's that women held even 20% of seats in government. Did this represent a critical mass? In 2004, in Sweden could count 45% of elected reps being female. Or did that constitute a critical mass? By 2005, 50% of cabinet positions held in that country were held by women. 

So, might one say that a longer history of women in elected positions would lead to greater social equity (and therefore less harassment)?

Evidently not.

There is some evidence to suggest, in fact, that as women secure positions of authority, a kind of placid contentment sinks in and society moves onto to other issues. 

So, without evidence, we might conclude that societies with women with a shorter history of involvement in executive positions are more likely to aggressively assure themselves that women are to be treated with respect owed as human beings. 

Maybe.

What has been found is that in those countries where women figure prominently in the legislature, women also figure prominently on corporate boards. 

Pay Equity

What one earns is typically a badge denoting social status within and outside of organizations. However, while the principle of equal pay for equal work has been generally endorsed across western societies, there remains a persistent gender pay gap. Even in a highly regulated labour market such as Australia, the gap between men and women is over 10%. In the US, the least regulated of the OECD countries, the gender pay gap is a whopping 25%-30%. 

So, in this case, at least , and as far as women nominated to corporate boards, those countries with a smaller gender pay equity gap, women are more likely nominated and appointed to corporate boards. 

What's next?

How well do companies with women in leadership positions-or with a critical mass on corporate boards- fare in terms of ethical conduct? That will be my next look at the issue of harassment.

NBPSPP and Independence

More on independence. 

The independent board leader should be accountable to the Board for:

• regular assessments of members and committees, as well as the leadership
• reporting the results of these assessments to the board
• succession planning both of management and of the board.

By implication, independent board members form the majority of 3 committees:

• remuneration/compensation
• nominating 
• audit

The Nominating Committee, which NBSPP does not have but defers this work to the governance committee. This is not unusual. However, it becomes a significant job and ought to handled by independent directors. 

• the G/C takes responsibility for the Risk Management Program
• It has responsibility for induction/orientation of directors
• But it also has the responsibility for succession planning and the evaluation of members, committees and the leadership of the Board. And, while the result of such an evaluation may not be revealed to the members, members do need to know that there is a process, that it is implemented and that this is done annually.
• The Governance Committee also has the responsibility to insure that the Board has acted in compliance with the By-laws and is compliance with emerging governance trends and legislation. There has been no report about this to the annual meeting. 

The Compensation Committee is to be composed of independent directors. This committee reviews both executive compensation and compensation arrangements for board members. The results of this is to be reported separately to the members. The compensation arrangements need to be linked to performance in managing risk. in our case this is not done, there is no compensation committee and there is no say on pay by members, even as an advisory vote. 

As noted yesterday, the Audit committee ought to be composed of independent directors. The chair of our Audit Committee is not independent and is led by the Chair of the Board, who is not independent. Effectively, therefore, the board oversees the audit of itself. 

Great work if you can get it. 

1. How effective is the Pensions' internal controls?
2. What is the extent and frequency of risk management reports and monitoring?
3. What is the extent and frequency of the identification of failings an the actions to correct those?
4. What is the scope of management's risk monitoring?
5. How effective is the Plan's public reporting?

Finally, have these committees used external advice on any of its work?

How hard is it to be the independent chair of any of these committees?

Its real hard, the time commitment is more than showing up for a meeting. Each Chair has a responsibility for transparency and disclosure. 

1. be aware of policies consistent with the proper operation, reporting of these committees.
2. must report same to the members.
3. must meet , without management, the internal auditor (for the Chair of the Audit Committee).
4. must report information to the board
5. and must be an expert on the matters before each committee. 

Risk Questions for consideration

1. Does the Plan have clear objectives? (I don't see them)
2. Have these been communicated to the plan members? (no)
3. Are significant risks assessed on an ongoing basis? Risk categories for review would include:

• market
• environmental
• liquidity
• legal
• legislative
• technological
• reputation
• business probidity. (nope)

What risks are acceptable to the board and to the membership? (don't know)

Being on a pension board is not as easy as it looks. Tomorrow, we will look at the stewardship principles which the Board of NBPSPP, as an Institutional Investor, needs to take into consideration, to do its job properly.