Business, Innovation and Skills CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Dr Hazel Conley, Queen Mary, University of London, Dr Susan Durbin, University of the West of England, Professor Sian Moore, University of the West of England and Dr Tessa Wright, Queen Mary, University of London
Executive Summary
The Gender Equality Duty was more comprehensive in its approach to women’s equality than the EqA 2010.
It would be another backwards step to further weaken the public sector equality duty.
Including equality provisions in all public sector procurement would be an effective way of improving gender equality in both public and private sectors.
The equal pay reporting provisions in the EqA 2010 should be implemented in full.
There is growing and worrying evidence that low paid women are bearing the brunt of austerity measures in the UK.
Some good work on breaking down gendered segregation was undertaken during the Olympics, but this requires momentum to carry it forward.
Schools and careers services have an important but as yet underdeveloped role to play in encouraging girls into science and engineering.
Part-time work is generally low status and low paid and therefore its use to encourage women into the workplace needs to be considered carefully.
The voluntary nature of the recommendations in the Davies report are likely to greatly weaken its impact.
Senior women on boards are not always supportive of measures that will increase the number of women on boards.
Introduction
1. We are a small group of academics who have undertaken research on women in the workplace. We believe that our research is broadly representative of the majority of academic research in this field. Our combined research covers women working in the full spectrum of the labour market. Dr. Hazel Conley is a Reader in Human Resource Management at the Centre for Research in Equality and Diversity, Queen Mary, University of London and specialises in equality legislation, particularly the gender equality duty and the subsequent public sector equality duty. Dr. Tessa Wright is a Senior lecturer in Human Resource Management at the Centre for Research in Equality and Diversity, Queen Mary, University of London and specialises in labour market segregation, particularly women doing jobs traditionally carried out by men. Dr. Sian Moore is a Professor in Work and Employment Studies at the University of the West of England and specialises in low paid women workers working in the care sector. Dr. Susan Durbin is an Associate Professor in Employment Studies at the University of the West of England, Centre for Employment Studies research, and specialises in women in non-traditional professions (engineers and scientists) and women managers.
2. We are concerned that the questions covered by the inquiry seem to focus on women working in professional and senior jobs in the labour market. To do this would add to the strong criticism that equality of opportunity measures tend to benefit only middle-class women. It is important to acknowledge the continued role of occupational and sectoral segregation by gender and note that the majority of women in the workplace do not hold and can never aspire to senior positions in their workplace. None-the-less it is the low paid and often unacknowledged work of these women that maintain the remainder of the UK’s workforce, men and women, at work on a daily basis. Furthermore it is this majority of women whose working conditions are under severe threat by the government’s austerity measures. Therefore we believe that it is important to consider the full range of women in the workplace.
Do the Gender Equality Duty and the Equality Act go far enough in tackling inequalities, such as the gender pay gap and job segregation, between men and women in the workplace?
3. The gender equality duty was replaced by s.149 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) which introduced the public sector equality duty (PSED). However we believe that the gender equality duty was a far more comprehensive piece of legislation in relation to women in the workplace than its replacement in the EqA 2010. The general duty of the gender equality duty required public authorities to have due regard in all of their public functions to:
eliminate unlawful discrimination and harassment; and
promote equality of opportunity between men and women.
4. The specific duties provided a relatively detailed set of instructions about how public authorities should demonstrate that they had complied with the general duty:
To prepare and publish a gender equality scheme, showing how it will meet its general and specific duties and setting out its gender equality objectives.
In formulating its overall objectives, to consider the need to include objectives to address the causes of any gender pay gap.
To gather and use information on how the public authority’s policies and practices affect gender equality in the workforce and in the delivery of services.
To consult stakeholders (ie employees, service users and others, including trade unions) and take account of relevant information in order to determine its gender equality objectives.
To assess the impact of its current and proposed policies and practices on gender equality.
To implement the actions set out in its scheme within three years, unless it is unreasonable or impracticable to do so.
To report against the scheme every year and review the scheme at least every three years.
5. The general duty for the PSED in the EqA 2010 is more comprehensive than the gender equality duty because duty covers eight equality strands. However the specific duties for the PSED are far more limited in England than for the gender equality duty requiring only the publication of information on how the authority has met the general duty on a yearly basis and the setting of one or more measureable and specific equality objectives (to cover eight equality strands) on a four yearly basis. It is therefore possible that public authorities in England may no longer publish any equality objectives directly in relation to gender. Unlike the gender equality duty there is no specific mention of gender pay inequality in the PSED. The specific duties in Wales and Scotland are more comprehensive than in England and follow more closely the specific duties in the separate gender, race and equality duties.
6. It is our view that, whilst the gender equality duty was not implemented as well as it could have been by public authorities, it went much further than the EqA 2010 in its attempt to tackle pay and other gender inequalities in the workplace. Some of our joint research (Moore, Wright and Conley, 2011) has also identified that the gender equality duty would have been a useful tool for trade union equality representatives to raise issues of multiple and cumulative forms of discrimination in the workplace that affect black and minority ethnic women, older/younger women and women with disabilities. In addition Conley and Page (2010) found that equality impact assessments required in relation to the gender equality duty were particularly useful for mainstreaming gender equality issues into the day-to-day business of local authorities.
7. There has been considerable interest among policymakers and practitioners in using public sector procurement processes to introduce equality requirements into contracts with private sector providers. This is seen as part of a public authority’s responsibilities under the PSED. While it is generally felt that the current general duty covers procurement processes, many practitioners in this field would have liked to see a specific duty covering procurement as had been proposed during consultations on the EqA 2010, and as has been introduced in Scotland and Wales. At a recent workshop of experts and practitioners on using procurement to promote equality, procurement was felt to be a very powerful tool for engaging private sector employers in equality issues relating to their workforce. Evidence was presented of contract requirements that increased the number of opportunities for women in construction through the Olympics Women into Construction project and ongoing work since then, and of Transport for London’s contracting for the East London Line and EnterpriseMouchel (Lulham, 2011, Wright, 2012). Practitioners emphasised the importance of monitoring and auditing by the public authorities of contractors’ compliance with equality requirements, as well as sanctions if they failed to comply. Procurement officers felt that clear legal requirements and guidance on the need to consider equality in their activities would extend and strengthen work in this area.
8. However, perhaps the most pressing question in relation to the PSED is its future. The PSED has been targeted under the government’s “Red Tape Challenge” for further reform because it is considered to constitute a barrier to business efficiency. It is also important to note that the main enforcement provisions of the PSED—the requirement of equality impact assessments and judicial review have been further put into doubt by the Prime Minister in his recent speech to the CBI (see: http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speech-to-cbi/). Without the requirement for these measures it will be much more difficult for stakeholders to hold public authorities to account in relation to equality.
What steps should be taken to provide greater transparency on pay and other issues, such as workforce composition?
9. One of the innovative inclusions in the EqA 2010 is the provision in s. 78(1) which state:
“Regulations may require employers to publish information relating to the pay of employees for the purpose of showing whether, by reference to factors of such description as is prescribed, there are differences in the pay of male and female employees.”
It is our view that this provision would greatly improve transparency on pay. Unfortunately the current government has decided not to bring forward the regulations required to bring this provision into effect. We believe that a first step would therefore be to implement this provision in the EqA 2010. Our further view is that the exclusion in s.78(2) for businesses employing less than 250 people is counterproductive, given that this would prevent pay transparency for the majority of women workers in the UK. It must also surely be the case that this is a less onerous task for small employers than for large employers.
What has been the impact of the current economic crisis on female employment and wage levels?
10. Clear evidence from Office for National Statistics figures is emerging that the current economic crisis has impacted disproportionately on women, primarily because of their predominance in public service employment. It is extremely worrying that research by the GMB Union based on ONS data indicated that a substantial number of local authorities have met budget cuts by making redundancies only in areas where women are employed. It is difficult to see how this could occur if the gender equality duty was still in place (see: http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/other_news/women_hit_by_job_cuts.aspx).
11. There are also suggestions that the pressure on public finances has encouraged the further outsourcing of services and that commissioning processes have placed excessive pressures on the prices that contractors can charge, which in turn squeezes working conditions. The UK Homecare Association (UKHCA), which represents homecare providers from the independent, voluntary, not-for-profit and statutory sectors, has raised a number of issues about the impact of commissioning on workforce pay in the context of cuts to adult social care budgets and reduced or frozen fees (submission to Low Pay Commission, 11 September 2011). This has involved the widespread use of zero hours contracts which pay workers for contact time only; the social care system appears to increasingly survive on the basis of women’s unpaid labour time and the quality of care they can provide is inevitably compromised.
How should the gender stereotyping prevalent in particular occupations, for example in engineering, banking, construction, and the beauty industry, be tackled?
12. Others have presented evidence on this complex issue and our work supports the evidence and recommendations submitted to this inquiry by Women into Science and Engineering (WISE). Specifically we wish to highlight the value of providing concrete opportunities for women to experience non-traditional occupations, such as construction roles. Evidence from projects that have assisted women into manual trades finds no shortage of women interested in entering such roles, but instead barriers come from employer prejudice or unfamiliarity with employing women (Wright, 2011). Specific initiatives to provide opportunities for women in non-traditional areas are vital to raise awareness of women in these roles provide valuable work opportunities and shift employer attitudes towards the employment of women, such as the Olympic Women into Construction project (Foster, 2010; Thrush and Martins, 2011) or the Building Work for Women project run by Women and Manual Trades. However these initiatives need support, both financial and legislative, such as through procurement processes (see response above on the PSED and the Equality Act). In addition, the setting of targets for the employment of women and other underrepresented groups by public authorities to be met by the contractors can be a very effective tool for providing employment opportunities. The Women into Construction project has found that targets give an immediate opening with contractors to promote women’s employment and can result in the building of a positive relationship which can continue once the targets have been achieved. Targets set a level playing field for all contractors, making them much more amenable to engaging with ways to improve the gender balance of their workforce. Without targets, it can very difficult to get employers to consider this issue.
13. Women are also not encouraged to consider entering non-traditional occupations, such as engineering, by their parents and the education system. The problems associated with getting more young women interested in apprenticeship schemes has already been highlighted by expert witnesses to the Inquiry and suggestions made that schools should be utilised more as an avenue through which girls can explore non-traditional careers. Recent research with a group of engineers, carried out by Susan Durbin, explored the factors affecting career choices amongst male and female engineers. She found that there is very little support from teachers and careers advisers for both boys and girls when making decisions about subjects and future careers. She also found evidence of gender strereotyping at this crucial stage of education from both teachers and parents—while girls considered a career in engineering much earlier than boys, they faced discouragement from and resistance to their chosen careers from both teachers and parents, who stereotype what is an acceptable career for boys and girls. Understanding the educational backgrounds of those who choose a career in engineering therefore offers insights into why men and women choose this career path. It also helps to explain why there are so few women in engineering, where cultural and gender stereotypes are played out from the critical formative years, when there is very little help and support from teachers and careers advisers, through to the workplace. Durbin’s (2010) work with female scientists also highlights the problems women face once they have entered a male-dominated profession: a lack of female role models and mentors and a career structure that offers very little progression within their own organisation.
What more should be done to promote part-time work at all levels of the workplace and to ensure that both women and men have opportunities to gain senior positions within an organisation while working part time?
14. Whilst part-time working can allow men and women to balance their lives ONS statistics show that there is an increase in involuntary part-time working for both. Further there is evidence of increased use of zero hours contracts, in areas dominated by women such as retail and care, which mean that workers cannot plan their working lives and where organisational risk is transferred to individual workers and likely to place downward pressure upon weekly and annual earnings.
15. Part-time working at management levels remains rare in the UK: 27% of the UK workforce works part-time, of which 74% are women and just 6.5 percent of part-time workers are employed in the occupational category of managers and senior officials (Labour Force Survey 2012). Given the large numbers of women who work part-time, compared with men, and their relative rarity at management levels, this has important implications for the earnings potential of these women. Research by Durbin and Tomlinson (2010) demonstrates how women had voluntarily entered part-time working due to pregnancy and childcare, had enjoyed successful careers while working full-time but that their careers stalled once a transition to part-time working was made, many voicing frustration with their employment prospects both in the external and internal labour markets. This lack of any further progression was linked to senior management being perceived, by employers, as open only to those who were prepared to work full-time. Susan Durbin’s research with engineers identified similar problems for those who had returned after maternity leave. The women in the study all transferred to part-time working with their existing employer. There remains an un-tapped resource of experienced, qualified women who are under-employed in the UK job market, because employers are not prepared to consider part-time working as a serious option for managers. While the current economic recession has lead to some employers making more use of part-time working hours to avoid redundancies, this is a temporary measure and leads to higher levels of involuntary part-time working. Until employers are willing to seriously consider part-time working for managers, there will continue to be a shortage of part-time jobs at management levels in the external labour market.
To what extent have the recommendations in Lord Mervyn Davies’ Report “Women on Board” (published in February 2011) been acted upon?
16. The coalition government commissioned The Davies Report (2011) to explore the slow rate of progress on gender equality on the Boards of listed companies. This involved the identification of barriers that may be preventing women from reaching the boardroom, such as recruitment practices, including informal networks that were influential in Board appointments; a lack of transparency around selection criteria; and the ways executive search firms operate. These factors are believed to represent a significant barrier to women reaching boards and recommendations about how this situation could be addressed in terms of increasing the numbers of women on corporate boards. The report recommends that FTSE 100 Boards should aim for a maximum of 25% female representation by 2015.
17. An interim report, published six months after the launch of the Davies Report, states that the number of women holding board directorships in FTSE 100 companies has increased from 12.5% to 14.2%, through twenty-one new female appointments. However, the majority of these new appointments were to non-executive directorships.
18. The main problem with the recommendations set out in the Davies Report are that they are voluntary. Each recommendation includes the wording, “should be required” in relation to FTSE company commitment to achieve quotas of 25%, the reporting of numbers of female employees at all levels of the organisation, a policy on boardroom diversity, and information about the appointment process. All companies should report on these matters in their Corporate Governance Statements. Until FTSE 100 companies are required to issue statements with this information, a culture of secrecy and lack of transparency will continue. Lord Davies’ recommendations have not been heeded by the majority of FTSE companies. The news that the number of female FTSE CEOs will fall from three to one next year exacerbates the situation, with Cynthia Carroll of Anglo American and Dame Marjorie Scardino stepping aside. The sole woman on the list will be Burberry’s Angela Ahrendts, who has reiterated her opposition to quotas (People Management, December 2012). It appears that any progress that women have made is largely in the area of non-executive directorship appointments and at the same time, their representation at the top has deteriorated. The quota of a 25% female representation on FTSE Boards sits uneasily with most women surveyed in the report who stated that they did not believe quotas where the answer. From this it would appear that simply having women on boards does not guarantee greater support for proactive measures to increase the numbers of senior women.
Why are there still so few women in senior positions on boards, and what are the benefits of having a greater number?
19. The Davies Report is based upon the business case for increasing the numbers of women on the Boards of FTSE 100 companies and claims that companies with a strong female representation at board and top management levels perform better than those without. It is claimed that the presence of at least three women at board level can change boardroom dynamics and that between 20–30% at board or senior management levels produce the best financial results, a view backed up by other research (eg Kanter 1977; Rosener 1990; Trochia et al, 2011). It has also been claimed that women tend to be placed in precarious leadership positions in FTSE 100 companies, are often set up to fail and are found on boards of companies that are perceived to be performing poorly (the glass cliff metaphor) (Haslam et al, 2010).
20. The Davies Report highlights the business case for increasing the numbers of women on Boards: “inclusive and diverse boards are likely to be more effective, better able to understand their customers and stakeholder and to benefit from fresh perspectives, new ideas, vigorous challenge and broader experience, which in turn leads to better decision making”. While the business case is important, especially as it is the only argument for diversity to which employers will respond, it can also be argued that having more women on Boards is a matter of equality and social justice and offers an opportunity for women to have a stake in the running of some of the most important and powerful business organisations in the UK, as decision-makers. Senior management, especially at Board level, is the area where women have made least progress in terms of breaking the cycle of vertical job segregation and its related repercussions for the gender pay gap.
21. The business case for increasing the numbers of women on Boards, which assumes that equality can be achieved through number balancing, should be complemented by a focus on the qualitative, everyday, lived experiences of these “token” women, many of whom work in male-dominated environments, having struggled to reach such senior positions in a work environment where their careers may be viewed differently to those of men and where assumptions are made about their commitments and capabilities because they are women. Research carried out by Susan Durbin (which complements an existing body of academic research) with female senior managers, analyses the experiences of women in management in a sample of UK public and private sector organisations. It examines their careers, challenges they have faced, support from mentors and role models and networking behaviours. Understanding these women’s challenges, develops understanding not only of how other women can follow their examples, but also the difficulties of obtaining and maintaining a position in senior management, especially at Board level. While the Davies Report is useful in highlighting some of the challenges faced by women and possible solutions to this, it offers very little insight into the lived experiences and challenges faced by women entering and maintaining senior positions. More qualitative research is needed in this area, specifically research that considers women working in different sectors.
How successful is the voluntary code of conduct (a recommendation of the Davies Report) which addresses gender diversity and best practice, covering relevant search criteria and processes relating to FTSE board level appointments?
22. The executive search industry has agreed a voluntary code of good practice on diversity, which includes a provision that search firms should ensure that at least 30% of their lists of candidates are women. Just over twenty companies have signed up for this, since its launch. Susan Durbin has found evidence that women from the private sector were head-hunted for very senior positions, usually only because their names had been mentioned to head-hunters. It will be some time before we see any outcomes from this voluntary code of conduct as the appointees filter through.
References
Community Care 16.2.2011 “One-fifth of social care providers expect to close next year”.
Conley, H And Page, M (2010). “The Gender Equality Duty in Local Government: The Prospects for Integration” Industrial Law Journal Vol. 39 (3) pp 321–325
Durbin, S (2010). “SET Women and Careers: a case study of senior female scientists in the UK”, in A. Cater-Steel and E. Cater (eds.) Women in Engineering, Science and Technology: education and career challenges. IGI Global.
Durbin, S and Tomlinson, J (2010). “Female Part-time Managers: networks and career mobility”, Work, Employment and Society, 24, 4, 621–640.
Foster, C (2010), “The ODA: increasing the number of women working in construction”, Equal Opportunities Review (204).
Haslam, S A, Ryan, M K, Kulich, C Trojanowski, G and Atkins, C (2010). “Investing with Prejudice: the relationship between women’s presence on company boards and objective and subjective measures of company performance”, British Journal of Management, 21, 484–497.
Kanter, R M (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. USA: Basic Books.
Low Pay Commission, 2011. National Minimum Wage. Low Pay Commission Report 2011. Cm 8023. April. (The Stationery Office.)
Office for National Statistics Labour Market Statistics, July—September, 2012
Labour Force Survey (2012a). “EMP10 Part-time work and temporary work by occupation” http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/surveys/list-of-surveys/search/index.html?pageSize=50&newquerypart-time+work&survey=Labour+Force+Survey accessed 3rd April 2012.
Lulham, J (2011). “Transport for London’s approach to equality and supplier diversity through procurement”, International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 11(1/2): 99–104.
Moore, S, Wright, T, Conley, H (2012). “Addressing Discrimination in the Workplace on Multiple Grounds: The Experience of Trade Union Equality Reps” Acas research paper 02/12 Acas: London
People Management (December 2012). “40 is the new…target for diversity”, London: CIPD
Rosener, J B (1990). “Ways Women Lead”, Harvard Business Review, 63, 119–125.
Thrush, C and L Martins (2011). Lessons learned from the London 2012 Games construction project: Targeted approaches to equality and inclusion. London, Olympic Delivery Authority.
Torchia, M, Calabro, A and Huse, M (2011). “Women Directors on Corporate Boards: from tokenism to critical mass”, Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 299–317.
UK Homecare Association (UKHCA) (2012). Care is not a commodity, UKHCA, 2012, Sutton: UK Homecare Association.
Women on Boards: Davies Report (2011). London.
Wright, T (2011). Tackling gender segregation in the UK transport and construction sectors: recent initiatives and procurement strategies, Gower Handbook of Discrimination at Work, T Wright and H Conley. Farnham, Surrey, Gower Publishing: 293–307.
Wright, T (2012). “Promoting employment equality through public procurement: Report of a workshop held by the Centre for Research in Equality and Diversity”, Queen Mary, University of London, October 2012.