JUST four in ten boardrooms are complying with a government-led recommendation that all major companies should have at least 33% woman representation.
The latest figures indicate an increase in representation of women on the boards of the UK's 350 biggest companies, with a 3.8% rise in the last year.
However, 41% of FTSE 350 companies have still not reached 33% woman representation.
According to an analysis the boards of the country's 100 biggest firms are faring slightly better with women taking on 36% of current board roles.
But that is still some way from a 50-50 split which just nine out of 100 companies have achieved, according to the report by graduate recruitment firm Debut.
According to the Employer Insights study, mining firm Antofagasta had the least diverse boardroom out of the FTSE 100 with just two out of ten members being women.
They were followed by Paddy Power owner Flutter Entertainment with three out of 14 on the board being women and IT giant Aveva, steelmakers Evraz, mining firm Glencore and tobacco group Imperial Brands having two out of nine of the leadership being female.
Drinks giant Diageo was identified as having the "most diverse" board room with five of the eight directors being women.
Also "leading the way" according to the analysis was advertings firm Auto Trader Group, property website Rightmove, water company Severn Trent and housebuilding giant Taylor Wimpey also had more women than men in the board room. Across sectors, the construction and materials industry was the only one to achieve a 50-50 male-female split at boardroom level, closely followed by oil and gas producers (46% female) and media and personal goods (both 45%).
But Debut said 11 (28%) of industries still fell below the government target, with those in the industrial metals and mining industry having the fewest female board members (22%), followed by food producers (25%) and food and drug retailers (28%).
A Debut spokesman said: "The boardrooms of the country’s top businesses have long been male-dominated spaces, with the government recommending back in 2015 that the boards of all FTSE 350 companies should be 33% by 2020.
"Looking at the current makeup of the boards of the FTSE 100 reveals that on the whole, things do seem to be improving. However just nine out of 100 companies have achieved a 50-50 split in the board room and almost a third of companies are yet to meet the 33% target."
The minimum target for women on FTSE350 boards and in senior leadership two layers below the board was set in 2016 by the independent, government-sponsored Hampton-Alexander Review.
Business Secretary Alok Sharma has been pushing for all companies to take action to ensure they meet the 33% target ahead by the end of the year.
The figures also revealed that 18 boards within the country's 250 biggest companies remain ‘one and done’ boards, where companies appoint a single woman board member and go no further.
Antofagasta’s annual 2019 annual report stated: “Gender diversity is an important part of the group’s diversity objectives.
“Two of the five board appointees since 2014 have been women and the board actively seeks to increase female representation beyond the current level, while ensuring that appointments continue to be made on merit.”
A separate survey found that the gender pay gap had narrowed sharply last year - thanks to more women moving into boardroom level jobs.
Hearing from diverse employment is a priority for young jobseekers with non-white respondents (94% to 81%) and women (93% to 81%) It found that on average a woman working full-time is now paid 7.4 per cent less than her male counterpart, a fall from 9 per cent the year before.
The margin has more than halved since the start of the millennium.
And the biggest boost for female workers in the year to April was in pay rates for company directors, managers and senior officials, the Office for National Statistics said.
These roles saw the pay gap narrow from 16.3 per cent to 9.9 per cent, reflecting "some signs of more women holding higher-paid managerial roles".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel