![Three years later and debate is under way about whether mandatory reporting has proved effective. Three years later and debate is under way about whether mandatory reporting has proved effective.](/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/silverstone-feed-data/67588fd0-bca8-4dfb-8476-7adf4853bd6f.jpg/r0_0_727_410_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
Harvey Norman's Gerry Harvey is known for being outspoken – whether sharing his views on the evils of online retailing, restrictive workplace laws or corporate governance types who frown on his role as executive chairman of the retailer.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
And he's no less blunt when it comes to the issue of gender equality in corporate Australia – and the chances of it ever being realised.
"We've got a campaign here to get 50 per cent women and we're not achieving it," he says. "We're well short."
Women make up 42 per cent of the retailer's workforce but just 26per cent of senior executives – although that figure does include a rare female chief executive, KatiePage.
Mr Harvey says while the company is working on boosting those numbers, he personally doubts they can be improved.
"If you put an ad in the paper for computers or electrical, you'd get 50inquiries and three are from women," he says. "So to have any ambition to have 50 per cent in either of those areas is ambitious. I don't know whether we'll ever get there."
It's a pessimistic view. But it's true that lifting the ranks of women in corporate Australia's highest echelons is proving a tortuously slow process – even after years of mandatory disclosure requirements.
A BusinessDay analysis of gender diversity among ASX100 companies has found that, while companies have steadily bolstered the number of female directors in the boardroom in recent years, there has been negligible progress when it comes to adding to the ranks of senior female executives.
In 2011, as corporate Australia braced for new diversity disclosure rules, BusinessDay surveyed the gender breakdowns published by ASX100 companies in their annual reports. It found that, on average, women filled 24 per cent of senior executive roles.
This year, BusinessDay repeated the exercise. Despite some companies dropping out of the index, others coming in, and differing interpretations of what constituted "senior executive" roles, the average figure suggested things have gone backwards: 23 per cent.
In contrast, the ranks of female directors have swelled from 13.4 per cent of the ASX200 in 2011 to 18.6per cent at September 30. Female directorships are more visible; they are much easier to measure and track, and are immediately disclosed by companies.
The lack of progress in senior executive ranks follows two years of mandatory reporting requirements, introduced by Labor, under which companies must disclose detailed gender breakdowns to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency.
It also comes after three years of Australian Securities Exchange guidelines that ask companies to publish, in their annual reports, the proportion of women on staff, in the "senior executive" ranks, and on the board – the figures on which BusinessDay's analysis is based.
The ASX also asks companies to publish gender diversity policies andtargets – and if they don't, to explain why.
Both measures came in the wake of an outcry about the small number of women rising to the top of Australia's biggest companies in what was widely viewed as a last-ditch bid to head off talk of introducing gender quotas.
Three years later and debate is under way about whether mandatory reporting has proved effective, or whether it merely constitutes more dreaded "red tape".
The Abbott government has considered watering down the reporting requirements, especially for smaller businesses. It has launched a review of the disclosure laws and has pushed back by a year plans for new disclosure, including pay levels for men and women and flexible work arrangements.
Jennifer Westacott, chief executive of the Business Council of Australia, has labelled Labor's laws as "a costly, time-consuming, report-style response ... to a very complex, very serious problem".
Mr Harvey doesn't support mandatory reporting "in theory", but he acknowledges it would be much tougher to get women to the top without it.
And Claire Braund, spokeswoman for advocacy and networking group Women on Boards, says the disclosure rules have been an essential "first step" to fixing corporate inequality.
Several high-profile male leaders, including Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson, defended gender reporting following Ms Westacott's comments, with Mr Parkinson saying it was critical to holding organisations accountable and not "just another form of red tape".
Not surprisingly, those companies with healthier statistics are the ones most willing to discuss the issue.
With a 54 per cent female "strategic management team", the highest rank of executives at a department store operator, Myer has the highest proportion of women senior executives in the ASX100. It is, in fact, the only company in the ASX100 with more than 50 per cent women in senior roles.
Myer group general manager of womenswear, Nicole Naccarella, attributes the company's success, in part, to identifying equal numbers of men and women for succession plans, and supporting women returning to work after childbirth with flexible hours and working arrangements.
Myer is closely followed by Flight Centre Travel Group, with a 72per cent female workforce and 46per cent employed as senior leaders.
At the other end of the scale, Alumina – with almost one in three of its workforce female – reported that no women had been appointed to its senior management team. Caltex, James Hardie, JB Hi-Fi and Mineral Resources also hold the dubious honour of having 5 per cent or less women in senior roles.
Others have wide gaps between the number of women in their workforce and women leading the company. At 84 per cent female, Ramsay Health Care has the ASX100's most women-dominated workforce. But just 25 per cent of its senior leaders are women – and it is one of just three ASX100 companies with no female director.
BusinessDay contacted companies including JB Hi-Fi, Ramsay, Sonic Health Care, building materials heavyweight James Hardie and bauxite miner and smelter operator Alumina, who did not respond.
Caltex, whose workforce is 34 per cent female but has no women in senior roles, admits it isn't happy with its ranking, and is aware it needs to do more.
"Diversity is a complex matter and we're focused on sustainable change rather than quick fixes," says Caltex spokesman Sam Collyer.
"While none of our CEO direct reports are currently women, we do have a number of women in very significant leadership roles in the second and third layers of our organisation."
Indeed, Caltex could argue it is unlucky to be ranked so low. Unlike other companies, it has interpreted the ASX's guidelines on "senior executives" to mean only those at the very top of the company – as has Alumina, the other company to confess to zero female senior executives.
Comparing apples with apples can be difficult when companies have the freedom to interpret what the ASX-specified "senior executive" role is – meaning the figures gleaned from the annual reports should be treated with some caution.
And the WGEA reports filed by Australian companies – which ask that staff numbers be disclosed in designated categories like "key management personnel" and "senior managers" – are also subject to wildly differing interpretations.
The WGEA wants more uniform reporting methods introduced so more accurate comparisons can be made. "I think the bigger problem is that the reporting format is not standardised," says Helen Conway, who leads the WGEA.
"But even the indicative data is showing a bit of a problem [and] we're starting to see people realise they need to address these issues."
In February, Ms Westacott pointed to these problems, saying the reporting allowed "no useful comparison because the nature of each business is so different".
But others argue that trying to compare companies with each other is besides the point – that companies should be measuring the data anyway, and using it as a valuable tool.
Tom Gorman, chief executive of logistics group Brambles, leads a male-dominated workforce in a male-dominated industry – just 17per cent of its employees are women, and its senior management stands at 15 per cent female.
"We set gender diversity targets not so much to benchmark against other companies but because, in any large organisation, what gets measured gets done," Mr Gorman says, "and we recognise that actively promoting women from within our ranks and actively recruiting them from outside is going to make our business stronger."
Brambles' board is 33 per cent female, and 24.5 per cent of all of its managers are women.
Mr Gorman says diversity "not just of gender, but in every sense" matters to Brambles, which operates in more than 50 countries. The company has set itself the target of reaching 30 per cent women in its executive leadership team by 2015, and 30 per cent in its wider management ranks by 2018.
Most companies surveyed by BusinessDay had a detailed gender diversity policy, and most had targets to increase female employees in senior roles.
The ASX's own analysis of the top 200 companies, released in April 2014, revealed that 86 per cent of companies had set "measurable objections" and those that did were best able to "demonstrate progressand communicate their commitment to diversity".
Caltex, under chief executive Julian Segal, has a target to increase the number of women in senior roles to 33 per cent by 2017.
AGL Energy, with just 10per cent of women in executive positions, told BusinessDay it wants to be known as an "employer of choice for women" and has introduced a raft of policies designed to improve its figures.
Insurance Australia Group is working towards appointing women in 33 per cent of senior roles by 2015. The ASX itself outlined its initiatives to increase gender diversity for FY14, which included targets, a requirement that at least one female candidate be shortlisted for every senior vacancy and extending flexible working arrangements.
Reading through the glossy annual reports of ASX100 companies – and the at times even glossier reports on corporate governance and sustainability – talk of diversity commitments and targets sounds very positive. But Ms Conway says some businesses are simply paying lip service to the process.
Just because all but three companies on the ASX100 have at least one woman on the board, in contrast to the situation just three years ago, does not mean the job is done. "Some people think if you have one woman on the board, they can tick a box and leave it at that," she says. "But if you want equal representation, you need 50-50."
Blackrock Investments releases a yearly analysis of gender reporting by ASX200 companies. This year, it was scathing of most companies' efforts to increase diversity, labelling them as "perfunctory". It found that just 22 per cent of company disclosures were "excellent" or "good" – 17per cent were poor and 11per cent non-complying.
Blackrock concluded that, while progress had been made in increasing the numbers of female directors and women in the very top "key management personnel" rank, diversity at other executive levels was lagging.
"Change has to come from within companies; it's a cultural thing and it has to be driven at the top," Blackrock director of corporate governance Pru Bennett said.
One maddening question is why progress on executives has been so slow, when the ranks of female directors have soared.
Back in 2011, there were warnings from the likes of Penny Bingham-Hall that the rush to court women from boards could have a "hollowing out" effect in executive ranks. This may be coming to pass.
The so-called "tick-the-box" approach referred to by Ms Conway and Blackrock may also help explain the situation – by disclosing numbers and finding a female director, companies may feel they are doing enough.
More than a few companies insist they have no issue – tersely stating in their annual reports that they recruit and promote on merit.
But while companies must balance the drive for diversity with finding "the right person for the job", it appears the odds remain stacked against women to even score an interview.
Research by Hays and Insync Surveys this year revealed that managers are more likely to invite a male candidate for an interview than a female applicant, even when the two resumes were exactly the same.
Hays Australia & New Zealand managing director, Nick Diligiannis, says: "We've seen countless cases of hiring managers who are presented with a gender diverse shortlist but select more men than women to interview. Few would admit to bias but our survey results show it does exist."
Investors are starting to draw a link between diversity at the top and financial performance, says Australian Council of Superannuation Investors executive manager of governance and engagement, EdJohn.
"It's based on the belief that skilled and diverse boards make for better-governed companies," MrJohn says.
A joint report by human resources giant DDI and global research organisation The Conference Board studied diversity and performance at more than 2000 companies worldwide. Published in August, it revealed the top 20 per cent performing companies had their leadership made up of an average 37per cent women. The bottom 20per cent had an average of 19 per cent women in leadership roles.
The findings are backed up by 2013 Credit Suisse research that suggests gender diversity brings more perspectives, leads to greater effort and better decisions made.
ANZ chief executive Mike Smith has been a long-time supporter of bringing more women into senior roles, and he says he is frustrated by the corporate world's slow response.
"It is an issue that the business community needs to work harder and more creatively to address. It feels like we have been talking about this for a long time," he told BusinessDay. He points to the existence of the "leadership lottery", in which the career trajectory of talented women can depend almost entirely on who their leader is and what that leader's attitude to women is like.
"The feedback from women was that they tended to excel with leaders who demonstrate strong values, are inclusive and supportive during the various stages of their life and career, so perhaps we need to do more to celebrate and reward those who have a track record of hiring, developing and advancing women."
Meanwhile, the Abbott government's review of mandatory reporting, announced in April, is under way through the Department of Employment. Submissions closed at the end of September.
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women, Michaelia Cash, says the government is committed to increasing gender equality and diversity in the workplace. "However, we are also keen to ensure that employers are not unnecessarily burdened with red tape."
The overall cost of gender reporting, $9 million, is cited as a reason by the government to wind back requirements. But in its submission to the review, Women on Boards argued the process's guiding questions are "focused almost entirely on costs to individual businesses".
"In regulatory reviews, it is customary to examine benefits as well as costs ... it means the clear public and economic benefit of having industry-specific educational benchmarks made widely available may be overlooked."
In August data showed the gender pay gap in Australia has widened to a 20-year high. The Australian Bureau of Statistics shows the difference is now 18.2per cent, the highest level since 1994, when records were first collected.
The federal government and businesses are under pressure to address the growing gap. But there's little agreement about how to do it.
Norway, Spain, France, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands have all introduced board quotas for women in recent years for the corporate world. With progress in Australia seemingly stalling, is it time to revive the quota debate?
Ms Conway, for one, says quotas are not the answer. "And the reason we say that is that, frankly, quotas haven't worked."
She points to Norway, where companies have complied with board quotas but failed to promote more female executives. "If they truly believed in gender equality in the workplace, they would have done something to improve women in senior roles and they haven't."
What is crucial, says Ms Braund, is that transparency and disclosure around gender diversity continues.
"The first thing you do to address a deficit in any aspect of your business, and that includes female talent management, is to get the data to find out what it is you're dealing with," she says. "And it's very difficult to do without having a set of numbers you can put in front of people." Ms Conway says that while the data isn't perfect, it's better than not knowing what is happening.