Mike Buchanan’s written submissions to House of Commons and House of Lords inquiries in 2012, and a remarkable admission by Professor Susan Vinnicombe

In 2012, the year before the launch of J4MB, I sent written submissions to a House of Commons inquiry, ‘Women in the Workplace’ – here (35 pages) – and a House of Lords inquiry, ‘Women on Boards’, here (3 pages).

Susan Vinnicombe, a British ‘professor’, has been for many years the leading academic proponent of ‘more women on boards’ in the world. She made a remarkable admission to the same House of Lords inquiry, when giving oral evidence. Her exchange with Lord Fearn (I’ve put in bold text, the most relevant section):

Lord Fearn: Is there a strong business case for improving the gender diversity of boards? If so, does it follow that there is also a strong business case for increased gender diversity on boards across the EU?

Professor Susan Vinnicombe: Yes. We believe that there is a very strong, compelling and comprehensive business case for gender diversity on boards, and it is a case which stands not only in the UK but across the EU and indeed globally. It sits on several broad platforms.

One is talent management. In all the developing countries of the world, 60% of the graduates are now women. We have a tremendous number of women coming in at graduate level to our big corporates. So the fact that we are seeing so few women at the top on our corporate boards is a sheer waste of talent. Talent management would be our first point concerning the business case.

Secondly, if corporates are to serve their markets well, it just makes sense that they need to be able to represent those markets. In many of the markets, women are the consumers, so it makes very good business sense to have women on the corporate boards of those companies.

Thirdly, there has been quite a push in the past – indeed, we ourselves have engaged in such research – to look at the relationship between having women on corporate boards and financial performance. We do not subscribe to this research. We have shared it with chairmen and they do not think that it makes sense. We agree that it does not make sense. You cannot correlate two or three women on a massive corporate board with a return on investment, return on equity, turnover or profits. We have dropped such research in the past five years and I am pleased to say that Catalyst, which claims to have done a ground-breaking study on this in the US, officially dropped this line of argument last September.

However, there are broader, non-financial performance indicators, such as corporate social responsibility, employee involvement, innovation, philanthropy and good communications, which have been seen to be connected to companies that have women on their boards.

The original blog piece on Susan Vinnicombe’s admission is here.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Campaign for Merit in Business – let’s get political

[Updated 28 February 2013]

The Electoral Commission has just registered our political party, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). More on this later in this post.

Campaign for Merit in Business, which was launched early in 2012, has made a remarkable impact in a relatively short time. We’ve proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the ‘glass ceiling’ is a baseless conspiracy theory. Through exposing as fantasies, lies, delusions and myths, the arguments which said that increasing gender diversity in the boardroom (‘GDITB’) will improve corporate financial performance, we’ve destroyed the long-vaunted ‘business case’ for GDITB. We continue to publicise five longitudinal studies, all of which show that GDITB leads to declines in corporate financial performance. What else would we expect when businesses aren’t free to select the best people for their boards, regardless of gender? Proponents are left with little other than misrepresenting correlation as causation in pursuit of their social engineering programmes.

The Conservative-led coalition no longer challenges our assertion that the impact of GDITB on UK plc will inevitably be a negative one. And yet it continues to actively pursue GDITB. DBIS continues to refuse to have a minister meet with us. What might explain this extraordinary state of affairs? We believe there are a number of strands in the answer:

1. David Cameron has an exaggerated fear of the ‘women’s vote’. He showed his feminist-friendly credentials soon after coming to power in 2010 by appointing the Labour peer Lord Davies of Abersoch to report not on whether to give effect to GDITB, but on how to do so. Indeed he showed those credentials in the autumn of 2009, when he announced he was setting up some all-women prospective parliamentary candidate (‘PPC’) shortlists. I’d once worked for the party at their London HQ (2006-8) but resigned my party membership in the autumn of 2009 when David Cameron announced his willingness to introduce all-women PPC shortlists for the forthcoming general election. I was later informed, by a senior officer in the party, that I was far from alone in having done so.

2. The leading minister at DBIS, the Lib Dem MP Vince Cable, holds extreme left-wing views, and is on record as saying that if he were Prime Minister, 50% of his cabinet would be women. He has publicly used – in his speeches and writings – utterly discredited research ‘evidence’ in support of GDITB.

3. The CBI, which should be defending its members’ rights to appoint directors as they see fit, is a part of the problem. For some years it’s actively promoted GDITB. Its current President, Sir Roger Carr (chairman of Centrica) is on record as stating that while he doesn’t personally believe GDITB improves corporate financial performance, he thinks it improves meeting ‘atmospherics’.

4. GDITB is being pursued vigorously because FTSE100 companies are under threat of legislated quotas (Davies Report – 2011) if they don’t ‘voluntarily’ achieve 25% female representation on their boards by 2015. This has resulted in a more than fourfold increase in FTSE100 female director appointments, from 12% of new appointments before the quotas threat (2010) to 55% (2012). Virtually all of the new female appointments have been as NEDs, an indicator of how shallow the available pool of qualified women is compared with the available pool of qualified men.

5. For some years government inquiries into such matters, while seeming to be open, have been deeply flawed. The most obvious recent example was the 2012 House of Lords inquiry into ‘Women on Boards’ which heard only from witnesses in support of GDITB. Many were professionally involved in the initiative. The level of witness challenging by the peers, including the Conservatives, was embarrassing to watch. In our written evidence to the inquiry we included details of four longitudinal studies which show that GDITB harms corporate performance. The final inquiry report explicitly rejected the idea that GDITB can lead to declines in corporate performance, without explaining why. We wrote to the inquiry’s chairwoman, Conservative peer Baroness O’Cathain, asking for an explanation, and didn’t receive one.

6. The House of Commons inquiry into ‘Women in the Workplace’, to which we gave oral evidence, is still ongoing, and we’re hopeful of more attention being given to our evidence than was the case with the House of Lords inquiry. But virtually all the witnesses before this inquiry, as with the House of Lords inquiry, have been pro-GDITB. We’ve made formal complaints about the misleading testimonies of a number of ‘witnesses’, one of whom amended her evidence as a result.

[New entry, 22 July 2013: The report of a House of Commons inquiry – ‘Women in the Workplace’ – was outrageous in its curt dismissal of our evidence base and arguments, and those of the renowned sociologist Catherine Hakim. The committee blindly accepted feminist arguments in relation to the genders in the workplace, while traditional Conservative perspectives on issues such as meritocracy were nowhere to be seen. Our critique of the report is here.]

The area of GDITB is but one of many areas in which governments actively discriminate for women and against men, because they’re fearful of the potential impact of ‘women’s votes’. Let’s consider just one example of that discrimination. Two-thirds of public sector workers are women, and the Equality Act (2010) effectively enables public sector bodies to discriminate on the grounds of gender in terms of recruitment and promotion, where one gender is ‘under-represented’. In practise only women in the sector are using the legislation, and only to advance women. Positive discrimination on gender grounds is illegal, so the government terms the phenomenon ‘positive action’. It amounts to exactly the same thing in practice.

Men have signally failed to co-operate effectively to defend men’s human rights over many years, but this is changing. Politicians of all parties have left us with no choice. We’ve taken the only logical step. We’ve formed a political party to challenge the government in numerous policy areas – including GDITB – where there’s relentless special treatment for women at the expense of men. I shall lead the party.

On 30 December the leading broadcaster and Daily Mail columnist Quentin Letts exclusively revealed our intention to launch the party.

The name of the party was revealed in an article published by the world’s most-visited and influential men’s human rights advocacy website, A Voice for Men.

If you believe in this cause, then please support us by making a donation or possibly by making a contribution in other ways. A qualified accountant has taken care of finances both before and since the party’s establishment. 100% of donations will be used to finance our campaigning work. Nobody associated with this campaign or our party derives any personal income from donations. Thank you for your interest in our work.

Mike Buchanan

mike@j4mb.org.uk

07967 026163

Helen Rumbelow: Single-sex experiments have had their day

My thanks to Jeff for pointing me to an article in yesterday’s Times. It includes this gem:

The economic case has been proved for diverse boardrooms. 

Well, I couldn’t let that one go without commenting, could I? My reply, which has been published, is here:

Our Facebook page is here, YouTube channel here, Twitter account here.

You can make a donation to support our work here. Nobody working for the party draws an income from the party’s income streams. You can help Mike Buchanan meet his personal living expenses through his Patreon page, or send him some Bitcoin, his account is 1EfWxqDAtgJDCR3tVpvVj4fXSuUu4S9WJf. Thank you.

Male FTSE350 company directors to start self-identifying as women to meet government gender quota targets

In 2012 Mike Buchanan gave oral evidence to a House of Commons inquiry, presenting the committee with the already well-established causal link between appointing mmore women to corporate boards, and financial decline. The business sector has cravenly complied with government demands for more women on boards since the publication of the Davies report in 2011.

A piece in today’s Times reports that if new proposals from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) are accepted, large firms will be able to meet government recommended gender quotas through male directors self-identifying as women. We were contacted yesterday by a (white male) executive director of a FTSE350 company who says he and another (white male) director plan to do exactly that, to avoid taking on useless “diversity hires”. They are also considering self-identifying as BME to meet a government recommended quota in that area.

Women on Boards – censorship of comments by “The Times”

Today’s edition of The Times included an article on women on boards. I posted three short pieces linking to the evidence of a causal link between more women on boards and corporate financial decline – the third was addressed to moderators – and all were removed very swiftly (or not published at all) by moderators. The first and third are here.

The evidence of the causal link is here. I am considering cancelling my subscription to The Times. We expect ideologically-driven censorship like this from The Guardian but not The Times, although The Times is resolutely uncritical of feminism and feminists, employing many feminist “journalists”.

Please support Mike Buchanan’s work on Patreon. Thank you.

Dame Helena Morrissey is a LIAR

My thanks to Jeff for this. The Mail has published a ludicrous article by Dame Helena Morrissey, titled, “Why women really SHOULD rule the world (or at least run more businesses), according to City superwoman DAME HELENA MORRISSEY”.

Dame Helena Morrissey is the mother of nine children and for many years a leading light in campaigns to increase the proportion of women on corporate boards in the UK. A central claim in her campaigning has been that evidence shows that appointing more women to corporate boards leads to improved corporate financial performance, i.e. there is a causal link.

SHE’S A LIAR.

She is mis-representing correlation as causation. We have been publicising the evidence of a causal link between more women on boards and corporate financial DECLINE since our launch in 2012. I presented much of that evidence to the House of Commons “Women in the Workplace” inquiry in November 2012, here (video, 56:49).

The eagerness with which senior businessmen – chairmen and CEOs among them – have jumped on the bandwagon of “more women on boards” is shameful. Blithering idiots, one and all.

It is high time the media exposed Morrissey as the egregious LIAR she has been for so many years.

—————————-

Our last general election manifesto is here.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.

Regular followers of this website are aware that neither Elizabeth Hobson, party leader, nor Mike Buchanan, party chairman, draw any income from the party’s income streams. They both work very long hours on behalf of men and boys (and the women who love them) so they’re unable to engage in paid employment.
We appeal to those who appreciate our work for financial support to help us meet our living expenses. We’ve set up Patreon pages for this purpose. Elizabeth’s page is here, Mike’s page is here. Thank you for your support.

Our public challenge of 38 people at “The Pipeline”

Our thanks to a number of people for pointing us to an article in today’s Daily Mail. The title is, “Want to boost profits? Hire more women! Large companies with no female executive committee members ‘missed out on £47 billion last year’, research claims.” The research is attributed to “The Pipeline”.

The 38 people presented as being “the team” at The Pipeline – mostly women, a few men – are here. I’ve just sent this public challenge to all 38 people through the only email on the website, admin@execpipeline.com:

A public challenge to all 38 people associated with your organization

Good afternoon. My attention has been drawn to an article in the Daily Mail today, in which your organization is reported as claiming that hiring more women to corporate boards will increase profits, i.e. you are claiming a causal link. Whether knowingly or otherwise, you are misrepresenting correlation as causation.

Since 2012 I have run Campaign for Merit in Business and until recently the political party Justice for Men & Boys. I am now the party chairman.

The only way to demonstrate a causal link between more women on boards, and a financial impact, would be through longitudinal studies. I know of six longitudinal studies which have demonstrated a causal link between more women on boards and corporate financial decline, and I know of none which have shown a causal link with corporate financial improvement. Can you please supply me with details of the longitudinal studies which form the basis of your claims? Thank you.

—————————-

Our last general election manifesto is here.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.

Regular followers of this website are aware that neither Elizabeth Hobson, party leader, nor Mike Buchanan, party chairman, draw any income from the party’s income streams. They both work very long hours on behalf of men and boys (and the women who love them) so they’re unable to engage in paid employment.
We appeal to those who appreciate our work for financial support to help us meet our living expenses. We’ve set up Patreon pages for this purpose. Elizabeth’s page is here, Mike’s page is here. Thank you for your support.

Adrienne Liebenberg, businesswoman who sued DS Smith, FTSE 100 company, after she was sacked from £200K-a-year job ‘because she did not want to talk about football and go out drinking with ‘the lads”, LOSES sexism claim

A piece in the Daily Mail from 30 June. Far too much of the piece is taken up with the unsubstantiated claims made by Adrienne Liebenberg. The start:

A £200,000 a year businesswoman who claimed she was sacked from a major FTSE 100 company because she did not want to discuss football and go out drinking with ‘the lads’ has lost her sexism claim.

Adrienne Liebenberg was fired from her job as Director of Global Sales, Marketing and Innovation at international packing conglomerate DS Smith in December 2018 after being told that her leadership style was ‘not working’.

However Ms Liebenberg who had previously worked at oil and gas giant BP Castrol – took the firm to an employment tribunal, arguing that she had been sacked because of her gender.

Ms Liebenberg alleged that she was marginalised at DS Smith because did not want to join in with the male banter and work style.

She claimed that key business decisions were often taken over boozy dinners with a ‘gang’ of senior male employees – where the practice was ‘bonding, drink, and football’.

It was an interesting case, which she lost. The Employment Tribunal report starts with this:

JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that:

1 The complaint of victimisation is dismissed upon withdrawal;
2 The complaint of direct sex discrimination is not well-founded; and
3 The complaint of indirect sex discrimination is not well-founded.

Over pp.39/40 we find this remarkable text (section #186):

In considering both those issues we took into account the following facts. Although it is common for the manufacturing industry to be male dominated and it is accepted that male engineering graduates significantly outnumber female engineering graduates in many countries, the extent of the lack of gender diversity at the senior levels of DS Smith is unacceptable and needs to be addressed. [J4MB emphasis] During the Claimant’s period of employment there were no women on the Group Operating Committee or on the Executive. 9 out of the 54 roles at the next level down, were filled by women. The Claimant was one of them and six were in HR and Legal functions. Within the top 150 employees, 19 were women. Most of those 19 women felt that gender was an obstacle to progression at DS Smith, albeit indirectly and unconsciously. They had concerns about unconscious bias and stereotypical assumptions. About half of them felt that DS Smith was not an inclusive workplace and had experienced or witnessed inappropriate behaviour (see paragraph 121 above). The Claimant had been referred to as a “girlie” and “little lady” and had been winked at. [J4MB: For £200,000 a year FTSE100 executives could refer to me by these terms and wink at me all day. No problem.] The Claimant was the only woman in R1’s Leadership team.

Since when is it part of an Employment Tribunal’s remit to make gender political points, especially points irrelevant to the case in hand? I’d have thought that a perfectly reasonable decision for DS Smith to take after this case would be great reluctance to recruit or promote women to senior positions – and who could blame them?

So, who were the members of the tribunal? They are described at the start of the report as:

Employment Judge H Grewal, Mr J Carroll and Mr D Kendall

A Google search for Grewal led me to this. Key content:

News Release issued by the COI News Distribution Service on 21 September 2009
The Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Jack Straw MP, has appointed Harjit Kaur Grewal to be a Salaried Employment Judge of the Employment Tribunals (England and Wales). Ms Grewal will be assigned to the London Central Region, with effect from 1 October 2009.

Notes to Editors
Harjit Kaur Grewal is 52. She was called to the Bar (G) in 1980 and was appointed as a Fee-paid Chairman of the Employment Tribunals (England and Wales) in 2003.

So Grewal is a feminist of about 63 years of age. She should be forced to retire early on the grounds of section #186 alone. Mr J Carroll and Mr D Kendall should hang their heads in shame for the section. But at least – miraculously – they unanimously arrived at a sound judgment.

—————————-

Our last general election manifesto is here.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.

Regular followers of this website are aware that neither Elizabeth Hobson, party leader, nor Mike Buchanan, party chairman, draw any income from the party’s income streams. They both work very long hours on behalf of men and boys (and the women who love them) so they’re unable to engage in paid employment.
We appeal to those who appreciate our work for financial support to help us meet our living expenses. We’ve set up Patreon pages for this purpose. Elizabeth’s page is here, Mike’s page is here. Thank you for your support.

Josie Cox, a contributor to Forbes, is a blithering idiot

Another ridiculous article, this time in Forbes, implying a causal link between increasing diversity on corporate boards and improved corporate performance – Coronavirus And The Gender Pay Gap: An Excuse To Avoid Uncomfortable Facts. Ms Cox writes:

Research shows that Fortune 500 companies with the highest representation of women on their boards significantly outperform others. And companies with a smaller gender pay gap are likely to be more successful at attracting female talent which translate directly into a healthier bottom line.

Followers of this website should not need no reminder of the evidence compiled by this website many years ago, demonstrating a causal link between increased gender diversity on boards and corporate financial decline. The evidence is here.

The blithering idiot ends her article with this:

What will differentiate a satisfactory performance from an outstanding one might well be culture. There are of course many ways to safeguard corporate culture, but treating gender pay gaps with the attention and urgency they deserve is certainly a good place to start.

The attention and urgency that gender pay gaps deserve are precisely zero.

—————————-

Our last general election manifesto is here.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.

International Men’s Day: Stephen Frost, CEO and Founder of Frost Included, is a mangina and a blithering idiot (but I repeat myself)

At the top of this website there’s a quotation from Milton Friedman, the late American economist who won the Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences in 1976:

Few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their shareholders as possible.

Those who work in “Diversity and Inclusion” are parasites, one and all. Some are manginas as well, selling out their fellow men for personal gain. An example is Stephen Frost, who had an article published in Forbes yesterday. His profile on the article:

I am CEO and Founder of Frost Included, a diversity and inclusion consultancy. I work with individuals, teams and organizations to embed inclusive leadership in their decision-making, to benefit them and the world at large. This involves work on strategy, data, governance, leadership and systems design. Previously, I was Head of Diversity and Inclusion at KPMG, the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and Stonewall’s first Workplace director. I was educated at Oxford and Harvard and my team and I have won numerous awards for our work. I have lectured at Harvard Business School, Singapore Management University and Sciences Po in France and I also serve as an Advisor to the British Government. I am the author of The Inclusion Imperative (2014), co-author of Inclusive Talent Management (2016) and co-author of Building an Inclusive Organisation (2019).

The Forbes article is the most ignorant article I’ve ever read about International Men’s Day, and it’s appropriate that Stephen Frost, a mangina, wrote it – Should We Be Celebrating International Men’s Day?

My day can only get better from here.

—————————-

Our last general election manifesto is here.

Our YouTube channel is here.

If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.