Skip to content

Is EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding a liar, incompetent… or both? Her speech to the Harvard Club (Belgium)

October 25, 2012

Is EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding a liar, incompetent… or both? The question occurred to me today as I read the transcript of a speech she gave just two weeks ago to the Harvard Club (Belgium) in Brussels. A link to the transcript:

In Mrs Reding’s speech we find gems such as the following:

First of all, there is a clear business case. Numerous studies – by Crédit Suisse, McKinsey, Deutsche Bank, Ernst and Young and others – show that companies with more women in top management enjoy better governance and financial performance. The McKinsey study has, for instance, shown that companies with women on their boards outperform their men only rivals with a 42% higher return in sales, 66% higher return on invested capital and 53% higher return on equity. Or take the Crédit Suisse study which shows that, over the past six years, companies with at least one female board member significantly outperformed those with no women on the board in terms of share price performance.

How could she have insulted her audience – presumably including senior business people – with this utter nonsense? As we’ve reported on this website, the Crédit Suisse report makes no claims of the causal link Mrs Reding clearly implies. Indeed that report states (p.17):

There is a significant body of research that supports the idea that there is no causation between greater gender diversity and improved profitability and stock price performance. Instead the link may be the positive signal that is sent to the market by the appointment of more women: first because it may signal greater focus on corporate governance and second because it is a sign that the company is already doing well.

Adams and Ferreira (2009) looked at the impact of greater gender diversity on 1,939 US stocks between 1996 and 2003. On the face of it, their data showed positive gender diversity effects. However, using two different techniques to handle reverse causation, they found statistically significant negative effects on profits and stock value following the appointment of women to the board.

Farrell and Hersch looked at 300 Fortune 500 companies between 1990 and 1999 and showed that firms with strong profits (ROA) are more likely to appoint female directors but that female directors do not affect subsequent performance.

Mrs Reding is also misleading about McKinsey reports. Not a single McKinsey report, to the best of our knowledge, claims a causal link. Most of their reports concede that an explanation for any apparent correlation might be that stronger-performing companies can better afford to indulge in initiatives such as ‘improving’ gender balance in their boardrooms.

Let’s finish with Mrs Reding’s breathtaking claim, ‘…companies with women on their boards outperform their men only rivals with a 42% higher return in sales, 66% higher return on invested capital and 53% higher return on equity.’ Again, this is correlation being cynically misrepresented as causation. Catalyst, the American feminist campaigning organisation which made such claims in its ‘Bottom Line’ report series, stopped making claims of positive causal links in September 2011. Why is Mrs Reding continuing to use Catalyst data in such a misleading way, and continuing to misrepresent studies? We ask again: is she a liar, incompetent… or both? We should be told, given that as EU taxpayers we’re collectively financing her very substantial salary and perks, and we have no means of voting her out of office.

From → Uncategorized

  1. Mike, we cannot stress enough that this is the Commissioner for Justice! Impressive, isn’t it? Faking public opinion, misrepresenting scientific data, inventing numbers (I bet not one scientist who isin his right mind will provide data that relates a 42% higher return for companies with women in boards as compared to their competitors). To see the madness in such claims it suffices to ask how this could have been measured. First you would have to form two groups. Companies with women on boards and companies without women. Than you would have to aggregate for both groups all of their returns in sales and compare them against each other, I can hardly think of a sillier thing to do. However, it fits Reding, who seems to have a fad for delusions, illusions and misrepresentations of all kind, false testimony, as expected of an EU Commissioner for Justice, or is it not?

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Eine Kommissarin für Justiz, die gegen geltendes Recht verstoßen will… « Kritische Wissenschaft – critical science
  2. Arguments for ‘improving’ gender diversity in the boardroom « Campaign for Merit in Business
  3. Arguments for ‘improving’ gender diversity in the boardroom « Fighting Feminism

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers

%d bloggers like this: