AIM-listed companies stall on gender diversity

/ Mike Buchanan

Good news. From the Wiki page on AIM:

AIM (formerly the Alternative Investment Market) is a sub-market of the London Stock Exchange that was launched on 19 June 1995 as a replacement to the previous Unlisted Securities Market (USM) that had been in operation since 1980. It allows companies that are smaller, less-developed, or want/need a more flexible approach to governance to float shares with a more flexible regulatory system than is applicable on the main market.”

From the Wiki page on the FTSE350:

“The FTSE 350 Index is a market capitalization weighted stock market index made up of the constituents of the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 indices.[1] The FTSE 100 Index comprises the largest 100 companies by capitalization which have their primary listing on the London Stock Exchange, while the FTSE 250 Index comprises mid-capitalized companies not covered by the FTSE 100, i.e. the 101st to 350th largest.

From the article:

FTSE 350 firms have a voluntary target of 40 per cent female board representation, which the study found only 11 per cent of AIM-listed companies would currently hit.

Meanwhile, the number of all-male boards on London’s junior stock market increased, [J4MB: Good news.] with 38 per cent having no female directors.

Indigo founder Bernadette Young said the results were “disappointing” [J4MB: Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.] and AIM companies “need to consider adopting clearer diversity ambitions”. [J4MB: No, they don’t need to either consider it, or do it. They should continuing recruiting directors as they see fit, a cornerstone of capitalism.]

“Gender diversity transformed over the last few years in the FTSE 350 and reporting has been a big driving factor,” Young told City AM.

She called for transparent search and selection processes to “eliminate unconscious bias”.

[End of extract.]

William Collins’s excellent article on unconscious bias is here.

—————————-

If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.

We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.

Our YouTube channel is here.

3 thoughts on “AIM-listed companies stall on gender diversity”

  1. So now lets have a look at what feminists say about women in business:

    1. They are amazing
    2. Risk averse
    3. Lack confidence
    4. Aren’t assertive
    5. like meetings
    6. Avoid individual responsibility and believe in “collective responsibility”
    7. Feel conflicted between home and family relationships and the demands of work.
    8. Suffer much more than males from anxiety and depression in general and at work.
    9. Need “flexible working” to achieve “work/life balances.
    10. Need prolonged time off for pregnancy
    11. Need time off for the negative effects of menstruation
    12. Need time off for the negative effects of menopause
    13. Need time off or special treatment to attend to their “mental health”
    14. Need workplace mentors to support them
    15. Need time for additional training to address things like 3 and 4, and to bring them up to speed when they’ve had time off.
    16. Are apparently putty in any males hands and find it hard to not be persuaded to follow what a man tells them to do..
    17. Are anxious about males and find themselves fearful of “unwanted compliments”, “talking loudly” and “looking”
    18. Need the protection of an HR department.

    Now of course men are definitely not “amazing” but given all the things listed by feminists clearly are likely to be a lot less trouble and able to “get on with it” in work. So I’m sure any sensible smaller company without the cushion of large size will be just a bit put off by the lists of special considerations and “support” feminists tell us women need. And of course the list isn’t the full one others include finely calibrated office heating, larger toilet areas labelled for different genders (and policed), their own carriages spaces on public transport, support in managing working relationships (surprising given to supposed greater “emotional intelligence” of women) and lots of nebulous things called “support” which really add up to getting others to do parts of your work for you! Personally of course I don’t think many of these things are true, and many “no nonsense” women I have worked with regard it, rightly, as painting women as delicate flowers unsuited to business and management. However these are the things constantly trumpeted by feminists and taken together make a good case for being concerned about the productivity of women in your workforce. And of course although not “amazing” men it seems are like “gods” in comparison having, apparently, no need for any support at all!

    Like

    Reply

      • While La Bindel was briefly a lecturer at a university it had a special bursary for women, to do civil engineering. In the promotional blurb it promised applicants that no longer would civil engineers have to wear hard hats or muddy boots or have cold site offices in containers, because the modern civil engineer had comfortable offices and lots of stimulating meetings and creative conversations. It was in fact unintentionally satirical. It was shortly after that there was the news of the collapse of a footbridge at a Florida University designed by a feminist civil engineer and built by a woman owned construction company. The design was defective and the wrong sort of cement had been used. Possibly the odd visit to the site might have picked up the defects! In a sense the Ad. for the course was honest because it made it clear that what put women off was the idea of ruining their hair do and getting dirty cold or wet, and not having to deal with lowly workers on site. As I say it was unintentionally satirical, painting women as vain, unwilling to get their hands dirty and uninterested in the practical detail!

        Like

Leave a comment