Do companies in the US, UK and Canada have this kind of stuff to deal with?
I don't give a fuck if my super is making me money from investments run by NAZI's as long as it's making me money.
How the fuck do super funds get to be all socially 'responsible' all of sudden?
Hannah WoottonReporter
May 17, 2023 – 12.01am
Save
Share
Superannuation funds are threatening to vote against the election of male directors on 97 ASX 300 companies, including Harvey Norman, JB Hi-Fi, Caresales.com, Reece, Wisetech and Goodman Group, because they do not meet ramped-up expectations that 30 per cent of their boards are women.
After a decade-long campaign to improve gender diversity on the ASX, the Australian Council of Superannuation Funds (ACSI) said gender equality “laggards” needed “a wake-up call” and introduced a formal voting policy aimed at getting boards to 30 per cent women.
ACSI chief executive Louise Davidson warns that funds may vote with their feet on gender equality issues. Wayne Taylor
Under the new rules, proxy adviser group ACSI may recommend that its 26 industry fund members flex their investor muscle to push recalcitrant companies to improve gender diversity on boards by voting against male director nominations.
Women currently hold an average of 34 per cent of ASX 300 board seats, but there are 95 companies with less than 30 per cent female directors.
“While our new policy is still not representative of equality, it’s time to lift the game,” ACSI chief executive Louise Davidson said.
1 year1 day
Updated: May 17, 2023 – 10.23am. Data is 20 mins delayed.
View HVN related articles
Advertisement
The target of the votes against election would likely be the “director who is up for election who is considered most responsible for this parlous situation”, Ms Davidson said, such as the chairman or head of the nominations committee.
Ms Davidson said ACSI was already engaging with companies that were “laggards”.
“We’re giving them some lead time on how they’re going to manage this ahead of AGM season ... we [want] to understand whether they have imminent appointments that they haven’t yet announced, what sort of work they’re doing to make sure that they fix this,” she said.
“We acknowledge that some of these conversations will take some time, and we will exercise discretion depending on what sort of plans companies put in place.”
While all 95 companies could currently face “against” recommendations, Ms Davidson believed that “following engagement, the number will be much smaller”.
ACSI was also pushing companies to go beyond 30 per cent women on their boards, with 40 per cent their “ultimate goal”.
Ms Davidson said ACSI’s gender diversity concerns were an area of “very common interest” to its industry super fund members, which collectively manage more than $1 trillion of Australians’ and New Zealanders’ retirement savings.
“The old excuse was that there weren’t enough women with ‘appropriate’ qualifications, but Australian boards have dispelled that argument – so far this year, 45 per cent of board appointments have been women.”
HESTA, Cbus, Aware Super, AustralianSuper and Rest Super in particular viewed gender diversity as “being a really fundamental driver of value”, Ms Davidson said.
ACSI’s new policy follows $72 billion industry super fund HESTA revealing that it was considering dumping mining companies that had failed to meet its standards on stamping out sexual harassment.
HESTA released a report on Monday confirming it had engaged with 19 companies across its $3 billion mining portfolio on their treatment of female staff, but that two had failed to participate.
It warned that companies falling short in this area were exposing themselves to serious legal risk, suggesting it may reduce its exposure or target their boards as a result.
But Ms Davidson said ACSI was unlikely to adopt any hard targets relating to the prevention of sexual harassment among companies in which members were invested.
“Our gender diversity area voting policy is one of the few areas where we have such a hard target, and I think it’s because it’s such a measurable area,” she said.
I don't give a fuck if my super is making me money from investments run by NAZI's as long as it's making me money.
How the fuck do super funds get to be all socially 'responsible' all of sudden?
Harvey Norman, JB Hi-Fi face ‘no’ votes as funds harden gender targets
Hannah WoottonReporter
May 17, 2023 – 12.01am
Save
Share
Superannuation funds are threatening to vote against the election of male directors on 97 ASX 300 companies, including Harvey Norman, JB Hi-Fi, Caresales.com, Reece, Wisetech and Goodman Group, because they do not meet ramped-up expectations that 30 per cent of their boards are women.
After a decade-long campaign to improve gender diversity on the ASX, the Australian Council of Superannuation Funds (ACSI) said gender equality “laggards” needed “a wake-up call” and introduced a formal voting policy aimed at getting boards to 30 per cent women.
ACSI chief executive Louise Davidson warns that funds may vote with their feet on gender equality issues. Wayne Taylor
Under the new rules, proxy adviser group ACSI may recommend that its 26 industry fund members flex their investor muscle to push recalcitrant companies to improve gender diversity on boards by voting against male director nominations.
Women currently hold an average of 34 per cent of ASX 300 board seats, but there are 95 companies with less than 30 per cent female directors.
“While our new policy is still not representative of equality, it’s time to lift the game,” ACSI chief executive Louise Davidson said.
RELATED QUOTES
HVNHarvey Norman
$3.620 -1.09%1 year1 day
Updated: May 17, 2023 – 10.23am. Data is 20 mins delayed.
View HVN related articles
JBHJB Hi-Fi Limited
$46.110 -0.58%GMGGoodman Group
$20.230 -0.78%Advertisement
The target of the votes against election would likely be the “director who is up for election who is considered most responsible for this parlous situation”, Ms Davidson said, such as the chairman or head of the nominations committee.
Policy escalation
The policy is an escalation of ACSI’s previous stance of recommending funds vote against male director appointments to boards that only had one or no women on them.Ms Davidson said ACSI was already engaging with companies that were “laggards”.
“We’re giving them some lead time on how they’re going to manage this ahead of AGM season ... we [want] to understand whether they have imminent appointments that they haven’t yet announced, what sort of work they’re doing to make sure that they fix this,” she said.
“We acknowledge that some of these conversations will take some time, and we will exercise discretion depending on what sort of plans companies put in place.”
While all 95 companies could currently face “against” recommendations, Ms Davidson believed that “following engagement, the number will be much smaller”.
ACSI was also pushing companies to go beyond 30 per cent women on their boards, with 40 per cent their “ultimate goal”.
Ms Davidson said ACSI’s gender diversity concerns were an area of “very common interest” to its industry super fund members, which collectively manage more than $1 trillion of Australians’ and New Zealanders’ retirement savings.
Value add
“It’s about boards having access to a broader range of views and experiences ... if most of your customers are women, why would you not have any women on your board?” she said.“The old excuse was that there weren’t enough women with ‘appropriate’ qualifications, but Australian boards have dispelled that argument – so far this year, 45 per cent of board appointments have been women.”
HESTA, Cbus, Aware Super, AustralianSuper and Rest Super in particular viewed gender diversity as “being a really fundamental driver of value”, Ms Davidson said.
ACSI’s new policy follows $72 billion industry super fund HESTA revealing that it was considering dumping mining companies that had failed to meet its standards on stamping out sexual harassment.
HESTA released a report on Monday confirming it had engaged with 19 companies across its $3 billion mining portfolio on their treatment of female staff, but that two had failed to participate.
It warned that companies falling short in this area were exposing themselves to serious legal risk, suggesting it may reduce its exposure or target their boards as a result.
But Ms Davidson said ACSI was unlikely to adopt any hard targets relating to the prevention of sexual harassment among companies in which members were invested.
“Our gender diversity area voting policy is one of the few areas where we have such a hard target, and I think it’s because it’s such a measurable area,” she said.
