Why Women in Business?

I attended the 2015 WeConnect International conference in Toronto this week, and what an organization it is. Astrid Pregal and Elizabeth Vasquez have been involved in the movement of driving more opportunity to women led business now for more than 20 years. It is truly extraordinary what they have accomplished.

I learned a lot at the conference this week and thought that I would share just some of what I learned. A number of companies now have diversity programs intended to ensure that more spend is directed to women led businesses, but none of the companies with diversity programs are required to report the spend allocated to diverse suppliers nor the percentage directed to those companies of their spend overall. A number of companies will only consider a minority business minority or women owned if that company is “certified”. However, in some instances, a man’s wife is listed as the owner and occasionally that woman masks their involvement in the company to obtain certification. There is literally an industry that has developed via certification, and while weconnect led that initiative there are over 75 companies now that certify women or minority led companies. The cost of participation in these organizations is significant to a number of small women led companies and in some instances they feel as though corporate clients will award them opportunities through association or certification just because, which isn't at all reality.

Women are competing very well in contracts under 1M, however in the absence of companies not willing to come forward with spend, the actual number that has been referenced is that less than 2% of most fortune 1000’s annual spend is directed to women and minority led corporations. Why is that? Is it because their solutions don’t measure up to their male counterparts? Most companies, including those in the room this week, will say that their women led suppliers outperform their male led suppliers and drive innovation and performance that surpass the norm so we know it's not performance.

I was asked a question on a panel about the W20, and had to do some research as a result. It seems that the Turkish Prime Minister and many other leaders are starting to realize that women run and manage households, and have been doing that fairly well. They make 85% of all purchase decisions involving those households from banks to insurance, telecom to retail and oil and gas. Today Women represent over 60% of the University population. When a woman makes money her household benefits, her children benefit, and the local economy benefits and yet globally over 40% of women live in extreme poverty, and many of those are single parents.

In Canada the stats are as follows;

On average, 9% of people living in Canada are poor. However, some groups are much more likely to be poor than others:

• Aboriginal women (First Nations, Métis, Inuit)—36%
• Visible minority women—35%
• Women with disabilities—26%
• Single parent mothers—21%
• Single senior women—14%

Since women still shoulder most of the domestic load and still face wage discrimination, it’s not surprising that - over their lifetime – they earn much less than men.

Women’s lower earning power means they are at a high risk of falling into poverty if they have children and then become separated, divorced, or widowed. They are less able to save for their retirement and more likely to be poor in their senior years. And, as previously mentioned, the fear of falling into poverty means that some women stay in abusive relationships, despite the danger. Another issue that could be much improved by moving women up.

When women work outside the home and also do most of the domestic work, their long-term health suffers. According to Statistics Canada, women at every age are more likely than men to describe their days as ‘quite a bit’ or ‘extremely’ stressful, and stress leads to heart disease, cancer, anxiety, depression and chronic health issues.

 I have a company that employs men and women. Men have had the same workplace absences as women. Men have chosen to take parental leave. Men don’t tend to work the same extraordinary hours as women, in fact most women respond to email 24/7 while some men more often as a whole will shut their email off at certain times of the day, and more than 70% of women respond when emailed after 8 pm.

Over the past four decades, women’s work experience and educational attainment have increased dramatically. Although women have better credentials than ever before, the job and income prospects for many are bleak.

In the US;

Women make up two-thirds of the over 23 million workers in low-wage jobs—defined as jobs that typically pay $10.50 per hour or less—although they make up slightly less than half of the workforce as a whole.Why is this happening? It all boils down to women led corporations and women entrepreneurs and their ability to grow their corporations at the same rate as their male counterparts. Studies show that they don’t grow as quickly, and that is because they aren’t awarded contracts at the same pace as their male counterparts. Studies also show that when they are given those opportunities they not only outperform but they also make opportunities available to other women.

There is only one way to get to where we need to go, and that is to hold every corporation accountable to gender equality in board positions, gender equality in exec positions and hold Major Corporation’s use of women run corporations equally with the requirement to report those results. There are 27 female CEO’s in the Fortune 1000, which represents under 3%. In Canada 12% of board positions are held by women and in the US 16%. Yet Women make 85% of all household purchase decisions, and 8% of all households are led by single mothers with responsibility of over 3M children in Canada alone. That is a sobering number if  you consider the stats above, and women’s inability to provide for those children.

If you look at the fortune 10 in Canada the executive teams look like this which is the best measurement of a company’s inclusion of women culturally;

Walmart 31 men and 10 women

Exxon 6 all men

Chevron 13 men and 2 women

Philips 8 men and 1 woman

Berkshire Hathaway 13 men and 4 women

Apple 9 men and 1 woman

GM 44 men and 10 women with a female CEO

GE 15 Men and 3 women

Valero 14 Men and 2 Women

Ford 14 Men and 5 Women

For a total % across the executive team of 17% in what represents the top 10 or over 30% of the top 100 in revenue.

This year the Rhodes scholarship chose 36 women and 49 men. 42% were women. I would think that in 2015 the majority of fortune 10 companies might be able to set that benchmark across their executive teams. Doesn’t have to be 50%, but 17% is just not good enough in 2015. Imagine if the target was 42% what would happen to women in poverty? And subsequently the revenue associated with the top 10?

Imagine if all fortune 1000 strove to reward 40% of contracts to women led corporations or even 25%? Certainly far better than less than 5%. The numbers above of women in poverty would literally change overnight. Justin Trudeau not only appointed a cabinet with 50% women, he built a cabinet comprised of extraordinary women. If every corporation looked across their company they would find the same capability in their organizations to radically change the cultures of their companies in a very short time, and at the same time those corporations in oil and gas, Telecom, consumer products and retail would put more money in the 85% that buy their products and services.

I learned this week what the opportunity available was to these corporations and the economy globally. Imagine the impact to the fortune 1000 if those that spend 85% of all households’ money actually represented more than 30% of your executive teams? Which represents a substantial amount of your payroll? Where would that money go?

That money would go right back to all of you.

That doesn't make me a feminist although I learned this week that isn't a four letter word, it makes me a realist. The opportunity to the economy is the single most powerful reason to make this change. Put the money in the pockets of those that raise our children and spend our money. We will have much stronger children, work to eradicate poverty, and those that spend 85% of the household expenses will give it back to the corporations they received it from.  

• .