Search results

The rise of corporatisation poses a new challenge for equal opportunities as women struggle to participate in corporate governance. Traditionally, the corporate model was confined to the private sector which is now strongly driven by a prevailing ideology of economic de‐regulation. A consequence of laissez faire economics is that the private sector is assuming greater responsibility for political and economic development as the state sheds power and loses its legitimacy for some functions. Market liberalism has also widened the ambit of the corporate model which is now increasingly applying to the public sector. For example, in New Zealand 56 crown companies have converted to the corporate model with compelling legislation which prioritises profitability over social responsibility (Taggart, 1993). Both private and public sector trends elevate the social and political significance of how corporates are governed and the question of women's participation in the process as directors of boards.

While the absence of female directors on corporate boards in New Zealand is controversial, little is known about the first wave of women in boardrooms in the private sector. This benchmark study, a questionnaire survey, provides the first demographic data about females in the boardrooms of the top 200 companies. The findings show that only 4.4 per cent of directors of major companies in New Zealand are female. Analyses the relevant skill base for directorship, the barriers to recruitment and male cronyism as a factor in the gender imbalance. The findings show that a high public profile is important for women wanting to open the boardroom door. Suggests that agencies which target potential directors apply conservative criteria which discriminate against the qualified but untested female candidate.

Discrimination matters Volume 22 Number 2 of Health Manpower Management contains an article with this title by Catherine M. Prest, which outlines the changes in legal restrictions on the eligibility of dismissed employees to pursue unfair dismissal claims. Includes a discussion of recent decisions in this area and assesses the impact of these decisions on personnel practice and disciplinary procedures.