Women in reverse
Are we reading this correctly? Sadly, not. The progress of Australian female executives seems to have gone backwards. A survey by campaign group Chief Executive Women (CEW) finds that—at the current rate—it will take 100 years to make 40% of all CEOs in the ASX 200 female.
Also worrying, the number of ASX 300 companies without women in their executive teams has risen from 44 last year to 46 this year. And fewer ASX 300 boards are gender balanced: there are now 50, down from 58 last year.
According to Sam Mostyn, chief executive of CEW, it is “staggering to see the stalling, or reversal of women’s representation on leadership teams in many companies”. Could do better, Australia, you really could do better.
The high price of narcissism
Well, we know CEOs can be narcissistic but can this particular facet of their characters cloud their judgment? It seems it can.
Research from a US team finds that narcissistic CEOs are more likely to acquire “high-awareness” brands and dispose of “low awareness” marks. It also seems narcissists will pay more—a seller’s “abnormal return”—for such brands.
As the writers put it, CEO narcissism ”increases brand asset overvaluation…”. Next time your CEO comes to the board effervescent over an M&A proposal, you might want to pause and ask: “What’s this all about?” Don’t say we didn’t warn you.
Big split
Big Four firm EY has decided to poll partners on splitting the organisation: audit on one side and, according to some reports, everything else on the other.
That’s quite a move—but not entirely unexpected. Pressure has been building for years over the issue of audit and its proximity to other services, with many arguing over that time that there really should be a split. Auditor reputations have taken a battering in recent years and one way to shore up trust in audit is to create some distance from other services.
Regulatory change has also made “conflicts of interests” an increasing obstacle to winning audit commissions, especially on big multinationals, where the big audit fees are won.
Rachel Lloyd, EY global PR chief, says: “Having carefully considered various options, we firmly believe that we can embrace the changing landscape, build businesses that redefine the future of our professions, create exciting new opportunities and deliver great long-term value for EY people, clients and communities.” We’re happy to hear EY has been careful.
Protests cloud SEC’s climate progress
US watchdog the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is pushing ahead with the introduction of climate risk reporting, and the opposition keeps emerging.
This week, a libertarian think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argues that the new reporting rules represent a “misguided” move into “environmental policy making” which lies “outside the SEC’s jurisdiction and competency”. It will impose “massive, widespread costs on US public companies”, writes Richard Morrison, senior fellow at the institute.
This contrasts with findings from KPMG when the firm looked at a sample of 150 responses from companies and industry bodies to the SEC’s consultation. The firm found “general sentiment” was 79% either “generally” or “very” supportive. Only 10% were outright opponents of using TFCD (Task Force on Climate-related Disclosures) reporting, though there are qualms about scenario analysis.
US quarrels over companies reporting their climate risk continue, but the SEC looks on course to push ahead with most of its proposals. We guess, you can hide from climate consequences. But only until the sky literally falls in. Then it is all a bit late.