On Saturday this article irritated me, as you might expect, so I shot off a letter to the Guardian noting in particular that the reference to Jimmy Choo was inaccurate, according to their web site.
Today I've had a message from the Readers' Editor's department, pointing out that Judith Sprieser left the board of Jimmy Choo with immediate effect earlier this month. Well, my bad. The Stock Exchange announcement cites"personal reasons unrelated to the company".
This raises a question about naming and shaming boards which do not appear to be suitably diverse in their composition, in terms of the impact of timing and movement of directors. Presumably the Jimmy Choo board will be expected to appoint another woman. Suppose they had reached the magic number of three women on the board and one left: would they be expected to replace her with another woman? Extend this supposition to encompass representation of other groups: is the assumption that for every group there will be an appropriate number which should always be maintained? Won't it be a tad difficult for boards to ensure the right balance of competence and experience within these limitations?
Just askin'...
No comments:
Post a Comment