The federal government of Canada has announced the launch of the “50-30 challenge”. Its stated goal is to advance and recognize diversity, inclusion and economic prosperity across the country. Through this challenge, the government calls for increasing gender parity and representation of under-represented groups in public and private organizations, and not among the usual employees, but at the level of the boards and senior management.
The goals of the challenge are:
– Gender parity (50%) in Canadian boardrooms
– Significant representation (30%) of all aforementioned marginalised groups into senior management roles.
Apparently, not all organizations are eager to accept the terms of the new challenge and implement this framework for their staff. Therefore, within the framework of the new initiative, the government is also going to invest $33 million for the development of tools and resources to help participating organizations advance diversity and inclusion in workplaces. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) will leverage its programs to encourage companies that receive ISED funding to advance diversity and inclusion within their organizations.
To promote the challenge among companies Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME) is used, which were among the first to announce their participation. CME is a large trade and industry association – the voice of manufacturing and global business in Canada. CME is a member-driven association that directly represents more than 2,500 leading companies who account for an estimated 82% of manufacturing output and 90% of Canada’s exports. The association seems to be the main promoter of the new challenge among thousands of its partners.
“The challenge complements CME’s previous efforts to boost diversity in the manufacturing sector, such as our Women in Manufacturing (WIM) initiative,” says Dennis Darby, president and CEO of CME.
CME, which actively participates in numerous “initiatives”, seems to be the mainstay of the promotion of “challenges” among Canadian business organizations.
Canada follows in the footsteps of the United States.
In December, local business representatives in California opposed a law that requires every company to have at least two or three minority representatives in the boardrooms. Previously, California has already passed a law that requires at least one woman to take part in the boardrooms of each company. In their turn, entrepreneurs claim that the law restricts the freedom of entrepreneurship. The law are passing despite the fact that California’s campaigns are already among the most successful in the world, and need no upgrade in HR.
The US stock exchange NASDAQ has announced that it will not allow companies to enter its platform if at least two representatives of minorities or women are not present on their directorate.
“… the rules would require most Nasdaq-listed companies to have, or explain why they do not have, at least two diverse directors, including one who self-identifies as female and one who self-identifies as either an underrepresented minority1 or LGBTQ+. Foreign companies and smaller reporting companies would have additional flexibility in satisfying this requirement with two female directors.” – the statement by NASDAQ reads.
In January, the investment bank Goldman Sachs, one of the largest underwriters of initial public offerings, claimed that would not take companies public in the United States and Europe if they do not have at least one diverse board director.
According to the U.S. House of Representatives, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) created the Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) in part to begin to hold industry accountable for diversity and inclusion. Despite this explicit authority, the prudential regulators, including the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), issued guidance (known as the Joint Standards) that permits banks and other institutions to comply with the OMWIs’ requests for diversity and inclusion data voluntarily.
According to the report, since the adoption of the Joint Standards, banks have only marginally participated in requests from the OMWIs. Further, the little data that is collected is not publicly available.
America’s 44 largest bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies were asked to share their diversity data.
The analysis unveiled that:
- Banks’ boards of directors are not diverse;
- Banks’ senior employees are not diverse; and,
- Banks have limited spending and investments with diverse firms
The charts below show that the major banks of the U.S. remain mainly white and male.
The main reason of the low level of diversity and inclusiveness is the “lack of candidates with the necessary educational background and experience.”
However, the activists that are supporting the minorities do not stop by pushing pressure on business and find more ways to express themselves. For example, the Washington Examiner reported that transgender activists in the United States were urging all children to take puberty blockers until they can make an informed decision about their gender.
Apparently, similar initiatives should be expected in other western countries like Canada or European countries that blindly follow the US agenda.
Public management, both in state structures and in private firms of various scales, risks of losing competence. Staff will be selected for chief positions not depending on the candidates’ professional competencies, their skills, but based on their skin color and sexual preferences.
Representatives of minorities are supported not because the law level of their representation, but because such a framework allows to weaken the leading management structures. People who are appointed to high positions not for merit and according to subjective criteria most likely will not be able to make independent decisions. Those who de facto influence the processes are not public.
Modern Western societies are ruled not by those who are constantly shown on the TV screen, not by public figures, but by those who really control the main world capitals and have significant global influence. Struggle for the rights of minorities in such cases is nothing more but a front for real processes in a perverted neoliberal society.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
- Happy 2020: The Richest Count Profit While The World Is In Crisis
- Palantir Technologies: Crystal Ball For The Information Age
- Ground Forces Of Iran