4.5.1 Analysis of the findings of the Nyenrode Study I

In order to address the first research question, i.e., have the companies formulated and published any diversity goals, two questions were included in the survey. The first question asked whether the company has formulated and published any diversity goals. The answers of the respondents are stated in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 shows that a majority of the respondents (76 percent) had formulated diversity goals.7 Respondents who answered that they had formulated diversity goals were additionally asked to specify what their diversity goals encompassed. From the answers to this follow-up question, it appeared that the respondents referred not only to diversity in terms of gender, but also to other diversity aspects, such as age, nationality, expertise and experience.8

From the responses to this follow-up question, we learned that a large part of the respondents to this question referred to the statutory diversity goal imposed by the DCC on large companies.9 We refer to Section 4.3.3 above, where we explained that Dutch law requires large companies to have a management board and a supervisory board that is comprised of at least 30 percent women and at least 30 percent men.10 As this law became effective on 1 January 2013, at the beginning of the financial year of 2013, it is understandable that the companies referred thereto.11

In order to address the second research question, i.e., were the diversity goals achieved, respondents who indicated that they have formulated and published diversity goals (see table 4.2, i.e. 53 respondents), were asked whether their diversity goals had been achieved.12 The results are listed in Table 4.3.

A small majority (53 percent) of respondents indicated that their diversity goals had been achieved.13 The answers of the respondents to this question were not always completely clear. For instance, with regard to this follow-up question, some respondents indicated that the text of their diversity goals specified that the company ‘aims’ to have a board composed of at least 30 percent men and at least 30 percent women. To us, it was not completely clear whether the goal of the respondents was to have a board composed of at least 30 percent men and at least 30 percent women, or that the goal was to strive for a board that is composed in such a way that it comprises at least 30 percent men and at least percent women. In other words: when a respondent indicated that it strives for the 30 percent goal and it indicated that this goal was achieved, it was not clear whether (i) the striving for this goal was achieved (meaning that the respondent at least had the ambition to meet its own diversity goals, but had not succeeded in achieving these) or (ii) the 30 percent goal itself was achieved.

In order to address the third research question, i.e., did the company explain why its diversity goals were not achieved, three follow-up questions were posed to the respondents that had answered that the diversity goals were not achieved (see the second research question; Table 4.3, i.e. 25 respondents).14 The questions entailed: (a) whether the company explains in the report of the supervisory board why the diversity goals had not been achieved; (b) whether the company explains how the diversity goals could be achieved; and (c) whether the company explains within which time frame the diversity goals could be achieved. The answers to these questions are detailed in Table 4.4.

Companies have a responsibility to provide an explanation whenever they deviated from any provision of the Code. We reiterate that best practice provision III.3.1 requires companies to explain in the report of the supervisory board how and within what period the diversity goals could be achieved, in instances where the diversity goals were not achieved. Six out of 25 companies did not explain why the diversity goals were not achieved (question a). It can therefore be concluded that these companies did not comply with the Code in the financial year of 2013 on this specific topic. Table 4.4 also shows that the majority of the respondents omit to explain how the diversity goals could be achieved (question b). In regard to the third follow-up question (question c), we can observe that a larger majority failed to explain within what time frame the diversity goals could be achieved. These figures show that the majority of these respondents (see Table 4.4, i.e., 16 out of 25 respondents) did not comply with this provision of the Code.15

In addition, the Nyenrode researchers expressed the opinion that the explanation of the respondents concerning questions (b) and (c) was not (always) sufficient (based on the nature and the quality of the explanations provided). For instance, it was not clear in what way a non-complying company intended to achieve the diversity goals in the future and within which time frame. Most of the non-complying companies neither explained their time frame for the achievement of their diversity goals nor did they mention any concrete term or date in which they intended to realize their diversity goals.16 Only a few companies set a deadline for themselves for achieving the diversity goals.17

Furthermore, in response to question 3(b), some companies indicated that they were actively searching a woman for the next supervisory board member appointment, and/or that they provided instructions to an executive search agency to look for a woman to fulfil a senior management and/or board position.18 Finally, some companies emphasized the importance of diversity, e.g., by giving an explanation why (gender) diversity is important, in their view, for instance because many employees are women in their company.19

With regard to the respondents’ compliance in the financial year of 2013, the Committee followed the findings of the Nyenrode researchers and expressed in its Committee Report I that the respondents did not extensively explain whether or not they had achieved the diversity goals set by the company; only a few respondents showed their good behavior by taking an ‘active approach to the achievement of the diversity objectives’.20 Whereas the Committee in its 2013 report (regarding the financial year 2012) seemed to be concerned about the findings in that year, i.e., that companies mainly focus on experience and expertise rather than paying attention to gender, the Committee stated in its Committee Report I that companies often understand diversity as gender diversity. According to the Committee, diversity is to be interpreted in a broader sense21 emphasizing that besides gender, other diversity aspects are also important, such as age, nationality, expertise, independence and experience.22 The Committee specifically stated that diversity is important from an economic perspective: ‘A diverse composition of boards and supervisory boards contributes to better decision-making’.23