Women in Mining Capstone Final

Mineral and Energy Economics Capstone
‘Women in Mining’
Georgia Ellis
15402390
Word Count (excl index, bibliography, appendix): 9,950

Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................3
Recent Developments ................................................................................................................................5
The Benefits of Women in the Workplace....................................................................................8
Critical Mass...................................................................................................................................................12
Barriers to Women Achieving in Mining......................................................................................13
Research Aim and Outline ...................................................................................................................21
Research Findings.....................................................................................................................................24
The Future........................................................................................................................................................32
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................................37
Bibliography....................................................................................................................................................39
Appendix...........................................................................................................................................................41
Return on Equity v % Women on Board ...............................................................................41
Price/Earnings Ratio v % Women on Board ......................................................................45
Net Profit Ratio v % Women on Board...................................................................................49
1 Year Growth Rate v % Women on Board........................................................................53

Introduction
The issue of women’s representation in the senior management and board of
directorship of companies has undergone considerable public debate in
recent years. The topic has become increasingly relevant in light of calls for
legislative quotas[1] regarding the number of women on boards, the
introduction of the Workplace Gender Equality Act[2], and the appointment by
the newly elected Coalition Government of just one woman to Cabinet[3].
In addition to the growing awareness of gender equality comes a growing
body of research suggesting increased participation of women on corporate
boards and in senior management is linked to stronger financial performance
outcomes[1], increased productivity, and reduced business and financial risk.
However, despite the impetus regarding the benefits of increased female
participation in the workplace, despite the growing awareness and
development of gender diversity programs and requirements, and despite
women graduating from universities at a higher rate than men since 1985[4],
still disproportionately few women are becoming business leaders, and
women continue to stand just outside the most powerful circles of leadership
influence[5], such as on executive and board committees.
The pace of progress of women to the top of the company hierarchy has been
slow, both nationally and globally, even with the growing good intentions of
many in business, politics and society to change the gender imbalance. Whilst
women make up a greater proportion of university graduates and professional
positions, the pipeline of growth for women is ‘leaky’[6], and the proportion of
women in leadership positions drops sharply from middle-management
onwards (see Figure 1). Various research shows that despite entering the
professional workforce in large numbers, women continue to occupy a low
proportion of company board seats – only 15% of ASX200[4] and 15% of
Fortune 500[5] board positions are held by females.

Figure 1[4]
This report seeks to investigate the reasons supporting greater gender
diversity on corporate boards and the financial and other benefits of increased
female participation, with a particular focus on the mining industry.
The mining industry is generally perceived as a male-dominated
environment[1]. While efforts are being made to shake this perception and
female participation levels are increasing[7], gender disparity remains at
relatively high levels. Women make up approximately 17% of total mining
employees (in 2011), an increase from 15% in 2006[8], however many of
these roles are in non-professional or non-influential areas, with 92% of
general clerks roles, 90% of accounts clerks, and 99% of personal assistants
roles in the mining industry held by women[8]. While there are barriers to
women’s progression in the mining industry, many women also face a choice,
due to family or other reasons, to leave the industry prior to ascending to
these more senior roles.
With this as context, this report will discuss recent developments in the area
of gender parity in the workplace, the benefits of increased female
participation in mining companies and boards, barriers to achieving such
increased participation, and an analysis of the current representation of

females on the boards of mining companies and the financial or other impact
of such representation.
Recent Developments
The topic of women’s representation in business has become increasingly
relevant. In recent years, various public bodies have become more vocal in
their support of increased participation of women in leadership roles in the
corporate world[9].
This action has taken various forms. For example, the Norwegian
Government has introduced a mandatory requirement that privately listed
companies have at least 40% female representation on their boards, with 6
other (predominantly European) countries also passing legislation mandating
female representation. 8 countries have chosen to issue recommendations on
the issue. One example is the Netherlands, which has suggested that a
minimum of 30% of all board members should be female[9].
In Australia, the ASX and Government have introduced guidelines requiring
ASX-listed companies to provide disclosures of board and company-wide
diversity initiatives and to report against measurable objectives, through the
Gender Equality Act.
The objectives of the act are to:
 Promote gender equality;
 Support employers to remove barriers to the full and equal participation
of women in the workforce;
 Promote the elimination of discrimination on the basis of gender; and
 Improve the productivity and competitiveness of Australian business
through the advancement of gender equality in the workplace[2].
Companies are required to report against a set of standardised gender
equality indicators, including:
 Gender composition of the workforce;
 Equal remuneration between women and men;

 Availability and utility of employment terms, conditions and practice
regarding flexible working arrangements for employees and to working
arrangements supporting employees with family or caring
responsibilities;
 Consultation with employees on issues concerning gender equality; and
 Any other matters specified by the Minister in a legislative instrument.
These matters can include:
o The recruitment and selection procedure and criteria for
appointment of employees;
o Promotion, transfer and termination of employees;
o Arrangements for dealing with pregnant employees or those
who are breastfeeding their children; and
o Arrangements for employees with family or caring
responsibilities[10].
As well as Government imposed regulations or recommendations, many
companies are also choosing to adopt their own gender diversity targets. For
example, BHP aims to increase the number of women on their Board to 3[11]
(currently at 2), and aims to address low representation of females on their
graduate programs[11], through initiatives such as the BHP Billiton Women in
Engineering Scholarship at Curtin University[12]. Rio Tinto aims for women to
represent 20% of senior management and 40% of their graduate intake by
2015[13].
The ASX reporting requirements apply from July 1 2013 onwards, so their
impact is yet to be established. The Act previously required companies to
establish and report progress against gender diversity policies and targets. It
was expected that such disclosures would increase the actions taken by
companies to move more women into senior executive and board roles.
However, by the end of December 2011, 4 in 10 companies still had no such
policies or targets, indicating that policies and targets themselves were not
sufficient to increase the representation of women in senior executive and
board roles[4].

Such a result is indicative of the progress of women to a position of equality
on company boards. Whilst the Australian business community values
diversity, with almost 90% convinced of the benefit of gender parity and 75%
believing it should be a critical strategic imperative for their own
organisation[4], these good intentions have not turned into actions.
Despite the internal and external policies, requirements and
recommendations, the attainment of gender diversity is moving slowly.
Women held 18.1% of board seats at Australia’s top 100 listed companies in
2012. But more than half the top 101 – 200 listed companies did not have any
female directors at all[14]. Further, the pace of female appointments to
ASX200 companies is declining (see Figure 2).
Figure 2[15]
Despite the implementation of policies, recommendations, and a growing
awareness of the benefits of diversity, not just in regards to equality but also
as to superior financial performance[9], women are still not being appointed to
the most senior levels of the corporate hierarchy. The leads to a lack of belief
in companies’ commitment to take action on gender diversity, with only 15%
of women believing they have equal opportunity to get promoted on the same
timeline as men[4].

The change envisaged by and supporting the Gender Equality Act has not yet
been achieved, and, if the current pace of change continues, the desired
social and financial outcomes behind improved gender diversity will not be
realised for a significant time. Further action is required to increase the pace
of change and realise the benefits of diversity.
The Benefits of Women in the Workplace
The drive towards increased gender diversity and parity in business and
corporate boards is based not just on fairness and equality, but also on
financial and strategic advantages. The benefits of increased female
participation are broad and numerous, and mining companies and the industry
as a whole can gain significant performance improvements and growth
through embracing the benefits of gender diversity[1].
Numerous studies have shown that companies with more women on their
boards tend to be more profitable[9]. For example, a study by Credit Suisse
has shown that, compared to companies with no women on their board, on
average companies with at least one woman on their board achieve a higher
return on equity (16% v 12%), have lower gearing ratios (48% v 50%), have
higher price/book value multiples (2.4x v 1.8x), and higher net income growth
(14% v 10%)[9].
Studies by McKinsey have shown that companies in the top quartile for
female representation on their executive committees when compared to
companies with no women on their executive committee achieved a higher
return on equity (11% v 10%), higher EBIT (11% v 6%), and higher stock price
growth (64% v 47%)[16].
Catalyst’s study on Fortune 500 companies shows that companies with three
or more women directors, when compared to companies with no women on
the board, achieve a higher return on sales (14% v 8%), higher return on
capital invested (10% v 6%), and higher return on equity (15% v 10%)[17].

PWC’s study specifically on women in the mining industry has shown that the
18 mining companies (globally) that comprised 25% or more of their board as
women had an average net profit margin that was 49% higher than the
average net profit margin for the global top 500 mining companies[1].
While it is difficult to demonstrate definite proof[9], and though correlation is
not necessarily cause, the studies undertaken indicate a striking link between
diversity improved financial performance. Whilst some may argue that strong
companies may appoint women to their boards as a ‘signalling’ effect that
their companies are performing well, and that the subsequent appointment of
such women do not impact the financial performance of an already well-
performing company[9], the link between financial performance and female
participation in numerous studies is strong, and unlikely to be explained as a
signal only. These studies provide a factual basis in favour of greater gender
diversity[16] and show a strong relationship between a higher proportion of
women on boards and corporate financial success.
There are a variety of explanations for this correlation between the level of
female representation on boards and financial performance. One significant
reason is the benefit diversity brings to business. The ‘Diversity Prediction
Theorem’ states that diverse groups nearly always outperform homogenous
groups by a substantial margin[5]. In problem solving, the diversity of group
members matter as much as ability and brain power[18]. The Theorem is a
mathematical relationship that states that ‘collective error equals average
error minus diversity’[19]. That is, the collective ability of any crowd is equal to
the average ability of its members, plus the diversity of the group[18].
Diversity allows a wider range of available data inputs to be debated than in a
homogenous group. A diverse group is also more likely to generate a ‘correct’
answer, partially because individuals all have something to offer, such as
information, context, experience, analysis skills or processing powers.
Provided each group member is given a chance to share their knowledge, the
outcome for the team is likely to be greater than the sum of its parts[9].

Diversity also results in a greater effort across the group, as people are more
likely to do preparation for any exercise that will involve working with a diverse
group of people. Further, group members are likely to think much more
critically on the problems they are working on when in a diverse group, even if
they are in the social majority[9].
Diversity can also guard against groupthink and overconfidence, triggering
more careful and creative information processing, as well as increasing the
scale of new insights[20]. Without diversity, a board may fail to take into
account strategic threats and opportunities, because they just cannot see
them[21].
The result is that, in decision-making, possibilities are different, greater and
better thought out with a diverse group of people. The implication for mining
companies is that rather than having a board consisting of, for example, older,
male ex-mining engineers, who may have similar backgrounds, views and
experiences and look at opportunities and problems in similar ways, the
inclusion of women to the board (or appropriately skilled people with a diverse
background to the norm in general) can provide a greater insight and
approach to problem solving, offer a unique perspective and experience, and
achieve more successful, considered outcomes.
Diversity enriches the leadership of a company with different perspectives by
increasing the terms of reference that the board and company sees problems
and opportunities[22]. For this reason, companies can view increased gender
diversity essentially as a corporate strategy[18], and as a means of obtaining
a competitive edge. A company with a board consisting of members with a
range of different frames of reference – such as structural, relational, social,
conceptual and systematic – has a strategic advantage in problem solving,
decision-making and risk management compared to an organisation whose
leaders may only see the world through one or two of these lenses[22].
The increased presence for women on boards and leadership roles has
numerous other benefits. For example, women often bring a different

leadership style, with a more collaborative approach combined with a higher
emotional intelligence encourages teamwork and builds morale[5]. Further, of
the 9 key criteria to measure organisational excellence as identified by
McKinsey, women apply 5 of these leadership behaviours (‘people
development’, ‘expectation and rewards’, ‘role model’, ‘inspiration’ and
‘participative decision making’) more frequently than men – particularly the
first three. Men, however, adopt two behaviours (‘control and corrective
action’ and ‘individualistic decision making’) more often than women[23].
While neither the male or female leadership approach is the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’
one, the ability to have a mix of leadership styles and combine these
approaches is a further benefit that increased gender diversity can bring.
The number of women on a company’s board is also linked to strong
corporate governance, with organisations whose boards have 2 or more
women averaging higher accountability practices, undertake a greater number
of non-financial performance measures more regularly and adopt a higher
proportion or responsibilities recommended by regulatory bodies compared to
all-male boards[22].
Strong diligence and corporate governance has positive implications for risk
management, diligence and company stability. The presence of women on
boards can improve risk management as women are generally more risk
averse than men[9]. This reduces the risk of poor investment decisions and
cashflow or bankruptcy problems. This may explain why, in recent years,
companies with a greater proportion of women performed well during periods
of economic instability. Such companies, with a more defensive financial
strategy, delivered higher financial returns with less volatility in earnings and
lower debt levels and gearing ratios[9]. However, while such a strategy may
have been rewarded through periods of economic instability, research in the
future will be needed to show whether risk aversion still results in improved
financial performance during better economic conditions.
Women have a tendency to ask questions to increase their knowledge and
confidence [24]. This has the potential to uncover issues not previously
considered. Further, a divergence of views leads to constructive debate and

frank discussion[18], ensuring a wider range of risks and views are taken into
account.
Having an increased number of women on boards and in senior leadership
can improve company performance through improved employee satisfaction,
particularly of female employees, as well as through lower turnover and higher
productivity. 58% of companies that have implanted a diversity program
reported higher productivity as a result of improved employee motivation and
efficiency, with 62% saying that the programs help attract and retain highly
talented people[25].
While many female employees are ambitious, with 70% aspiring to be in a
leadership role, less than 33% of women foresee themselves in a leadership
role in their current organisation[4]. The presence of women in leadership
roles within the organisation enables women to see a path to leadership,
increasing the likelihood and motivation of female employees staying within
the workplace, resulting in greater productivity, lower turnover, and the
retaining of critical experience and skills within the business.
Due to the financial and other benefits increased female representation at
board level can bring, mining companies should be strongly encouraged to
view increased gender diversity as a means to gain a strategic advantage by
providing a range of experiences perspectives and experiences to improve
decision-making[1]. Currently, mining has the lowest number of women on
boards of any industry group in the world[1], and must look to increase its
level of female board representation to obtain the financial and other
advantages outlined in this report.
Whilst increased diversity can bring risks and the potential for conflict, good
management of diversity can harness this potential and provide for a highly
effective and dynamic leadership structure, with an increased capacity to
solve problems and seize opportunities.
Critical Mass

Whilst any increase of women’s representation on the boards and senior
leadership teams of mining companies will assist in achieving the strategic
advantages provided by increased diversity, in the long-run, sustainable
cultural change requires collective power, and the size of the increase of
women on boards is important. Few lone women, no matter how exceptional,
can have significant impact on the conversations of a nearly all-male group,
let alone on its decision. It takes critical mass to shift group dynamics. It is
when minority voices reaching a tipping point of one-thirds of representation in
a group that they begin to significantly influence outcomes. At under this one-
third mark, lone but diverse voices with a different perspective than the
dominant majority have little power[5].
Various studies support such a hypothesis. Catalyst’s study[17] showed
significantly stronger performance at companies with three or more women
board directors, while McKinsey’s study[16] indicated that companies with
three or more women on the board scored better on leadership, direction,
accountability, coordination, control, innovation, external orientation,
capability, motivation, work environment and values.
With the mining industry having the lowest level of female representation on
boards of any industry globally[1], any increase in diversity will assist in
providing the benefits of diversity to the industry. Once this commences, to
obtain the full financial and strategic benefits of gender diversity, mining
companies should aim to have a gender balanced board of at least 33% or
more women at board level to produce optimum financial results[1].
Barriers to Women Achieving in Mining
An increase in the representation of women on the boards and senior
leadership teams of mining companies can bring significant financial and
organisational advantages to an industry relatively lacking in gender diversity.
However, there are many barriers to women obtaining such roles, in both the
mining industry and in business generally.

One such barrier comes from women’s own confidence and self-promotion in
the workplace. Studies have shown that although female employees are 8%
more likely than men to meet or exceed performance expectations, they tend
to be less likely than men to apply for a promotion[25]. Similarly, if a
promotion does arise, a woman will only apply for it if they meet 90-100% of
the selection criteria, whereas men will apply if they meet 60% of the
criteria[9]. While 70% of women rate their workplace performance equal to
that of their co-workers, in comparison, 70% of men instead rate their
performance as higher than that of their co-workers[9].
Women are also less likely to speak up as much as men in discussions[9],
and hold other limiting beliefs that stand in their own way, such as waiting to
be asked for opportunities and promotions[26], and a belief that hard work will
be rewarded, rather than recognising the need to network and self-promote.
Women also eliminate themselves in small ways – such as a weaker
handshake, reluctance to negotiate salaries, and avoidance of giving
speeches. These small things often add up, with the result that women then
eliminate themselves from the bigger things[5].
The lack of confidence, bravado and self-promotion in women means that
they exclude themselves from opportunities without even having a chance[5].
Women may be subconsciously eliminating themselves from the paths to
board and senior positions through their own inability to put themselves
forward. With men more likely to self-promote and have the confidence to ask
for what they want, it is not surprising that men are then more successful in
getting to senior and board positions.
Mentoring and sponsorship of female employees, particularly by males in
senior leadership positions, can assist in building this confidence and
promotion.
Women’s leadership style can be seen by some as a barrier to progression.
Women usually have a more collaborative leadership style that fosters
communication, team work and morale[5]. However, this different style may
hamper their path to promotion. Up to 40% of women at junior- and middle-
management level, a critical career-building time, have had a review of their

work and leadership style that carries some form of criticism, such as that
they need to appear more confident, even if they already were feeling
comfortable and confident, and 80% of women cite ‘differences in styles’ as a
the dominant inhibitor to their collective progress[4].
In many workplaces, female leadership traits may appear not to be valued, or
may be viewed as a weakness[4]. In response, women may look to adopt the
more masculine, aggressive style of men, which are those traditionally valued
as a ‘leader’. However, women may then be scrutinised for being ‘too
aggressive or ‘too abrasive’, in comparison to ‘too passive’ without such an
approach[6].
The issue of raising children also has implications for women’s career
aspirations. Women are more likely than men to take leave to look after
children[27], and are more likely to have to take on more of the ‘double
burden’ of work and family responsibilities when returning to work[16]. This
combination of work and family duties is at times incompatible with the
‘anytime, anywhere’ onerous work demands associated with senior
management[16]. Such demands may also be difficult in a mining role that
involves travel and being away from the family for extended periods.
Whilst maternity leave policies and work arrangements may vary between
companies, many work environments are currently not pro-family. Inflexible
work hours, a lack of on-site childcare facilities, and fast track expectations
designed for those without home responsibilities are part of the business
cultural barriers that are restraining women with children from wielding greater
influence in corporations and society[5].
Whilst the ‘double burden’ of work and family is an actual barrier for many
women combining a career with motherhood, the perception of the aspirations
and attitudes of a woman who has had a child or even is of childbearing age
can impact a woman’s career. Whilst 20% of women attribute a lack of career
progression to the competing priorities of career and family, over 60% of men
believe that competing priorities is the primary reason holding back progress
for women[4]. This difference in perceptions about a woman’s ability to
manage the ‘double burden’ may impact the opportunities and challenges a

woman is presented due to a belief that a woman with a child or who may be
considering having a child will not be able to manage the increased
responsibilities.
There may also be a perception that women without children may be soon
looking to have children, so will not be offered promotions and opportunities
due to the belief that they will soon be leaving the workplace, even if the
woman is not planning to have children[9]. Conversely, if a woman is in fact
planning to have a child, they may ‘leave before they leave’, passing up
increased responsibility at work, and often returning with less meaningful jobs
when they return from maternity leave[28].
The dynamics and interactions between men and women in the workplace
provides a block to the perceived ability of women to achieve senior
leadership roles. Some, though not all, men still hold some ingrained sexism
in their attitudes about women’s capabilities and appropriate roles[5]. Further,
as men tend to sponsor and mentor other men in business, and as it is human
nature to find it harder to build a relationship with people with whom you share
fewer common interests[6], women may find themselves ‘shut out’ of close
organisational relationships, and subsequently missing out on valuable
opportunities, guidance and mentoring.
In many organisations a ‘boys club’ or ‘old boys network’ shuts women out of
top management[29]. Such a network may consist of males who have known
each other for many years through corporate, social or sporting circles. When
promoting, people often look to individuals who are like themselves. Men who
are in top decision-making roles often tend to look to former colleagues and
friends to fill these positions, with women frequently not even considered as
they are outside these networks[29]. Appointments to senior roles and board
positions are often not meaningfully advertised at all, and instead are filled
through these informal networks dominated by men[9]. Studies have indicated
that only 4% of non-executive directors needed to undertake an interview to
obtain their position, and only 1% gained their board role through answering
an advertisement[1].

Women may also find themselves excluded from social activities where the
groundwork is subtly laid for corporate advancement, such as golf days[29],
lunches, and attending sporting matches.
Men may feel they do not ‘know’ how to talk to or mentor a woman, and may
be nervous about forging relationships that could seem inappropriate[6].
This lack of access to informal networks and lack of sponsors to provide the
opportunities that many male colleagues have[26] can be partially reduced by
the implementation of more inclusive social activities and a willingness of
senior males in organisations to include, mentor, promote, align, sponsor and
advocate for women in their organisation[5].
Women may also seek to improve their networking skills. In apparent
recognition of this, conferences targeted to women often have a ‘how to
network’ section[30].
Women may face an ingrained barrier to progression due to an unconscious
bias about the ability and appropriateness of women in leadership roles.
Organisations may pick people for positions who were like the people already
in those positions, thus making assumptions about what people were able and
willing to do without investigating it[21]. Women may be perceived as being a
greater risk for senior positions, due to a general perception of a female’s
aptitude and ability to be a leader, regardless of the aptitude and ability of the
individual in question. This perception can lead to women not being appointed
to certain senior roles, or not being given the meaningful support needed to
achieve or succeed in them[6]. For example, in a study where two groups
were given separate case descriptions involving a CEO identical in every way
except for gender, with one CEO called Jane and one called John, on
average the students evaluated the performance of Jane more severely than
John, regardless of the fact that they had delivered the exact same
performance. This embodies the perception that women leaders are inferior to
male leaders[9]. These invisible but powerful barriers[6] limit the opportunities
for women to succeed by taking them out of the running for roles due to the
perception that they can’t handle certain jobs, that they would not be able to
manage the role combined with family obligations[26], or that they simply may
not want the role. This may particularly be the case in mining, where some

roles may take one you permanently or temporarily to remote locations that
some may perceive are ‘not a place for women’. A misplaced chivalry to spare
women from the ‘perils’ from some locations might unconsciously skew the
selection to men for such positions, however missing out on these types of
operational roles means that, at senior levels, women may be missing the
‘coal face’ experience required to progress to the next level.
The unconscious bias that exists against women in mining and in leadership
roles also means they often face higher levels of scrutiny, and need to be
‘outstanding’ to be considered for a role or to be successful in a role, rather
than just meeting their role KPIs.
Much of the barriers outlined above that women face when progressing into a
leadership role are found in the ‘middle years’ of a career. These years, when
an employee is progressing into junior and senior management levels, are
often the most critical career-building time. It is a time where an employee
must gain or have gained a range of essential experiences in order to be
selected later for senior opportunities. However, it is at this exact point where
women’s willingness to act as an advocate or supporter for their employer hits
its lowest level – that is, when they are most disillusioned with the
opportunities, or lack of opportunities, that they foresee in their organisation.
At this middle career stage, many women start to realise that their different
work approach and leadership style is providing a block to their progression,
with 40% of women having had a form of conversation about their style and fit
that often carries some negative connotation. Combined with the fact that
these ‘middle years’ are often at the same stage that a woman is balancing a
career with the competing priorities of having a family, it is during these critical
years that women often miss out on the critical surge in confidence that men
seem to experience during this career phase. This leads to women
questioning whether it is worth their time to keep pushing past the career
barriers they face in their organisation, and whether their continued efforts will
be successful[4]. Engagement may decrease, as, if you alienate people who
have different ways of seeing the world, their connection to the organisation
decreases[21].

While during the early phases of a career, men and women report an equal
confidence in their ability to become a senior business leader (females 66%,
males 65%), once they reach junior or middle management level, a large
confidence gaps starts to occur, where just 68% of females believe they will
become a business leader, compared to 86% of men – a gap of nearly
20%[4]. Thus, while during this critical phase men are building in confidence
and gaining the broad experience needed to progress to senior roles, women
are losing confidence in their style, ability and potential, and, due to criticisms
of their natural approach or observations of the lack of women in senior roles
in their organisation, decide to look for opportunities elsewhere, curb their
ambitions, or focus on their family[4]. This curtails the potential for many
otherwise high-achieving women to gain the confidence and experience
needed to make it to board level.
In the mining industry, there may be a perception that a barrier to increasing
female representation at board and senior level is due the challenge in finding
women who have the experience to be successful[1]. This may stem from the
number of women graduating from the areas that traditionally lead to a career
in mining. While women have been graduating from universities at a higher
rate than men for more than 25 years[4], this has generally not been, for
example, from mining engineering, with 20% of engineering graduates and
10.5% of practicing engineers being female[31]. However, at board level, a
direct path through the industry is not always necessary, and other relevant
experience and transferable skills, such as legal, financial, management,
strategic and communication skills, can provide a valuable contribution to
management and leadership positions[1].
Regardless, direct experience and education places a candidate at a distinct
advantage for senior and board positions, particularly experience at an
operational level. The lack of direct experience and education preventing
greater numbers of women making it to board level in the mining industry may
stem from a very young age, where young girls may not be attracted to roles
in mining or in areas that would naturally lead them into the mining industry,
due to the perception of the industry as ‘male dominated’[1]. Additionally,
even if they do envisage such a career, the acceptance of friends is an

important consideration for a young girl, and if a school-aged girl’s friends
don’t think engineering or metallurgy is attractive or desirable, that girl may
take that career option off the table. Girls may start to exclude subjects during
high school that may lead them to engineering or other technical related
fields, such as maths or science. Young males, by comparison, may not be
directly thinking of a career in the mining industry, but in construction or
engineering in general, resulting in them picking relevant unit electives and
leading them towards the industry. A career in mining may then develop, or at
least develop at university, whereas women often state that they have found
themselves in mining ‘by accident’.
In order to address the number of females working in the mining industry from
its early stages, mining companies can work towards shifting the perception of
the industry as being male-dominated. This may be done through dedicated
training schemes and programs for women[1], talks at schools and
universities, and simply having a greater number of women in the industry that
then provides a guide, role model or figurehead for young women to look to to
see that a career in the mining industry is possible.
Women may also find themselves restricted from applying for certain jobs
within the mining industry due to the wording of many job advertisements.
Such advertisements, particularly site-based ones, may use wording relating
to traits absent in most females, such as it being in a ‘tough’ environment, with
‘challenging’ or ‘harsh’ conditions. This may be the case even for professional
site roles, and are regardless of the fact that many modern mine sites have
facilities and equipment that can negate many of the ‘harsh’ elements of a
working environment. Such wording creates an unconscious bias that only
men should apply for such roles, or will only be successful in such roles. This
continues to perpetuate the perception of the mining industry as a male-
dominated environment, continuing the cycle of lack of female participation at
all levels of the business.

Research Aim and Outline
As outlined, a range of studies has indicated that a higher representation of
women on boards is linked to the financial returns of a company. This report
aims to test whether this is the case specifically in the mining industry, by
determining whether there is a link between the proportion of women on the
board of mining companies and the financial performance of those
companies.
To determine whether a link exists, the financial performance of various
mining and metals companies was examined. This report looked at the
financial performance of all mining and metals companies listed on the ASX,
as well as the top 500 mining and metals companies (by market capitalisation)
across all stock exchanges.
Data on these companies was then collected to calculate the following ratios
and rates, as at the date of the data collection or date the companies’ last set
of financial results were published:
 Return on Equity;
 Price/Earnings Ratio;
 Net Profit Margin;
 1 year growth rate;
 3 year growth rate;
 5 year growth rate.
All data was taken from the S&P Capital IQ Database.
Note not all companies provided or published the full set of data required to
calculate all ratios.
The number of women on each company’s board and the total number of
board members was recorded, with the percentage of women on each board
calculated.

Data was divided up into the below categories:
 All ASX mining and metals companies;
 ASX 200 mining and metals companies;
 ASX mining and metals companies with at least one operation;
 ASX mining and metals exploration companies or companies with a
project or development with market capitalisation greater than $100
million;
 ASX mining and metals exploration/projects/development companies
with a market capitalisation between $50 million to $100 million;
 All top 500 mining and metals companies by market capitalisation;
 1st quartile mining and metals companies by market capitalisation
globally;
 2nd quartile mining and metals companies by market capitalisation
globally;
 3rd quartile mining and metals companies by market capitalisation
globally;
 4th quartile mining and metals companies by market capitalisation
globally.
Data for the top 500 global companies was collected to see if there was any
substantial difference in board compositions between companies on the
Australian stock exchange compared to the rest of the world, though the
analysis has an Australian focus.
For each company category an average for each financial ratio was calculated
for companies with 0 women on their board, and for companies whose board
comprises at least 33% women, and the variance calculated between them.

Scatter diagrams for each company category and ratio were also created
showing the relationship between the financial performance ratio and the ratio
of women on the board.
Graphs and correlation were calculated using only data within two standard
deviations of the mean of each category, to reduce the impacts of outlying or
abnormal data.
Graphs for all financial ratios and company categories are included in the
appendix of this report.

Research Findings
A summary of the average return for each metric and company category for companies with 0 women on their board and
companies with at least 33% women on their board is below.
Note the ‘ASX 200’ and ‘ASX exploration/project/development with market capitalisation $100m+’ categories do not have any
companies with 33% or greater female representation on their boards.

The results show companies that have reached the ‘critical mass’ of at least
33% female representation on their boards outperform companies with no
females on their boards for the majority of company categories and financial
performance metrics.
In particular, companies with at least 33% women on the boards achieved a
higher return on equity in 9 out of 10 company categories, and higher growth
rates for all years in at least 7 out of 10 categories
For the ‘Top 500 2nd Quartile’ category, companies with 0 women on their
board outperformed companies with at least 33% women in every financial
performance category. The ‘Top 500 2nd Quartile’ category also has the
largest number of companies with at least 33% female board representation
of the top 500 quartiles – however, this is still just 5 companies out of a
possible 125.
A broad range of company categories with 33% or above female
representation on their boards achieved higher financial returns than
companies with 0 women. All ASX company categories, the ‘Top 500 Total’
and ‘Top 500 4th Quartile categories’ scored higher in the majority of financial
ratios for companies with at least 33% female board representation. This
indicates that there is not a particular company type of size that may benefit
from gender diversity at board level. Note the financial ratios used are not as
readily applicable to exploration, project or development companies as to
operations, however have been left in the report as the ratios allow for a
standard comparison, and to show gender-diversity at board level across the
industry as a whole.
The results show that, in most instances, there is an advantage to having the
‘critical mass’ of at least 33% women on the board as opposed to no women
on the board. However, the results must be read with caution. This first
caveat, and also one of the most noticeable findings of this study, is the very
low number of companies that have over 33% female representation on their
boards. Of the 700 mining and metals companies listed on the ASX, just 21 of
those companies have boards comprising of at least 33% women. Of these 21
companies, 15 are exploration/project/development companies with a market

capitalisation of between $0m and $20m. As noted, there are no ASX 200
companies or exploration/project/development companies over $100m market
capitalisation with above 33% female representation on their boards. Of the
global top 500 companies, just 12 companies have above 33% or more
female board representation.
A graph illustrating the relative lack of companies which have at least 33%
women on their boards is below, with the scatterplots of the relationship
between the proportion of women on boards and the return on equity of both
the ‘Total ASX’ and ‘Total Top 500’ mining and metals companies.
The red points on the graphs represent companies with 33% or higher female
board representation; orange points are between 20% - 32% female board
representation, and blue points represent companies with 0 – 19% women on
their boards.
Both graphs show a dominance of ‘blue dots’ – that is, companies with 0% -
19% female board representation, with relatively few ‘red dots’ and companies
with at least 33% female board membership in comparison. Whilst there is an
encouraging amount of ‘orange dots’, representing companies sitting just
outside the ‘critical mass’ of 33% female board representation, the
overwhelming view on both the ‘Total ASX’ and ‘Top 500’ graphs is the nearly
solid line of blue dots at the bottom of each graph representing companies
with 0 female board members.

The disparity between the amount of companies with 0 female board
representation and at least 33% female board representation has several
implications.
Firstly, the small number of companies with at least 33% female board
representation means that data is potentially skewed due to a low sample
size.
A summary of the number of companies with at least 33% female board
representation by company type is below. As highlighted, some categories
have a very low number of companies that have reached this ‘critical mass’.
For example, the categories of ‘ASX Operations’, ‘ASX Market Cap $50m -

$100m’ and ‘Top 500 3rd Quartile’ all have just one company in their
respective categories that has at least 33% female board representation.
The result is that the average financial return of companies with at least 33%
female board representation in these categories is in fact the financial return
of just one company. The result of just one company is not a representative
sample size, and the results of this particular company is not necessarily
reflective of the results other companies could achieve through gender
diversity.
Even for categories with a higher number of companies achieving at least
33% female board representation, this number is still not sufficiently high to be
considered a reliable sample size. For all categories apart from ‘Total ASX’,
‘Total Top 500’ and ‘ASX $0m - $20m’, there are no more than 5 companies
with at least 33% female board representation. This means that a particularly
high or low number from any one company can significantly skew the average
return for that company’s category.
A further implication of the low numbers of companies with at least 33%
female board members is that it shows the progress the mining industry must
make in order to achieve gender diversity. Of the total ASX mining board
seats available, just 4% are held by women, far lower than the average 15%
of all companies on the ASX200[4]. The current representation of women on
boards on the mining industry is a large distance from the ‘critical mass’

required to obtain the benefits of diversity, and considerably more from
gender parity. With by far the most common board makeup in the industry
being one with no women at all, significant changes in industry culture and
practice are required.
A further indication of the gender diversity challenges facing the industry is the
fact that no companies in the ASX200 category have achieved above 33%
board representation.
A graphical representation of the composition of ASX200 mining and metals
companies shows that while there are several companies with above 20%
female board representation, no ASX200 company has achieved ‘critical
mass’ of at least 33% female board members. The most common company
category is one with 0% female board representation. This is the same case
for exploration/project/development companies of at least $100m market
capitalisation. The implication of this is that none of the largest and most
influential mining companies on the ASX have achieved substantial gender
diversity at board level. This is despite these companies being the most likely
to have gender diversity policies, and the resources to implement and
promote such programs. While women hold 9% of the board positions of
ASX200 companies, which is greater than the 4% industry average, no single

company has the level of female board representation needed to influence
outcomes.
In comparison, ASX $0m - $20m companies have the greatest number of
ASX companies with at least 33% female board representation. A graphical
representation of the board composition of these companies is below.
It is possible that the smaller size of these companies means board sizes are
smaller, requiring a lower number of women to reach ‘critical mass’. A further
reason for the increased presence of companies with a high number of female
board members is that the different operating considerations of an explorer or
small project/development company compared to a company with large
operations may lend itself to create a board with a broad and diverse range of
experience and styles.
Whilst, due to the larger sample size of companies in this category, the
percentage of companies with at least 33% board representation is at the
same level as the ASX as a whole (3%), the concentration of companies with
the highest levels of gender diversity are at the smaller end of the industry.
Other limitations of the results are that it doesn’t take into the account the
length of board tenure of the female board members of each company. For
example, the graph below shows a positive correlation for ‘ASX Operations’

companies and their 5 year growth rate, however it is outside the scope of this
study to determine whether the women on the boards of this company have in
fact been at the company for the full 5 year period, or whether, for example,
they were only appointed in the last year, and if so, what period was the
company’s growth significantly achieved in.
Further, the dominance of smaller companies in the ASX-listed categories
with low net income, revenue, equity, share price, and earnings per share
means that a small movement in any of the financial inputs to calculate the
financial performance measures used can result in a very large negative or
positive ratio or growth rate. While some of these ‘abnormalities’ are removed
through the use of results within 2 standard deviations of the mean, the large
ratios and percentages returned have the potential to skew results.
The timing of the data collection may also impact results. The mining industry
is coming off an unprecedented boom period, where lower commodity prices
and rising input costs have impacted growth and profits[32], though some
commodities have been impacted more significantly than others[33]. This may
potentially have impacted the financial ratios of some companies in a way that
‘cancels out’ or skews any benefits a company may have been receiving
through gender diversity. It may be the case that the analysis should be done
in more stable economic times, however this also has the potential to inflate

results, for example, through increasing financial returns through means
unrelated to the benefits that gender diversity at board level can bring.
In summary, the results of this study point to a positive link between financial
performance and the proportion of women on a company’s board, with, in
general, a financial advantage to having at least 33% female board
representation compared to no women on the board at all. However, the lack
of a critical sample size of companies with at least 33% board representation
means that while a positive correlation is indicated, a link between gender
diversity at board level and financial performance of mining companies is not
yet provable.
The Future
The current low level of female representation on mining company boards
means the industry has significant steps to go until they reach the critical
mass required to gain the benefits that gender diversity can provide.
Many companies within the industry have initiatives and policies in place to
increase gender diversity at various levels, such as pre-graduate programs for
women[1], scholarships at the graduate level[12], and gender targets at senior
management[13] and board level[11]. Further, Toro Energy recently appointed
a female Chief Executive and a female Chairman. However, despite these
initiatives and ongoing executive and board attention[21], the traditional tools
for encouraging gender diversity, while all being necessary, have not proven
to be sufficient to drive real change in the near term[4]. This may be because
despite the benefits being known, it is often easier to go along with the norms
of the day than it is to change them. Instead of waiting for the change to occur
by policies or nature, active intervention is needed for culture to change[21].
Purposeful action is required to create the critical mass required to obtain the
benefits of gender diversity. Once this is reached, a positive cycle can
commence, where progress breeds more progress – having a critical mass of

women at the top levels of an organisation translates to being able to attract
and retain more women. Women seeing other women attaining senior
positions signifies an authentically inclusive culture and provides essential
role models. Without women actually being appointed to senior and board
level roles, women may question the company’s commitment to gender parity,
and whether they themselves fit within the culture and narrow range of
demonstrated leadership styles the company promotes[4]. Having more
women in visible roles within the industry filters down to all levels, providing a
guide and role model down to females at school and university level who may
consider a career in the mining industry.
The simplest and most effective way to increase the number of women on
boards and in senior leadership roles is to look for and then appoint them.
When preparing board profiles, gender representation should be added to the
list of necessary skills and qualifications the overall board should possess. A
review of current board members against the desired board profile should
reveal the gaps missing from the current board, and organisations can then
diligently fill these gaps with the appropriate people. Alternatively, if gender
representation is not an active priority for the board, it decreases the
likelihood that their search for board members will turn up qualified
women[22].
It may be argued that by selecting women to boards in order to affirm
diversity, financial and technical experience will be sacrificed. However, at a
board level, both ‘financial knowledge and experience’ and ‘specific
complementary skill set’ are influential considerations in the selection process,
regardless of what the complementary skill set is. Further, a company would
not select a board member who does not bring relevant financial and technical
experience just because of their gender – the board is the body that steers a
business, and a company would not take undue risks in this area[6].
When selecting a board, while financial knowledge, specific experience and
skills should continue to be the primary criteria for candidate selection,
representation factors such as gender should be used as an influential
secondary filter to ensure that candidates are aligned with the direction of

each company’s board, once gender diversity is determined to be a part and
purpose of the company and its culture[22].
Some may argue that this is discriminatory against men, however it is
possible that such a practice could be granted as an exception by
Discrimination Commissioners, on the grounds that it is allowable to address
a structural discrimination[34].
If gender diversity at board level is not happening quickly enough, new
approaches should be tried. By revaluating selection criteria to include
‘secondary’ factors, expanding the size of a board or creating the size of a
board to accommodate a less experienced director who can be helped into
the role, the overall strength of the board will not be diminished. Instead, the
board can begin to experience the benefits of gender diversity, and create a
pipeline of progress within their organisation[21] where women believe they
can achieve and be recognised. Increasing female representation at the top
level of an organisation is the one action that will have the greatest impact on
improving female representation at all levels[4]. Direct action is needed to
achieve this.
The use of quotas at board level is an option that can be implemented to
bluntly but quickly redress gender balance issues. The use of quotas can
come at a price, with a perception of reduced fairness and questions of
whether those who have been promoted were selected based on merit or
simply to meet a quota[1]. Both men and women are generally not in favour of
targets, as they offend everyone’s sense of meritocracy[35]. However, due to
the current low levels of gender diversity in the mining industry,
implementation of a quota may be required. While in the short term this may
come with negative side-effects as to perceptions of ‘fairness’, the benefits of
diversity are really delivered over the longer term. If setting a quota is the only
way to deliver change, then it may be a necessary and justifiable strategy[9].
One barrier to implementing gender diversity targets is that not everyone
understands yet ‘why’ they should be implemented. If people are able to
believe that gender balance will benefit their business, the resistance to such

targets will be diminished. Leaders must not assume that everyone already
‘gets’ the case for gender diversity[35]. Its business case must be articulated
and constantly communicated among both the leadership team and broader
organisation. By linking the benefits of gender diversity to the heart of what
drives value in an organisation, gender diversity and any quotas surrounding
them will be seen as a business imperative, and not simply a ‘good deed’[21].
Even if the assigned quotas are not achieved, setting targets pushes an
organisation to head in that direction.
While some employees may feel disgruntled and believe female appointments
are tokenistic, once the benefits of a diverse mix of leadership skills,
experiences and approaches begins to be realised, initial resistance will soon
be overcome as organisational culture changes and diversity becomes the
norm.
Whether through quotas or otherwise, any efforts to increase the
representation of women at senior levels of an organisation must be a cultural
change that begins at the very top levels of a business. No program or
initiative will be the ‘silver bullet’. The whole organisation must change, with
leaders seeing the advancement of women as a strategic or operational
imperative, in the same way they would view any other measure that could
gain them a financial and organisational performance. Efforts to increase
diversity cannot just be an add-on program, but should be integrated into
organisations daily work strategy through goals, performance monitoring,
tough conversations, and skill building[6]. To sustainably embed gender
diversity into culture, it must be part of day-to-day operations. Successful
gender balancing requires more than a statistical push. It requires companies
to adapt their leadership culture, management mindsets and policies to the
consequences of a gender balanced talent pool[35].
The drive for organisational change comes from the top. Changes in diversity
are unlikely to come from a middle management or operational level[6]. CEO
commitment and promotion is critical in changing culture, as it reflects the
commitment and strategy of the company[16]. From CEO level, all leaders
must step up and support embedding gender equality into their organisational

culture, to ensure employees at all levels of the business are on board.
Culture is about ‘walking the talk’, and if a CEO promotes and creates an
inclusive culture where different leadership styles are accepted, this will
continue the positive cycle that gender diversity can bring, transforming a
company from within, making it inherently more diverse and accepting, and
increasing the attractability of the organisation to current and potential future
female employees[4]. However, if a belief in gender equality does not exist at
CEO level, the chance of diversity becoming part of an organisation’s culture
is very small[21].
The sponsorship and mentoring of female employees by senior male leaders
is a means of embedding the cultural change required in an organisation. By
creating mentoring opportunities that aren’t based on shared interests or
between similar people, it allows both men and women to connect across
different thinking styles, learn from each other[20], and provide women with
the support, confidence and belief required for them to actively seek or ask for
the roles they may otherwise believe are not available to them. While women
should not have to unauthentically adapt their leadership style to be
something that they are not, they need the courage to ask for or claim the
roles required to make it to senior levels of the business[5]. Sponsorship and
mentoring also provides women with the support and networks required to
access opportunities that they may not otherwise find are open to them.
At a broader level, the implementation or acceptance of flexible work options
can improve women’s (and men’s) ability to balance their career progression
and having a family, particularly through the critical ‘middle years’ of a career.
Whilst many organisations have a number of gender equity initiatives in place,
such as flexible work arrangements, they often fail because organisations
indirectly discriminate against people who take advantage of such
arrangements. Flexibility is often viewed as a career killer, with employees
who take flexible work options routinely given lower levels of responsibility, left
out of communications, excluded from invitations, and passed over for
promotions[21]. Whilst many organisations promote flexibility as a means to
attract high calibre candidates, the operation of these arrangements often

doesn’t match the rhetoric. Research shows that women in flexible roles are
the most productive members of the workforce. This is in sharp contrast to
common assumptions that employees on flexible work arrangements are not
‘pulling their weight’[21]. Companies that are able to successfully implement
flexible working conditions or locations will not only improve productivity
across their female workforce[21], but will assist in ensuring that the pipeline
of progression for their female employees is not a ‘leaky one’, where
employees may not be able to return their career trajectory to where was
when they left to have children. To improve women’s ability to return to the
workforce after children, government interventions are also needed in order to
make returning to work practical and affordable. For example, in Sweden,
every child is guaranteed a place at a public preschool, with childcare fees
capped, and no parent charged more than 3% of their salary for school
fees[21].
Conclusion
The presence of a critical mass of female representation on company boards
can provide significant financial, strategic, operational and cultural
advantages, and assist in creating a positive cycle of gender diversity, where
high calibre female employees are attracted to and retained within an
organisation. However, there are various barriers to achieving this critical
mass, particularly in the mining industry, which is generally perceived to be a
male-dominated one. Due to these barriers, the mining industry has a
significant way to go before gender equality is achieved, with the lowest levels
of female board representation of all industries. Whilst there are various
initiatives in place already, and indications that mining companies who do
achieve critical mass in gender diversity can achieve higher financial returns,
direct action is needed to change organisational culture and the level of
female representation at board level.
These actions need to start at the top levels of industry and organisation. The
current rhetoric, policies and good intentions must result in positive action,

and the implementation of specific actions and outcomes that will increase the
number of females being appointed to the boards of mining industries. Mining
companies that are able to achieve this will obtain a strategic advantage, with
an ability to view strengths and opportunities differently and a strong talent
pipeline for high-calibre, experienced and dedicated female employees
leading to improved and sustainable financial returns and a dynamic, inclusive
culture.

Bibliography
1. Mining for Talent - a Study of Women on Boards in the Mining Industry,
2013, PWC.
2. Gender Equality Act (Cth), 2012:
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2012C00899.
3. Ewart, H., Sue Boyce and Judith Troeth Express Dismay Over Tony
Abbott's Male-Dominated Cabinet, in ABC News, H. Ewart, Editor 17
Sept 2013.
4. Creating a Positive Cycle: Critical Steps to Achieving Gender Parity in
Australia, 2013, Bain & Company.
5. Doyle, A., Powering Up! How America's Women Achievers Become
Leaders. 2011, USA: Xlibris.
6. Yee, J.B.a.L., Changing Companies' Minds About Women, September
2011, McKinsey Quarterly.
7. Buthelezi, N., Women Making Inroads Into Male-Dominated Mining
Sector Despite Challenges, in Mining Weekly2013.
8. ABS, Australian Social Trends - Towns of the Mining Boom, April 2013
2013.
9. Gender Diversity and Corporate Performance, in Research
InstituteAugust 2012, Credit Suisse.
10. WGE Act at a Glance, December 2012, Workplace Gender Equality
Agency.
11. BHP Billiton PLC and BHP Billiton Limited 2012 Annual General
Meeting Shareholder Questions, 2012, BHP Billiton.
12. BHP Billiton Women in Engineering Scholarship, 2014, Curtin
University: Perth.
13. Goals and Targets, in Sustainable Development 2011 Performance
Goals and Targets, 2011, Rio Tinto.
14. Heffernan, M., Gender Diversity Slow on Boards, in The Age, 26 Sept
2013.
15. Gender Diversity on Boards, September 2013, Australian Institute of
Company Directors.
16. Women at the Top of Corporations - Making it Happen, in Women
Matter 2010, 2010, McKinsey.
17. The Bottom Line: Corporate Performance and Women's
Representation on Boards (2004 - 2008), 2011, Catalyst.
18. Groundbreakers - Using the Strength of Women to Rebuild the World
Economy, 2009, Ernst & Young.
19. Page, S.E., The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better
Groups, firms, Schools and Societies. 2008: Princeton University
Press.
20. Diversity's New Frontier - Diversity of Thought and the Future of the
Workforce, in GovLab, 2013, Deloitte University Press.
21. In His Own Words. The Male Perspective on Gender Diversity, 2013,
EY.
22. Women on Boards. Not Just the Right Thing...But the 'Bright' Thing,
2002, Conference Board of Canada.
23. Female Leadership, a Competitive Edge for the Future, in Women
Matter, 2008, McKinsey & Company.

24. Adams, S., 8 Blind Spots Between the Sexes at Work, April 2003,
Forbes.com.
25. A Business Case for Women, in The McKinsey Quarterly2008,
McKinsey & Company.
26. Lareina, B.J.a.Y., Unlocking the Full Potential of Women in the US
Economy, 2011, McKinsey & Company.
27. Wade, M., Fewer than 20 Men a Month Take Paid Parental Leave, in
Sydney Morning Herald, 1 September 2013.
28. The Feminist Mystique, in Women and Work, March 2013, The
Economist.
29. Jakobsh, D.R., Barriers to Women's Leadership, in Encyclopedia of
Leadership, S. Reference, Editor.
30. Collier, S., The Wonders of Networking, 2012, Women in Mining UK.
31. Engineering Gender Balance, March 2012, Sydney University.
32. Big Miners' Profits Down as Resources Boom Peaks, in ABC News, 5
June 2013.
33. Gold Price Decline Felt Around the World, 14 August 2013.
34. Exceptions and Exemptions, Office of the Anti-Discrimination
Commissioner Tasmania.
35. Wittenberg-Cox, A., The Trouble with Gender Targets, 16 October
2013, HBR Blog Network.

Appendix
Return on Equity v % Women on Board

Price/Earnings Ratio v % Women on Board

Net Profit Ratio v % Women on Board

1 Year Growth Rate v % Women on Board

Women in Mining Capstone Final

Women in Mining Capstone Final

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (13)

Ähnlich wie Women in Mining Capstone Final

Ähnlich wie Women in Mining Capstone Final (20)

Women in Mining Capstone Final