No organisation in the 21st century can credibly claim to be the voice of business if it does not listen to the voice of women, says RUTH SUNDERLAND
- CBI sounds like a throwback to the 1960s
- When business largely meant manufacturing dominated by white men
- We now have a diverse business landscape
The sex and drugs scandal at the CBI has raised so many questions.
The organisation claims to be ‘the voice of business’, but what exactly does this mean – and what would that sound like?
Are the orotund pronouncements of FTSE 100 grandees the voice of business? The social media musings of Elon Musk or Matt Moulding? Is the voice of women in business being heard at all?
When female Footsie chief executives are subjected to sexist heckling from shareholders at their agms, you have to ask.
The CBI sounds like a throwback to the 1960s when business largely meant British-owned manufacturing dominated by white men. We now have a diverse business landscape with growing numbers of female and minority ethnic entrepreneurs.
Moving in the right direction?: The CBI sounds like a throwback to the 1960s when business largely meant British-owned manufacturing dominated by white men
Even before recent events, it looked like a stretch to claim that the CBI could speak for the kaleidoscope of UK firms in 2023.
The immediate question is whether members will quit. A more pertinent question, perhaps, is whether anyone would pay to join the CBI as a new member after this.
Why, if you are the 35-year-old female founder of a tech unicorn, for instance, would you subscribe? For the contacts? Not when you have your pick of networking events in chic venues and no need to be seen dead on the CBI rubber chicken circuit?
Another important question is why, in this age of woke-ism, sexual harassment and assault of women remains so prevalent in the workplace? The alleged behaviour at the CBI is disgusting, but not a one-off. Harassment and assault of women and gay men are found in many places, including Parliament – remember ‘Pestminster’?
Trades unions have had their share. The Labour peer Lady [Helena] Kennedy recently published a horrifying report into alleged harassment and bullying at the TSSA transport union.
She found that women were subjected to sexual assaults, inappropriate and sexual touching, and coercive and manipulative behaviour over many years.
McDonald’s, the fast food chain, was in February forced to sign a legal commitment with the equality watchdog in the UK to protect its female staff against sexual harassment after more than 1,000 complaints.
This widespread oppression and mistreatment of women at work is appalling.
As for the CBI’s members, their reluctance to sever ties or speak out is probably down to worries that similar things are happening in their own organisation. Yet their silence risks being interpreted as a refusal to stand up for women’s right to be safe at work.
Victims of sexual harassment or assault often fear reporting it to their employer, and this can be with good reason. The fear is they will be met with wilful blindness, attempts to exonerate the culprit, or even be blamed themselves.
Installing a female boss, as the CBI has now done, is a positive move but will not of itself solve the problem. Tony Danker, who was ousted last week for conduct that fell short of expectations, was preceded as director general by Dame Carolyn Fairbairn, a highly respected businesswoman.
But a tiny handful of women at the top cannot hope to overturn a deep-seated and widespread toxic culture.
The most difficult questions for the CBI are these: why did it seemingly fail to hear the women on its own staff, who describe such awful experiences? Why did it fail to protect them, to the extent they felt impelled to go public?
No organisation in the 21st century can credibly claim to be the voice of business if it does not listen to the voice of women.
