【美国】僵局中的董事会监察机构和董事会多元化

Board Monitor Board diversity at an impasse

In 2016, Fortune500 companies filled 421 vacant or newly created board seats with independentdirectors. Since the inception of the Board Monitor in 2009, that's a new highfor the second consecutive year. Once again, in tracking the movement of thesedirectors to their new boards, we took into account all of their significantindustry experiences. (For example, a director who has worked most recently inthe consumer industry may also have had valuable experience in the industrialsector or in technology.) We looked also at the directors who were joiningtheir first board, and we took an even deeper dive into the overall data,tracking the flow of career experience by gender and ethnicity onto boards,industry by industry.

Key findingsinclude the following:

• The share of seatsthat went to women in 2016 fell by two percentage points, to 27.8%, ending a seven-yearrun of year-on-year gains.

• In the past fouryears, the aggregate proportion of African-American, Hispanic, Asian, andAsian-American appointments averaged 20.1%, more than four percentage pointshigher than the 15.8% average for the period 2009-12.

• In 2016, thepercentage of Hispanic appointees, though still low compared with the USHispanic population, reached the highest level recorded by the Board Monitor.Consumer companies led the way-almost 60% of Hispanic appointees went to boardsin the consumer sector.

• Almost 41% of Asianand Asian-American appointees went to technology boards.

• About 33% ofAfrican-American appointees went to boards in the industrial sector.

Other findingsinclude the following:

• The total number ofboard seats fell slightly, from 4,698 in 2015 to 4,609.

• Some 9% of boardseats turned over in 2016, compared with 8.5% in 2015 and 6.8% in 2014.

• Current and formerCEOs and CFOs together accounted for almost 66% of director appointments in 2016,down from the eight-year high of 73% in 2015.

• Of the 421 boardappointees in 2016, some 315, or almost 75%, had previous board experience.

• On average,appointees had substantial work experience in 1.5 distinct industries, as in2015, but below the average of 2.2 distinct industry experiences in 2014.

Progress towardgender parity continues to recede

Though the numberof all board seats filled in 2016 jumped to 421, from 399 the previous year,the number of open seats filled by women dropped to 117, down from 119 in 2015.As a result, in 2016 the percentage of female director appointments failed torise for the first time since the inception of the Board Monitor in 2009. Infact, the percentage declined slightly, to 27.8%, down from 29.8% in 2015. Andthat figure represented only a slight rise over the figure of 29.2% in 2014,when we projected that, at the the current growth rate, women would account for50% of new directors for the first time in 2024. In light of the data in 2015,we calculated that it would take an additional two years for female directorappointments to reach parity with male director appointments. Now, given thedecline in the growth rate in 2016, parity will not arrive until 2032.

Which industry isleading the way?

Roughly 30% of allfemale directors appointed in 2016 went to consumer boards, followed byindustrial boards, at 24%. Financial services boards appointed 15% of all newfemale directors, followed by technology boards, at 14%; business services, at11%; and life sciences, at 7%.

However, whenconsidered in terms of the total number of board appointments industry byindustry, the percentages tell a somewhat different story. While consumerboards appointed the largest number of women overall, only 26% of new boardseats in that industry went to women. Compare that with business services,where half of all new director appointees were women. In technology, the figurewas 40%; in life sciences, 30%; in financial services, 28%; in consumer, 26%;and in industrial, 21%.

What is perhapsmost striking in those numbers is the relatively large percentage of seats thatwent to women in technology, an industry that has been under fire in recentyears for the dearth of women in senior positions, including at the boardlevel. In response, a number of tech companies have redoubled their efforts torecruit women as board directors.1 This year's percentage of new appointmentscould be a harbinger of better performance to come.

The experience mix

What mix ofexperiences did women bring to boards? Twenty-three percent of all of theirsignificant career experiences were in financial services, 22% in businessservices, and 20% in consumer. Only 6% of their experiences encompassed lifesciences.

How was that mixdistributed among boards? Of their collective financial services experience,30% went to financial services boards. Of their business services experience,22% went to consumer boards, 22% to industrial boards, and 20% to technologyboards, with only 15% going to business services boards. Of their consumerexperience, 57% went to consumer boards, followed distantly by businessservices and industrial boards, each of which acquired 14% of that consumerexperience.

A modest upwardtrend in racial and ethnic diversity?

In the aggregatein 2016, African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and Asian-Americans constituteda little over 22% of new board appointees, the highest proportion since theinception of the Board Monitor in 2009. Over that eight-year period, theaggregate number for these appointees averaged just under 18%. However, in thepast four years, the proportion of these appointees averaged 20.1%, more than fourpercentage points higher than the 15.8% average for the period 2009-12.

Full analysis ofthe numbers for 2016 yielded the following results:

• African-Americansconstituted 9.3% of new appointees in 2016, unchanged from last year. Some 33% ofall African-American appointees went to industrial boards, 28% went to consumerboards, and 13% went to life sciences and 13% to financial services boards. Interms of the total number of board appointments by industry, African-Americansassumed more than 18% of available life sciences seats, almost 10% ofindustrial seats, a little over 8% of both consumer and financial servicesseats, 7.7% of business services seats, and 7.5% of technology seats. The threemost widely distributed skills among African-American appointees were inbusiness services (27%), financial (21%), and consumer (19%).

• Hispanicsconstituted 6.4% of new appointees in 2016, the highest figure ever and up from4% in 2015. Some 59% of all Hispanic appointees went to consumer boards, 15% toindustrial boards, and 15% to financial services boards. In terms of totalappointments by industry, Hispanics assumed almost 12% of available seats inconsumer, 6.6% in financial services, 5% in technology, 3.7% in life sciences,3% in industrial, and none in business services. The three most widelydistributed skills among them were in consumer (40%), financial services (17%),and business services (14%). Although the 6.4% figure overall remains lowrelative to the percentage of the US Hispanic population, it represents a 60%increase over 2015. That reflects the increasing demand we see for Hispanic candidates.Consumer company boards especially are looking for additional expertise withthe growing Hispanic market, whose buying power in 2016 was estimated at $1.4trillion, exceeding Mexico's gross domestic product.

• Asians andAsian-Americans constituted 6.4% of new appointees in 2016, up from 4.8% in2015. Almost 41% of Asian and Asian-American appointees went to technologyboards, 22% to consumer boards, and 15% to both financial services andindustrial boards. In total appointments by industry, Asians andAsian-Americans assumed 27.5% of available seats in technology, 6.6% infinancial services,4.5% in consumer, almost 4% in both business services andlife sciences, and 3% in industrial. The three most widely distributed skillsamong Asian and Asian-American appointees were in financial services (40%),industrial (23%), and technology (20%).

First-timedirectors

About one-quarterof new board appointees in 2016 had no previous board experience. Of those first-timers,the three largest proportions went to consumer boards (35%), industrial boards(25%), and financial services boards (15%). The three most widely distributedcareer experiences among them were financial services, at 28%; consumer, at24%; and business services, at 17%.

Thirty-sevenpercent of all first-timers were women. These women first-time directors mostoften went to consumer boards, followed by industrial boards and businessservices boards. Financial services was the most widely distributed careerexperience among them, followed by industrial and then business services andconsumer experience.

Eleven percent offirst-timers were African-American. The most common destinations for thesedirectors were industrial boards, followed by business services, consumer, andlife sciences boards. The three most widely distributed career experiencesamong African-American first-time directors included business services,consumer, and financial services.

Nine percent offirst-timers were Asian or Asian-American. Their most common destinations were consumerboards, followed distantly by financial services and technology boards. Theirmost widely distributed career experiences included financial services,followed distantly by business services, industrial, and technology.

Seven percent offirst-timers were Hispanic. Their most common destinations were consumerboards, followed distantly by financial services boards and technology boards.Their three most widely distributed career experiences included consumer,technology, and financial services.

The outlook fordiversity

Research in recent years has shown a correlation between gender diversity on boards and superior

shareholder value.Boards have been aware of the research on gender and business performance forsome time, as the uptick in the rate at which they were adding women in recentyears suggests-only 18.0% of new director appointees in 2009 were women versusthe figure of 29.8% in 2015. But the deceleration in 2016 begs the question: Isthis a plateau or dip that will last for some years to come-or merely a pausebefore the upward climb resumes?

Either outcome isa possibility. Those companies and industries that fall short in hiring andpromoting senior female executives continue to face pressure; efforts toaddress the issue would expand the ranks of potential women directors.

Yet competing pressuresmay unintentionally continue to thwart progress. For example, shareholders arepushing to limit the number of boards on which an active executive can serve.Since women occupy far fewer senior executive positions than men do, suchlimits could further reduce the pool of women considered for boarddirectorships. Similarly, boards continue to prioritize CEO experience inprospective new board members-a background that is far less common among womencandidates.

These competingpressures will take time and attention from boards and management to resolve.In the meantime, forwardlooking companies will continue to insist on diverseslates of board candidates. They will also challenge their assumptionsregarding the definition of an "ideal" director-for example, by consideringexecutives who are new to boards or not yet CEOs. And they will focusmanagement attention on recruiting and developing diverse executives. Suchefforts will provide the starting points for understanding-and measuring-thepower of board diversity in the coming years.

2016年，财富500强公司用独立董事填补421个董事席位空缺以及新设的董事席位。自2009年董事会监察机构成立以来，这是连续第二年创下新高。再一次，为了跟踪这些董事们到新董事会的流动情况，我们考虑了他们所有重要的行业经验背景。（例如，最近在消费行业工作的董事也可能在工业部门或技术方面拥有宝贵的经验）。我们还观察第一次加入董事会的董事，更深入地了解整体数据，追踪按性别和种族划分的职业经历，分析各行业数据。

主要发现包括：

•2016年女性董事席位份额下降了两个百分点，达到27.8％，结束了七年的同比涨幅。

•过去四年来，非裔美国人，西班牙裔，亚洲人和亚裔美国人任命平均为20.1％，高于2009 - 2012年度的平均水平（15.8％）4个百分点。

•2016年，西班牙裔受访者的百分比虽然与西班牙裔美国人口相比仍然较低，但达到了董事会监督记录的最高水平。消费型公司领先 - 接近60％的西班牙裔受访者去了消费行业的董事会。

•近41％的亚洲人和亚裔美国人去了科技行业董事会。

•约33％的非裔美国人任职人员去了工业行业的董事会。

其他调查结果包括：

•董事席位总数略有下降，由2015年的4,698人下降至4,609人。

•2016年约9％的董事会席位关止，2015年为8.5％，2014年为6.8％。

•当前和前任首席执行官和首席财务官在2016年合计占董事任命的近66％，低于2015年的八年高点73％。

•在2016年的421名董事会成员任命中，约有315名，即将近75％具有曾经的董事会经验。

•平均而言，受聘人员在2015年的1.5个不同行业拥有丰富的工作经验，但低于2014年2个不同行业经验的平均水平。

两性平等取得进展

虽然2016年全部席位人数从上一年的399人攀升至421人，女性开放席位数量却下降至117人，低于2015年的119人。2016年女性董事任命的百分比自2009年董事会监测机构成立以来，首次未能上涨。实际上，这一比例略有下降，达到27.8％，低于2015年的29.8％。与2014年的29.2％相比，这一数字仅略有上升，我们预计，按照原先的增长率，女性将会在2024年首次占据50％的新董事席位。鉴于2015年的数据，我们估计女性席位任命还需要额外的两年才能与男性席位任命真正平等。而如今，有鉴于2016年的增长率有所下降，则要等到2032年才能达到平等。

哪个行业是领先的？

在2016年任命的女董事中约有30％去了消费行业董事会，其次是工业董事会，占24％。金融服务董事会任命新任女董事占15％，其次是科技行业董事会，占14％；商业服务，占11％；和生命科学，占7％。

但是，按照各行业的董事会任命总数来考虑，百分比说明了一个问题。虽然消费行业董事会在总体上任命了最多的女性，但该行业新增董事会席位中仅有26％是女性。与商业服务相比较，商业服务行业有一半的新任董事是女性。在技术行业，这个数字是40％。生命科学中，是30％；金融服务业，是28％；在消费行业，是26％；工业是21％。

在这些数字中可能最引人注目的是，科技行业女性席位比例相对较大，而这个行业近年来由于缺乏担任高级职位的妇女而备受打击，包括在董事会层面。作为回应，一些科技公司加倍努力招聘女性董事。今年新任命的百分比可能预示着未来更好的表现。

经验组合

这些女性董事能给对董事会带来哪些经验呢？ 他们重要的职业经历有23％来自金融服务业，22％来自商业服务业，20％来自于消费行业。只有6％的经验涵盖了生命科学。

每类职业经历又是如何在行业板块之间分配的呢？ 有金融服务经验者中，30％去往金融服务董事会。有商业服务经验者，22％去往消费行业董事会，22％去往工业行业董事会，20％去往科技行业董事会，其中只有15％去往商业服务董事会。有消费行业经验者，57％去往消费行业董事会，其次是商业服务和工业董事会，各有14％。

种族及民族多样性呈上升趋势吗？

在2016年的总计中，非裔美国人、西班牙裔、亚洲人和亚裔美国人在新任董事会成员中占22％以上，是2009年董事会监测机构成立以来的最高比例。在这8年的时间里，这些受访者的总人数平均占比都不到18％。然而，过去四年，这些人士的平均占比为20.1％，比2009-2012年度的15.8％高出四个百分点。

对2016年数字的全面分析得出以下结果：

•2016年，非裔美国人占新增董事会成员的9.3％，与去年持平。约33％的非裔美国人任职于工业行业董事会，28％任职于消费行业董事会，13％任职于生命科学行业董事会，13％任职于金融服务行业董事会。在各行业董事会总任命方面，非洲裔美国人占有生命科学行业董事会席位的18％以上，占工业行业董事会席位的10％，消费行业和金融服务行业董事会席位都占8％以上，占7.7％的商业服务行业席位和占7.5％科技行业席位。非裔美国人任职人数最多的是商业服务（27％）、财务（21％）和消费（19％）。

•2016年，西班牙裔占新增董事会成员的6.4％，是历年来最高的，高于2015年的4％。西班牙裔新增席位中有59％任职于消费行业董事会，15％任职于工业行业董事会，15％任职于金融服务行业董事会。在业界总任命方面，西班牙裔人士占消费行业董事会近12％的席位，金融服务董事会中占6.6％，科技行业董事会中占5％，生命科学董事会中占3.7％，工业行业董事会中占3％，商业服务为零。西班牙裔任职人数最多的是消费行业（40％），金融服务（17％）和商业服务（14％）。虽然6.4％的数字相对于美国西班牙裔人口的百分比仍然较低，但比2015年增长了60％。这反映了对于西班牙裔候选人的需求增长。尤其是消费行业企业董事会尤正在寻求更多的拥有专业知识的西班牙裔候选人，随着西班牙裔市场的增长，其2016年的购买力估计为1.4万亿美元，超过了墨西哥的国内生产总值.

•亚洲人和亚裔人士在2016年占新增董事会成员中占6.4％，高于2015年的4.8％。 其中，近41％的亚洲和亚裔美国人任职于科技行业董事会，22％任职于消费行业董事会，15％任职于金融服务和15％任职于工业企业董事会。在业界总任命方面，亚洲人和亚裔人士占科技职位的比例为27.5％，金融服务业为6.6％，消费行业为4.5％，商业服务和生命科学行业各占4％，工业企业占3％。亚洲和亚裔美国人中任职人数最多的有金融服务（40％），工业（23％）和科技（20％）。

第一次担任董事会职务者

2016年约有四分之一的新任董事为首次担任董事会成员。在这些新手中，最大比例分布于消费行业（35％），工业（25％）和金融服务行业（15％）。其中三个最广泛分布的职业经历是金融服务，占28％；消费，占24％；商业服务，占17％。

37％的新手是女性。这些女性董事普遍任职于消费行业企业董事会，其次是工业和商业服务行业董事会。金融服务是其中最广泛分布的职业经历，其次是工业，商业服务和消费服务。

11％的新手是非裔美国人。这些董事普遍任职于是工业企业董事会，其次是商业服务、消费和生命科学行业企业董事会。非裔美国人董事三大最广泛的职业经历包括商业服务、消费和金融服务。

9％的新手是亚洲人或亚裔。他们普遍任职于消费行业董事会，紧随其后的是金融服务和科技行业董事会。他们分布最广泛的职业经历是金融服务，其次是商业服务，工业和科技。

7％的新手是西班牙裔。他们普遍任职于消费行业董事会，其次是金融服务和科技行业董事会。亚洲人或亚裔董事的三个最广泛分布的职业经历包括消费，技术和金融服务。

前景多样性

近年来的研究表明，董事性别多样性与股东价值之间存在着相关性。董事会已经意识到此类关于性别和业务绩效的研究，因为近年来妇女董事的比例上升就可以表明，2009年新任女性董事仅为18.0％，2015年为29.8％。但是，2016年的减速带来了一个问题：这是瓶颈还是下降，这将持续若干年，或者只在攀升之前的短暂停顿？

任何结果都是可能的。雇用和晋升高级女性高管的公司和行业将继续面临压力；努力解决这个问题将会扩大潜在的女性领导队伍。

然而竞争的压力可能会无意中阻碍进步。例如，股东正在推动限制高管可以服务的董事会数量。由于任高管的女性比男性少，这种限制可能会进一步减少董事会任职的女性人数。同样，董事会未来会继续优先考虑有首席执行官经验的新董事--这一背景在女性候选人中不太常见。

这些竞争的压力将需要董事会和管理层花费更多的时间和注意力来解决。与此同时，有前瞻性的公司将继续坚持需要不同层级的董事会候选人。他们也会挑战他们对"理想"董事的定义的假设--例如，考虑新进董事会的高管或尚未成为CEO的高管。他们将把管理重点放在招聘和发展多元化的管理人员方面。这些努力将为今后对董事会多样性的理解和更好衡量提供支持。

小毛热线：021-32511309

翻译人：毛毓郁

来源：http://www.heidrick.com/Knowledge-Center/Publication/Board-Monitor-2017