Should businesses be required to have women on their board of directors?

Just the best people for the job regardless of sex

Yes, and it should be 50/50 between men and woman, but small companies below a certain size should be exempt.

No. The appointment process should be solely based on capability, not on gender, race, sexual orientation etc.

No, but workplaces should institute policies to ensure that women can flourish and achieve the highest level of leadership

The most qualified should work on the board. However, I would choose this option with more confidence if I felt that women got the same opportunities to gain the required qualifications, and people’s consideration for jobs in power.

I believe in term of gender equality there is a long way to go, so having an increase in job roles for women to have need to be in place. However, I do not think it is fair that able, qualified men should be denied a job if they are more suitable.

The board should consist of those most qualified. Equal opportunities to both women and men, based on skill not gender.

I think it should be up to the company to not be discriminative of who’s on their board of directors based on gender.

Yes but they should be slected on merit and skill predominantly, no woman should have a hollow role they should be wanted and needed.

Yes, with an exception only if the business can prove beyond reasonable doubt that there are no suitable female candidates available to hire.

An increase in gender diversity among high earners is meaningless. Inequality between high and low earners needs to be reduced.

More steps should be put in place to anonymise recruitment to ensure no as little unconscious bias as possible within recruitment.

This should not be a requirement but the norm, I do not want to be a tick in the box. Perhaps requirement will lead to this becoming the norm, but I would want to hired off of merit not necessity for my gender.

It should be the person most or best suited to the role, but we should do more to encourage equity in the workplace, regardless of gender.

Yes, but board members should be equally qualified.

Abolish boards of directors in a capitalistic sense, more meritocracy as currently there is none, it's inheritance and who you know, no enforcement of diversity once transitioned to worker based industries with meritocracy equal opportunity of gender.

No, mainly let their merits get them up top, but do give protection to prevent abuse of either side, and allow help from both the lower and/or upper lattice.

No. But there should be measures in place to make sure women aren’t purposely being kept off the board of directors.

No, if a company is big enough it will naturally gain female board members and if not it doesn't matter as that will infringe on the rights of companies and the fundamental western economic system called Capitalism.

Diversity should not be a forced requirement, however systems should be in place to allow groups including women, people from working class background, ethnic minorities, disabled people etc.. to reach the same professional level and qualification and then they should be protected from discrimination.

Yes, but only for large international corporations, and coupled with government initiatives to support the development and promotion of qualified women in business.

Encourage and increase opportunities for women to get on the board of directors rather than pushing women straight in.

There should not be a requirement for any particular demographic. However, it must be clear that people of various demographics have had the opportunity to demonstrate their ability

No, but this is because policies like this do not really address the underlying issues that prevent women from reaching these positions in the first place. Mandating the inclusion of women negates the British value of meritocracy. I believe companies should have the freedom to promote who they wish, with the understanding that the gender ratio will be made public, therefore allowing women to see which companies care about improving their career prospects. Forcing change on a company rather than allowing it to happen organically does *not* make the situation better for women in many cases! Change starts from the ground up, not top-down.

What a pathetic, man made question.

Yes, but it should not have to be an intentional thing done by the government and should just occur naturally.

It's not really relevant because it doesn't effect most women whether there's a woman on the board of directors

It’s shouldn’t be mandated, but they should have to prove they have they have the most competent members if all male

Not as a token piece. If they're fit for the job then them being a women shouldn't actually contribute to them being hired

Yes for large businesses but increase opportunities for women in education and training in general so they are appointed on merit.

They shouldn't require it but employing more women/diverse people is good. However, how good they are at their job is more important

Yes, it can be encouraged, but not forced, although the government should do a lot more to promote diversity. Board members should be the most qualified regardless of gender

No, but companies that do not have women on their board of directors should be questioned as to why.

No however there should be employer laws which forbid the approval or rejection of an employee based on gender

No, but it should be allowed to have women on company's board of directors and recommended to have women so that there is more diversity.

Yes, but only because business owners are inherently biased and so cannot fairly hire in a meritocratic fashion

(As a woman who works in employment law) - No. This is straight up 'positive discrimination'. Any female on the board will end up being appointed because they have to be. Forced diversity is not diversity. I'd rather there be more support and opportunities for females, right from school age, to be able to have the same opportunities in their life, and then be appointed to more board of directors based on merit more than as a requirement. There's also the worry for companies, particularly smaller ones, where there may not be any females interested in the company. What about…  Read more companies set up by a group of male friends as an example. Would they not be allowed to do so unless they find a random female to join the board? That feels incredibly awkward and borderline degrading for the woman to pretty much be a requirement or just seen as a box ticking exercise. Would they then be given the same service contracts (if any) or just there to show they are compliant but not have any real active role?

Yes, but qualifications and whether they are truly right for the job need to be taken into consideration

Ideally yes, but it a role should not just be given to a woman because she is a woman - she should still be capable of the role and deserve it.

Yes, but not with tokenistic appointments of positions, should earn positions in the same way as men and not treated any differently

If the person is good enough. We shouldn’t have to ask the question. It is who is the best person for the job!!

Board members should be most qualified BUT this is dependent on creating equal opportunities (education and career) for women

No, it should not be mandated, but companies should want to have varied and qualified boards running them.

Yes, If they’re qualified for the role. Same as men. They should get the job on there ability not sex

No tokenism, but there needs to be diversity of thought at the top. Women should be supported to reach the top, not placed there just to fill a quota.

The best people should have the right to the job regardless of gender. The way in which people are recruited should be fairer and not reserved for the privileged.

Whilst I would like to see more diversity in businesses and in other areas, I'm not certain that this is the best solution. This feels like a short-sighted fix to what is a more nuanced and complicated issue, and I think that it requires solutions that reflect this.

yes until the company constantly l and consistently demonstrates equity, inclusion and diversity across all areas of operation.

Principal of meritocracy should be upheld, but then the consideration of diversity should then be made so we can broaden our worldviews and thought leadership

There should be more diversity within the workplace in order to choose the best fit candidate or individual that will properly represent and advocate for those in a company rather than exploit them. Even candidates with a diverse background can exploit or discriminate in the workplace

No, but more should be done to increase the likelihood that women will get the job on merit eg encouraging young girls to aspire to the job and increasing paternity leave so more women have time and resource to succeed

Yes, but until society sees everyone equal regardless of race, ethnicity and gender. Then meritocracy should be able to work.

This is a silly question. Laws should be in place to enable progression into these roles, not just place women in there for the sake of tokenism.

While it should be the most qualified, it does raise a couple questions when it is only men / no women.

No, but businesses that do not meet the threshold for number of women on their board should be subject to an audit of their hiring practices.

They should for businesses that involve products aimed at women such as cosmetics and women's clothes, and for large international corporations but the most qualified people should be prioritised at other times.

Yes and no, board members should be hired based on how well they can do the job, regardless of gender, race, or any of the other protected characteristics.

Yes but because the women are equally qualified and skilled, not just for the sake of ticking a diversity box

No because this could lead to the promotion of less qualified people. More focus should be on equal and fair opportunity and treatment.

I do not believe it should be required if all are given the same opportunities and the best candidates should be appointed.

No, because it could be easily circumnavigated. Regardless, positive discrimination is still discrimination.

No, best qualified only, but there should be measures in place to support those from underrepresented groups to learn and develop into such positions to become more diverse

The board of directors should comprise of those who can make positive affects to a business and also maximise profits to the economy whilst minimising spending from the economy

If women can become a professional in any career to me equality of men and women has been established

No, we need to address the wider imbalances, so that all have equal opportunities rather than prioritising patriarchy.

they should have those best suited for the job, be that man woman or other, skills and results over willy or fanny

Would have to read into this more to see whether there is evidence it would be good for gender equality. Am feminist, so if yes, then probably.

This should be based on those most qualified, however I believe we have more systemic issues allowing women to become that qualified in the first place, as in, they have more challenges to overcome.

No, the job should go to the most deserving candidate, but women should never be discriminated against in this process

Diversity is important. Additionally, any women should be treated fairly not be subjected to workplace harassment of any kind.

No, but the government should fund an education system that better helps women flourish and be as interested in high paying positions. They should tax the super rich to fund it.

There should be more incentives for women in the workplace, but they shouldn't be placed on the Board of Directors if they aren't the most qualified for the job.

Women on boards should never just be a ‘filling a quota’ exercise. Women need more support with childcare, workplace bullying/sexism, etc so that they earn the right to be on a board through their own merit

No, but companies that have a disproportionate number of men on the board should be required to conduct an internal audit of hiring practices.

No, appointment should be on merit alone. However big corporations will be missing out if they do not use the merits of this group.

It shouldn’t matter about being a man or a woman, their should be no bias either way it should simply be the person who fits the job best

no, but equal opportunity should be given to get the required education & qualifications to get to said roles.

Yes but where skills assessment has identified that diverse hires are correct for the role and not solely for diversity hires.

every business should aim to be as diverse as possible with the best possible people for each roll, that can only happy if we eliminate prejudice wich is impossible we just need to try

Too complicated a question to be answered in one sentence, but I guess No, but it should be very heavily suggested that it should be the case, maybe financially...

Yes to an extent. There should be diversity (as there are more opinions) but most qualified should be on the board.

Women need to be given an opportunity to gain the required skill set required to be on the board of directors. So they can chose to be on there should they want to, however not a requirement, no.

Yes at their own merit ,I feel in doesn't matter about gender if you are good at the job your being promoted for

The government has no business interfering with the staffing of a private company, whatsoever, at all. It's upto the directors to decide whom they employ.

diversity in the race of women (and men but the question asked about women specifically) in high positions is important

No, but businesses should be fined if there is a implicit gender bias that has been made. In addition, funding should be increased for programmes to help women in male dominated fields.

Yes, if she has as much or more experience than men. Anybody fit for the job, regardless of gender, should get the job.

No, people should attend this if they have the right qualities regardless of gender BUT if tla board is predominantly one-side, gender-wise, it should be open to being subject to investigations to ensure this is the case.

I believe people should be hired based on ability, but also believe more should be done through education and the business sector to encourage diversity so women regularly are seen on boards of directors.

Yes, but companies should also have a large number of their workforce represented on the board as well.

No, but a lack of female workers at a higher level shouldn’t have to be a debate it should be the standard without needing laws

The most qualified person should get the job, however if the two most qualified people are one male and one female, then on the grounds of equality the female should get the job

Regardless of gender, it should be based off skill sets and qualifications. Both have equal chance to prove that though

All businesses should be owned and democratically controlled by the workers who work there. The board should be elected workers voted for by their fellow colleagues at the AGM. The same percentage of women as are in the workforce of said company should have the same percentage of the board reserved for women, and the same for other minorities.

Only if those women have proved their worth or have relevant credentials necessary to be on the board.

I believe whoever is equipped for the job should take it, however this is not always the case and regardless of whether a woman is more qualified, they'll be told they aren't. I believe transparency in the hiring process is key.

There should be a focus on the implementation of equity on all levels, thus, employment would naturally be based on qualification rather than identity factors

No, If businesses are stupid enough to willingly reduce their diversity then that will show in their productivity, and market viability.

Yes but there should also be focus on progression and development to support and encourage diversity