What's new

BSE cracks down on 530 companies without a woman director

what benefit will this incur to company or shareholder by compulsory having woman director on board ?

A lot actually. Women have their own perspective and ways of handling things. Also I can give you a bucket list of reasons why diversity is a strength at least in multi national companies but I am not sure if you have worked in a corporate environment to appreciate the gravity of the reasons.
 
.
Blame the previous govt. that, currently there are a lot more important things on the table for this govt. to do. Maybe when these NGO's are wiped out and these activists are brushed aside the changes can be made...
the thing is, women's issues are real and need governance solutions but in the poor world like we are, we have far bigger things to do for women than just force numbers in a corporate board, this isn't the usa..

why take western socialist ideas and force them into our growth engine ?
 
.
Enforcing what? A BSE listed company should be trying very hard to not find woman to fill a director position considering there'll be tens of such positions in that company. Since 1 in 2 of us is a woman, it's really really discrimination of worst kind and should be punished accordingly.
.

The point is, why shall we even go and try to specifically find a woman ?
Isn't that something that should happen naturally ?

If all the processes behind creating a professional starting from schooling to higher education and work experience is alright, then why not ? What if those qualifications are lacking ? Then you should try to find out why it is lacking, isn't it ?
Rather than imposing it on the company and saying make-do with whatever you have ?
 
.
the thing is, women's issues are real and need governance solutions but in the poor world like we are, we have far bigger things to do for women than just force numbers in a corporate board, this isn't the usa..

why take western socialist ideas and force them into our growth engine ?

Change happens from the top too...a woman director brings in a changed perspective and more creates more understanding towards women employee issues in the company in the top management. BSE is enforcing this for a reason.
 
.
Change happens from the top too...a woman director brings in a changed perspective and more creates more understanding towards women employee issues in the company in the top management. BSE is enforcing this for a reason.

That's the most lolwa idea I've heard in a long time..
Women-employee issues are handled by the HR department. Any standard company appoints qualified people including women there to address those issues. Why do you need Director's seat for that ? Is it Director's job ?
 
.
That's the most lolwa idea I've heard in a long time..
Women-employee issues are handled by the HR department. Any standard company appoints qualified people including women there to address those issues. Why do you need Director's seat for that ? Is it Director's job ?

HR cannot voluntarily take decisions without the board's consent.

3732 companies already had a woman / women director/s or didn't have a problem with the terms.
 
. . .
Change happens from the top too...a woman director brings in a changed perspective and more creates more understanding towards women employee issues in the company in the top management. BSE is enforcing this for a reason.
we already have the legend of khoob ladi mardani.. ,Indira Gandhi, and Kiran Majumdar Shaw etc

the change from top thing is good but you have to know what kind of environment you're operating in

I support women's rights issues etc but these "quotas" are just commie bs
 
.
we already have the legend of khoob ladi mardani.. ,Indira Gandhi, and Kiran Majumdar Shaw etc

the change from top thing is good but you have to know what kind of environment you're operating in

I support women's rights issues etc but these "quotas" are just commie bs

Wrong inference. Whats commie about it?..BSE would have a reason for it..those against it should ask for it.
 
.
Major decisions*
The way a company functions smoothly is by following standard operating procedure.
At each level, there is a certain set of duties assigned. Depending upon the gravity of the matter, the case bubbles up in the ladder and dealt with accordingly.
If it is a matter of extreme importance, then only the entire board is involved. Even in very rare cases, a case may make it to at-max CEO level, who himself will be a member of the board. In all the levels, the HR will be involved.
You don't need a Director for that. A Director is usually concerned with profit and profitability.
 
.
Seriously, we are talking secret service now? Coming to your example, it's the idiocy of the men who posted her at the front door I suppose that caused the incident rather than her own inabilities. In any case, we are talking about a publicly trading BSE firm not some secret service that require machoism to survive. It's the obligation of the company to provide equal opportunity and it must be very hard to just ignore half the population.

That was just an example of 'equality' being taken too far.

Now you're talking about equal opportunity. I'm all for that if you earned it. My supervisor is a female, we both graduated the same year, joined the agency the same year, and she got promoted faster than me. I think she's kind of a bitch, but at the end of the day I know she got her position because she knows her stuff, and is able to work the strengths of her team to overachieve the other sections.

Equal Opportunity and Equality are 2 different things.

If BSE believes that a woman as a director will improve the lives of women in that company then the woman should be with a Human Resources background. To put a woman with a background of Women's Studies as a director of the Nuclear department of Westington isn't a good idea.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom