:00:00. > :00:07.That's the latest from BBC News for now.
:00:08. > :00:18.Companies with women on their boards outperform. Yet gender gaps persist
:00:19. > :00:22.in paid work and opportunity. We explore why and what can be done
:00:23. > :00:24.about it. Here in Davos at the World Economic Forum, we're talking
:00:25. > :00:52.business. A warm welcome to this debate. With
:00:53. > :00:56.slow growth plaguing much of the global economy, can women be the
:00:57. > :01:02.answer to boost its? By adding women to the workforce, the US economy is
:01:03. > :01:06.40% larger, companies with women on the ward outperform those who don't.
:01:07. > :01:12.But is the evidence incontrovertible? Women are
:01:13. > :01:16.underrepresented in top jobs and are paid less. So we are asking today,
:01:17. > :01:22.should women be running the world economy? I can't Inc of a better
:01:23. > :01:34.panel to dissect the issue and propose solutions. -- can't think.
:01:35. > :01:38.My guests include the executive director of the UN are women,
:01:39. > :01:46.Christine Lagarde, the first woman to be managing director of the IMF.
:01:47. > :01:52.And ourselves instead of the opposite sex, the Chief Executive
:01:53. > :01:59.officer of Renault Nissan Alliance -- our sole representative. I will
:02:00. > :02:01.go rapidly down the panel and ask you to question. Should women be
:02:02. > :02:19.running the world economy? Yes! I knew she would agree. Christine
:02:20. > :02:24.was going to clap our hands to. We don't know what it would be like if
:02:25. > :02:28.women were in more leadership has issues, we don't know if the world
:02:29. > :02:32.would be more peaceful if women run more than 19 countries. We don't
:02:33. > :02:37.know... I think we do know that companies would be more productive.
:02:38. > :02:40.But I think we should try this and I think there is a lot of data to
:02:41. > :02:48.suggest that the performance would increase traumatically. If we had to
:02:49. > :02:54.address generation upon generation of poverty stricken societies, we
:02:55. > :03:03.have to empower women because women are the only force that can ensure
:03:04. > :03:06.that we reduce poverty sustainably. Because when women's quality-of-life
:03:07. > :03:10.improves, the quality-of-life of their children improves and the
:03:11. > :03:16.poverty in that particular family, from generation to generation, is
:03:17. > :03:23.cut off. I think you already run the global economy, what would you say?
:03:24. > :03:26.I completely disagree with the way you have characterised Carlos, I
:03:27. > :03:34.don't think we should say the opposite sex. Samantha Bothroyd used
:03:35. > :03:38.to write the second sex, talking about us, the women. I think we
:03:39. > :03:43.should be more clever than people were in those days. It is the other
:03:44. > :03:46.sex but not the opposite sex because it's a battle we have to win
:03:47. > :03:53.together because it's going to be in the global interest. With only about
:03:54. > :03:57.20% of women at best in charge, having broken the glass ceiling and
:03:58. > :04:02.so on, and obvious evidence that they are good managers and maybe
:04:03. > :04:05.better, that they are good in investors and maybe better, they are
:04:06. > :04:11.good board members, and so on, there is no doubt we have got to do it. In
:04:12. > :04:17.places where it has been tried, we are seeing results. Carlos, I had
:04:18. > :04:25.better reintroduce you. Our sole member of the other sex! Should
:04:26. > :04:29.women be running the global economy? We have three examples here that we
:04:30. > :04:37.are getting there. We are closing this gap, as you know I have been
:04:38. > :04:41.fighting and promoting diversity in general and gender parity is an
:04:42. > :04:44.important element, particularly for women in leadership. We have plenty
:04:45. > :04:52.of examples showing it is a good thing. I am very happy. In terms of
:04:53. > :04:59.companies, what is the most compelling argument that you would
:05:00. > :05:05.say, we should be solving this? It's the same facts we are all repeated,
:05:06. > :05:08.companies outperform when you have women in leadership positions. And
:05:09. > :05:12.importantly, when you have women in leadership positions, those
:05:13. > :05:18.companies have better worklife policies for men and women. So there
:05:19. > :05:22.is a chicken and egg going on. We need better public policy for us to
:05:23. > :05:25.get more women in leadership going on, we need more women in leadership
:05:26. > :05:33.roles because they support better public and corporate policies. And
:05:34. > :05:39.of course, peace and security. They would be better security if women
:05:40. > :05:46.had more to do with deciding when to shoot, and I'm sure they will decide
:05:47. > :05:49.not to shoot. Can I come to you on this in terms of countries, what is
:05:50. > :05:53.the most compelling evidence you have seen that countries are better
:05:54. > :06:00.off in terms of growth if the gender gap were closed? I would go back to
:06:01. > :06:04.the point you made earlier about companies, because that's also where
:06:05. > :06:09.it has to happen, that's where the gender gap is not really closing. It
:06:10. > :06:14.has improved, it is able at the moment, but not improving
:06:15. > :06:19.significantly. Half the computers, half the cars and about 70% of
:06:20. > :06:26.household products in the US, which is the only example we have, are
:06:27. > :06:28.bought by women. When your customers are women, you'd better make sure
:06:29. > :06:33.that your workforce your management and your board includes as many
:06:34. > :06:38.women as the percentage of those that actually buy your products.
:06:39. > :06:42.Because then you understand what it is. I believe that an organisation
:06:43. > :06:47.has to be the mirror of the people it targets. So that's a compelling
:06:48. > :06:54.argument. Then just look at the Nordic countries. They are at the
:06:55. > :07:01.top of the list in terms of growth, governance, going through the crisis
:07:02. > :07:05.with flying colours, and guess what? They are the ones performing best in
:07:06. > :07:11.terms of gender access, in terms of dealing with diversity in a
:07:12. > :07:14.successful way. I hope you are going to talk about Japan, I think that's
:07:15. > :07:18.going to be a very interesting case to follow in the next couple of
:07:19. > :07:25.years, to see if money is put where the mouth has been which is in and
:07:26. > :07:28.of itself a great achievement. Making sure that the Japanese woman
:07:29. > :07:34.can access jobs, that there is enough budgeted money to provide for
:07:35. > :07:40.daycare centres, and the list goes on, not just there but in many other
:07:41. > :07:45.countries. This is a great time to bring in Carlos. The Japanese prime
:07:46. > :07:52.ministers said the economy would be 60% larger if women participated as
:07:53. > :07:55.much as men. For you, if you think about the most compelling evidence
:07:56. > :08:02.you have mastered to increase women in your board, what would you share?
:08:03. > :08:11.I do agree with what he is saying, and that is a conservative estimate.
:08:12. > :08:16.As you know, Japan is on a demographic decline and it needs
:08:17. > :08:23.much more people in the workforce, able in management, much more
:08:24. > :08:28.talent. There is a huge reservoir which can play a bigger role. The
:08:29. > :08:31.Japan is a clear case in which a woman jumping in and taking more
:08:32. > :08:37.leadership can have a larger economy, and the estimate is very
:08:38. > :08:42.conservative. I am going to bring in the audience and ask you a question
:08:43. > :08:45.and ask for a show of hands. We have been talking about the evidence and
:08:46. > :08:52.a gender gap that persists. It's a big part of the problem that there
:08:53. > :08:56.is a lot of gender discrimination? Raise your hand. A lot of the
:08:57. > :09:03.audience seems to think so. It's a big part of the problem. Cultures
:09:04. > :09:06.are so different. Cultures within different parts of the United States
:09:07. > :09:13.to Japan, to France, to Africa, it's all different. Except stereotypes of
:09:14. > :09:17.men and women are actually pretty much the same everywhere in the
:09:18. > :09:21.world. We believe mention the assertive, aggressive leaders. We
:09:22. > :09:26.believe women should be nurturing, giving to others. Leadership is
:09:27. > :09:33.associated with the masculine expectations. We call little girls
:09:34. > :09:37.bossy. We don't really call little boys bossy because a little boy
:09:38. > :09:44.leads but when a little girl leads, we call her C. There is a negative
:09:45. > :09:48.phrase for that in every language. When women do the things that make
:09:49. > :09:51.them leaders, who don't like them, and therefore we don't promote
:09:52. > :09:58.them, we don't vote for them in the same numbers. That gender bias isn't
:09:59. > :10:02.all of what is holding women ack, there are a lot of things, but the
:10:03. > :10:07.gender bias against women in leadership is a crucial part of the
:10:08. > :10:14.problem. Christine, how much of a problem is discriminatory attitudes?
:10:15. > :10:17.I think there is a lot of it and we should not only focus on the
:10:18. > :10:23.advanced economies, we should drink into the show the low-income
:10:24. > :10:28.countries, the emerging market economies and particularly those
:10:29. > :10:35.societies where the female gender is repressed. The girls don't have
:10:36. > :10:44.access to education, where being a woman is translated as, you are
:10:45. > :10:48.going to slave for me. I think it's important that women have got
:10:49. > :10:57.rights, in addition to the fact that it makes economic sense. It is right
:10:58. > :11:01.and ethical. The gender gap is not a new issue, it has been around a long
:11:02. > :11:08.time. Which policies in the past just haven't works? I think would
:11:09. > :11:12.doesn't work, particularly with societies which are extremely
:11:13. > :11:17.receptive towards women, is to establish some principle and
:11:18. > :11:22.goodwill and leave it in the open, ask people to do their best, it just
:11:23. > :11:32.doesn't work. I can tell you that in our case, Nissan in Japan, we had to
:11:33. > :11:39.go to quotas. When you start and you have 2% of your management pool made
:11:40. > :11:44.by women, there is no way, with a good attitude, you are going to
:11:45. > :11:47.change this radically. We had to put some quotas and objectives by
:11:48. > :11:52.saying, from the next few years, we are going to double these numbers
:11:53. > :11:57.and in seven years, triple it, etc. We are still at the ridiculously low
:11:58. > :12:03.number of 8%, but this is practically three times the average
:12:04. > :12:07.of corporate Japan. So the quota is important because it leads to
:12:08. > :12:13.action, action means hiring, training, coaching, putting in the
:12:14. > :12:19.process of the company a systematic decision, forcing the selection of
:12:20. > :12:27.female potential at all levels. If you don't do that, you're just going
:12:28. > :12:31.to lose a lot of time or have a lot of goodwill which is dispersed by
:12:32. > :12:37.saying, we told you it doesn't work. I just want to add one thing on top
:12:38. > :12:41.of discrimination. Yes, there is discrimination, it's obvious, but
:12:42. > :12:47.what is most important is training and coaching. Because you may end up
:12:48. > :12:54.in a lot of situations where you have talented women, who are not
:12:55. > :12:59.having enough soft confidence to go for the job or for the challenge. --
:13:00. > :13:06.self-confidence. So if they are not coached, they are not prepared, and
:13:07. > :13:11.starts with education. When women are girls, to tell them, you are
:13:12. > :13:15.expecting the same thing from them, they have to go for the same thing.
:13:16. > :13:24.If this doesn't exist you will lose a lot of potential. Does anybody
:13:25. > :13:30.have a view on the quota issue? It has been some controversy for women.
:13:31. > :13:33.Christine. I was strongly against it because I thought women should be
:13:34. > :13:37.recognised on their own merits, and there was no reason there should be
:13:38. > :13:41.any particular threshold, requirements, sanctions or penalties
:13:42. > :13:45.associated with it, until I grew up in a big, international law firm
:13:46. > :13:49.that I love. But where the number of female partners were so low and had
:13:50. > :13:52.been so low for such a long time that I soon realised that unless we
:13:53. > :13:59.had at least targets, if not quotas, there was no way we were going to
:14:00. > :14:03.jump the right step in order to have a significant number of females in
:14:04. > :14:06.the partnerships. I completely changed my approach. I am
:14:07. > :14:10.pro-quotas, pro-targets and I think we should be made accountable in all
:14:11. > :14:17.the organisations we are in, in order to reach those numbers. With
:14:18. > :14:21.the gender prejudice we know exist in our society, not unless we do
:14:22. > :14:29.something to make the playing field for equal, women will just not be
:14:30. > :14:34.identified as leaders. Quotas, unfortunately, some people do not
:14:35. > :14:39.like them but for now, they are necessary. When we reach a time when
:14:40. > :14:45.you don't expect women to perform double compared to a man in order
:14:46. > :14:49.for them to be given the same recognition, we probably will not
:14:50. > :14:54.need quotas. But for now we need quotas because they are giving women
:14:55. > :14:57.a head start. In most of the countries, in politics, in the
:14:58. > :15:03.boardroom, this is just the world we're living in right now. That's
:15:04. > :15:08.where the Nordic countries have gone. The European Union is now
:15:09. > :15:12.setting, under directive, a quota for board members. It is a required
:15:13. > :15:18.step. Not for the long term, but it's a required step. As a CEO of a
:15:19. > :15:26.major company, what kind of policies do you think should be implemented
:15:27. > :15:32.to level the playing field? We have particularly two things. The first
:15:33. > :15:38.is a quota on hiring. Engineers, you need ten engineers? We are obviously
:15:39. > :15:42.now object to 50-50. We are not at 50-50 today, so every year we
:15:43. > :15:48.increase the quota of women when we go higher. If the quota is 40% you
:15:49. > :15:56.can hire 60 male and 40 female. If you hire 60 males, you cannot
:15:57. > :16:02.complete 100 without respecting this. So the hiring is quota. The
:16:03. > :16:07.second one is the succession planning. Succession planning is an
:16:08. > :16:12.important process in each large company, where all the jobs in the
:16:13. > :16:15.company once every year, you say if something happens to this person
:16:16. > :16:20.holding this job, who are the candidates who can take this job at
:16:21. > :16:24.all the levels of the company, including the executive committee?
:16:25. > :16:28.Here, we have forced ranking. It means we say you cannot complete
:16:29. > :16:35.your succession planning unless you have, depending on the position, 20%
:16:36. > :16:41.of female candidates. You can imagine that people said, we have
:16:42. > :16:45.nobody, they are not prepared. Fine, succession planning is not ready.
:16:46. > :16:50.You can't close your succession planning as long as... You don't
:16:51. > :16:54.have a candidate this year, fine, it is open. But next year we will have
:16:55. > :16:58.to find a candidate. I think managing through the hiring from one
:16:59. > :17:03.side, the succession planning from the other side, which means
:17:04. > :17:07.training, promoting, extremely important process, if you do these
:17:08. > :17:15.two well you would hit all your targets. I completely agree, and I
:17:16. > :17:20.would add one measure. Measure very carefully and segment the workforce,
:17:21. > :17:25.the people you are talking about. It's quite easy to reach 40%
:17:26. > :17:29.threshold in any organisation, as long as you include everybody. Fine.
:17:30. > :17:32.But the higher you go in a hierarchy, the less women are. You
:17:33. > :17:40.have two measure by cohort or segment of your population. Because
:17:41. > :17:42.once you measure it then you can hold people accountable. But broad
:17:43. > :17:49.measurements of those corporate leaders who say 45% women in my
:17:50. > :17:58.company. How about looking at the Pyramid? Then it doesn't look as
:17:59. > :18:03.good. Collect the level data and disaggregated. Whenever we are
:18:04. > :18:08.providing data that is just rounded, and we don't see X amount of women
:18:09. > :18:15.have achieved it, you actually hide a lot. When you are a policymaker
:18:16. > :18:20.and are responsible for public resources, women are 51% of the
:18:21. > :18:23.population. You should be able to know that in the manner you which
:18:24. > :18:34.though spent those public resources, the other half, the 51%
:18:35. > :18:38.actually benefits adequately. All of you on the panel are extremely
:18:39. > :18:44.accomplished, you've achieved a lot and risen to a level that many women
:18:45. > :18:49.would say, this is the kind of role model we are looking at. I will post
:18:50. > :18:52.this Christine -- to Christine first. What's the worst case of
:18:53. > :19:03.dissemination that you've come across? I suppose you are asking me
:19:04. > :19:08.first because I'm the oldest! I prevent my response to you by one
:19:09. > :19:14.thing. I think I'm succeeded and I'm here where I am because I was not
:19:15. > :19:18.aggressive, because I relied on teams and because I acknowledged the
:19:19. > :19:24.team and the support that they have been giving me, and because we
:19:25. > :19:27.worked together. And I am not ashamed of saying that. I think that
:19:28. > :19:32.other types of management and leadership are fine, but if women
:19:33. > :19:38.can exercise leadership by being inclusive, by being team minded, by
:19:39. > :19:44.paying back to the team... And, you know what, if we can contaminate a
:19:45. > :19:48.few male leaders on that page, contaminate a few of those males who
:19:49. > :19:53.don't succeed in reaching peace settlements, that's fine. I'm
:19:54. > :19:56.prepared to fight for that. OK, the worst discrimination I faced. My
:19:57. > :20:06.first interview with a big law firm in Paris. I had qualified on all
:20:07. > :20:12.fronts. The managing partner said to me, we are giving you a job. But
:20:13. > :20:18.don't expect to make partnership. I said, why is that? He looked at me
:20:19. > :20:27.with contempt. He said, because you're a woman. That was about 35
:20:28. > :20:31.years ago. Things have not changed enormously in many areas. The law
:20:32. > :20:40.firm I lived my life with was not that law firm. Mine is a bit
:20:41. > :20:43.dramatic because I grew up under apartheid, where there was both race
:20:44. > :20:52.and gender. In South Africa there were laws under apartheid that
:20:53. > :20:57.decided, for instance, that women could not contract on their own
:20:58. > :21:05.without the help of a male adult or, for that matter, son. How worse can
:21:06. > :21:09.it get? I didn't have a son at that point, and I can just imagine if
:21:10. > :21:17.that had to happen, but that was the way the law was. Cheryl? Growing up
:21:18. > :21:22.in apartheid in South Africa is an experience I haven't faced. I think
:21:23. > :21:26.I've been pretty lucky. I faced a lot of the smaller stuff. I've been
:21:27. > :21:30.at dinners recently where men speak and it's fine, then they literally
:21:31. > :21:36.put their hands here, stop speaking now, to me. There was a dinner,
:21:37. > :21:41.there were two women. Everyone was talking, except when I spoke or the
:21:42. > :21:46.other one spoke we were told not to, hands to our faces. Shopping in
:21:47. > :21:50.today's day and age. I've had friends who been fired when they got
:21:51. > :21:54.pregnant in the last three years in big cities in the United States.
:21:55. > :21:58.I've had friends unfairly and ridiculously sexually propositioned
:21:59. > :22:01.in offices. I think Christine's point that, yes, things have
:22:02. > :22:06.changed, but they have not changed enough. A lot of the things that we
:22:07. > :22:12.would think don't happen any more, particularly in the developed world,
:22:13. > :22:24.are still happening. Carlos. You're going to ask me the same question? I
:22:25. > :22:28.am! No, let me answer this. This is about diversity. We are talking
:22:29. > :22:32.about women here, but there is a lot of segregation when a person is
:22:33. > :22:38.different. It can be a foreigner. It can be a young person in a society
:22:39. > :22:43.which is most valuing seniority. It can be a senior person in a society
:22:44. > :22:47.which is much more... What we're talking about is dissemination for
:22:48. > :22:51.reasons which are nothing to do with talent or contribution. I'm sure
:22:52. > :22:56.that here in the room, many people can relate to what you are saying.
:22:57. > :23:00.We focussing on gender discrimination, but there are so
:23:01. > :23:05.many other discriminations we ought to fight against. It is a huge
:23:06. > :23:16.potential, particularly for companies or even four countries,
:23:17. > :23:21.that we need to unlock. That is all we have time for. It's been a huge
:23:22. > :23:25.topic, as to why the gender gap persists. We've discussed the
:23:26. > :23:30.evidence. That it's harmful to businesses and economies who locked
:23:31. > :23:33.up wholesale alternatives. Perhaps gender equality is just what a
:23:34. > :23:42.sluggish global economy needs. Please thank my stellar panel.
:23:43. > :23:59.And thanks to all of you, the audience, for your participation.
:24:00. > :24:04.And a huge thanks to the World Economic Forum for partnering with
:24:05. > :24:05.the BBC on this panel of special broadcasts of Talking Business with
:24:06. > :24:22.me, Linda Yueh. Afraid no good news to come in this
:24:23. > :24:26.forecast for those that need it, unfortunately. And no sign of a
:24:27. > :24:27.letup in the foreseeable future either. We still have three severe
:24:28. > :24:29.flood