DO WOMEN CEO’S LEAD MORE SOCIALLY
RESPONSIBLE COMPANIES?
A COMPARATIVE LOOK OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN MAJOR CORPORATIONS
THROUGH A GENDERED PERSPECTIVE AND THE EXPLANATIONS BEHIND THE
RESULTS
SEMINAR
WOMEN, LAW AND THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
Professor Elvia R. Arriola
Fall 2010
ANDREA M. KENNY
amkenny@gmail.com
815-218-8395
IN COMPLETION OF THE
GRADUATION WRITING REQUIREMENT
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW
1
Table of Contents
I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3
II. Women CEOs and a Comparison of Corporations .............................................................. 7
A. PepsiCo vs. Coca-Cola .......................................................................................................... 9
B. TJX vs. Kohl’s..................................................................................................................... 12
C. Xerox ................................................................................................................................... 14
III. The Glass Ceiling Effect and How to Break Through ..................................................... 16
A. Gender Roles ...................................................................................................................... 17
B. Men vs. Women and the Current Hiring Structure ........................................................... 19
C. Breaking the Glass Ceiling ................................................................................................ 21
D. A Personal Look at Women CEOs .................................................................................... 23
E. Why Do Women Care More Than Men About Social Responsibility? .............................. 26
IV. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 28
Footnotes ................................................................................................................................. 29
Table A……………………………………………………………………………..…Appendix A
2
I. Introduction
Using sweatshops to manufacture designer clothes, pumping hazardous waste into water
supplies, racial profiling within the workplace, wage discrimination based on sex – the list goes
on and on. Any one of, and often times many of the common problems are found within nearly
every major corporation across the world. So, how do we distinguish those who are trying and
those who are not? The trend for a corporation nowadays seems to be advertising itself as
socially responsible, but what exactly does it mean for a corporation to be socially responsible?
The general principal of corporate social responsibility, often referred to as CSR, is that a
company integrates “social values” into its decision-making, “so as to achieve positive and
sustainable outcomes towards the business, environment and community at large.” 1 Simply put,
the corporation must make “doing good” a part of their business plan.2 Nearly every corporation
dedicates a portion of its website to corporate social responsibility and a “mission statement” of
sorts describing its efforts on being socially responsible. Sadly, very few actually tend to be as
environmentally friendly or avoid discriminatory practices as they would have you believe in
their mission statements. There are multiple lists, such as Newsweek’s “Green Rankings” or
Fortune 500 companies3, where corporations can land a spot in the top 20 or top 50 for most
“green” companies, or even ranked number 1 on Fortune’s list, yet that same corporation may be
ranked among the worst for those that use sweatshops for its labor. 4 It all depends on what
factors are examined and who is doing the ranking.
So, for a corporation to be truly socially
responsible, it should be cognizant of several factors: the environmental effects of the company’s
practices, the treatment and hiring process of its workers, and the means of labor, for example.
Because these factors relate to a longer-term sustainability aspect rather than a short-term purely
3
profit-based perspective, one categorical difference between the companies who choose to be
more socially responsible and those who do not may be the very people who are behind those
corporations.
Very few women have achieved the level of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in
multinational corporations, or even in any major corporation in the world. For various reasons,
women have been kept out of the power positions that may enable them to achieve the level of
corporate social responsibility that currently seems unattainable. Generally speaking, women
behave differently than men, and this behavior often carries over into the workplace when
women manage to achieve significant power positions, such as CEOs of multinational
corporations.5
Whether this behavioral difference is a product of nature or nurture does not
inherently matter, as the effect is the same.6
Women are often kept from key leadership roles
such as CEO and out of the boardroom arguably because they are thought of as weak and noncompetitive. Carol Gilligan’s research is widely used to display the role forced upon women,
making it difficult to break the glass ceiling and achieve the power-positions in the corporate
world. Women are thought of as caregivers who “will devote their lives to the needs of others
and expend less energy on their own desires.”7 Men can have a hard time separating this
caregiving role from the business world; their own stereotypes of women shaped from the
traditional roles of women – such as mothers, daughters, and wives – translate to the workplace,
making it difficult for women to form relationships with businessmen.8
The women who succeed despite such obstacles can be seen as a positive influence in the
executive suite. They often focus on shaping the policies within their corporations in a socially
responsible manner, thereby taking into account the role their companies and their practices have
4
on society at a global level. Perhaps this is because they pay more attention to the future, longterm impact rather than a short-term, purely profit-based perspective.
Social responsibility should be very important to women. Not only do women have a
tendency to be more altruistic than men9, but women tend to be the most affected by
discriminatory practices within the workplace such as sexual harassment, failure to be promoted
or hired based on sex, and receiving lower pay than men, making it personal. On average,
women are still paid 77% of what men make within the United States10, and even more startling,
approximately 90% of sweatshop workers are women who are paid little to nothing to work
extensive hours in heinous work conditions.11
Therefore, it is essential to examine the effect corporations are having on the world at a
global level, and to determine how to make them more socially responsible. Globalization has
brought the world together in a very crucial way – for better and for worse. The concept depends
on who you ask. Theoretically, it has been described as, “fundamental changes in the spatial and
temporal contours of social existence, according to which the significance of space or territory
undergoes shifts in the face of a no less dramatic acceleration in the temporal structure of crucial
forms of human activity.”12 In other words, globalization occurs when people, as a society,
begin to shift in “space” or “territory”. This can occur whether we are talking about the physical
relocation of groups of people to another area, bridging an invisible gap that once existed
between cultures, or whether we are bridging a theoretical gap through the expansion of
technology and information systems, as Friedman suggests.
According to Friedman,
globalization is a wonderful revolution – a shift to a “flat” world in which all of the world will be
on a level playing field for ideas, technology, and business. 13 Others take a more critical
approach and realize that by expanding corporations across the globe, it also allows for unfair
5
labor practices and environmental hazards. The exploitation of workers in factories within the
United States and the outsourcing used by nearly all major multinational corporations we are
familiar with in the U.S has created endless suffering.
In this paper, I will argue that women CEOs have a higher tendency to be more socially
responsible within their corporations than men. It is important to note that social responsibility is
found in several aspects of a corporation. For the purposes of this paper, I will explore four
major categories of social responsibility, some of which will be broken into subsets. Social
responsibility consists of 1) the effects the corporation and its practices have on the environment,
2) the hiring practices of the corporation – how many women and minorities represent the overall
workforce, 3) the labor practices of the corporation – whether sweatshops are being used for the
advancement of the corporation, and 4) the policies within the corporation promoting wellness
and equality. I will also examine the reasons behind women’s motives to be more socially
responsible. Furthermore, I will argue that women CEOs face the “glass ceiling effect” despite
their title because they are looked at foremost as women and secondly as CEOs. Because of this
obstacle, I will contend that these women are challenged more often in their decisions and
policy-making procedures than men in similar positions, limiting the ultimate goals of the
corporations more than if the stigma of a female-led company did not exist.
6
II. Women CEOs and a Comparison of Corporations
Out of five-hundred of the largest corporations across America, only fifteen are
controlled by females. The number has risen 20% from two years ago when only twelve women
Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) were represented amongst the Fortune 500. The list consists of
business savvy women who have worked their way through a male-dominated business world
filled with sex discrimination to finally find their place as a head of a corporation. Each
represents a different area of the market, but most of them have very common goals – resulting
in socially responsible companies. Currently, the list stands as follows14:
1.
Patricia A. Woertz, Archer Daniels Midland
(#27); CEO since 2007
9.
2.
Angela F. Braly, WellPoint (#31); CEO since
May 2007
10. Brenda C. Barnes, Sara Lee (#180), CEO 20052010
3.
Indra K. Nooyi, PepsiCo (#50), CEO since
2006
11. Andrea Jung, Avon (#228), CEO since 1999
4.
Irene B. Rosenfeld, Kraft Foods (#53), CEO
since 2006
12. Laura J. Sen, B.J.’s Wholesale Club (#232), CEO
since Feb. 2009
5.
Lynn L. Elsenhans, Sunoco (#78), CEO since
2008
6.
Ellen J. Kullman, DuPont (#86), CEO since
Jan. 2009
13. Susan M. Ivey, Reynolds American (#272), CEO of
partner company since 2001, CEO of Reynolds
American since 2004 when merged. Retiring Feb.
2011
7.
Mary F. Sammons, Rite Aid (#89), CEO 20032010
14. Carol A. Bartz, Yahoo (#343), CEO since Jan. 2009
8.
Carol M. Meyrowitz, TJX Companies (#119),
CEO since 2007
15. Christina A. Gold, Western Union (#413), CEO
2002-2010
7
Ursula M. Burns, Xerox (#152), CEO since 2009;
first female to replace another female CEO; first
female African-American CEO
Not every CEO will behave alike or invoke the same policies when running her company,
but there appears to be a trend in social governance among many of the corporations listed
above.15 Again, social responsibility as examined here consists of 1) the effects the corporation
and its practices have on the environment, 2) the hiring practices of the corporation – how many
women and minorities represent the overall workforce, 3) the labor practices of the corporation –
whether sweatshops are being used for the advancement of the corporation, and 4) the policies
within the corporation promoting wellness and equality. Most surveys typically do not examine
the last three factors. When looking for a socially responsible company, it is nearly impossible
to find a list compiling all of the necessary components. Typically, results end with the largest
corporations, the “greenest” corporations, or even the most admired corporations – none of
which are satisfactory when looking at the concept of social responsibility. By comparing
companies across all four factors listed above, we can better understand which corporations are
truly “doing good” as part of their business models.16 Because there are so few female CEOs in
major corporations available for scrutiny, a key way to compare is to look at some of the
competitors in the same industries for analysis. Although, due to such a small sample, further
research in the future should be conducted for a more extensive analysis, as this is only
speculative.
8
A. PepsiCo vs. Coca-Cola
Not only does PepsiCo make both the global and the US list for “green” companies,17 but
it promotes diversity in the workplace. PepsiCo has one of the most diverse board of directors of
all Fortune 500 companies, with 33% represented by women, and 33% represented by
minorities.18 Further, CEO Indra Nooyi implemented a very specific diversity and inclusion
program which trains employees “to adapt their behaviors for a work environment”19. Nooyi
noted that although this type of inclusion training has been talked about for many years across
the business world, it had never really worked before - talk is cheap when there are no steps
taken to further the plan.20. But due to Nooyi’s new program, she is ensuring PepsiCo’s progress
by holding people accountable. PepsiCo was recognized for its diversity and inclusion of
women and minorities when it made both the 2010 Top 50 Companies List by the National
Association for Female Executives, and the Black Enterprise’s Best Companies for Diversity
List.21
Finally, PepsiCo’s policies for equality are outstanding, landing a 100% score on the
Corporate Equality Index for four years in a row.22 PepsiCo promotes equality for issues of
sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as offering benefits for domestic partners and
transgender wellness. Further, PepsiCo is respectful in its advertising and exhibits responsible
behavior toward the support of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community. 23 The
CEO, Indra Nooyi, also worked with her team to implement a global policy “to remove sugary
drinks from schools worldwide, following the success of programs in the U.S. aimed at cutting
down on childhood obesity”. The plan will take sugary drinks out of primary and secondary
schools in over 200 countries.24
9
PepsiCo succeeds as a socially responsible company because it is, “committed to
achieving business and financial success while leaving a positive imprint on society” – what they
call, “Performance with Purpose.” PepsiCo’s “approach to superior financial performance” is
straightforward – to drive shareholder value. By addressing social and environmental issues,
[they] also deliver on [their] purpose agenda, which consists of human, environmental, and talent
sustainability.”25
When comparing PepsiCo’s major competitor, Coca-Cola Enterprises (led by a male
CEO), one may notice that Coca-Cola also made the top 500 US Green Companies26, but it failed
to make the global list. Further, its board is only represented by 15% minorities and 23%
women.27 To its credit, Coca-Cola managed to receive 100% on the Corporate Equality Index,
although for just two years.28 However, Coca-Cola has been criticized more publicly than
PepsiCo for its failure to fight child obesity. Although it claims to have changed its policy by
not selling its drinks in primary schools unless parents or schools ask, it has no policy in place
for secondary schools.29 This differs from its competitor where Indra Nooyi and PepsiCo seem
to care more about the wellbeing of members of society rather than its profits, which will
obviously be affected by pulling sugary products from all schools by 2012. Coca-Cola arguably
cares more about a short-term profit gain.
PepsiCo and Coca-Cola do have a negative similarity, however. Neither is free of
accusations of compounding the problems of water privatization and scarcity in countries such as
India where its plants were or currently are.30 The difference is that PepsiCo’s accusations seem
to dissolve around 2006, corresponding with the same time Indra Nooyi was appointed CEO of
PepsiCo, while Coca-Cola’s accusations still persist31. Such accusations of Coca-Cola factories
include water shortages where wells have run dry due to mass extractions by Coca-Cola plants
10
from the common groundwater source.32 Further, Coca-Cola was discarding waste water into
fields and rivers such as the Ganges, thereby polluting the soil; toxic waste was distributed as
fertilizer and this practice only stopped when ordered by state government to do so.33 Other
allegations include opening a bottling plant in an area severely contaminated with arsenic in its
groundwater, and selling products with high levels of pesticides to consumers in India.34 The
shocking allegations leave no wonder as to why Coca-Cola failed to make the Global Green
list.35
11
B. TJX vs. Kohl’s
Another area where corporate governance can be viewed from a gendered perspective is
the apparel industry. There is one corporation amongst the many Fortune 500 companies that is
run by a female CEO: TJX Companies. TJX employs over 75% women associates, with over
60% in management, and over 50% minority associates, with over 30% in management. 36 This
is a staggering percentage of women and minorities being represented in the workforce. Further,
its board of directors is represented by 27% women and 27% minorities.37 TJX, despite making
a profit, does not seem to delve into the terrible common trend in the apparel industry of
depending on sweatshop labor.38
Instead, it manages to have a diverse culture within its
workforce while seemingly using satisfactory labor standards.
Although TJX was not
recognized on the list for Top Green Companies either globally or in the US, it has exercised
green practices for years. Since 1988 and prior to the popular surge of “going green”, TJX
implemented “electronic ballast technology, a practice that significantly lowered the use of
electricity in the company’s stores”, and uses lighting which uses 50% less power than nonfluorescents.39 Also, TJX has a recycling program in place at its distribution centers to recycle
the corrugated cardboard that comes from vendors.40
Finally and perhaps most importantly,
TJX has a vendor compliance code of conduct to ensure that its vendors and factories comply
with laws and regulations in the attempt to assure no vendors are using sweatshop labor.41
Although making the “best” lists may be an accomplishment corporations are proud of, it
is not necessarily the “best” indicator as to what is actually going on behind closed doors. To
really emphasize this point, take for example Kohl’s, a competitor of TJX. Kohl’s ranked
number 18 on Newsweek’s Top 500 Green US list of 200942 for its environmental
12
conscientiousness and commitments to renewable energy.43 While it is important to note Kohl’s
achievements in this area, we cannot ignore the other factors that fail to make Kohl’s truly
socially responsible. First of all, Kohl’s fails to divulge its employee statistics. Through
extensive searches, I have failed to discover the percentages of women and minorities
represented at Kohl’s, other than finding that two of eleven board members are women, equal to
18%, but no female executives are present.44 None of the women’s or minority’s organizations
recognize Kohl’s as an optimal place to work, nor did it make Fortune’s 100 Best places to work
for women or minorities. The only lists of over twenty examined that Kohl’s makes are the US
Green list, and the International Labor Rights Sweatshop Hall of Shame 2010 lists.45 Kohl’s
apparently cares more about its short-term profit base, as did Coca-Cola, by taking short-cuts.
This results in unfair labor practices such as the employment of sweatshop workers who are
forced to work in harsh conditions for little to no pay for extensive hours. Kohl’s also received a
grade of “F” for its commitment to African Americans and people of color in the 2006 NAACP
Consumer Choice Guide for its failure to participate, and “D” in 2007 when it actually did
participate, with individual grades of “F+” for Supplier Diversity and “F” for Charitable
Giving.46 Clearly, there is more to being socially responsible than merely being environmentally
friendly. Many factors that truly matter, such as labor practices and treatment and hiring of
employees, are ones that seem to be overlooked in order to cut costs in favor of profits. If more
women were to control corporations and their workings, it is my hypothesis that these essential
factors would not be overlooked in female-run corporations.
13
C. Xerox
Another example of a socially-responsible, female-run corporation is in the computer
hardware industry. While most of the Fortune 500 companies that fit into this category are
socially responsible, Xerox happens to stand out, and not only because of its female CEO, Ursula
Burns. Xerox ranks high on several lists: National Association for Women Executives Top 50 2010, #28 in Top 500 Green US Companies 2009, Macleans.CA 50 Most Socially Responsible
Companies, and Black Enterprise’s Best Companies for Diversity.47 Xerox also received a 100%
rating in Corporate Equality Index for six years in a row – every year that the poll was taken.48
This means that Xerox promotes equality in the workplace by supporting the gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transgender communities and providing benefits and training within the company.
Xerox clearly supports a diverse culture, exemplified through its employee statistics: 29.8% of
its employees are minorities, with 22.9% of them at Vice-President level or above, and 31.5% of
employees are females, with 19.2% at Vice-President level or above. 22% of its board of
directors is represented by minorities, and 33% is represented by women.49 The structure and
success of Xerox is one that speaks for itself as socially responsible, and should be attributed to
the fact that not only is Ursula Burns the first African American female CEO of a Fortune 500
corporation, but she is also the first female to replace another female CEO. Therefore, the
policies have been in place since 2001 when Anne Mulcahy took over Xerox.50
Its
environmentally sound methods, employee-friendly labor practices and policies, and culturally
diverse workplace all led to a successful socially responsible corporation headed by a female
CEO. This is the ultimate goal and perfect example of what corporations could achieve by
14
perhaps maximizing their cultural diversity and heading their corporations with long-term
focused women leaders.
If only more women were to head corporations and carry weight in the boardroom, we
may see more examples of social responsibility as in PepsiCo, TJX, and Xerox. Although it may
not be a solution with perfect results, it may significantly increase social awareness at a corporate
level and companies may begin to focus more on their accountability to the rest of the world.
The only problem is – how do we attain this goal?
15
III. The Glass Ceiling Effect and How to Break Through
If women would lead more socially responsible corporations, what is stopping them from
reaching these leadership roles? They hit a glass-ceiling: According to a report on women in
management, the “glass ceiling is:
“an invisible, but virtually impenetrable, barrier between women and the
executive suite, preventing them from reaching the highest levels of the corporate
world regardless of their accomplishments and merits. The term refers to specific
attitudinal and organizational barriers that severely limit opportunities for the
upward mobility of qualified women candidates.”51
This glass-ceiling has arguably kept nearly all women from the role of CEO in major
corporations, with only 2.6% of women CEOs in Fortune 500 companies.52
Why does this glass-ceiling exist, and how do we break it? First, I will begin by
explaining why women are often kept from the positions of CEO and directors (decision-making
positions within companies), and I will then move on to speculate on how to break the ceiling.
16
A. Gender Roles
Gender roles are assigned and recognized at such a young age, that it is difficult for
women to overcome these perceptions when attempting to achieve positions of power. Research
indicates that children as young as two begin to recognize how gender roles are assigned in the
domestic and professional worlds, and by age six, they have “sophisticated understandings” of
the cultural signals that “teach children that men control much of the world.”53 At a young age,
girls and boys begin behaving in manners that show how they will adapt once they enter the
workforce as adults. While girls play amicably in hopes of appearing agreeable, boys are
competitive and push to be on top while playing in larger groups.54 These stereotypes and
gender roles correlate with who reaches the top of the boardroom because of corporate structure
and hiring practices used today.
Gender roles assigned to women do not automatically condemn them to positions outside
of the boardroom, however. Many of these characteristics would make women just as able, if
not more apt to run corporations and make business decisions than men. Women often assess
opportunity costs and transactional costs differently than men because of their economic status
and multiple caregiving responsibilities.55
This caregiving nature also leads to better
interpersonal skills imperative in customer service.56 With more women CEOs and other female
decision-makers, social responsibility such as considerations of costs to workers’ lives, human
rights, diversity, and the environment may be higher priorities.57
Furthermore, corporate
accountability may rise with more women, as they bring “distinct moral perspectives to business
decisions,” according to many researchers.58
17
Just because women would take into account social responsibility more than men, this
does not mean they would neglect profit-building. Women would be just as capable at driving
successful, profitable corporations as men, but have the additional advantage of taking into
account social aspects that are important to shareholders, such as diversity in the workplace and
environmental factors.59
In fact, “women score higher than men in many indices of top
leadership, including those related to profitability,” such as giving better feedback than men,
“motivating individuals and teams,” and “acting with integrity.”60 Furthermore, women were
also found to produce higher quality work, better meet deadlines, spawn more creative ideas,
better advance projects, and increase overall productivity - resulting in better returns, according
to recent research.61 However, as mentioned above, profits are not the only objective for women
– they presumably care more about the long-term effects such as the needs of the communities,
environmental factors, and facilities and services available to the employees in order to create a
more hospitable workplace, such as child care.62
18
B. Men vs. Women and the Current Hiring Structure
Men tend to achieve the roles of CEO and directors more easily than women, with 97.4%
of CEOs in Fortune 500 companies being men, and 84.3% of men making up the boards of
directors.63 With 47.3% of the workforce being made up of women, it hardly seems right that
only 2.6% are running the corporations, and only 16.7% are directors.64 As noted by one female
CEO in the biotech industry, women are sometimes, “put through a much bigger test than men in
the same circumstances.”65 Men are often promoted at a faster rate than women because men
and women tend to rate men on their “potential” whereas those same men and women rate
women on their “performance”.66
With the current business structure, those who end up prospering may be categorized as
egocentric and highly narcissistic, and most commonly end up being men.67 Men are more likely
than women to ask for raises and show aggression in more obvious manners, for instance.
Research indicates that women are not as big of risk-takers, and often lack the self-confidence to
take such risks as necessary to succeed in the current corporate world.68 Also interfering with
promotions is the inability of women to adequately market themselves to supervisors. 69 This
may be because women hold the belief that “hard-work and talent alone” are enough to advance,
or it could be because of the double-standard in the workplace.70 For instance, even when
women do exhibit assertiveness, they are seen as arrogant, leaving a negative impression on
others when no such impression is made when men display the same assertiveness. Similarly,
when performance was the same for men and women, women were viewed as more
“temperamental” and “domineering”. 71 Women are afraid to flaunt their success because when
they do so, they face negative treatment, whereas men are often rewarded for bragging about
19
their achievements – a clear double-standard and a possible explanation of why women do not
display the assertiveness that is often viewed as necessary to advance to leadership positions.72
On the other hand, there are always exceptions to the rule and some women who reach
power positions do not like to attribute any of their successes to being a woman.
Such
disassociation could be due to advantages and benefits received along the road to success; it may
further lead them to deny disadvantages forced upon others in their group, or even completely
reject their group.73 One could also argue that denial of their group may be out of fear that their
successes will be deemed less-worthy as they must have received some unfair push into such a
position. These exceptions “do not disprove the existence of structural inequalities or the need
for remedial action,” however, as these are likely complex identity issues. 74 The former CEO of
Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina, was adamant that her success was not even remotely attributed
to being female, and according to another female CEO, this is a completely unfounded belief.75
According to Robin Wolander, despite any gender discrimination, the key to success is using
your personal traits to set you apart and establish your uniqueness because men and women are
just simply different when it comes to business.76
20
C. Breaking the Glass Ceiling
So how do women overcome these obstacles and stereotypes? One solution may be to
allow women the same opportunities as men to reach the level of CEO and elect more women as
board of directors.
Diana Bilimoria suggests that if more women were in corporate director
roles, this would lead to more women in corporate executive roles.77 If more women were
represented among these positions, the current corporate structure would likely not exist. The
current structure does not award “behind-the-scene” helpers, who are often women working for
the “team” rather than as “individuals”.78 We need to change why women are promoted – it
should not depend solely on bottom-line results. If more women were in the positions to
promote others, candidates would likely be hired based on quality of work, team building,
productivity, and other skill-sets such as interpersonal skills and business integrity. The overall
effect may be more socially responsible corporations because women would have more of the
decision-making roles within the companies.
And what about the theory that women will simply adjust to the norm and behave more
like their male counter-parts, leading to the suppression of their “moral tendencies”?79 Simply
put, women would presumably not have to change their behaviors if more women were CEOs
and directors. The structure of corporate hiring would likely change, and candidates would
seemingly be appointed for reasons other than the “bottom-line”.80 Women would not have to
adjust their behavior to reach this level because it may no longer be the “norm” to be selfish and
bullheaded – the norm could change into a cooperative approach and could produce better results
for the corporation. Such a result would be advantageous because with the current structure,
assertiveness, which lands many men these jobs may, in fact, be harmful to a corporation. Such
21
egotistical behavior can result in greater losses because “rather than modify plans when a longterm project starts to flounder, these executives may throw even more good money after bad”;
these types of men see failures as bad luck rather than the result of their own actions.81 Further,
while men are seen as willing to take more risks, this may not be to the advantage of the
corporation; men who push their risky positions may destroy business relationships that should
be maintained by forcing an unfair position.82 On the same point, because women are often more
cautious than men, they are less likely to engage in conduct that would harm the corporation.83
The end result may be as stated above: more socially responsible corporations.
The argument has been posed that if corporations move away from adversarial styles to
cooperative management styles, women may have an edge because of their “caring values” and
men will quickly learn these behaviors to beat the competition to proceed to the next round, thus
creating the same problem that we currently have.84 However, this effect may benefit society
more as a whole, because corporations would be led by well-rounded team-players rather than
confrontational bullies. We could have more of a cooperative attitude in the business world
where the bottom-line is not the only thing that matters. The end result may be socially
responsible corporations, which in turn, should lead to diversity among the directors and leaders
anyway. I do not see this as a problem, but another possible solution.
22
D. A Personal Look at Women CEOs
Only a small minority of women have managed to achieve the position of CEO,
especially in Fortune 500 companies. Some of these women have made comments or allowed
for a brief view into their lives and the policies implemented while CEOs. For Indra Nooyi,
CEO of PepsiCo, she attributes her selection for the position to being a foreign-born woman and
someone who was “willing to think differently and not afraid to speak [her] mind”.85 She
thought this was because PepsiCo lacked this type of individual in its senior ranks at that time,
and she was able to provide them with the change PepsiCo was looking for. Although Nooyi has
to make very difficult decisions, she recognizes that some of these decisions can be emotional,
but is able to objectively analyze each situation to reach the best conclusion. Nooyi does not
seem to have the typical “ego” that many male directors and CEOs appear to have, and has still
managed to thrive at PepsiCo since 2006. In fact, despite a slump at end of 2009, PepsiCo has
actually turned a profit in these slow economic times.86
Nooyi displays many of the feminine qualities that are hypothesized to result in more
socially responsible companies, and the policies implemented at PepsiCo during her tenure
provide evidence in support of such hypotheses.
First, Nooyi is not afraid to share
responsibilities, as this promotes higher potential. Secondly, she is not afraid to hold those
accountable for mistakes that are made, including herself, and is not afraid to give credit when it
is due. She states that, “other people have great ideas, why not ask them for them?” and is not
threatened by someone out-performing her, as she further states, “if they can do a better job than
me, throw me out and bring them in!”
87
Her actions speak to the best interest of the company –
displaying the altruistic nature attributed to women. Further, Nooyi recognizes the need for
23
diversity and inclusion within the workplace – she has put into action a very specific program
with set goals that will hold everyone accountable for reaching those goals, which includes
multiple levels of inclusion training to ensure adaptation to a diverse work environment. The
program focuses on how there are very different dynamics when dealing with women, African
Americans, or Latinos “because each one is a product of their cultural background and the socioeconomic system that they grow up with.”88
Nooyi is making sure the program is successful
because unlike training programs at other corporations, she is ensuring progress by not simply
“talking” about it, but training the employees and enforcing the policies. 89 PepsiCo has also
established “People Processes” where employees, managers and PepsiCo share responsibility,
where advancement opportunities are conveyed to the employees along with guidance,
“employment of dual performance ratings and forced distribution based on people results and
business objectives,” and accountability procedures that are reflected in compensation.90 Such a
system seems more like that of a well-rounded approach which takes into account multiple
factors for advancement and compensation rather than the typical “bottom-line” approach. Indra
Nooyi did not seem to “lose her moral tendencies” when she took over PepsiCo, but instead
brought them with her to create a socially responsible corporation, and one of the largest
corporations in the world at that.
On a different note, although TJX stands out among its competitors as being socially
responsible according to the factors listed previously, Carol Meyrowitz has trouble attributing
the success of her company to the fact that she is a woman. "Good leadership is about the person
and has little to do with gender," she says. "Good leadership and good performance [are] not
about any one thing, but a host of factors and circumstances."91 With Meyrowitz as CEO, not
only did the company excel by being socially responsible with over 60% of management
24
represented by women and above-industry percentages for minorities, she also managed to have
profits resulting in a stock that soared 79% in 2009 – without resorting to sweatshop usage.92 It
appears that she has brought about positive changes through socially responsible policies.
Despite her denial that such changes are attributed to her gender, the employment statistics stand
out from others among Fortune 500 companies as exceptional.
Another CEO who stands out among the rest is Brenda C. Barnes, CEO of Sara Lee.
Although she suffered medical problems causing her to take a leave of absence in May of 2010,
her accomplishments and policies set in place are noteworthy. After becoming an executive at
Sara Lee in 2004, she soon began restructuring the company and making bold moves toward
streamlining the company to concentrate on food, beverage, household, and body items. Her
plan to “simplify and make operations better, resulting in the same profits on smaller revenue
five years down the line,” has nearly come true.93 Despite the recession, Sara Lee stock is back
up to $17.54 as of December 2010 after plummeting from $24.61 in February of 2005 to a low of
$6.80 in March of 2010.94 Barnes notes that the decision to restructure was both business and
personal, and she would “love to demonstrate to the world that a woman can run a company
well.” She has attributed her success to her values, including humbleness and perseverance,
despite facing gender discrimination at a male-dominated company. Making a most dramatic
change between 1997 and 2004 by leaving the corporate world and her position of CEO at Pepsi
Cola North America, Barnes chose to make a personal decision to spend time with her family at
home. Barnes brought her values and advantageous feminine traits with her when she returned
to the corporate world as CEO of Sara Lee, which seem to have contributed to its success.95
25
E. Why Do Women Care More Than Men About Social Responsibility?
Being altruistic is not the only reason women care about such issues as environmental
effects a corporation has on the world, the hiring practices and treatment of its workers, and the
means of labor it operates – there are major personal incentives involved as well. First, they
should care about the labor practices because women are the group most at risk to be employed
in sweatshops. Approximately 90% of sweatshop workers are women.96 According to the US
Department of Labor, a sweatshop includes, “any factory that violates more than one of the
fundamental US labor laws, which include paying a minimum wage and keeping a time card,
paying overtime, and paying on time.”97 This definition does not encompass the true nature of
most “sweatshops” used by many such areas as the apparel industry.
Workers employed in
sweatshops such as maquiladoras in Mexico face deplorable conditions in which they must work
excruciatingly long hours without even a bathroom break to receive pay that may not even be
enough to survive on, much less provide for a family. 98 Workers are often paid by the “piece”
rather than by the hour when working in apparel factories, where they must attain a nearly
impossible rate of over once piece a minute in order to fulfill their quota.99 Workers are not
given sick days and often employers will fire employees who arrive late or fail to show up for
work, as it “amounts to a forfeiture of their privilege to work for us,” no matter the reason.100
Further, work weeks for maquiladora or sweatshop workers are usually much longer than the
typical forty-hour work week, with no extra earnings for overtime.101 It seems apparent that
women CEOs would have an interest in protecting female workers by engaging in fair labor
practices rather than sweatshop usage.
Also of interest to women would be discriminatory practices. Undoubtedly, many of the
same women who reach the level of CEO have faced sexual or gender discrimination in the
26
workplace on their climb up the ladder. According to a recent study, 79% of women face sexual
discrimination at work.102
This amount is staggering, especially when one considers that
workers in casual jobs are five times more likely, and workers in contract jobs are ten times more
likely to experience unwanted sexual advances. Women also happen to make up the majority of
these two areas as well.103
Finally, pay practices and other employment issues are of interest to women for similar
reasons. The wage gap continues to remain in the United States, where on average, women are
still paid 77% of what men make within the United States5, and women CEOs earn an average of
$1.75 million a year compared to $2 million for men in the same position.104 In the financial
industry, the gap not only remains, but was actually widened between 2000 and 2007 for female
managers. But at least these women were lucky enough to keep their jobs – more than five times
as many women than men lost their jobs since 2007 on Wall Street and other financial areas.
105
In the current economic state, senior women are three times more likely to lose their job than
senior men, with 19% of the women at executive levels losing their jobs when the company
downsized compared to only 6% of men at executive levels. With women representing such a
small percentage of executives to begin with, this should raise some alarms and really create an
interest for women CEOs to promote equal opportunities in its hiring, firing, and wage
practices.106
The reason for female CEOs to encourage social responsibility is not just good business
sense – it’s personal. When women are being exploited in these manners, it can drive someone
with a personal interest to care, such as a woman, to make some much needed changes in the
way corporations are being governed. A woman may therefore have more incentive to create
socially
responsible
corporations
than
perhaps
27
an
unaffected
man
would
have.
IV. Conclusion
Because so few women have achieved significant roles of leadership within corporations,
such as CEO and members of the board of directors, some scholars postulate that women are
more likely to “go along” with the rest of the board in order to be more amicable, resulting from
the natural or society-imposed feminine tendency.107
The effect may therefore be one of an
invisible presence – one where the factors of social responsibility the woman would normally
care about are essentially extinguished. However, if more women were part of the make-up of
the typical board of directors of large corporation and represented the position of CEO, it is far
more likely that women would no longer be fearful to voice their true positions on a topic
because they would no longer be singled out as “the woman”. Instead, they would be viewed as
just another member of the board. Therefore, by having a more diverse board of directors and
more women CEOs, the result may lead to more socially responsible decisions being made.
Although women in leadership roles such as CEO are scarce, we can imagine what it
would be like if more women were in control of corporations.
There are many reasons
explaining the behavior of the women who reach this level – some of them maintain the
stereotypical altruistic nature, while others either fight this tendency or lose it while competing
for the top spots. Although some of these women may change to adapt to what they believe it
takes to become a leader – by becoming more aggressive and less cooperative – we can still
speculate that if more women were given the same opportunities as men to reach this level, they
would maintain their altruistic nature, resulting in more socially responsible corporations. By
putting men and women on equal ground when considering positions of leadership, more women
would arguably be selected for these positions than current statistics show. This could have a
major effect on the future if women are able to break the “glass-ceiling” and society becomes
28
comfortable with seeing women in leadership roles. The effect may result in more women being
able to maintain their tendencies of cooperation and altruism because they may no longer feel the
need to act like men to attain success, resulting in socially responsible corporations. However,
we need more than one woman in a leadership role to have an effect on corporate policy. 108 It
should be the goal of corporations around the world to provide more and equal opportunities for
women to attain the level of CEO and other leadership roles, as the result would be more socially
responsible, yet still profitable, corporations.
Footnotes
1
Nizam, 5 of the Most Socially Responsible Companies (21 Apr 2010), http://omgzam.com/5-of-the-most-sociallyresponsible-companies/, (last visited Oct 25. 2010).
2
Macleans.ca, Top 50 Most Socially Responsible Corporations (14 Jun 2010)
http://www2.macleans.ca/category/business/50-most-socially-responsible-corporations/, (last visited Oct. 25, 2010).
3Wal-Mart
is ranked #1 in Fortune 500,
http://www.fortunesmallbusiness.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/full_list/ (last visited Jan. 24, 2011).
Kohl’s was ranked #18 in Top Green US Companies in 2009’s Newsweek, and Wal-Mart was ranked #39 for
Green Ranking Global Top 100 for Newsweek, whereas they both ranked in the worst for using sweatshop labor.
4
5
Ann Charles, Opinion : When Women Rule the C-Suite, (7 Oct 2010) http://business-ethics.com/2010/10/07/1624when-women-rule-the-c-suite/, (last visited Oct. 28, 2010).
6
Gary N. Powell & Laura M. Graves, Women and Men in Management, Third Edition, Sage Publications, Inc.
2003, at 53.
Marleen A. O’Connor, WOMEN EXECUTIVES IN GLADIATOR CORPORATE CULTURES: THE
BEHAVIORAL DYNAMICS OF GENDER, EGO, AND POWER, 65 Md. L. Rev. 465 at 481, (2006).
7
8
Id. at 478
9
According to data gathered by Ann Charles, more women 1) work in Nonprofits, 2) volunteer, 3) give to charity,
and 4) join the peace corps. Ann Charles, Opinion : When Women Rule the C-Suite, (7 Oct 2010) http://businessethics.com/2010/10/07/1624-when-women-rule-the-c-suite/, (last visited Oct. 28, 2010).
10
Wage Gap Remains Static, (01 Oct 10) http://www.pay-equity.org/, last visited Oct. 28, 2010).
11
Women and Sweatshops, http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/sweatshops.html (last visited Oct. 28, 2010).
29
12
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Globalization, (21 Jun 2002, revised 04 Jun 2010)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/globalization/, (last visited Oct. 28 2010).
13
Thomas L. Friedman, The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century, Updated and Expanded.
Farrar, Straus and Giroux. (2006).
Women CEOs│FORTUNE, (2010),
http://www.fortunesmallbusiness.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/womenceos/ (last visited Oct. 29, 2010).
14
15
Table 1
16
Table 1
17
Green Rakings: US Companies, (2010), http://www.newsweek.com/content/newsweek/2010/10/18/greenrankings-us-companies.html (last visited Oct. 29, 2010);
Green Rankings: Global Companies, (2010), http://www.newsweek.com/content/newsweek/2010/10/18/greenrankings-global-companies.html (last visited Oct. 29, 2010).
18
Table 1
“Indra K. Nooyi - Chairman & CEO, PepsiCo.” The Leaders Season 1: Episode 8. Hosted by Simon Hobbs.
CNBC. 24 Apr. 2008.
19
20
Id.
21
Table 1
22
Id.
23
Corporate Equality Index: A Report Card on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality in Corporate
America 2008 , http://www.hrc.org/documents/HRC_Corporate_Equality_Index_2008.pdf (last visited Oct. 30,
2010).
24
PepsiCo: No Sugary Drinks in World Schools, (2010),
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/16/health/main6304707.shtml (last visited Nov. 20, 2010)
25
PepsiCo: Company: Our Mission and Vision, http://www.pepsico.com/Company/Our-Mission-and-Vision.html,
last visited Nov. 20 2010).
26
Table 1
27
Green Rakings: US Companies, (2010), http://www.newsweek.com/content/newsweek/2010/10/18/greenrankings-us-companies.html (last visited Oct. 29, 2010)
28
The Rating System for the Corporate Equality Index is as follows: Non-discriminatory policies, diversity training
in sexual orientation (Equal Employment Opportunity policy includes sexual orientation – possible points = 15;
Diversity training covers sexual orientation – possible points = 5); Non-discriminatory policy, diversity training &
benefits – gender identity (EEO policy includes gender identity and/or expression – points possible = 15; Gender
identity diversity training offered OR supportive gender transition guidelines in place – points possible = 5;
Insurance includes access for transitioning individuals for at least one category: counseling, pharmacy benefits for
hormone therapy, medical visits to monitor hormone therapy, medically necessary surgical procedures, short-term
disability leave for surgery – points possible = 5); Domestic partner benefits (Health insurance – points possible =
15; COBRA, dental, vision and legal dependent coverage – points possible = 5; other benefits – points possible = 5);
30
GLBT employee resource group/diversity council – points possible = 15 or (half credit for support of GLBT
employee resource group with employer resources if interest expressed); Engages in appropriate and respectful
advertising and marketing or sponsors GLBT community events or organizations – points possible =15; Employer
exhibits responsible behavior toward the GLBT community; does not engage in action that would undermine GLBT
equality – points possible = -** (those engaging in the activity will be deducted 15 points)
Corporate Equality Index: A Report Card on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality in Corporate
America 2010 (2010), http://www.hrc.org/documents/HRC_Corporate_Equality_Index_2010.pdf (last visited Oct.
30, 2010).
29
PepsiCo: Company: Our Mission and Vision, http://www.pepsico.com/Company/Our-Mission-and-Vision.html,
last visited Nov. 20 2010).
30
Green America, Responsible Shopper Profiles, http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/) (last visited Oct.
29, 2010).
31
India Resource Center: Coca-Cola Spins Out of Control in India, (Nov. 15, 2004,
http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2004/cokespins.html) (last visited Oct. 30, 2010).
32
Id.
33
Id.
34
Id.
35
Green Rankings: Global Companies, (2010), http://www.newsweek.com/content/newsweek/2010/10/18/greenrankings-global-companies.html (last visited Oct. 29, 2010).
36
TJX: A Company of Choice, (2010), http://www.tjx.com/corporate_leveraging_company.asp (last visited Oct. 29.
2010).
37
Table 1
38
Id.
39
25 Big Companies That Are Going Green, (July 29, 2008), http://www.businesspundit.com/25-big-companiesthat-are-going-green/, (last visited Oct. 30, 2010).
40
Id.
41
Carol Carter, What Green Means at TJX, (Oct. 8, 2008) http://www.allbusiness.com/energy-utilities/energyenvironment-energy/11598229-1.html, (last visited Dec. 26, 2010).
42
Green Rakings: US Companies, (2010), http://www.newsweek.com/content/newsweek/2010/10/18/greenrankings-us-companies.html (last visited Oct. 29, 2010)
43
MarketWatch, Kohl's Department Stores Recognized as 2010 EPA Green Power Partner of the Year, (Oct. 10, 2010).
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/kohls-department-stores-recognized-as-2010-epa-green-power-partner-of-theyear-2010-10-20, (last visited Oct. 30, 2010).
44
Kohls Investor Relations : Executive Officers , (2010).
http://www.kohlscorporation.com/InvestorRelations/executive-officers.htm (last visited Nov. 20, 2010).
45
Table 1
31
46
NAACP 2007 Report on the General Merchandising Industry,
http://backup.naacp.org/advocacy/economic/eri_2007/merch.pdf’, (last visited Dec. 21, 2010).
2006 NAACP Consumer Choice Guide, http://backup.naacp.org/advocacy/economic/reportcard/2006/index.htm,
(last visited Dec. 21, 2010).
47
Table 1
48
Corporate Equality Index: A Report Card on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality in Corporate
America 2010 (2010), http://www.hrc.org/documents/HRC_Corporate_Equality_Index_2010.pdf (last visited Oct.
30, 2010).
49
Table 1
50
Xerox: U.S. Careers: Together for a Common Goal, (2010), http://www.xeroxcareers.com/workingxerox/diversity.aspx (last visited Nov. 19, 2010).
51
A New Look Through the Glass Ceiling: Where are the Women?, (Jan. 2002).
http://dingell.house.gov/documents/pdfs/dingellmaloneyreport.pdf at page 5, (last visited Dec. 20, 2010).
52
Catalyst: Research & Knowledge: Women in US Management: Quick Takes, (Dec. 13, 2010),
http://www.catalyst.org/publication/206/women-in-us-management, (last visited Dec. 20, 2010)
53
Id. at 482
54
Id.
55
Janis Sarra, Symposium Enron and Its Aftermath: Rose-Colored Glasses, Opaque Financial Reporting, and
Investor Blues: Enron as Con and the Vulnerability of Canadian Corporate Law, 76 St. John’s L. Rev. 715 at 730,
(2002).
Marleen A. O’Connor, WOMEN EXECUTIVES IN GLADIATOR CORPORATE CULTURES: THE
BEHAVIORAL DYNAMICS OF GENDER, EGO, AND POWER, 65 Md. L. Rev. 465 at 474, (2006).
56
57
Janis Sarra, Symposium Enron and Its Aftermath: Rose-Colored Glasses, Opaque Financial Reporting, and
Investor Blues: Enron as Con and the Vulnerability of Canadian Corporate Law, 76 St. John’s L. Rev. 715 at 730,
(2002).
Marleen A. O’Connor, WOMEN EXECUTIVES IN GLADIATOR CORPORATE CULTURES: THE
BEHAVIORAL DYNAMICS OF GENDER, EGO, AND POWER, 65 Md. L. Rev. 465 at 466, (2006).
58
59
Id. at 476
60
Id. at 473-74
61
Id.
62
Ann Charles, Opinion : When Women Rule the C-Suite, (7 Oct 2010) http://business-ethics.com/2010/10/07/1624when-women-rule-the-c-suite/, (last visited Oct. 28, 2010).
63
Catalyst : Research & Knowledge: US Women In Business: Pyramids, (Dec. 13, 2010)
http://www.catalyst.org/publication/132/us-women-in-business (last visited Dec. 20, 2010).
32
64
Catalyst: Research & Knowledge: Women in US Management: Quick Takes, (Dec. 13, 2010),
http://www.catalyst.org/publication/206/women-in-us-management, (last visited Dec. 20, 2010)
65
Catherine Hollingsworth, Biotech's Leaders Tell Their Tales Women CEOs Proving It: Glass Ceiling Can Break,
Vol. 20, No. 118. BIOWORLD Today, (2009).
Marleen A. O’Connor, WOMEN EXECUTIVES IN GLADIATOR CORPORATE CULTURES: THE
BEHAVIORAL DYNAMICS OF GENDER, EGO, AND POWER, 65 Md. L. Rev. 465 at 490-91, (2006).
66
67
Id. at 488
68
Id. at 468
69
Id. at 490
70
Id. at 491
71
Id. at 484
72
Id. at 468
73
Martha Albertson Fineman, The Vulnerable Subject: Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition, 20 Yale J.L. &
Feminism 1 at 16, (2008).
74
Id.
75
Robin Wolaner, Naked in the Boardroom: A CEO Bares Her Secrets So You Can Transform Your Career. at 1,
Fireside. (2006).
76
Id. at xii, 1.
77
Diana Bilimoria, The Relationship Between Women Corporate Directors and Women Corporate Officers, (Mar
22, 2006), http://www.allbusiness.com/management-companies-enterprises/880093-1.html, Journal of Managerial
Issues, (last visited Dec. 21, 2010).
Marleen A. O’Connor, WOMEN EXECUTIVES IN GLADIATOR CORPORATE CULTURES: THE
BEHAVIORAL DYNAMICS OF GENDER, EGO, AND POWER, 65 Md. L. Rev. 465 at 475, (2006).
78
79
Id.
80
Id.
81
Id. at 486.
82
Id. at 488.
83
Id. at 492.
84
Id. at 475.
“Indra K. Nooyi - Chairman & CEO, PepsiCo.” The Leaders Season 1: Episode 8. Hosted by Simon Hobbs.
CNBC. 24 Apr. 2008.
85
33
86
PepsiCo : Investors: Stock Information, (2010). http://www.pepsico.com/Investors/Stock-Information/StockQuote-Chart.html, (last visited Dec. 21, 2010).
Indra K. Nooyi - Chairman & CEO, PepsiCo.” The Leaders Season 1: Episode 8. Hosted by Simon Hobbs.
CNBC.
24 Apr. 2008.
87
88
Id.
89
Id.
90
Catalyst : Research & Knowledge: PepsiCo, Inc. People Processes, (July 2010),
http://www.catalyst.org/publication/424/pepsico-incpeople-processes (last visited Dec. 21, 2010).
91
Yahoo! Press Room: In the News: Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz Gives Herself B-Minus Grade in First Year (Jan. 8,
2010). http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/press/inthenews.cfm?ArchiveWeek=20100108, (last visited Nov, 20,
2010).
92
Id.,
25 Big Companies That are Going Green, (July 29, 2008)., http://www.businesspundit.com/25-big-companies-thatare-going-green/) (last visited Dec. 21, 2010).
93
Brenda C. Barnes, (2010), http://www.notablebiographies.com/newsmakers2/2007-A-Co/Barnes-Brenda-C.html,
(last visited Dec. 21, 2010).
94
Google Finance: Sara Lee Corp. (2010), http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:SLE, last visited
Dec. 21, 2010).
95
Brenda C. Barnes, (2010), http://www.notablebiographies.com/newsmakers2/2007-A-Co/Barnes-Brenda-C.html,
(last visited Dec. 21, 2010).
96
Women and Sweatshops, http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/sweatshops.html (last visited Oct. 28, 2010).
97
Global Exchange: Sweatfree Communities: Frequently Asked Questions: "Free Trade" and Sweatshops (Oct. 28,
2007), http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sweatshops/sweatshopsfaq.html, (last visited Oct. 28, 2010).
98
Id.,
Elvia R. Arriola, Voices from the Barbed Wires of Despair: Women in the Maquiladoras, Latina Critical Legal
Theory, and Gender at the U.S.-Mexico Border, 49 DePaul L. Rev. 729 at 766.. (2000).
99
Global Exchange: Sweatfree Communities: Frequently Asked Questions: "Free Trade" and Sweatshops (Oct. 28,
2007), http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sweatshops/sweatshopsfaq.html, (last visited Oct. 28, 2010).
100
Elvia R. Arriola, Voices from the Barbed Wires of Despair: Women in the Maquiladoras, Latina Critical Legal
Theory, and Gender at the U.S.-Mexico Border, 49 DePaul L. Rev. 729 at 771.. (2000).
101
Id. at 773.
102
Thaindian News: Women in casual, contract jobs ten times more prone to sexual harassment
(Sept 11, 2008), http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/women-in-casual-contract-jobs-ten-times-moreprone-to-sexual-harassment_10094635.html., (last visited Oct. 28, 2010).
103
Id.
34
104
Women CEOs; factoids, Vol. 27 No. 5. Research Alert 4, (2009).
105
National Post: Wall Street Gender Gap Widens: (Oct. 6, 2010),
http://www.nationalpost.com/Wall+Street+gender+widens/3631106/story.html (last visited Dec. 21, 2010).
The Glass Hammer: New Catalyst Report – Senior Women 3 Times More Likely to Lose Job than Senior Man
(Feb. 25, 2010), http://www.theglasshammer.com/news/2010/02/25/new-catalyst-report-senior-women-3-timesmore-likely-to-lose-job-than-senior-men/#comments, (last visited Dec. 21, 2010).
106
Marleen A. O’Connor, WOMEN EXECUTIVES IN GLADIATOR CORPORATE CULTURES: THE
BEHAVIORAL DYNAMICS OF GENDER, EGO, AND POWER, 65 Md. L. Rev. 465 at 499, (2006).
107
108
Diana Bilimoria, The Relationship Between Women Corporate Directors and Women Corporate Officers, (Mar
22, 2006), http://www.allbusiness.com/management-companies-enterprises/880093-1.html, Journal of Managerial
Issues, (last visited Dec. 21, 2010).
Table A
2010 Working Mother 100 Best Companies, http://www.workingmother.com/BestCompanies/node/7818/list,
(last visited Dec. 20, 2010).
104
105
Working Mother: Best Companies for Multicultural Women 2010,
http://www.workingmother.com/BestCompanies/multicultural-women/2010/05/best-companies-for-multiculturalwomen-2010 (last visited Dec. 20, 2010).
100 Best Companies to Work for 2007: Minorities │FORTUNE, (2010)
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2007/minorities/, (last visited Nov. 7 2010).
106
100 Best Companies to Work for 2008: Minorities │FORTUNE, (2010)
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2008/minorities/, (last visited Nov. 7, 2010).
107
108
100 Best Companies to Work For 2009: Full list from FORTUNE (ethnically diverse), (2010)
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2009/json/search.html?size=&women=&diverse=hi&traini
ng=&growth=&turnover=&state=&x=21&y=5, (last visited Nov. 7, 2010).
100 Best Companies to Work for 2007: Women │FORTUNE, (2010)
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2007/women/, (last visited Nov. 7, 2010).
109
100 Best Companies to Work for 2008: Women │FORTUNE, (2010)
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2008/women/, (last visited Nov. 7, 2010).
110
111
100 Best Companies to Work For 2009: Full list from FORTUNE (number of women), (2010),
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2009/json/search.html?size=&women=hi&diverse=&traini
ng=&growth=&turnover=&state=&x=16&y=8, (last visited Nov. 7, 2010).
112
The 2010 DiversityInc Top 50 List: Diversity Inc Top 50 Companies for Diversity, (2010),
http://www.diversityinc.com/article/7347/ (last visited Nov. 19, 2010).
113
Green Rakings: US Companies 2009, http://greenrankings2009.newsweek.com/ (last visited Oct. 29, 2010).
114
Green Rakings: US Companies 2010, (2010), http://www.newsweek.com/content/newsweek/2010/10/18/greenrankings-us-companies.html (last visited Oct. 29, 2010);
35
115
Green Rankings: Global Companies, (2010), http://www.newsweek.com/content/newsweek/2010/10/18/greenrankings-global-companies.html (last visited Oct. 29, 2010).
116
Corporate Equality Index: A Report Card on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality in Corporate
America 2008 , http://www.hrc.org/documents/HRC_Corporate_Equality_Index_2008.pdf (last visited Oct. 30,
2010).
117
Corporate Equality Index: A Report Card on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality in Corporate
America 2006, http://www.hrc.org/documents/HRCCorporateEqualityIndex2006.pdf (last visited Oct. 30, 2010).
118
NAACP 2007 Report on the General Merchandising Industry,
http://backup.naacp.org/advocacy/economic/eri_2007/merch.pdf’, (last visited Dec. 21, 2010).
119
Macleans.ca, Top 50 Most Socially Responsible Corporations (14 June 2010)
http://www2.macleans.ca/category/business/50-most-socially-responsible-corporations/, (last visited Oct. 25, 2010).
120
Huffington Post: 8 Revolutionary Socially Responsible Companies,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/12/8-revolutionarysocially_n_679832.html#s124081&title=The%20Body%20Shop, (last visited Oct. 25, 2010).
121
Online Gazette : 5 of the Most Socially Responsible Companies, http://omgzam.com/5-of-the-most-sociallyresponsible-companies/ (last visited Oct. 25, 2010).
122
International Labor Rights Forum: 2010 Sweatshop Hall of Fame, http://www.laborrights.org/creating-asweatfree-world/sweatshops/resources/12211 (last visited Oct. 25, 2010).
International Labor Rights Forum: Sweatshop Hall of Fame 2008, http://www.laborrights.org/creating-a-sweatfreeworld/sweatshops/resources/10661 (last visited Oct. 30, 2010).
36