Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series
Diversity Among Board Directors and Officers: Exploratory Estimates on Family, Work and Income
Skip to text
Text begins
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by Women and Gender Equality Canada (WAGE).
Abstract
This study provides the first socioeconomic profile of women board directors and officers in Canada from an intersectional lens. Linking data from the Corporations Returns Act with those from the 2016 Census, exploratory estimates are presented. The study analyzes disparities in family, work and income characteristics, mainly by gender and visible minority status. Further, it informs on the types of businesses in which diverse women executives contribute to corporate governance and strategic decision making.
1 Background
Notwithstanding decades of gains in the workplace, women continue to be underrepresented in leadership and decision making positions, accounting for one in four senior managers in Canada, or about one in five corporate board directors, while they represented almost one in two workers (Richards 2019; Statistics Canada 2019; Statistics Canada 2020; Statistics Canada 2021). Even more, preliminary data show that very few visible minorities, Indigenous peoples or persons with a disability are included on corporate boards (Osler 2020). Improvements in the representation of women in top jobs or high-income groups will be central to moving forward in closing the gender pay gap this century, building on previous advancements through women’s educational attainment and labour force participation (Bonikowska, Drolet and Fortin 2019; Fortin, Bell and Böhm 2017). Moreover, the benefits of greater diversity in top decision making roles are still being investigated and understood by researchers.
Although the underrepresentation of women and racialized minorities in leadership and decision making is a common economic phenomenon and public policy priority for many advanced economies, the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report (2020) shows that Canada leads in gender parity for educational attainment, but underperforms relative to its peers in economic participation and opportunity for political empowerment. Underscoring its importance in achieving full economic participation and influence in decision making, representation in management positions has been identified as a target for gender equality and empowerment in the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (UN Women 2018). Similarly, the Government of Canada’s Gender Results Framework (Government of Canada 2020) is closely tracking progress on representation in management, on boards and in entrepreneurship.Note Corresponding policy initiatives have also been introduced with the objective of advancing diversity in leadership and entrepreneurship, most notably through the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy and Black Entrepreneurship Program, along with the 50 – 30 Challenge, which asks organizations to commit to gender parity and the significant representation of equity-deserving groups on boards and in senior leadership.Note
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened family pressures and greater job losses for women—in particular racialized women and mothers with young children—have endangered current and future gains for diverse generations of leaders. And yet, at the same time, there is an emerging focus on addressing systemic racism and discrimination in light of the Black Lives Matter movement, along with greater awareness of sexual violence and discrimination in the workplace since #MeToo and Time’s Up, bringing diversity and inclusion to the forefront for businesses and governments. The economic consequences of the pandemic (e.g., job losses, fewer hours worked and challenges balancing family and career) will need to be evaluated and monitored over time, as will actions taken to address inequities in the workplace. As such, it will only become increasingly relevant to understand the socioeconomic characteristics and labour market trajectories of women—racialized women in particular—who are reaching executive positions or board directorship, along with how opportunities have changed over time given the evolving social and economic landscape.
2 Previous literature
Private-sector and academic organizations have provided valuable insights into diversity among board directors and executive officers (e.g., chief executive officers, chief financial officers and others in the C-suite), typically for larger, publicly traded firms for which information is readily available. For example, the average share of women board directors in companies subject to disclosure requirements reached 20% in 2020, up from 13% in 2016, although very few women were in top roles (Osler 2020). Progress has been slower for women executive officers, up from 15% to 17% over the same period. To inform on the gender diversity of boards more broadly (e.g., for private and public corporations of all sizes), Statistics Canada has published information on gender diversity through innovative methods, which have demonstrated that government business entities, the largest businesses, and those in the utilities and finance sectors have the highest representation of women on boards (Statistics Canada 2019; Statistics Canada 2020; Statistics Canada 2021).
Starting in 2020, Canada has broadened disclosure requirements on board diversity for publicly traded corporations beyond gender, mandating businesses to report on each of the four employment equity groups (i.e., women, visible minorities, Indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities) through new requirements introduced to the Canada Business Corporations Act in Bill C-25.Note Note Preliminary data demonstrate the extent to which these key groups are underrepresented on boards (Osler 2020). For example, among the 2,000 board positions analyzed by Osler, there were seven Indigenous board directors and six board directors with a disability, while visible minorities held 5.5% of board seats. Diversity Leads (2020) also underscores disparities, showing that racialized persons represent 10.4% of board directors in Canada, ranging from 4.5% in the corporate sector to 14.6% for universities and colleges, along with highlighting the deep underrepresentation of Black individuals on corporate boards.
Beyond estimates of representation, much of the literature on board directors has focused on the relationship between diversity and financial performance (Adams and Ferreira 2009; Bank of America Merrill Lynch 2018; Catalyst 2015; Green and Homroy 2018; McKinsey & Company 2015). While the benefits of diverse backgrounds and perspectives are often cited in support of the diversity–performance relationship (Adams and Ferreira 2009; Carter, D’Souza and Simkins 2010), very little is known about the socioeconomic characteristics of board directors or executive officers. Some studies have shown that women board directors tend to be younger than men, while results on gender differences in educational attainment are mixed (Solieme, Coluccia and Fontana 2016; Sheridan and Milgate 2005; Dang, Bender and Scotto 2014). In a major study, Adams and Ferreira (2009) found that boards with more women behaved differently, as women were tougher monitors of the chief executive officer, had higher board meeting attendance and were more involved in committee work. Meanwhile, in a large survey of board directors, Adams and Funk (2012) found that women board directors were more benevolent and less power oriented than men, while notably, also less risk averse than men.
To better understand the path to board directorship or officer positions and begin to address knowledge gaps in socioeconomic characteristics, this study provides the first intersectional profile of women executives.Note The study begins by analyzing gender gaps in the family and work characteristics of executives, then differences by visible minority status. It also informs on the types of firms in which diverse women contribute as executives, the size of their professional networks, and provides a short analysis on the gender pay gap.
3 Data
Exploratory estimates were created using multiple datasets for an intersectional analysis of board directors and officers, mainly by gender and visible minority status. Broadly speaking, board directors are in charge of supervising the activities of corporations and are elected by shareholders, while officers lead the day-to-day operations of the corporation and are appointed by board directors. An officer can fill any position the directors need them to fill. Together, board directors and officers are responsible for corporate governance and strategic decision making. Note
Board directors and officers were identified through company-level data from the Corporations Returns Act (CRA), which collects financial and ownership information on mid-to-large corporations that conduct business in Canada.Note Individuals identified in the CRA data were linked to the Derived Record Depository (DRD), a national database at Statistics Canada that contains basic personal identifiers, which essentially acts as a connector between datasets. About 40% of executives identified in the CRA data in both 2016 and 2017 were successfully linked to the DRD. Lastly, board directors and officers identified in the DRD were linked to the 2016 Census long-form questionnaire—a mandatory survey of one in four people living in Canada.
Among the 44,200 executives identified in the CRA data in 2016 and 2017, 4,220 were successfully linked to the 2016 Census long-form questionnaire. Taking into account census weights, about 3,570 women and 13,440 men are represented in the exploratory estimates presented in this paper.Note Very few visible minorities were identified, as only 370 women and 980 men who belonged to a visible minority group are represented.Note Executives can contribute to businesses in both roles (i.e., as a board director and officer), so the sample was broken down into the following: 1,260 individuals in the sample were board directors exclusively, 5,885 were officers exclusively, and 9,865 contributed as both board directors and officers.Note Given the linkage exercise, the estimates presented in this study are considered exploratory, meaning that they should be interpreted with caution and vetted in future work.
4 Results
Women executives were less likely than men executives to be in a relationship or have children
Even with the upward trend in employment rates for married women and mothers with young children over the past few decades, family and motherhood continue to shape women’s labour market experiences, as mothers still earn less than fathers and women also continue to have more frequent labour market interruptions than men (Moyser 2017). Likewise, major gender gaps in family structure or the presence of children exist for those in top jobs or in high-paying positions, as women in the top 1% of the income distribution were less likely than men in the same income bracket to be in a relationship or have children, while still spending considerably more time on child care and housework (Richards 2019). These results are reflected in the gender gaps presented below on the demographic characteristics of executives (i.e., board directors and officers) who were well represented in the top 1% of the income distribution.
There were some important gender differences, for example, women executives were slightly younger than men executives, less likely to be in a relationship and also less likely to have children. Specifically, women executives were 51 years old on average, compared with an average age of 54 for men (Table 1). Even more, women who were board directors exclusively were 52 years old on average, versus an average age of 58 among men in the same roles.
About 8 in 10 executive women were married or in a common-law relationship, compared with 9 in 10 of men (Chart 1)Note . These gender gaps narrowed slightly for core-aged workers (i.e. aged between 25 and 54) during a time when family responsibilities may be greater. Executive women were less likely than executive men to have children and, when they did, they were more likely to have fewer children. For example, 36.4% of women executives had two or more children, compared with 44.1% of men.Note
Data table for Chart 1
| Women | Men | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| percent | |||
| Family status | Married spouse or common-law partner | 78.5 | 89.7 |
| Lone parent | 6.2 | 2.1 | |
| Person not in a census family | 13.9 | 7.7 | |
| Number of children | No child | 45.6 | 40.0 |
| One child | 18.1 | 15.9 | |
| Two children | 27.8 | 29.1 | |
| Three or more children | 8.6 | 15.0 | |
| Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; and Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. | |||
Educational gender gaps for executives were consistent with those for the overall population
Broadly speaking, educational gender gaps for executives were relatively consistent with those observed in the working population. Following notable gains in educational attainment over the last few decades—at a faster pace for women than for men—working age women are now more likely than men to have a university or college degree (Ferguson 2016). While women executives had slightly lower levels of educational attainment than men executives, patterns were reversed for core-aged women (i.e., aged between 25 and 54), as they were more likely than men to have a bachelor’s degree or above (58.2% versus 52.8%). Likewise, women who were board directors exclusively had higher levels of educational attainment than men in the same roles, as they were more likely to have a bachelor’s degree or above and a master’s degree.
Among executives with a bachelor’s degree or above, women were more likely than men to have studied in social and behavioural sciences and law and, conversely, less likely to have studied in engineering-related fields, a trend broadly aligned with patterns observed among the working-age population (Ferguson 2016).Note Business, management and public administration was the top field of study choice among executives, with more than half (51.6% of women and 54.9% of men) studying in this field (Table 2). Social and behavioural sciences and law was the second most common field of study, although this choice was more prevalent among women, with 29.1% of women executives choosing this field, compared with 19.8% of men. Women executives were about five times less likely than men executives to have studied in architecture, engineering and related technologies—a field in which women continue to be underrepresented (2.5%).Note
Talent pipeline for women executives includes business and social sciences
Researchers have posited that diversity can influence boards through greater independence or divergent thinking, by moving away from group think, as boards have to tap into broader talent pools to appoint women, shifting away from the so-called “old boys club” (Adams and Ferreira 2009; Carter, D’Souza and Simkins 2010). Indeed, the exploratory estimates on occupational gender gaps suggest slightly different talent pipelines for executives. For example, about 5 in 10 women executives worked in management occupations, compared with almost 7 in 10 men, mainly reflecting gaps in senior management in construction, transportation, production and utilities.Note Women executives were twice as likely as men to work in social sciences, education, government service and religion, accounting for almost 1 in 5 women, many of whom worked as lawyers or Quebec notaries. Notably, women were almost one and a half times more likely to work in business, finance and administrative occupations, including as financial auditors and accountants—an occupation in which university-educated women have made great strides over the last decade (Uppal and LaRochelle-Coté 2014).
Data table for Chart 2
| Broad occupational groups | Women | Men |
|---|---|---|
| percent | ||
| Occupations in social sciences, education, government service and religion | 18.2 | 9.1 |
| Natural and applied sciences and related health occupations | 2.9 | 4.0 |
| Business, finance and administration occupations | 22.6 | 15.9 |
| Management occupations | 51.6 | 67.1 |
| Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; and Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. | ||
Women executives were less likely than men to be in top decision making roles
Women who do reach executive roles in their careers tend to hold lower-level positions than men, or ones with less decision-making authority (MacDonald 2019; Osler 2020)—patterns that were reflected in the exploratory estimates. Some executives are also able to exert influence through multiple roles in one or more businesses. Almost one in two women contributed to corporate governance and decision making as both board directors and officers (46.4%), compared with about 6 in 10 men (61.1%), as women were more likely than men to contribute as officers exclusively (Table 3).
Moreover, women officers were about two times less likely than men officers to be in top decision making roles, such as chairman or president of a corporation (Table 4).Note Specifically, about 1 in 10 women officers was president, compared with about 1 in 4 men (Chart 3). Conversely, women officers were considerably more likely than men officers to hold secretary or assistant secretary positions. Among those in top officer positions, almost 9 in 10 women presidents also participated as board directors, in line with the representation of men presidents. Examining core-aged executives in top roles, gender gaps in the presence of children were consistent, as 7 in 10 women presidents or vice-presidents had children, compared with 8 in 10 of men.
Data table for Chart 3
| Officer positions, by sex | Occupies the position | Does not occupy the position | |
|---|---|---|---|
| percent | |||
| Chair | Women | 3.7 | 96.3 |
| Men | 6.4 | 93.6 | |
| President | Women | 10.9 | 89.1 |
| Men | 24.1 | 75.9 | |
| Vice-president | Women | 21.2 | 78.8 |
| Men | 26.8 | 73.2 | |
| Executive vice-president | Women | 4.0 | 96.0 |
| Men | 4.3 | 95.7 | |
| Secretary | Women | 15.2 | 84.8 |
| Men | 8.1 | 91.9 | |
| Assistant secretary | Women | 8.9 | 91.1 |
| Men | 2.1 | 97.9 | |
| Secretary treasurer | Women | 2.8 | 97.2 |
| Men | 1.5 | 98.5 | |
| Treasurer | Women | 5.0 | 95.0 |
| Men | 2.6 | 97.4 | |
| Other | Women | 48.0 | 52.0 |
| Men | 47.0 | 53.0 | |
| Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; and Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. | |||
About half of executive women contributed to firms in the finance sector
Industrial gender segregation patterns that persist in the working population were also reflected in exploratory estimates, as women were more likely to contribute as executives for firms in sectors where they are well represented in the workforce. Specifically, women executives were less likely than men executives to work for businesses in the goods sectors, e.g., energy, construction or manufacturing (Table 5).Note Conversely, they were better represented in service sectors, especially in finance, which reflects their educational background. Half of women in executive positions worked in finance, compared with about 4 in 10 men.
Most executives contributed as officers, board directors or both in private corporations and in corporations controlled by Canadian entities, characteristics reported in the CRA data to evaluate the degree of influence foreign firms have in the Canadian economy.Note About 6 in 10 women contributed as officers exclusively in Canadian-controlled entities, as well as in American-controlled entities. Conversely, about 6 in 10 men contributed as both board directors and officers in corporations controlled by those two countries.
Examining representation by firm size, women executives were more likely than men executives (29.5% of women versus 20.5% of men) to participate in the smallest firms and less likely to participate in small-to-medium or medium-to-large firms (Table 5).Note This pattern primarily reflects gaps for officers, as women who were officers exclusively were two times more likely to participate in the smallest companies (38.2% of women compared to 19.3% of men). By comparison, women who were board directors exclusively were as likely as men board directors to contribute to the largest firms in the same roles (Chart 4).Note
Data table for Chart 4
| Men | Women | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| percent | |||
| Larger firms | Officers exclusively | 39.1 | 32.3 |
| Both directors and officers | 30.2 | 24.4 | |
| Directors exclusively | 44.2 | 46.2 | |
| Smaller firms | Officers exclusively | 19.3 | 38.2 |
| Both directors and officers | 21.8 | 17.8 | |
| Directors exclusively | 16.3 | 17.4 | |
| Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; and Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. | |||
Very few Indigenous women executives were identified in the estimates
Very few Indigenous executives were identified in the exploratory estimates, corresponding to about 1% for both women and men, while accounting about 4% of the working population. Because of the lack of representation in the estimates and the need to respect census confidentiality guidelines, the analysis on Indigenous women in this paper is limited. However, the exploratory results do show that Indigenous women executives were younger and less likely to have children than non-Indigenous women, and the majority of Indigenous women executives contributed to larger corporations.
Data table for Chart 5
| Sex | Immigrant | Visible minority | Aboriginal identity |
|---|---|---|---|
| percent | |||
| Women | 18.0 | 10.3 | 1.1 |
| Men | 16.8 | 7.3 | 1.2 |
|
Note: In this paper, the term “Indigenous” refers to those who reported identifying as an Aboriginal person in the census. Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; and Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. |
|||
Majority of immigrant executives did not identify as visible minorities
Immigrants were—to some extent—relatively better represented in executive positions, as about 18% of women executives were immigrants, while immigrants account for almost one in four workers. In contrast with the broader immigrant population (Hudon 2015), the majority of immigrant executives did not identify as visible minorities, as more than two in three were non visible minorities.Note Immigrant women were more likely than non-immigrant women to contribute as officers than board directors, while the opposite held for immigrant men, who were slightly more likely to sit on boards than non-immigrant men. However, women immigrants were more likely than visible minority women to hold a seat on a board of directors. More than half of immigrant women executives contributed as board directors, whereas 4 in 10 visible minority women executives were on boards.Note
On average, immigrant women executives were slightly older than non-immigrant women, and they were also less likely to have children and be married or in a common-law relationship. They were also more likely to obtain a higher level of education than non-immigrant women. Almost 4 in 10 immigrant (38.4%) women executives had a degree above the bachelor’s level, compared with 3 in 10 non-immigrant women (31.6%). These patterns were even more pronounced for men—almost half of the immigrant men who were executives had a degree above the bachelor’s level. With regard to differences in the field of study among bachelor graduates, immigrant women were about twice as likely as non-immigrant women to have studied in a science, technology, engineering and mathematics field.
Broadly aligned with results for field of study, women immigrants were five times more likely than non-immigrant women to work for businesses in the energy sector. About 7 in 10 immigrant women contributed as executives in finance, and they were one and a half times more likely than non-immigrant women to work for American-controlled entities.
Data table for Chart 6
| Selected industries | Immigrant women executives | Non-immigrant women executives |
|---|---|---|
| percent | ||
| Manufacturing | 3.1 | 3.6 |
| Management of companies and enterprises | 12.6 | 17.4 |
| Finance | 67.7 | 42.6 |
| Energy | 5.7 | 1.3 |
| Distributive trade | 4.9 | 4.1 |
| Construction | 0.8 | 2.3 |
| Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; and Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. | ||
One in ten women executives identified as a visible minority
About 1 in 10 women executives belonged to a visible minority group, along with about 1 in 14 of men executives. These results demonstrate how visible minorities continue to be underrepresented in leadership and decision making positions, as they represent about 1 in 5 workers. Representation based on the exploratory estimates were higher than those put forward in some private-sector studies, but broadly aligned with Diversity Leads (2020), reflecting differences in the number and types of corporations included in the analysis, as medium-to-large private and publicly traded corporations are analyzed in this study, while private-sector estimates focus on the largest publicly traded firms.Note Major visible minority groups represented among executives included South Asian and Chinese, while there were fewer Black and Filipino executives.
Differences were observed in the roles of visible minority women executives in the corporations to which they contributed, as well as in the scope of their influence within these corporations. For example, about 6 in 10 visible minority women executives participated as officers exclusively, while about 1 in 3 contributed as both officers and board directors (Chart 7). In comparison, about half of women executives who did not identify as visible minorities influenced corporate decision making as both board directors and officers, as did about 6 in 10 non visible minority men.
Data table for Chart 7
| Visible minority and sex | Visible minority women | Non visible minority women | Visible minority men | Non visible minority men |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| percent | ||||
| Directors exclusively | 6.1 | 8.6 | 3.7 | 7.4 |
| Both directors and officers | 33.7 | 47.8 | 52.1 | 61.8 |
| Officers exclusively | 60.2 | 43.6 | 44.1 | 30.8 |
| Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; and Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. | ||||
Visible minority women executives were younger, more educated and more likely to have children than non visible minority women
Broadly speaking, visible minority women have different socioeconomic characteristics and may face more challenges in the workplace than women who do not belong to visible minority groups, as they are—on average—younger and more educated, while at the same time, more likely to report encountering discrimination (Hudon 2016). Previous work has demonstrated that visible minority women do encounter different challenges in accessing leadership positions, such as finding informal networking opportunities or senior role models or mentors (Catalyst 2007). These challenges underscore the importance of studying the characteristics of visible minority women who are overcoming an uneven playing field to reach executive positions in Canada.
Indeed, women executives who belong to visible minority groups had different socioeconomic characteristics than non visible minority women executives, for example, they were younger—46 years old on average versus 52 (Table 6). Even more, visible minority women executives were less likely than non visible minority women to be married or have a common-law partner (7 in 10 versus 8 in 10), but more likely to have children (6 in 10 versus 5 in 10). These gaps evolved when analyzing core-aged executives (i.e., those aged between 25 and 54), as core-aged visible minority women executives were even less likely than non visible minority women to be in a relationship and equally likely to have children.
Data table for Chart 8
| Visible minority | Non visible minority | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| percent | |||
| Family status | Married spouse or common-law partner | 71.5 | 79.3 |
| Person not in a census family | 20.0 | 12.2 | |
| Number of children | No child | 36.2 | 46.7 |
| One child | 17.9 | 18.1 | |
| Two children | 30.8 | 27.4 | |
| Three or more children | 15.1 | 7.8 | |
| Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; and Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. | |||
Visible minority women executives had a higher level of educational attainment than non visible minority women, for example, 88.9% held a bachelor’s degree or above (compared with 74.7%). With regard to occupational differences, visible minority women executives were less likely than non visible minority women to be in management occupations—reflecting disparities in senior management—and more likely to work in social sciences, education, government service and religion, primarily as lawyers or Quebec notaries (16.8%), and almost twice as likely to work as financial auditors and accountants (11.0%). On average, visible minority women executives worked more hours during the census reference week (40.2 hours versus 38.1 hours).
Data table for Chart 9
| Visible minority | Non visible minority | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| percent | |||
| Educational attaiment | Below bachelor's degree | 11.1 | 25.2 |
| Bachelor's degree | 59.0 | 41.3 | |
| Above bachelor's degree | 6.4 | 10.1 | |
| Master's degree | 23.5 | 22.0 | |
| Occupational groups | Management occupations | 43.1 | 52.6 |
| Business, finance and administration occupations | 23.4 | 22.5 | |
| Natural and applied sciences and related health occupations | 5.6 | 2.5 | |
| Occupations in social sciences, education, government service and religion | 23.7 | 17.6 | |
| Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; and Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. | |||
Visible minority women executives were five times more likely than non visible minority women to contribute to American-controlled corporations
Women executives who belonged to a visible minority group were more likely to participate in American-controlled corporations, representing 4 in 10 executives—about five times more likely than non visible minority women (Table 9).Note Conversely, visible minority women were less likely to contribute to Canadian-controlled corporations, accounting for about one in two executives, in contrast to the majority of non visible minority women (9 in 10). To a lesser extent, these patterns were also observed for visible minority men, who were more likely to contribute to American- or Japanese-controlled corporations. Major visible minority groups for both women and men contributing to American-controlled corporations included South Asian, Chinese and Black executives.
Furthermore, visible minority women were 1.4 times more likely than non visible minority women to contribute as both board directors and officers in American-controlled corporations—almost half held a board director seat and an officer position simultaneously. In contrast, visible minority executives were not as well represented on boards in Canadian-controlled corporations.
Data table for Chart 10
| Canada | United States | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Both directors and officers | Officers exclusively | Both directors and officers | Officers exclusively | |
| percent | ||||
| Non visible minority women executives | 35.9 | 58.7 | 31.9 | 61.7 |
| Visible minority women executives | 27.3 | 69.6 | 45.5 | 48.8 |
| Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; and Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. | ||||
Visible minority women were just as likely as non visible minority women to be in top roles
While visible minority women executives were just as likely as non visible minority women to access top officer roles, some differences were observed in the types of firms to which they contributed.Note For example, about 1 in 10 women executives who belonged to a visible minority group was president of a corporation, while almost 1 in 4 was vice-president, aligned with estimates for non visible minority women (Table 8). With regard to firm characteristics, women executives who belonged to a visible minority group were 1.9 times more likely to participate in the largest firms—mainly reflecting trends for officers—while much less likely to contribute in the smallest firms and more likely to work in the finance sector.Note
Women board directors were more likely to sit on larger boards and have more extensive networks of colleagues
When analyzing diversity in leadership and on corporate boards, the types of roles and the scope of the influence of the executives are important to consider, as some executives may sit on multiple boards or hold many officer positions, contributing in different roles within one or many businesses. On average, women board directors sat on about two boards, which was the same for men. Previous research has shown that boards with at least one woman director tended to be larger and have more board director seats (Green and Homroy 2018; Adams and Ferreira 2009). Indeed, women board directors were more likely to sit on larger boards—those with an average of six directors—and more likely to sit on boards with a higher number of women.Note Likewise, women officers were more likely to work in larger corporations, such as those with a higher number of officer positions and also a higher representation of women officers.
Networks are also important to consider in studying leadership, as some researchers have argued that the underrepresentation of women on boards is explained in part by their lack of connections with men directors (Adams and Ferreira 2009), while visible minorities may not necessarily be included in informal networking associated with greater career advancement (Catalyst 2007). Because women board directors were more likely than men in the same roles to sit on larger boards, they also had slightly greater networks. On average, women directors were connected to an average of 7.5 colleagues through their board engagements, compared with 6.7 for men (Table 3). Moreover, women were connected to about two other women board director colleagues (1.9), having slightly more connections to women than men had (1.5). Results were similar for officers, as women were connected to an average of 14.0 officer colleagues (versus 11.7 for men). Women officers also had greater networks of women colleagues.
While the number of board seats held by visible minority women board directors was similar to that of non visible minority women, they were more likely to sit on smaller boards, and those with fewer women at the table. As such, visible minority women board directors had relatively smaller networks—an average of 5.5 board colleagues versus 7.7 for non visible minority women (Table 7). Meanwhile, visible minority women who were officers were just as likely as non visible minority women to contribute to larger corporations, and to those in which women were better represented.
Data table for Chart 11
| Visible minority | Non visible minority | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| percent | |||
| Network | Network of board directors | 5.5 | 7.7 |
| Network of officers | 13.5 | 14.0 | |
| Firm size | Small | 11.3 | 30.4 |
| Small to medium | 9.3 | 19.2 | |
| Medium to large | 23.5 | 21.6 | |
| Large | 56.0 | 28.8 | |
| Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; and Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. | |||
Women executives earned about 56% less than men executives
Gender differences outlined throughout this study, such as women executives occupying lower-level roles or working in different sectors or firms, are all factors that typically explain pay disparities for executives (Elkinawy and Slater 2011; Macdonald 2019).Note Researchers have begun to examine the factors that contribute to the large unexplained portion of the gender pay gap for executives, as for example, previous analysis has shown that the gap may be greater for executives in companies with male-dominated boards (Elkinawy and Slater 2011). Moreover, professional networks may also play a role, as a study on European and American executives shows that top executives with larger professional networks tended to earn more, even when controlling for other factors—a trend that is more pronounced for men, as women’s networks may be less oriented toward achieving higher earnings or they may work for firms that offer less access to influential networks (Lalanne and Seabright 2016).
On average, total income for women executives in the exploratory estimates reached $495,600—about 56% less than men ($1.1 million). Total income presented for executives includes employment income from their everyday job, returns from investments and bonuses, and may also contain compensation for participating on boards. Examining the gender pay gap by role, the largest gap was observed among those participating as board directors exclusively, where women earned about 59% less than men. Meanwhile, by major occupational group, wider gender pay gaps were observed for managers, while—in contrast—gaps narrowed for health and social sciences occupations, where women executives were better represented or salaries can be influenced by government policies.
Visible minority women executives earned about 32% less than non visible minority women—their average income reaching $347,100 (Chart 12). Meanwhile, visible minority men earned about 41% less than men who did not identify as visible minorities ($681,900). The minority pay gap narrowed slightly when analyzing women who contributed as directors exclusively (23%), while the median income of visible minority women who were both board directors and officers was higher than those that did not identify as visible minorities (Table 10).
Data table for Chart 12
| Average income | Median income | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 dollars |
|||
| Women | Visible minority | 347,100 | 212,400 |
| Non visible minority | 512,700 | 259,900 | |
| Men | Visible minority | 681,900 | 299,200 |
| Non visible minority | 1,157,800 | 421,900 | |
| Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; and Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. | |||
Pay gaps remain considerable, even when controlling for employment characteristics and professional network size
Even when controlling for major employment characteristics that typically explain much of the gender pay gap for the broader working population, such as occupation, education, and weeks and hours worked, the pay gaps for executives remained considerable. Controlling for these characteristics, the gender pay gap narrowed to $566,400—down slightly from $637,400—while the minority gap widened (Table 11). Adding more factors, such as controlling for the number of board seats, officer positions and types of roles helped to explain a proportion of the gender pay gap and minority gap for some executives. However, over two-thirds of the pay gaps remained unexplained across most types of roles held, for both women and visible minorities. These results indicate that more work remains to better understand the factors behind pay disparities among executives.
Building on findings by Lalanne and Seabright (2016), results did show that the gender pay gap and minority pay gap narrowed slightly when controlling for the size of professional networks. Further, sitting on more boards was associated with higher income for both women and men executives, albeit to a greater extent for men. Essentially, income increased by about $65,000 for men for each additional board seat, and by about $19,800 for women.
5 Summary
This study provides the first intersectional socioeconomic profile of board directors and officers in Canadian businesses by linking company data to the 2016 Census. While the results are considered exploratory and should be interpreted with caution, they do begin to build our understanding of the characteristics of diverse women who are breaking the glass ceiling in reaching executive positions. Essentially, the gender gaps analyzed for demographic and employment characteristics are aligned with previous analysis on high-income workers or, in some cases, patterns for the broader working population. However, results on the types of firms in which women and visible minority women participate in decision making as executives, the extent of their roles, and the size of their networks offered novel insights.
Consistent with previous results on high-income workers, women executives were younger than men executives and less likely to be in a relationship or have children. Occupational gender gaps suggested slight differences in talent pipelines, as women were less likely than men to work in management occupations and more likely to work in business- or social sciences-related occupations. Major disparities were observed in roles and the extent of their influence, as women executives were less likely than men executives to contribute to decision making as both board directors and officers and considerably less likely to be in top roles (e.g., about two times less likely than men to be chair or president). While women who were officers exclusively were more likely to contribute to the smallest firms, the opposite held for women who were board directors exclusively—they were more likely to participate on boards in the largest businesses.
From an intersectional lens, about 1 in 10 women executives identified as a visible minority and very few identified as Indigenous, while—in contrast—immigrant women were relatively better represented. Aligned with broader demographic patterns, visible minority women executives were younger and had obtained higher levels of education than non visible minority women. Notably, visible minority women executives were five times more likely to contribute to American-controlled corporations than non visible minority women, while almost half held both a board director and an officer position simultaneously in American-controlled corporations, a higher share than in Canadian-controlled corporations. Visible minority women executives sat on smaller boards than non visible minority women executives and, as a result, had smaller networks of board colleagues.
While women executives earned 56% less than men executives, visible minority women executives earned 32% less than women executives who did not identify as visible minorities. Major employment characteristics and the size of professional networks leave much of the gender and minority pay gaps unexplained for executives, as more work will be required to better understand pay disparities among executives. However, results did show that participating on more boards was associated with higher income—albeit to a much greater extent for men.
Going forward, future studies should vet the results presented while continuing to promote intersectional analysis. More and better disaggregated data will be required to fully understand and map out the labour market trajectories of diverse executives, such as Black or Indigenous women, along with how their labour market outcomes have been influenced by challenges generated by the pandemic. Future analysis should consider the influence of professional networks and evaluate the impacts of diversity policies of businesses and governments, as they are being articulated currently. In this context, Statistics Canada is committed to advance data and research on equity-deserving groups, including in leadership, for example, by exploring data linkages to better inform on the characteristics of immigrant executives and to continue to track progress on board diversity.
6 Tables
| Women | Men | |
|---|---|---|
| 51 | 54 | |
| percent | ||
| Age | ||
| 25 to 34 | 5.4 | 1.9 |
| 35 to 44 | 18.0 | 14.6 |
| 45 to 54 | 42.2 | 37.6 |
| 55 to 64 | 25.8 | 30.3 |
| 65 and older | 8.2 | 15.4 |
| Family status | ||
| Married spouse or common-law partner | 78.5 | 89.7 |
| Lone parent | 6.2 | 2.1 |
| Person not in a census family | 13.9 | 7.7 |
| Number of children | ||
| No child | 45.6 | 40.0 |
| One child | 18.1 | 15.9 |
| Two children | 27.8 | 29.1 |
| Three children or more | 8.6 | 15.0 |
| Visible minority | ||
| Visible minority | 10.3 | 7.3 |
| Not a visible minority | 89.7 | 92.7 |
| Immigrant status | ||
| Non-immigrants | 80.9 | 81.2 |
| Immigrants | 18.0 | 16.8 |
| Non-permanent residents | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Indigenous identity | ||
| Indigenous | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Non-indigenous | 98.9 | 98.8 |
|
Note: The Employment Equity Act defines visible minorities as "persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour." In this paper, the term “Indigenous” refers to those who reported identifying as an Aboriginal person in the census. Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. |
||
| Women | Men | |
|---|---|---|
| number | ||
| Average hours worked | 38.4 | 41.8 |
| percent | ||
| Educational attainment | ||
| Below bachelor's degree | 23.7 | 19.6 |
| Bachelor's degree | 43.1 | 43.0 |
| University certificate or diploma above bachelor's level | 9.8 | 8.7 |
| Degree in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine or optometry | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 0.5 |
| Master's degree | 22.2 | 26.5 |
| Doctorate | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 1.8 |
| Broad occupational groups | ||
| Management occupations | 51.6 | 67.1 |
| Senior managers – Financial, communications and other business services | 12.0 | 15.7 |
| Senior managers – Trade, broadcasting and other services, n.e.c. | 5.9 | 7.2 |
| Senior managers – Construction, transportation, production and utilities | 6.4 | 14.9 |
| Senior managers – Financial manager | 8.2 | 4.4 |
| Business, finance and administration occupations | 22.6 | 15.9 |
| Financial auditors and accountants | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| Other financial officers | 2.1 | 1.8 |
| Natural and applied sciences and related occupations | 2.9 | 4.0 |
| Health occupations | 1.1 | 0.7 |
| Occupations in social sciences, education, government service and religion | 18.2 | 9.1 |
| Lawyers and Quebec notaries | 13.5 | 6.8 |
| Occupations in art, culture, recreation and sport | 0.7 | 0.5 |
| Sales and service occupations | 2.9 | 2.7 |
| Field of study for those with a bachelor's degree or higher | ||
| Education | 2.0 | 0.7 |
| Visual and performing arts, and communications technologies | 1.2 | 0.2 |
| Humanities | 5.2 | 3.3 |
| Social and behavioural sciences and law | 29.1 | 19.8 |
| Business, management and public administration | 51.6 | 54.9 |
| Physical and life sciences and technologies | 1.6 | 4.1 |
| Mathematics, computer and information sciences | 3.3 | 2.3 |
| Architecture, engineering, and related technologies | 2.5 | 12.1 |
| Agriculture, natural resources and conservation | 0.6 | 1.2 |
| Health and related fields | 2.7 | 1.3 |
|
x suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act Note: Broad occupational groups are presented in this table, along with specific occupational groups important to Canadian executives to promote more detail in italics. Also note that the estimates on employment and income presented in this study are for working executives, i.e., those employed during the census reference week, and does not include an analysis of individuals who sat on corporate boards but were not employed. Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. |
||
| Women | Men | |
|---|---|---|
| percent | ||
| Proportion of directors and officers | ||
| Directors exclusively | 8.3 | 7.1 |
| Both board directors and officers | 46.4 | 61.1 |
| Officers exclusively | 45.3 | 31.8 |
| average | ||
| Average number of positions held | ||
| Board director seats | 2.4 | 2.3 |
| Officer positions | 2.9 | 2.3 |
| Average number of connections with other executives | ||
| Network of board directors | 7.5 | 6.7 |
| Network of officers | 14.0 | 11.7 |
| Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. | ||
| Women | Men | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupies the position | Does not occupy the position | Occupies the position | Does not occupy the position | |
| percent | ||||
| Officer positions | ||||
| Chairman | 3.7 | 96.3 | 6.4 | 93.6 |
| President | 10.9 | 89.1 | 24.1 | 75.9 |
| Vice-president | 21.2 | 78.8 | 26.8 | 73.2 |
| Executive vice-president | 4.0 | 96.0 | 4.3 | 95.7 |
| Secretary | 15.2 | 84.8 | 8.1 | 91.9 |
| Assistant secretary | 8.9 | 91.1 | 2.1 | 97.9 |
| Secretary–treasurer | 2.8 | 97.2 | 1.5 | 98.5 |
| Treasurer | 5.0 | 95.0 | 2.6 | 97.4 |
| Other | 48.0 | 52.0 | 47.0 | 53.0 |
| Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. | ||||
| Women | Men | |
|---|---|---|
| percent | ||
| Type of corporation | ||
| Public | 2.0 | 1.8 |
| Private | 98.0 | 98.2 |
| Selected country of control | ||
| Canada | 85.7 | 84.9 |
| France | 1.6 | 1.7 |
| Germany | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| United Kingdom | 1.8 | 2.6 |
| Japan | 0.2 | 1.0 |
| Switzerland | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| United States | 10.1 | 9.0 |
| Selected firm industry | ||
| Construction | 2.3 | 5.3 |
| Distributive trades | 4.3 | 7.7 |
| Energy | 2.2 | 5.1 |
| Finance | 47.4 | 39.7 |
| Management of companies and enterprises | 16.6 | 18.4 |
| Manufacturing | 3.5 | 6.0 |
| Utilities | 3.1 | 3.5 |
| Size by assets | ||
| Small | 29.5 | 20.5 |
| Small to medium | 18.7 | 22.3 |
| Medium to large | 21.7 | 23.3 |
| Large | 30.2 | 34.0 |
| Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. | ||
| Women | Men | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visible minority | Non visible minority | Visible minority | Non visible minority | |
| average | ||||
| Average age | 46.0 | 52.0 | 49.0 | 55.0 |
| Average hours worked | 40.2 | 38.1 | 43.2 | 41.7 |
| percent | ||||
| Family status | ||||
| Married spouse or common-law partner | 71.5 | 79.3 | 89.6 | 89.7 |
| Lone parent | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 6.2 | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 2.2 |
| Child | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 1.3 | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 0.5 |
| Person not in a census family | 20.0 | 12.2 | 8.6 | 7.6 |
| Number of children | ||||
| No child | 36.2 | 46.7 | 35.2 | 40.4 |
| One child | 17.9 | 18.1 | 16.6 | 15.9 |
| Two children | 30.8 | 27.4 | 31.2 | 29.0 |
| Three or more | 15.1 | 7.8 | 16.7 | 14.8 |
| Educational attainment | ||||
| Below bachelor's degree | 11.1 | 25.2 | 9.2 | 20.4 |
| Bachelor's degree | 59.0 | 41.3 | 46.6 | 42.7 |
| University certificate or diploma above bachelor level | 6.4 | 10.1 | 8.5 | 8.7 |
| Degree in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine or optometry | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 0.7 |
| Master's degree | 23.5 | 22.0 | 32.2 | 26.0 |
| Earned doctorate degree | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 2.8 | 1.7 |
| Occupation group | ||||
| Management occupations | 43.1 | 52.6 | 58.9 | 67.7 |
| Senior managers – Financial, communications and other business services | 8.4 | 12.4 | 12.6 | 16.0 |
| Senior managers – Trade, broadcasting and other services | 5.7 | 5.9 | 5.5 | 7.3 |
| Senior managers – Goods production, utilities, transportation and construction | 5.7 | 6.5 | 10.0 | 15.3 |
| Senior managers – Financial manager | 6.3 | 8.4 | 7.2 | 4.2 |
| Business, finance and administration occupations | 23.4 | 22.5 | 22.6 | 15.4 |
| Financial auditors and accountants | 11.0 | 5.9 | 7.3 | 4.9 |
| Other financial officers | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 1.9 | 5.5 | 1.5 |
| Natural and applied sciences and related occupations | 5.6 | 2.5 | 6.0 | 3.9 |
| Health occupations | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 1.3 | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 0.7 |
| Occupations in social sciences, education, government service and religion | 23.7 | 17.6 | 6.0 | 9.4 |
| Lawyers and Quebec notaries | 16.8 | 13.2 | 4.7 | 6.9 |
| Occupations in art, culture, recreation and sport | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 0.8 | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 0.5 |
| Sales and services occupations | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 2.8 | 5.3 | 2.5 |
| Field of study for those with a bachelor's degree or higher | ||||
| Education | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 2.3 | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 0.8 |
| Visual and performing arts, and communications technologies | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 1.4 | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act |
| Humanities | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 5.6 | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 3.4 |
| Social and behavioural sciences and law | 33.7 | 28.5 | 17.1 | 20.1 |
| Business, management and public administration | 52.7 | 51.5 | 60.7 | 54.3 |
| Physical and life sciences and technologies | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 1.7 | 3.4 | 4.2 |
| Mathematics, computer and information sciences | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 3.1 | 4.3 | 2.2 |
| Architecture, engineering, and related technologies | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 2.2 | 9.8 | 12.3 |
| Agriculture, natural resources and conservation | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 0.7 | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 1.3 |
| Health and related fields | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 3.1 | 2.4 | 1.2 |
|
x suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act Note: Broad occupational groups are presented in this table, along with specific occupational groups important to Canadian executives to promote more detail in italics. Also note that the estimates on employment and income presented in this study are for working executives, i.e., those employed during the census reference week, and does not include an analysis of individuals who sat on corporate boards but were not employed. Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. |
||||
| Women | Men | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visible minority | Non visible minority | Visible minority | Non visible minority | |
| percent | ||||
| Proportion of directors and officers | ||||
| Directors exclusively | 6.1 | 8.6 | 3.7 | 7.4 |
| Both board directors and officers | 33.7 | 47.8 | 52.1 | 61.8 |
| Officers exclusively | 60.2 | 43.6 | 44.1 | 30.8 |
| average | ||||
| Average number of positions held | ||||
| Board director seats | 1.5 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 2.3 |
| Officer positions | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 2.5 |
| Average number of connections with other executives | ||||
| Network of board directors | 5.5 | 7.7 | 4.8 | 6.8 |
| Network of officers | 13.5 | 14.0 | 10.9 | 11.8 |
| Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. | ||||
| Officer positions | Women | Men | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visible minority | Non visible minority | Visible minority | Non visible minority | |||||
| Occupies the position | Does not occupy the position | Occupies the position | Does not occupy the position | Occupies the position | Does not occupy the position | Occupies the position | Does not occupy the position | |
| percent | ||||||||
| Chairman | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | x | 4.1 | 95.9 | 2.6 | 97.4 | 6.7 | 93.3 |
| President | 10.0 | 90.0 | 11.0 | 89.0 | 19.8 | 80.2 | 24.5 | 75.5 |
| Vice-president | 23.3 | 76.7 | 21.0 | 79.0 | 27.2 | 72.8 | 26.7 | 73.3 |
| Executive vice-president | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 4.1 | 95.9 | 3.8 | 96.2 | 4.4 | 95.6 |
| Secretary | 15.5 | 84.6 | 15.2 | 84.8 | 7.3 | 92.7 | 8.2 | 91.8 |
| Assistant secretary | 10.5 | 89.5 | 8.7 | 91.3 | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 2.2 | 97.8 |
| Secretary treasurer | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 2.9 | 97.1 | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 1.7 | 98.4 |
| Treasurer | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 5.4 | 94.6 | 4.4 | 95.6 | 2.5 | 97.5 |
| Other | 55.9 | 44.1 | 47.0 | 53.0 | 55.2 | 44.8 | 46.4 | 53.6 |
|
x suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. |
||||||||
| Women | Men | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visible minority | Non visible minority | Visible minority | Non visible minority | |
| percent | ||||
| Selected country of control | ||||
| Canada | 55.37 | 87.0 | 74.1 | 85.1 |
| France | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 1.6 | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 1.8 |
| Germany | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 0.7 | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 0.9 |
| United Kingdom | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 1.8 | 3.0 | 2.5 |
| Japon | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 0.2 | 6.3 | 0.6 |
| Switzerland | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 0.7 | 2.9 | 0.6 |
| United States | 40.2 | 8.0 | 12.8 | 8.6 |
| Selected firm industry | ||||
| Construction | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 2.5 | 4.7 | 5.4 |
| Distributive trades | 3.8 | 4.4 | 8.5 | 7.7 |
| Energy | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 2.3 | 5.5 | 5.1 |
| Finance | 71.5 | 45.4 | 57.6 | 38.2 |
| Management of companies and enterprises | 9.4 | 17.2 | 11.2 | 19.0 |
| Manufacturing | 1.8 | 3.6 | 2.0 | 6.3 |
| Utilities | Note x: suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 3.3 | 2.7 | 3.6 |
| Size by assets | ||||
| Small | 11.3 | 30.4 | 16.2 | 20.8 |
| Small to medium | 9.3 | 19.2 | 14.3 | 22.8 |
| Medium to large | 23.5 | 21.6 | 34.2 | 22.6 |
| Large | 56.0 | 28.8 | 35.4 | 33.9 |
|
x suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. |
||||
| Women | Men | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visible minority | Non visible minority | Visible minority | Non visible minority | |
| 2016 dollars | ||||
| Average income | 347,100 | 512,700 | 681,900 | 1,157,800 |
| Median income | 212,400 | 259,900 | 299,200 | 421,900 |
| Average income – Directors exclusively | 292,700 | 381,700 | 201,300 | 940,400 |
| Median income – Directors exclusively | 187,400 | 228,200 | 156,600 | 376,500 |
| Average income – Both directors and officers | 526,300 | 682,800 | 757,000 | 1,450,300 |
| Median income – Both directors and officers | 344,800 | 285,600 | 331,900 | 483,000 |
| Average income – Officers exclusively | 252,300 | 351,900 | 633,900 | 623,100 |
| Median income – Officers exclusively | 197,300 | 238,900 | 270,600 | 357,100 |
| Average income by selected broad occupational groups | ||||
| Management occupations | 416,800 | 668,200 | 683,100 | 1,315,300 |
| Business, finance and administration occupations | 274,200 | 332,400 | 885,500 | 1,007,600 |
| Natural and applied sciences and related occupations | x | 329,700 | 337,600 | 978,600 |
| Health occupations | x | 145,700 | x | 469,500 |
| Occupations in social sciences, education, government service and religion | 220,500 | 379,100 | 344,200 | 768,200 |
|
x suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act Note: The estimates on employment and income presented in this study are for working executives, i.e., those employed during the census reference week, and does not include an analysis of individuals who sat on corporate boards but were not employed. Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. |
||||
| Model no. 1 | Controlling for education, hours and weeks worked | Controlling for education, hours and weeks worked, broad occupational groups | Controlling for education, hours and weeks worked, broad occupational groups, number of board seats | Controlling for education, hours and weeks worked, broad occupational groups, number of officer positions | Controlling for education, hours and weeks worked, broad occupational groups, number of officer positions, officer roles | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 dollars | ||||||
| All | ||||||
| Gender gap | 637,370Note *** | 626,087Note *** | 566,443Note *** | x | x | x |
| Visible minority gap | 415,842Note *** | 447,033Note *** | 425,520Note *** | x | x | x |
| Directors exclusively | ||||||
| Gender gap | 552,147Note ** | 567,027Note ** | 562,407Note ** | 562,355Note ** | x | x |
| Visible minority gap | 465,782 | 471,010 | 399,298 | 399,856 | x | x |
| Both directors and officers | ||||||
| Gender gap | 766,138Note *** | 742,934Note *** | 657,014Note *** | 670,986Note *** | 681,494Note *** | 614,232Note *** |
| Visible minority gap | 647,754Note ** | 686,054Note ** | 686,773Note ** | 704,465Note ** | 688,616 | 557,676Note ** |
| Officers exclusively | ||||||
| Gender gap | 284,800Note *** | 248,073Note *** | 262,078Note *** | x | 261,723 | 239,953Note *** |
| Visible minority gap | 25,526 | 6,227 | 1,569 | x | 1,709 | 24,290Table 11 Note † |
* significantly different from reference category (p < 0.05) Note: The estimates on employment and income presented in this study are for working executives, i.e., those employed during the census reference week, and does not include an analysis of individuals who sat on corporate boards but were not employed. Sources: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population; Corporations Returns Act, 2016 and 2017. |
||||||
References
Adams, R.B., and D. Ferreira. 2009. “Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance.” Journal of Financial Economics 94 (2): 291–309.
Adams, R.B., and P. Funk. 2012. “Beyond the glass ceiling: Does gender matter?” Management Science 58 (2): 219–235.
Bank of America Merrill Lynch. 2018. Environmental, Social & Governance. Women: The X-factor. Available at https://mlaem.fs.ml.com/content/dam/ML/bulletin/PDFs/ml_women-the-X-factor-BAML-Report.pdf (accessed December 3, 2019).
Bonikowska, A., M. Drolet and N.M. Fortin. 2019. Earnings Inequality and the Gender Pay Gap in Canada: The Role of Women’s Under-representation Among Top Earners. Economic Insights, no. 088. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11-626-X. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Carter, D.A., F. D’Souza, and B.J. Simkins. 2010. “The gender and ethnic diversity of U.S. boards and board committees and firm financial performance.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 18 (5): 396–414.
Carter, D.R. 2016. “The Underrepresentation of African American women in executive leadership: What’s getting in the way?” Journal of Business Studies Quarterly 7 (4): 115–134.
Catalyst. 2007. Career Advancement in Corporate Canada: A Focus on Visible Minorities – Diversity and Inclusion Practices. Available at https://www.catalyst.org/research/career-advancement-in-corporate-canada-a-focus-on-visible-minorities-critical-relationships/ (accessed February 6, 2021).
Catalyst. 2015. Why Diversity and Inclusion Matter. Available at https://www.catalyst.org/research/why-diversity-and-inclusion-matter/ (accessed December 3, 2019).
Chang, E.H., K. Milkman, D. Chugh, and M. Akinola. 2019. “Diversity thresholds: How social norms, visibility, and scrutiny relate to group composition.” Academy of Management Journal 62 (1): 144–171.
Dang, R., A.F. Bender, and M.J. Scotto. 2014. “Women on French corporate board of directors: How do they differ from their male counterparts?” Journal of Applied Business Research 30 (2): 489–508.
Diversity Leads. 2020. Diverse Representation in Leadership: A Review of Eight Canadian Cities. Available at: https://www.ryerson.ca/diversity/reports/ (accessed March 23, 2019).
Elkinawy, S., and M. Slater. 2011. “Gender differences in executive compensation: Variation with board gender composition and time.” Journal of Economics and Business 63 (1): 23–45.
Employment Equity Act. S.C. 1995, c. 44, s. 3.
Ferguson, S.J. 2016. “Women and education: Qualifications, skills and technology.” Women in Canada: A Gender-based Statistical Report. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-503-X. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Fortin, N., B. Bell, and M. Böhm, 2017. “Top earnings inequality and the gender pay gap: Canada, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.” Labour Economics 47: 107–123.
Frank, K. 2019. A Gender Analysis of the Occupational Pathways of STEM Graduates in Canada. Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series. no. 429. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11F0019M. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Government of Canada. 2020. Government of Canada’s Gender Results Framework. Available at https://cfc-swc.gc.ca/grf-crrg/index-en.html (accessed October 23, 2020).
Green, C., and S. Homroy. 2018. “Female directors, board committees and firm performance.” European Economic Review 102 (C): 19–38.
Hudon, T. 2015. “Immigrant women.” Women in Canada: A Gender-based Statistical Report. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-503-X. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Hudon, T. 2016. “Visible minority women.” Women in Canada: A Gender-based Statistical Report. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-503-X. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Hou, F., Picot, G., and J. Zhang. 2020. “Transitions into and out of employment by immigrants during the COVID-19 lockdown and recovery.” StatCan Covid-19: Data to Insights for a Better Canada. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 45280001. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Lalanne, M. and P. Seabright. 2016. “The Old Boy Network: The Impact of Professional Networks on Remuneration in Top Executive Jobs.” SAFE Working Paper No. 123. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2717988 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2717988 (accessed March 22, 2021).
Macdonald, D. 2019. The Double-Pane Glass Ceiling: The Gender Pay Gap at the Top of Corporate Canada. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Available at https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/double-pane-glass-ceiling (accessed March 22, 2021).
McKinsey & Company. 2015. Why Diversity Matters. Available at https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/organization/our%20insights/why%20diversity%20matters/diversity%20matters.ashx (accessed December 3, 2019).
Moyser, M. 2017. “Women and paid work.” Women in Canada: A Gender-based Statistical Report. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-503-X. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Moyser, M. 2019. Measuring and Analyzing the Gender Pay Gap: A Conceptual and Methodological Overview. Studies on Gender and Intersecting Identities. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 45200002. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Osler. 2020. Diversity Disclosure Practices: Diversity and leadership at Canadian public companies. Available at https://www.osler.com/osler/media/Osler/reports/corporate-governance/Diversity-and-Leadership-in-Corporate-Canada-2020.pdf (accessed October 23 2020).
Pelletier, R., M. Patterson, and M. Moyser. 2019. The Gender Pay Gap in Canada: 1998 to 2018. Labour Statistics: Research Papers. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 75-004-M. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Richards, E. 2019. Who Are the Working Women in Canada’s Top 1? Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series, no. 002. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11F0019M. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Sheridan, A., and G. Milgate. 2005. Accessing Board positions: A comparison of female and male board members’ views. Corporate Governance: An International Review 13 (6): 847–855. Available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2005.00475.x (accessed October 23, 2020).
Solimene, S., D. Coluccia, and S. Fontana. 2017. “Gender diversity on corporate boards: An empirical investigation of Italian listed companies.” Palgrave Communications 3 (1): 1–7.
Statistics Canada. 2019. “Representation of Women on Boards of Directors, 2016”. The Daily. May 5. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-001-X. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/190507/dq190507a-eng.htm
Statistics Canada. 2020. “Representation of women on boards of directors, 2017”. The Daily. January 28. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-001-X. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/200128/dq200128b-eng.htm.
Statistics Canada. 2021. “Representation of women on boards of directors, 2018”. The Daily. March 23. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-001-X. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/210323/dq210323d-info-eng.htm.
UN Women. 2018. Turning Promises into Action: Gender Equality in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: UN Women. Available at http://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2018/2/gender-equality-in-the-2030-agenda-for-sustainable-development-2018 (accessed May 10, 2018).
Uppal, S., and S. LaRochelle-Côté. 2014. “Changes in the occupational profile of young men and women in Canada.” Insights on Canadian Society. April. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 75-006-X. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
World Economic Forum. 2020. Mind the 100-Year Gap. Available at https://www.weforum.org/reports/gender-gap-2020-report-100-years-pay-equality (accessed February 7, 2021).
- Date modified: