The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has called for businesses to step up their attempts to attract more women into boardrooms, after results show that UK boardrooms are more diverse but lack female executives. In a survey released ahead of its investment conference in London today, the ABI said only 6.6 percent of FTSE 100 executives and 4.9 percent of FTSE 250 executives were female despite Government attempts to address the imbalance. However, the number of women being appointed to boards is increasing. Over the past year, 26.1 percent of FTSE 100 and 30.6 percent of FTSE 250 board appointments were women compared to 18.5 per cent and 11.9 per cent a year earlier. "Board diversity is integral to building a successful long term business," the ABI said. (Independent)
Consumers
American Apparel ad ‘appeared to sexualise a child’
The clothing retailer, American Apparel, has been criticised by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for an advert which "appeared to sexualise a child", on the back cover of Vice Magazine. The advert pictured a girl sitting on an office chair wearing a jumper, knickers and knee-length socks. The latest ruling comes a week after the clothing brand fell foul of the ASA with campaigns featuring "gratuitous" images and the sexualisation of models who appeared to be under 16. American Apparel ran into similar issues with campaigns in 2009 and earlier this year. American Apparel denied the recent claims, saying the model featured was over 18 and was wearing products that were meant for adult consumers. The ASA said the model pictured appeared to be young and potentially under the age of 16. "We concluded the ad inappropriately sexualised a model who appeared to be a child and was therefore irresponsible.” (Guardian, Irish Independent)
Finance & Banking
HSBC to spend $700m vetting clients
HSBC will spend $700m on a global ‘know your customer’ programme, as part of a 26-point plan agreed with US regulators to settle money laundering and sanctions breaches. The UK bank, which signed up to the A-Z programme of management changes covering both its US and global operations, reiterated apologies for its failure to prevent Mexican money launderers and countries subject to sanctions, including Iran, from using its network. On Tuesday the bank signed a five-year deferred prosecution agreement to prevent a trial over the affair. It also agreed to pay a $1.26bn fine to the Department of Justice and a further $665m to US regulators following a five-year investigation in which agents reviewed 9m documents. (Financial Times*)
Northern Rock to refund £270m after blunder
Taxpayers are to fund a £270m pay out to about 152,000 customers of Northern Rock because of a blunder in which they were not given the correct information about outstanding loans. Customers will be refunded an average of £1,770 each, a bill to be paid by the UK Government since it still owns the so-called “bad bank”. The “good” part was sold to Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Money last year. After Northern Rock was nationalised in 2008 at the start of the financial crisis, the Consumer Credit Act, which covers unsecured loans under £25,000, was changed to ensure that borrowers were informed of three figures in loan statements — the original sum borrowed, the opening balance and the closing balance. Northern Rock Asset Management (NRAM) did not include the original sum. Although customers did not lose money as a result, they are entitled to the pay-out because they were not properly informed under the Act. (BBC, Independent, Guardian)
International Development
DFID’s public-private partnerships under scrutiny
New research from the War on Want critiques the Department for International Development’s (DFID) public-private partnership initiative, for using the aid budget to promote the interests of multinational food companies in Africa. The report, released this week, shows how millions of pounds of government funds are channelled towards projects with the purpose of promoting the role of agribusiness in sub-Saharan Africa. “While this will boost the profits of corporate giants such as Monsanto, Unilever and Syngenta, it threatens to disempower small farmers and rural communities and condemn them to long-term poverty,” said the study, which is also critical of DFID’s promotion of genetically modified crops. The report also makes claims about DFID’s support for a network of companies and investment funds registered in Mauritius, one of Africa’s tax havens, allowing them to avoid paying taxes that could otherwise be used by African governments to support small farmers and agricultural development. (Guardian, War on Want)
COMMENTS