Board Diversity: Strategies to Increase Representation of Women and Minorities

Corporate boards take actions and make decisions that not only affect the lives of millions of employees and consumers, but also influence the policies and practices of the global marketplace. Many organizations and businesses have recognized the importance of recruiting and retaining women and minorities for key positions to improve performance and better meet the needs of a diverse customer base. Academic researchers and others have highlighted how diversity among board directors increases the range of perspectives for better decision making, among other benefits. Prior GAO reports have found challenges to increasing diversity on boards and underscored the need to identify strategies that can improve or accelerate efforts to boost representation of women and minorities. These include reports examining the diversity of publicly-traded company boards and the boards of federally chartered banks, such as the FHLBanks.

This statement is based on two GAO reports, issued in December 2015 and February 2019, on the representation of women on corporate boards and the representation of women and minorities on the boards of FHLBanks, respectively. Information about the scope and methodologies used can be found in the original reports. This statement focuses on (1) the extent of diversity on such boards (2) factors that hinder diversity on these boards, and (3) strategies to promote board diversity on corporate and FHLBank boards.

Prior GAO reports found limited diversity on both publicly-traded company boards (corporate boards) of directors and Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLBank) boards. For example, GAO's 2019 report on FHLBank boards found women's board representation was at 23 percent in 2018; in 2015 it had been 18 percent. In a 2015 report on corporate boards, GAO projected the representation of women into the future—assuming that women join boards in equal proportion to men—and estimated it could take more than 40 years for the number of women directors to match the number of men directors. GAO's report on FHLBank boards also showed an increase in FHLBank directors from some minority groups, including African-American, Hispanic, and Asian since 2015, but they still reflected a small portion of these boards. The size of the increases in minority directors on FHLBank boards was less clear than for women directors due to incomplete board member demographic data.

Similar factors may limit corporate and FHLBank boards' efforts to increase diversity, according to stakeholders, board members, and others GAO interviewed. These factors include not prioritizing diversity in board recruitment efforts, limitations of the traditional board candidate pipeline, and low turnover of board seats.

GAO identified a number of strategies for increasing the representation of women and minorities on corporate and FHLBank boards based on a review of relevant literature and discussions with researchers and corporate and government officials (see figure).

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our prior work on strategies for  increasing diversity on corporate boards of directors. Corporate boards  take actions and make decisions that not only affect the lives of millions of  employees and consumers, but also influence the policies and practices  of the global marketplace. Many organizations have recognized the  importance of recruiting and retaining women and minorities for key  positions to improve business or organizational performance and better  meet the needs of a diverse customer base. Academic researchers and  others have highlighted the importance of diversity among board directors  to increase the range of perspectives for decision making, among other  benefits. Our prior work, however, found challenges to increasing  diversity on boards and underscored the importance of identifying  strategies that can improve or accelerate efforts to increase the  representation of women and minorities on boards. Our reports on  workforce and board diversity span multiple years and cover different  industries, types of boards, and workers. These include reports examining  the diversity of publicly-traded company boards (corporate boards) and  the boards of federally chartered banks, such as the Federal Home Loan  Banks. We have also published reports on workforce diversity in the  financial services and technology sectors, including representation of  women and minorities in management positions, and practices to address  workforce diversity challenges.

My remarks today address (1) the extent of diversity on corporate and  Federal Home Loan Bank boards, (2) factors that hinder diversity on  these boards, and (3) strategies for increasing board diversity. These  objectives are primarily based on two prior reports on board diversity  issued in 2015 and 2019. In those reports, we used multiple  methodologies to develop the findings, conclusions, and  recommendations. For example, for our 2015 report on the representation  of women on corporate boards, we analyzed a dataset on board directors  at companies in the S&P Composite 1500 from 1997 through 2014 to  provide descriptive statistics. To obtain stakeholders’ views on various  strategies for increasing the number of women on boards, we conducted  semi-structured interviews with 19 stakeholders, including chief executive  officers (CEO), board directors, and investors. While the views of the  individuals we interviewed represent a range of perspectives, they cannot  be generalized to the universe of CEOs, board directors, or investors. We  also interviewed officials from the Securities and Exchange Commission  (SEC), and reviewed the SEC’s disclosure requirements on board  diversity. For the 2019 report on Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLBank)  diversity, we analyzed gender, race, and ethnicity data self-reported by  board directors in the banks’ annual reports to their regulator, the Federal  Housing Finance Agency, as of the end of calendar years 2015, 2016,  and 2017. To obtain information on the challenges FHLBanks face and  practices they use to recruit and maintain diverse boards, we interviewed  Federal Housing Finance Agency and FHLBank staff and a  nongeneralizable sample of external stakeholders knowledgeable about  diversity. This statement also includes examples of challenges and  practices from our 2011 report on board diversity and governance issues  at the Federal Reserve Banks. A more detailed discussion of the  objectives, scope, and methodologies, including our assessment of data  reliability, is available in each report.

The work upon which this statement is based was conducted in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Overview of Board Directors’ Roles and Responsibilities

Our previous work on board diversity describes some of the different roles  and responsibilities of corporate and FHLBank boards and their directors.

Generally, a public company’s board of directors is responsible for  managing the business and affairs of the corporation, including  representing shareholders and protecting their interests. Corporate  boards vary in size. According to a 2018 report that includes board  characteristics of large public companies, the average board has about  11 directors. Corporate boards are responsible for overseeing  management performance and selecting and overseeing the company’s  CEO, among other duties. Directors are compensated for their work. The  board generally establishes committees to enhance the effectiveness of  its oversight and focus on matters of particular concern, such as an audit  committee and a nominating committee to recommend potential directors  to the full board.

Our previous reports on board diversity include a recent report on the  FHLBank System. Each of its 11 federally chartered banks has a board  of directors and is cooperatively owned by its member institutions,  including commercial and community banks, thrifts, credit unions, and  insurance companies. Each bank’s board of directors is made up of  directors from member institutions and independent directors (who cannot  be affiliated with the bank’s member institutions or recipients of loans). As  of October 2018, each FHLBank board had 14-24 directors, for a total of  194 directors. The Federal Home Loan Bank Act, as amended by the  Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, and its regulations set forth  a number of requirements for FHLBank directors, including skills, term  length, and the percentage who are member and independent directors.

Research we reviewed for our prior work cited several benefits associated  with board diversity. For example, academic and business research has  shown that the broader range of perspectives represented in diverse  groups requires individuals to work harder to come to a consensus, which  can lead to better decisions. In addition, research has shown that  diverse boards make good business sense because they may better  reflect a company’s employee and customer base, and can tap into the  skills of a broader talent pool. Some research has found that diverse  boards that include women may have a positive impact on a company’s  financial performance, but other research has not. These mixed results  depend, in part, on differences in how financial performance was defined  and what methodologies were used.

Our Prior Work Found Women and Minorities Were Underrepresented on Boards

Our prior work found the number of women on corporate boards and the  number of women and minorities on FHLBank boards had increased, but  their representation generally continued to lag behind men and whites,  respectively. While the data sources, methodologies, and time frames for  our analyses were different for each report, the trends were fairly  consistent.

In our 2015 report, we analyzed companies in the S&P 1500 and found  that women’s representation on corporate boards increased steadily from  about 8 percent in 1997 to about 16 percent in 2014. However, despite  the increase in women’s representation on boards, we estimated that it  could still take decades for women to achieve balance with men. When  we projected the representation of women on boards into the future  assuming that women join boards in equal proportion to men—a  proportion more than twice what we had observed—we estimated it could  take about 10 years from 2014 for women to comprise 30 percent of  board directors and more than 40 years for the number of women  directors to match the number of men directors (see fig. 1).

Similarly, in our 2019 report on FHLBank board diversity, we found that  the share of women board directors increased from 2015 to October 2018  but that women still comprised less than 25 percent of FHLBank board  directors as of 2018 (see fig. 2).

Our 2019 FHLBank board report also showed an increase in FHLBank  directors from 2015 to 2017 for some minority groups, including African- American, Hispanic, and Asian, but they still reflected a small portion of  these boards. Further, the size of the increases in minority directors on  FHLBank boards was less clear than for women directors due to  incomplete data on directors’ race and ethnicity (see fig. 3).

Various Factors May Hinder Board Diversity

In 2015 and 2019, we identified similar factors that contributed to lower  numbers of women and minorities on corporate and FHLBank boards.  Notably, stakeholders, board members, and others we interviewed said  three key factors generally limited greater board diversity: (1) not  prioritizing diversity in recruitment efforts, (2) limitations of the traditional  board candidate pipeline, and (3) low turnover of board seats.

Not Prioritizing Diversity in Recruitment Efforts

In our reports on corporate and FHLBank board diversity, we found that  not prioritizing diversity in recruiting efforts was contributing to a lack of  women and minority candidates represented on these boards. For  example, stakeholders told us board directors frequently relied on their  personal networks to identify potential board candidates. Some  stakeholders said that given most current board members are men, and  peoples’ professional networks often resemble themselves, relying on  their own networks is not likely to identify as many women board  candidates. In our 2019 report on FHLBank board diversity, stakeholders  we interviewed raised similar challenges to prioritizing diversity in  recruitment efforts. Some FHLBank representatives said that member  institutions—which nominate and/or vote on director candidates—may  prioritize other considerations over diversity, such as a candidate’s name  recognition.

Stakeholders we interviewed for our 2015 report suggested other  recruitment challenges that may hinder women’s representation on  corporate boards. For example, stakeholders said that boards need to  prioritize diversity during the recruiting process because unconscious  biases—attitudes and stereotypes that affect our actions and decisions in  an unconscious manner—can limit diversity. One stakeholder observed  that board directors may have a tendency to seek out individuals who  look or sound like they do, further limiting board diversity. In addition, our  2015 report found some indication that board appointments of women  slow down once one or two women are on a board. A few stakeholders  expressed some concern over boards that might add a woman to appear  as though they are interested in board diversity without really making  diversity a priority, sometimes referred to as “tokenism.”

Limitations of the Traditional Board Candidate Pipeline

Our reports on corporate and FHLBank board diversity also identified  challenges related to relying on traditional career pipelines to identify  potential board candidates—pipelines in which women and minorities are  also underrepresented. Our 2015 report found that boards often appoint  current or former CEOs to board positions, and that women held less  than 5 percent of CEO positions in the S&P 1500 in 2014. One CEO we  interviewed said that as long as boards limit their searches for directors to  women executives in the traditional pipeline, boards will have a difficult  time finding women. Expanding board searches beyond the traditional  sources, such as CEOs, could increase qualified candidates to include  those in other senior level positions such as chief financial officers, or  chief human resources officers.

In 2019 we reported that FHLBank board members said they also  experienced challenges identifying diverse board candidates within the  traditional CEO talent pipeline. Stakeholders we interviewed cited overall  low levels of diversity in the financial services sector, for example, as a  challenge to improving board diversity. Some bank representatives said  the pipeline of eligible women and minority board candidates is small.  Several FHLBank directors said the requirements to identify candidates  from within corresponding geographic areas may exacerbate challenges  to finding diverse, qualified board candidates in certain areas of the  country. By statute, candidates for a given FHLBank board must come  from member institutions in the geographic area represented by the  vacant board seat. Similarly, in 2011 we reported on Federal Reserve  Bank directors and found they tended to be senior executives, a subset of  management that is also less diverse. Our report also found that diversity  varied among Federal Reserve districts, and candidates for specific board  vacancies must reside in specific districts.

Recruiting board candidates from within specific professional  backgrounds or geographic regions is further compounded by competition  for talented women and minority board candidates, according to some  stakeholders. In 2019, board directors from several FHLBanks described  this kind of competition. For example, a director from one bank said his  board encouraged a woman to run for a director seat, but the candidate  felt she could not because of her existing responsibilities on the boards of  two publicly traded companies. We heard of similar competition among  Federal Reserve Bank officials in 2011, where organizations were looking  to diversify their boards but were competing with private corporations for  the same small pipeline of qualified individuals.

The relatively small number of board seats that become available each  year also contributes to the slow increase in women’s and minorities’  representation on boards. Several stakeholders we interviewed for our  2015 report on corporate boards cited low board turnover, in large part  due to the long tenure of most board directors, as a barrier to increasing  women’s representation. In addition, with respect to FHLBank board  diversity, Federal Housing Finance Agency staff acknowledged that low  turnover and term lengths were challenges. Several stakeholders we  interviewed for our 2019 report on FHLBank boards said balancing the  need for board diversity with retaining institutional knowledge creates  some challenges to increasing diversity. One director said new board  directors face a steep learning curve, so it can take some time for board  members to be most effective. As a result, the directors at some banks  will recruit new directors only after allowing incumbent directors to reach  their maximum terms, which can be several years.

Potential Strategies for Increasing Board Diversity

Just as our 2015 and 2019 reports found similar challenges to increasing  the number of women and minorities on corporate and FHLBank boards,  they also describe similar strategies to increase board diversity.

While the stakeholders, researchers, and officials from organizations  knowledgeable about corporate governance and FHLBank board diversity  we interviewed generally agreed on the importance of diverse boards and  many of the strategies to achieve diversity, many noted that there is no  one-size-fits-all solution to increasing diversity on boards, and in some  cases highlighted advantages and disadvantages of various strategies.  Based on the themes identified in our prior work, strategies for increasing  board diversity generally fall into three main categories—making diversity  a priority; enlarging the pipeline of potential candidates; and addressing  the low rate of turnover (see fig. 4).

Setting voluntary targets. Several strategies we identified in our 2015  report encouraged or incentivized boards to prioritize diversity. These  strategies include setting voluntary targets for the number or proportion of  women or minorities to have on the board. Many stakeholders we  interviewed for our prior work supported boards setting voluntary targets  for a specific number or percentage of women and minority candidates  rather than externally imposed targets or quotas.

Requiring a diverse slate of candidates. Many stakeholders we  interviewed supported a requirement by corporate boards that a slate of  candidates be diverse. A couple stakeholders specifically suggested that  boards should aim for slates that are half women and half men; two other  stakeholders said boards should include more than one woman on a slate  of candidates so as to avoid tokenism. Tokenism was also a concern for a  few of the stakeholders who were not supportive of defining the  composition of slates.

Filling interim board seats with women or minority candidates. Our  2019 report included strategies for making diversity a priority for FHLBank  boards. For example, some FHLBank directors and Federal Housing  Finance Agency staff said filling interim board seats with women and  minority candidates could increase diversity. By regulation, when a  FHLBank director leaves the board mid-term, the directors may elect a  replacement for the remainder of his or her term. One director we  interviewed said that when a woman or minority director fills an interim  term, the likelihood increases that he or she will be elected by the  member institutions for a subsequent full term.

Emphasizing the importance of diversity and diverse candidates.  Our 2015 report found that emphasizing the importance of diversity and  diverse candidates was important for promoting board diversity. Almost all  of the stakeholders we interviewed indicated that CEOs or investors and  shareholders play an important role in promoting diversity on corporate  boards. For example, one stakeholder said CEOs can “set the tone at the  top” by encouraging boards to prioritize diversity efforts and  acknowledging the benefits of diversity. As we reported in 2019,  FHLBanks have taken several steps to emphasize the importance of  board diversity. For example, all 11 FHLBanks included statements in  their 2017 election announcements that encouraged voting member  institutions to consider diversity during the board election process. Six of  the 11 banks expressly addressed gender, racial, and ethnic diversity in  their announcements. In addition, we found that FHLBanks had  developed and implemented strategies that target board diversity in  general and member directors specifically. For example, the banks  created a task force to develop recommendations for advancing board  diversity and to enhance collaboration and information sharing across  FHLBank boards. Each bank is represented on the task force. Directors  we interviewed from all 11 FHLBanks said their banks conducted or  planned to conduct diversity training for board directors, which included  topics such as unconscious bias.

Mentoring women and minority board candidates. In addition, several  stakeholders we interviewed about corporate and FHLBank boards noted  the importance of CEOs serving as mentors for women and minority  candidates and sponsoring them for board seats. For example,  conducting mentoring and outreach was included as a strategy in our  2019 report for increasing diversity on FHLBank boards, including current  directors pledging to identify and encourage potential women and minority  candidates to run for the board. One director we interviewed said he  personally contacted qualified diverse candidates and asked them to run.  Another director emphasized the importance of outreach by member  directors to member institutions to increase diversity on FHLBank boards.  Member directors have the most interaction with the leadership of  member institutions and can engage and educate them on the importance  of nominating and electing diverse directors to FHLBank boards.

Improving information on board diversity. As we reported in 2015,  several large investors and many stakeholders we interviewed supported  improving federal disclosure requirements on board diversity. In addition  to increasing transparency, some organization officials and researchers  we interviewed said disclosing information on board diversity could cause  companies to think about diversity more. While the SEC aims to ensure  that companies provide material information to investors that they need to  make informed investment and voting decisions, we found information  companies disclose on board diversity is not always useful to investors  who value this information. SEC leaves it up to companies to define  diversity. As a result, there is variation in how much and the type of  information companies provide publicly. Some companies choose to  define diversity as including characteristics such as relevant knowledge,  skills, and experience. Others define diversity as including demographic  characteristics such as gender, race, or ethnicity. (See fig. 5) In  February 2019, SEC issued new guidance on its diversity disclosure  requirements, which aims to clarify the agency’s expectations for what  information companies include in their disclosures.

Nearly all of the stakeholders we interviewed for our 2015 report said  investors also play an important role in promoting diversity on corporate  boards. For example, almost all of the board directors and CEOs we  interviewed said investors or shareholders can influence board diversity  by exerting pressure on the companies they invest in to prioritize diversity  when recruiting new directors. One board director we interviewed said  boards listen to investors more than anyone else. For example, there  have been recent news reports of investor groups voting against all  candidates for board positions when the slate of candidates is not  diverse.

In addition, in 2019 we recommended that the Federal Housing Finance  Agency, which has regulatory authority over FHLBanks, review  FHLBanks’ data collection processes for demographic information on  their boards. By obtaining a better understanding of the different  processes FHLBanks use to collect board demographic data, the Federal  Housing Finance Agency and the banks could better determine which  processes or practices contribute to more complete data. More complete  data could ultimately help increase transparency on board diversity and  would allow them to effectively analyze data trends over time and  demonstrate the banks’ efforts to maintain or increase board diversity.  The Federal Housing Finance Agency agreed with this recommendation  and said it intends to engage with FHLBanks’ leadership to discuss board  data collection issues. The agency also stated that it plans to request that  the FHLBank Board Diversity Task Force explore the feasibility and  practicability for FHLBanks to adopt processes that can lead to more  complete data on board director demographics.

Enlarging the Pipeline of Potential Board Candidates

Expanding board searches beyond CEOs. Expanding searches for  potential board members is yet another strategy for increasing board  diversity, as we reported in 2015 and 2019. Almost all the stakeholders  we interviewed supported expanding board searches beyond the  traditional pipeline of CEO candidates to increase representation of  women. Several stakeholders suggested that boards recruit high  performing women in other senior-level positions or look to candidates in  academia or the nonprofit and government sectors. Our 2015 analysis  found that if boards expanded their director searches beyond CEOs to  include senior-level managers, more women might be included in the  candidate pool. Our 2019 report on FHLBank board diversity also  included looking beyond CEOs as a strategy for increasing diversity. For  example, we reported that FHLBanks can search for women and minority  candidates by looking beyond member bank CEOs. By regulation,  member directors can be any officer or director of a member institution,  but there is a tendency to favor CEOs for board positions, according to  board directors, representatives of corporate governance organizations,  and academic researchers we interviewed for the report. Similar to the  findings from our 2015 report, the 2019 report found that the likelihood of  identifying a woman or minority candidate increases when member  institutions look beyond CEOs to other officers, such as chief human  resources officers. Several directors of FHLBanks also reported hiring a  search firm or consultant to help them identify women and minority  candidates, which is a strategy that can be used to enlarge the typical  pool of applicants.

Adopting term limits or age limits. Several stakeholders discussed  adopting term or age limits to address low turnover of board members.  Most stakeholders we interviewed for our 2015 report were not in favor of  adopting term limits or age limits, and several pointed out trade-offs. For  example, one CEO we interviewed said directors with longer tenure often  possess invaluable knowledge about a company that newer board  directors do not have. Many of the stakeholders who opposed these  strategies noted that term and age limits seem arbitrary and could result  in the loss of high-performing directors.

Expanding board size. Several stakeholders we interviewed supported  expanding board size either permanently or temporarily so as to include  more women. Some stakeholders noted that expanding board size might  make sense when a board is smaller, but expressed concern about  challenges associated with managing large boards.

Evaluating board performance. Another strategy we identified in our  2015 report to potentially help address low board turnover and in turn  increase board diversity was conducting board evaluations. Many  stakeholders we interviewed generally agreed it is good practice to  conduct evaluations of the full board or of individual directors, or to use a  skills matrix to identify skills gaps. However, a few thought evaluation  processes could be more robust. Others said that board dynamics and  culture can make it difficult to use evaluations as a tool to increase  turnover by removing under-performing directors from boards. Several  stakeholders we interviewed discussed how it is important for boards to  identify skills gaps and strategically address them when a board vacancy  occurs, and one stakeholder said identifying such gaps could help boards  think more proactively about finding diverse candidates. The National  Association of Corporate Directors has encouraged boards to use  evaluations not only as a tool for assessing board director performance,  but also as a means to assess board composition and gaps in skill sets.

Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member McHenry, and Members of the  Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to  respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please  contact Chelsa Gurkin, Acting Director of Education, Workforce, and  Income Security, at (202) 512-7215 or GurkinC@gao.gov. Contact points  for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be  found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key  contributions to this testimony include Betty Ward-Zukerman (Assistant  Director), Meredith Moore (Analyst-in-Charge), Ellie Klein, and Chris  Woika. In addition, key support was provided by Susan Aschoff, James  Bennett, Ben Bolitzer, Ted Burik, Michael Erb, Daniel Garcia-Diaz,  Monika Gomez, Kay Kuhlman, Sheila McCoy, Anna Maria Ortiz, James  Rebbe, Karen Tremba, and Walter Vance.

Financial Services Industry: Representation of Minorities and Women in  Management and Practices to Promote Diversity, 2007-2015.  GAO-19-398T. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2019.

Federal Home Loan Banks: Steps Have Been Taken to Promote Board  Diversity, but Challenges Remain. GAO-19-252. Washington, D.C.:  February 14, 2019.

Diversity in the Technology Sector: Federal Agencies Could Improve  Oversight of Equal Employment Opportunity Requirements. GAO-18-69.  Washington, D.C.: November 16, 2017.

Financial Services Industry: Trends in Management Representation of  Minorities and Women and Diversity Practices, 2007–2015. GAO-18-64.  Washington, D.C.: November 8, 2017.

Corporate Boards: Strategies to Address Representation of Women  Include Federal Disclosure Requirements. GAO-16-30. Washington, D.C.:  December 3, 2015.

Federal Home Loan Banks: Information on Governance Changes, Board  Diversity, and Community Lending. GAO-15-435. Washington, D.C.: May  12, 2015.

Diversity Management: Trends and Practices in the Financial Services  Industry and Agencies after the Recent Financial Crisis. GAO-13-238.  Washington, D.C.:  April 16, 2013.

Federal Reserve Bank Governance: Opportunities Exist to Broaden  Director Recruitment Efforts and Increase Transparency. GAO-12-18.  Washington, D.C.: October 19, 2011.

Women in Management: Female Managers’ Representation,  Characteristics, and Pay. GAO-10-1064T. Washington, D.C.:  September  28, 2010.

Financial Services Industry: Overall Trends in Management-Level  Diversity and Diversity Initiatives, 1993–2008. GAO-10-736T.  Washington, D.C.: May 12, 2010.

Financial Services Industry: Overall Trends in Management-Level  Diversity and Diversity Initiatives, 1993–2004. GAO-06-617. Washington,  D.C.: June 1, 2006.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Many organizations have recognized the importance of recruiting/retaining women and minorities in key positions to improve performance and better meet customer needs. Our prior work has found that the number of women and minorities on boards has increased, but that their representation still lagged behind that of other groups.

We testified about strategies to increase board diversity—such as making diversity a priority, enlarging the pipeline of potential candidates, and addressing the low rate of turnover on boards.