5 - Ongoing Requirements for Issuers and Insiders

Decision Information

Decision Content

 

CSA Multilateral Staff Notice 58-314

Review of Disclosure Regarding Women on Boards and in Executive Officer Positions

 

Year 8 Report

 

 

October 27, 2022

 

 

 

 


 

Highlights of review findings at a glance

 


Board seats

 


Executive officer positions

 


Policies and targets

 


Term limits

Disclosure review

 

Purpose of report

 

This report outlines key findings from a recent review of public disclosure regarding women on boards and in executive officer positions as required by Form 58-101F1 Corporate Governance Disclosure of National Instrument 58-101 Disclosure of Corporate Governance Practices (NI 58-101).  This is the eighth consecutive annual review of this disclosure that we have conducted.[1]  The review was completed primarily for the purposes of identifying key trends. A qualitative assessment of compliance with the disclosure requirements was not conducted. 

 

Disclosure requirements

 

Subject to certain exceptions[2], issuers listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and other non-venture issuers are required to provide disclosure on an annual basis in the following five areas:

 

 

 

The objective of the disclosure requirements is to increase transparency for investors and other stakeholders regarding the representation of women on boards and in executive officer positions, and the approach that issuers take in respect of such representation. 

 

 

 

 

 

Review sample

 

As of May 31, 2022, approximately 1,779 issuers were listed on the TSX, of which approximately 792 were subject to the disclosure requirements.  The data summarized in this report is based on a review sample of 625 issuers that had year-ends between December 31, 2021 and March 31, 2022 (Year 8) and filed information circulars or annual information forms by July 31, 2022.  A breakdown of the issuers in the review sample by market capitalization and industry is set out in Annex A.

 

 


 

Year-over-year comparison of key trends

 

The following is a snapshot of the year-over-year comparison of the key trends identified in our reviews[3]:

Trends[4]

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Board representation

 

Total board seats occupied by women

11%

12%

14%

15%

17%

20%

22%

24%

Chairs of the board who are women

--

--

--

--

5%

6%

6%

7%

Board vacancies filled by women

--

--

26%

29%

33%

30%

35%

45%

Issuers with at least one woman on their board

49%

55%

61%

66%

73%

79%

82%

87%

Issuers with three or more women on their board

8%

10%

11%

13%

15%

20%

24%

30%

Board seats occupied by women for issuers

with < $1 billion market capitalization

8%

9%

10%

11%

13%

15%

16%

18%

Board seats occupied by women for issuers

with $1-2 billion market capitalization

11%

13%

17%

19%

20%

24%

24%

27%

Board seats occupied by women for issuers

with $2-10 billion market capitalization

17%

18%

18%

21%

23%

26%

28%

31%

Board seats occupied by women for issuers

with over $10 billion market capitalization

21%

23%

24%

25%

27%

31%

30%

33%

 

 


 

Trends[5]

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Executive officers

 

Issuers with at least one woman in an executive officer position[6]

60%

59%

62%

66%

64%

65%

67%

70%

Issuers with a woman CEO

--

--

--

4%

4%

5%

5%

5%

Issuers with a woman CFO

--

--

--

14%

15%

15%

17%

19%

Policies

 

Issuers that adopted a policy relating to the representation of women on their board

15%

21%

35%

42%

50%

54%

60%

61%

Targets

 

Issuers that adopted targets for the representation of women on their board

7%

9%

11%

16%

22%

26%

32%

39%

Issuers that adopted targets for the representation of women in executive officer positions5

2%

2%

3%

4%

3%

4%

6%

4%

Term limits

 

Issuers that adopted director term limits

19%

20%

21%

21%

21%

23%

23%

21%

 


 

Board seat findings

 

The percentage of board seats held by women increased from 11% in year 1 to 24% in year 8.

 

 

This year, 580 board seats were vacated during the year and 436 of those seats were filled. Of those filled seats, approximately 45% (196 seats) were filled by women which represents a 10% increase over year 7.
 

Infographic of the percentage of vacancies filled by women.


 

 

Other notable findings

 

Variation among industries

 

The number of women on boards varied by industry. The manufacturing, real estate and utilities industries had the highest percentage of issuers with one or more women on their boards. [7]  The mining, oil & gas and biotechnology industries had the lowest percentage of issuers with one or more women on their boards.

 

Refer to Annex B for a year-over-year comparison of the percentage of issuers with one or more women on their boards by industry.

 

Infographic of the percentage of issuers with one or more women on boards by industry.


 

The number of women in executive officer positions also varied by industry. The utilities, manufacturing and retail industries had the highest percentage of issuers with one or more women in executive officer positions. The mining, technology and oil & gas industries had the lowest percentage of issuers with one or more women in executive officer positions.

 

Refer to Annex C for a year-over-year comparison of the percentage of issuers with one or more women in executive officer positions by industry.

 

Infographic of the percentage of issuers with one or more women in executive officer positions by industry.
 


 


Diversity measures and board seats held by women

 

There was a correlation between issuers adopting certain diversity measures and the proportion of board seats held by women.

Infographic of the percentage of issuers with targets.      Infographic of the percentage of board seats held by women for issuers with board targets as compared to issuers without board targets.


Infographic of the percentage of issuers with a policy relating to the identification and nomination of women directors.     Infographic of the percentage of board seats held by women for issuers with a policy relating to the identification and nomination of women directors as compared to issuers with no such policy.

 

Term limits

 

Of the 21% of issuers we reviewed that had adopted director term limits, 36% adopted age limits alone, 30% adopted tenure limits alone, and 34% adopted both age and tenure limits. 

Infographic of the percentage of issuers with term limits.

 

Issuers that adopted term limits had an average of 31% of women on their boards, compared to 22% for issuers with no term limits.

 

 

Guidance Related to Disclosure Practices

 

During our review, we noted that issuers generally provide disclosure addressing the disclosure requirements in different ways. As a result of this, the format and content of disclosure may vary from issuer to issuer. It may also be difficult to locate the relevant disclosure within an information circular and it may be difficult to interpret some of the disclosure. In order to address this, issuers should consider presenting data related to the disclosure requirements in a common tabular format. This would improve consistency and comparability and help investors identify and evaluate the relevant disclosure in an efficient manner.  Refer to CSA Multilateral Staff Notice 58-313 Review of Disclosure Regarding Women on Boards and in Executive Officer Positions (Year 7 Report) for specific guidance on the format of tabular reporting.  

Questions

 

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact:

 

Ontario Securities Commission


Jo-Anne Matear

416-593-2323

📧 jmatear@osc.gov.on.ca

 

Katie DeBartolo

416-593-2166

📧 kdebartolo@osc.gov.on.ca

Jonathan Blackwell

416-593-8138 

📧 jblackwell@osc.gov.on.ca

 

Aisha Suleman

416-593-2324

📧 asuleman@osc.gov.on.ca


 

Alberta Securities Commission


Nicole Law

403-355-4865

📧 nicole.law@asc.ca

Jennifer Smith

403-355-3898

📧 jennifer.smith@asc.ca


 

Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan

Heather Kuchuran

306-787-1009

📧 heather.kuchuran@gov.sk.ca

 

The Manitoba Securities Commission

Patrick Weeks

204-945-3326

📧 patrick.weeks@gov.mb.ca

 

Autorité des marchés financiers

Martin Latulippe

514-395-0337, ext.4331

📧 martin.latulippe@lautorite.qc.ca

 

Financial and Consumer Services Commission (New Brunswick)

Ella-Jane Loomis

506-453-6591

📧 ella-jane.loomis@fcnb.ca

 

Nova Scotia Securities Commission

Valerie Tracy

902-424-5718

📧 valerie.tracy@novascotia.ca

Pie chart of the issuers in review sample by market capitalization.Annex A

 

 

 

 

 

 

Infographic of the percentage of issuers with one or more women on boards by industry.
 


Annex B

 

The following is a year-over-year comparison of the percentage of issuers with at least one woman on their board by industry:

 

Industry

Year 1

Year 2

 Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Biotechnology

65%

57%

56%

56%

67%

59%

64%

85%

Financial Services

59%

67%

60%

61%

73%

77%

85%

86%

Manufacturing

60%

68%

84%

89%

93%

93%

95%

98%

Mining

35%

38%

54%

59%

62%

72%

78%

80%

Oil & Gas

40%

40%

45%

56%

70%

73%

81%

84%

Real Estate

64%

66%

59%

73%

80%

90%

89%

91%

Retail

78%

79%

89%

84%

86%

91%

94%

88%

Technology

39%

52%

52%

68%

73%

84%

74%

86%

Utilities

86%

82%

86%

81%

85%

87%

90%

90%

 


Annex C

 

The following is a year-over-year comparison of the percentage of issuers with at least one woman in an executive officer position by industry:

 

Industry

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Biotechnology

48%

66%

71%

64%

61%

73%

82%

71%

Financial Services

64%

63%

66%

71%

76%

71%

74%

75%

Manufacturing

61%

81%

79%

80%

70%

74%

76%

90%

Mining

52%

49%

52%

56%

52%

52%

57%

55%

Oil & Gas

49%

46%

48%

53%

54%

58%

58%

66%

Real Estate

76%

76%

80%

80%

83%

79%

79%

85%

Retail

82%

71%

68%

76%

80%

78%

88%

88%

Technology

45%

44%

59%

52%

55%

68%

55%

61%

Utilities

65%

73%

67%

75%

70%

75%

79%

92%

 

 



[1] The trends from our first seven annual reviews are set out in CSA Multilateral Staff Notices 58-307 (year 1), 58-308 (year 2), 58-309 (year 3), 58-310 (year 4), 58-311 (year 5), 58-312 (year 6) and 58-313 (year 7).

[2] Certain TSX listed issuers, such as exchange traded funds, closed-end funds, designated foreign issuers and SEC foreign issuers are not subject to the disclosure requirements.   

 

[3] Due to the scope of our sample, our findings, and the comparisons between the current year and the prior six years provide only a partial picture. The issuers in the current year and the prior year samples vary for several reasons including:

         issuers being delisted from the TSX,

         issuers’ listings of securities being moved to the TSX-V,

         corporate reorganizations resulting in issuers no longer being listed on the TSX,

         issuers filing information circulars after July 31, 2022 (Year 8),

         issuers completing initial public offerings and becoming listed on the TSX, and

         issuers ceasing to be reporting issuers.

[4] Where a percentage is not identified in this table for a particular trend in a specific year, it is generally because that trend was not included in our reporting during that year’s review process.  

[5] Where a percentage is not identified in this table for a particular trend in a specific year, it is generally because that trend was not included in our reporting during that year’s review process.  

[6] The decrease in year 5 is driven in part by a change in methodology used to capture executive officer data. Issuers may have included in their disclosure, positions and/or targets for a group other than executive officers, as that term is defined in NI 58-101. In year 5, we focused more closely on disclosure regarding “executive officers” as defined.

[7] The larger Canadian banks, which are part of an industry that has generally been an early adopter of diversity initiatives, are not captured in the data sample for this review.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.