Journal of Business Ethics (2005) 62: 327–340
DOI 10.1007/s10551-005-5334-3
Gender Mainstreaming and Corporate
Social Responsibility: Reporting
Workplace Issues
ABSTRACT. This paper investigates the potential and
actual contribution of corporate social responsibility
(CSR) to gender equality in a framework of gender
mainstreaming (GM). It introduces GM as combining
technical systems (monitoring, reporting, evaluating) with
political processes (women’s participation in decision-
making) and considers the ways in which this is com-
patible with CSR agendas. It examines the inclusion of
gender equality criteria within three related CSR tools:
human capital management (HCM) reporting, CSR
reporting guidelines, and socially responsible investment
(SRI) criteria on employee and diversity issues. Although
Kate Grosser is a Visiting Fellow at ICCSR. She has a BA in
Social Anthropology from the University of Cambridge and
an MSc in Politics of the World Economy from the London
School of Economics. She has been a researcher, policy ana-
lyst, and lobbyist on economic, human rights and gender
equality issues, in the UK and internationally, working with
government, NGOs, academia and the business community.
Her current research focuses on the relationship between cor-
porate social responsibility, gender equality and gender
mainstreaming. She is on the management committee of the
UK Women’s Budget Group.
Jeremy Moon is Professor and Director of the International
Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, a leading teaching
and research center in the field. His visiting positions include:
Jean Monnet Research Fellow, the European University
Institute, Florence; By-Fellow, Churchhill College, Cam-
bridge; Visitor, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton;
and Hallsworth Visiting Professor, University of Manchester.
His current research includes the relationship between corpo-
rate social responsibility (CSR) and public policy and gov-
ernment regulation. He is currently co-writing Corporations
and Citizenship for Cambridge University Press and co-
editing. The Oxford Handbook on Corporate Social
Responsibility for Oxford University Press. Recent journal
publications include the Journal of Business Ethics,
Business Ethics Quarterly, Business and Society Re-
view, and Business and Society.

Springer 2005
Kate Grosser
Jeremy Moon
evidence is found of gender equality information being
requested within several CSR related reporting frame-
works, these requirements are mostly limited in scope, or
remain optional elements. The nature and extent of rel-
evant stakeholder opportunities are investigated to explain
this unfulfilled potential.
KEY WORDS: corporate social responsibility (CSR),
gender equality, gender mainstreaming (GM), reporting,
workplace issues.
Introduction
This paper examines how gender equality in the work-
place is incorporated into corporate social responsibility
(CSR)1. It explores the extent to which gender issues
have been mainstreamed in UK CSR reporting guidance
with some comparative reference. Gender mainstreaming
(GM) has been defined as a transforming process, which
includes, but moves beyond, individual rights for equal
treatment, and positive actions to address group disad-
vantage, and involves ‘identifying how organisational
systems and structures cause indirect discrimination and
altering or redesigning them as appropriate’ (Rees, 2002,
pp.46–48). Recent GM literature has focussed on gov-
ernment policy to advance gender equality in the UK
(e.g. Beveridge et al., 2000), in the European Union
(e.g. Pollack and Hafner-Burton, 2000) and in particu-
lar through the European Employment Strategy
(e.g. Mosesdottir et al., 2004; Rubery, 1998, 2002).
Whilst the business case for gender equality has been
recognised, many commentators find it wanting (e.g.
Pickens, 1999; Giscombe and Mattis, 2002; Rees, 2004).
However, we take up Dickens’ (1999), conclu-
sion that equal opportunities for women in the
workplace are best advanced by a combination of
legal compliance, the business case and social regu-
lation. Our conceptualisation of CSR combines
328 Kate Grosser and Jeremy Moon
these three imperatives. It involves compliance with
the law (Carroll, 1999) and a business case for CSR
related to investor, consumer and employee prefer-
ences and such other drivers as corporate reputation
and capacity for innovation (McWilliams and Siegel,
2001). Third, CSR is also a product of social regu-
lation manifest in ‘soft’ rules of government (Moon,
2004) and pressure from non-governmental organi-
sations (e.g. through their participation in develop-
ing business codes and standards, and public shaming
of companies which fail these). It also includes self
regulation of companies through membership of
business associations, or compliance with CSR
standards and indexes.
Although the scope and application of CSR are
‘essentially contested’ (Moon et al., 2003), it can be
defined as activity which recognises the social
imperatives of business success and which addresses
its social externalities. It combines technical pro-
cesses of measuring and reporting social performance
with political processes of redefining rights and
responsibilities, particularly through different forms
of stakeholder engagement. CSR’s significance for
wider societies is signalled by the growing social
imprint of business, particularly multinational
corporations (Hertz, 2001; Monbiot, 2000), and by
the encouragement given to business by govern-
ments to assume greater responsibility for public
policy issues (Matten et al., 2003; Moon, 2002).
The paper introduces GM and considers its rela-
tionship with CSR. The second section investigates
the extent to which gender equality in the work-
place has been mainstreamed in CSR with reference
to three related CSR systems: human capital man-
agement (HCM) reporting, CSR reporting guide-
lines, and socially responsible investment (SRI)
criteria on employee and diversity issues. The third
section considers the nature and extent of stake-
holder drivers for GM in CSR. The conclusion
critically considers the potential for CSR to further
advance gender equality.2
Gender mainstreaming, corporate social
responsibility and women at work
The concept of gender equality has developed such
that it is now defined as:
…an equal visibility, empowerment and participation
of both sexes in all spheres of public and private life…
[it] is not synonymous with sameness, with establishing
men, their life style and conditions as the norm… [it]
means accepting and valuing equally the differences
between women and men and the diverse roles they
play in society. (Council of Europe, 1998, pp.7–8).
A new approach to achieving gender equality is GM
which is:
the (re)organisation, improvement, development and
evaluation of policy processes, so that a gender equality
perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels at
all stages, by the actors normally involved in policy
making (Council of Europe, 1998, p.15).
GM is not about women per se, but about how
policies are assessed for their impacts on women and
men.
[GM] turns the attention away from individuals and
their rights (equal treatment) and from groups and
their special needs and disadvantages (positive action),
and focuses instead upon the systems and structures
that give rise to those special needs and disadvantages
in the first place (Rees, 2004, p.4).
The EU is currently pursuing all three of these
approaches to gender equality, as are some compa-
nies (e.g. Barclays). However, the impact of CSR
derives from the fact that it extends beyond indi-
vidual companies, to new systems and structures of
governance, via processes such as benchmarking and
reporting.
GM involves a long-term approach of putting
gender equality on policy agendas and developing
techniques to institutionalise and document it within
organisations (Rubery, 1998). Thus Walby (2004),
Beveridge et al. (2000), Rees (2004) and others have
conceptualised GM as combining technical and
political processes. The technical systems include the
tools of gender disaggregated statistics, gender
impact assessment, gender proofing, gender equality
training, and the development of equality indicators.
The political dimensions of GM are equally impor-
tant; the agenda-setting opportunities to enhance the
inclusion and participation of women in decision-
making and to reduce or eliminate gendered barriers
to such participation.
 Gender Mainstreaming and Corporate Social Responsibility
As CSR also combines an interest in measurement
and reporting with a concern with inclusion and
participation through stakeholder relations, the
question arises as to how far companies measure and
report their gender impacts (the technical) and what
stakeholder opportunities exist to advance gender
workplace issues. In addition CSR has been focused
on mainstreaming consideration of social and envi-
ronmental corporate impacts via company manage-
ment and risk systems.
There are a number of reasons to expect some
mutual reinforcement of CSR and GM. Rees
(2004) sees GM as involving the principle of
‘regarding the individual as a whole person’, thus
replacing ‘sex-stereotypical assumptions about gen-
der roles and caring responsibilities’ so that all
individuals are seen as ‘potential carers’ (Rees,
2004, p.6), and these and other non-work aspects
of life are taken in to account in workplace orga-
nisation. Tools for this include work/life balance,
dignity at work policies, transparent human re-
source management and equal pay reviews. The
agenda is to transform organisational norms rather
than to help women ‘fit in’. Rees (2004) also
contrasts the business case that fuels the managing
diversity approach to human resources, with the
social values of justice, fairness and equity which
drive GM. Our conceptualisation of CSR goes well
beyond the business case and involves social actors
and values. Indeed a CSR approach has been seen
in this light by Opportunity Now, the main UK
employer-led organisation for gender workplace
equality, which notes:
In the past organisations have been reluctant to make
judgements about wider equality issues outside organ-
isational life. Yet by advocating CSR, organisations are
making value judgements about the ethical implications
of work practices which impact society (2004a, p.20)
In recognising the potential of CSR to address GM’s
broad assumptions of equality and social inclusion,
Opportunity Now comments that:
One of the consequences of this close relationship
between CSR and diversity may be a shift away
from the current focus on the individual benefits of
good practice, to a perspective more concerned with
social groups and social justice (Opportunity Now,
2004a, p.20)
329
The fact that there has been a ‘shift in framing
of feminist analysis from autonomous, radical,
opposition based on anti-system outrage at
oppression to one which is inclusionary, mainstream
and based on human rights’ (Walby, 2002, p.13) has
led to a focus on GM which is more amenable to
public policy and CSR agendas. GM literature has
focused on government policy and action (e.g.
Beveridge et al., 2000; Pollack, 2000; Rubery, 1998,
2003), and on the role of NGOs, (e.g. Kelly, 2003).
Moreover, gender workplace issues have been linked
to corporations through the ‘business case’ and
through their stakeholders, specifically trade unions
(Dickens, 1999). In the field of women’s employ-
ment and pay there has been an emerging interest in
links between long-term business success and
equality of opportunity beyond the basic equal
opportunities legislation through: gender/diversity
in employment/human capital management (e.g.
DTI, 2003a, b; Kingsmill, 2001; Opportunity Now,
2001), family friendly policies (e.g. Dex, 2004; DTI
2004b); and female representation on company
boards (e.g. Catalyst, 2004; Singh and Vinnicombe,
2003; Vinnicombe, 2004).
Employer-led organisations working on gender
equality have emerged in the UK, Opportunity Now,
and in the USA, Catalyst. Both have argued that
effective advancement of women in the workplace
requires: leadership commitment; a case for gender
equality which is kernel to business objectives; and
gender-specific data and action in areas such as
recruitment, retention, turnover, maternity return
rates, promotion, training and development, pay and
work/life balance; and evaluation by employees
(Catalyst, 2002; Opportunity Now, 2000, 2001,
2002). As a result programmes to enhance workplace
equality for women are being designed, implemented
and monitored in many of these areas, with manage-
ment training and accountability systems to link
progress on gender equality/diversity to management
performance goals (e.g. Opportunity Now, 2003,
2004). In the UK the 172 private sector members of
Opportunity Now are working to improve the posi-
tion of women in their organisations, including by
benchmarking their practices and competing for
awards which recognise their achievements.
We now turn to investigate how such
developments are being incorporated into CSR
systems and structures and their alignment with
330 Kate Grosser and Jeremy Moon
the emerging techniques and politics of GM.
Having noted the importance of gender disaggre-
gated data and information, we focus on reporting
mechanisms.
Systems for reporting gender equality and
corporate social responsibility
The whole raison d’être for social and environmental
accounting lies in its potential to make certain aspects
of corporate activity more transparent to external
stakeholders, who may then be empowered to hold
corporate management accountable for their actions
insofar as they are affected by them (Owen, 2003, p.2)
This section analyses some key CSR reporting tools
and their reference to gender equality in the work-
place; new guidance for reporting on human capital
management; CSR reporting guidelines; and socially
responsible investment and corporate responsibility
indexes.
Corporate reporting on human resource issues
There is a growing view that high standards of HCM
can enhance performance, especially through raising
the skills base, and enhancing employee motivation
(DTI, 2003c). Gender workplace equality has been
linked to both of these improvements (e.g. Catalyst
2004; Opportunity Now, 2001). Recent UK pro-
posals and guidelines for reporting on HCM have
recognised the importance of gender and other
equality/diversity issues (DTI, 2003b; Kingsmill,
2001). However, there is little external reporting of
HCM issues broadly and EO in particular notwith-
standing the frequent availability of information
internally (Adams and Harte, 1999; Scarbrough and
Elias, 2002).
Although there has been a growth in social
reporting as part of the CSR agenda, it has had
limited application to gender. The detailed UK
legislation on equal opportunities (EO) with respect
to race and gender does not extend to firm’s dis-
closure of their EO impacts in these areas.3 The
2003/4 Opportunity Now benchmarking survey
reveals that communication about gender equality/
diversity internally, tends to focus on explaining
policies, rather than sharing goals, explaining the
business case, or sharing news of progress (Oppor-
tunity Now, 2004). This group of employers believe
themselves to communicate more effectively on
gender issues externally, however Adams and Harte
(1999) found that external communications on EO
by companies focussed on policies, with an absence
of targets or performance data, leaving them unac-
countable on their gender impacts. The ethical
Investment Research Service notes:
… there is inconsistency in the information required on
a compulsory basis. A company must report at some
length on directors’ pay whilst on equal opportunities it
is only required to report on policies relating to
employment of the disabled. (EIRIS, 1999, p.3).
The question therefore arises as to the
appropriateness of legislation to require minimum
reporting on gender issues. Adams and Harte (1999,
pp.56–60) suggest that mandatory reporting of EO
and diversity practices should include information
on:
• policies (i.e. how EO fits into the corporate
structure and governance system; how it is
reported; recruitment, training, promotion/career
development, monitoring and reporting, career
breaks, flexible contracts, paternity leave, child-
care, harassment);
• achievement of policies (i.e. narrative and statis-
tical accounts);
• targets and monitoring (i.e. information systems);
• formal investigations (i.e. legal cases, complaints,
and subsequent action); and
• involvement of workers/trade unions, and statu-
tory authorities in developing information systems.
Some countries have introduced reporting require-
ments along these lines. The Australian EO for
Women in the Workplace Act (1999) requires
companies with 100 or more people to establish a
program to remove the barriers to women entering
and advancing in their organisation and to report on
this annually to the EO for Women in the Workplace
Agency (EOWA). Although there is some flexibility
in the reporting style, organizations are required to
report: their workplace profile; how equal opportu-
nities are analysed; priority issues for women; actions
to address these; evaluation; and further actions
 Gender Mainstreaming and Corporate Social Responsibility
planned (EOWA, 2004).4 The Swedish EO Act re-
quires employers to prepare an annual equality plan
for promotion and pay equality. The Canadian
Employment Equity Act requires employers to
develop and implement employment equity plans
and programs and to report annually on their progress
in achieving a representative workforce. Such legis-
lation could be described as ‘soft’ in that it does not
require any particular behaviour (e.g. a pay review)
but seeks to raise standards and accountability, al-
though significant parts of the information reported
to government bodies is often not available for public
scrutiny. Nevertheless, this provides a clear means for
companies to improve their gender reporting and
thereby avert more intrusive regulation.
A report for the UK Cabinet Office on Women’s
Employment and Pay (Kingsmill, 2001)
recommended that all companies should be
encouraged to conduct equal employment and pay
reviews covering all aspects of women’s employ-
ment, as a step towards improving HCM. The
Government is now cooperating with businesses,
trade unions, the EOC and Opportunity Now to
secure pay reviews in 35% of large companies by
2006 (DTI, 2003d, p. 23).5
The Accounting for People Report (DTI, 2003b)6
argues that good HCM reporting needs narrative
and hard data on: the size and composition of the
workforce; retention and motivation of employees;
the skills and competences necessary for success, and
training to achieve these; remuneration and fair
employment practices; leadership and succession
planning. Moreover it argues that this reporting
should be strategic, communicating clearly, fairly
and unambiguously the Board’s understanding of the
links between the HCM policies and practices, its
business strategy and its performance. It suggests that
information on workforce size and composition is
key to understanding HCM issues and addressing
such questions as:
are the age, gender and ethnic profiles of its workforce
appropriate for the strategy it is pursuing?… is the
balance between full-time and part-time workers rel-
evant to its strategy?… is staff turnover unusually high
or low among particular groups, at particular levels or
in particular occupations and what are the implications
for the organisation’s ability to pursue its strategy
successfully? (DTI, 2003b, paras 23–24).
331
The report suggests that directors consider ‘how the
organisation satisfies itself that it does not discrimi-
nate unfairly in pay or employment’ (DTI, 2003b,
para 26). It indicates that
… many leading employers are now actively promoting
equal opportunities and diversity through a co-ordi-
nated programme of recruitment, development and
promotion, underpinned by fair pay reviews and such
motivational instruments as flexible working. In doing
so they are widening the pool of talent from which their
organisation can draw; reducing the costs of attrition;
improving morale and productivity; probably improv-
ing their connection with their customer base; and
consolidating their reputation. In this way an integrated
set of HCM practices is designed to support a wide
range of strategic priorities. (DTI, 2003b, para 13).
The report falls short however of recommending
that gender is systematically addressed within all
HCM policy areas such that detailed gender
breakdowns of recruitment and retention, skill
development and training, remuneration, and
leadership and succession planning are reported.
Failure to mainstream gender issues in the
Accounting for People Report is important because
the Company Law Review Draft Regulations on
the Operating and Financial Review and Directors’
Report indicates that: ‘The government hopes that
companies will use the guidance in the Accounting
for People report when preparing their OFR’ (DTI,
2004, p. 24).
Another way in which company HCM achieve-
ments are reported in the context of CSR is via the
list of ‘50 Best Workplaces in the UK’ (Great Place
to Work Institute and the Financial Times), and the
‘100 Best Companies to Work For’ (Sunday Times).
Both involve substantial employee consultation and
cover gender issues. The ‘50 Best Workplaces’ cul-
ture audit reveals that collectively these organisations
have an overall workforce composition of 49%
women, and above average levels of women in
senior management (Great Place to Work Institute,
2004). Data on flexible working, maternity/pater-
nity leave, childcare options and equal pay reviews is
publicly collected as part of the ratings system, along
with employee perceptions on gender equality and
work-life balance. However, companies are not
especially, except for the winner of a gender award
rated on gender issues.
332 Kate Grosser and Jeremy Moon
The ‘100 Best Companies to Work For’ list
includes information on the percentage of women in
company workforces (though not by fulltime/part-
time) and on whether women are at least one third
of senior management. The 2004 list notes that ‘In
44 of the top 100 companies, women are in the
majority overall, but in only 25 do they make up at
least one-third of senior managers’ (The Sunday
Times, 2004). Whilst scores for ‘fair pay’ are given
for the 10 top companies, information about equal
pay, and whether equal pay reviews are carried out,
is not provided. Companies with good maternity
and childcare practices are identified, however, as are
those with government-sponsored Castle Awards for
action promoting EO, and equal pay in particular.
Overall gender equality issues are quite visible here,
however the comprehensive information required in
the Adams and Harte (1999) proposals, or that
required by the EOWA mandatory reporting
framework, is absent.
CSR reporting guidelines
The UK’s leading CSR business association, Busi-
ness in the Community (BITC) argues that CSR
reporting can improve wider business practices as
companies recognise:
the benefit of active reporting goes way beyond the
obvious reputational credit to be gained from a more
open and balanced dialogue with stakeholders. Their
experience … is that the discipline of reporting, and
the processes required to do so, creates a shared
understanding around the board table and the orga-
nisation as a whole of the central role that corporate
responsibility issues can play in determining their
success. (BITC, 2003, foreword).
However, the well-known global CSR reporting
system, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), has
somewhat limited reference to gender. The guidelines
(GRI, 2002) suggest the reporting of ‘workforce, di-
rect and indirect (size, diversity, relationship to
reporting organisation)’ (Section C2.9). Workforce
breakdown is further suggested by region/country,
status, employment type (full-time/part-time) and
employment contract, but with no suggestion of
gender disaggregation (LA1).
There are two core Diversity and Opportunity
indicators. The first requires a ‘Description of equal
opportunity policies or programmes, as well as
monitoring systems to ensure compliance and results
of monitoring’ (LA10), with reference to workplace
harassment and affirmative action. While providing
an opportunity to report on all aspects of imple-
menting an EO programme, this does not specify
gender, or the different kinds of HCM data and
information that should be included. The second
requires data on the ‘Composition of senior
management and corporate governance bodies,
including female/male ratio and other indicators of
diversity as culturally appropriate’ (LA11). An addi-
tional employment indicator asks for ‘Employee
benefits beyond those legally mandated, (e.g.
maternity)’ (LA12). However, other core employ-
ment indicators on labour/management relations
(including employee representation and consulta-
tion), health and safety, and training and education
do not include any suggestion of gender disaggre-
gated information. Whilst the Guidelines indicate the
need for reference to employee remuneration (p. 52),
it is unclear whether this will extend to equal pay.
We conclude that overall gender workplace issues
could not be described as mainstreamed in these
reporting guidelines.
Many UK businesses use the BITC Indicators that
Count framework whose first principle for responsible
business practice is ‘To treat employees fairly and
equitably’ (BITC, 2003, p. 2). The core indicators
request a report of ‘Workplace profile by Gender’ as
well as by race, disability and age. However, this is not
extended to gender breakdowns for indicators on staff
absenteeism and turnover, value of staff training and
development, staff perceptions and grievances, for
example. Information is requested on the number of
legal non-compliances on equal opportunities legis-
lation as is information on the ‘Workplace profile
compared to community profile for travel to work
area for gender, race, disability and age’. However, the
advanced workplace indicator, consisting of impact
evaluations of the effects of downsizing, restructuring,
etc., does not include a gender impact assessment. As
with the GRI, overall the indicators do not compre-
hensively cover gender equality/ diversity in the
workplace in the detail suggested by Adams and Harte
(1999).
 Gender Mainstreaming and Corporate Social Responsibility
SRI and CSR indexes
Indexes for SRI and CSR enable companies to
benchmark themselves against others and develop
best practice. The former enable investors to make
better-informed decisions about their allocation of
resources and the latter improve information to
wider stakeholders.
The FTSE4Good Index, launched in 2001, aims to
help investors identify and invest in companies that
meet globally recognised corporate responsibility
standards, and has had a marked impact on UK and
global CSR disclosure and practices (FTSE, 2004).7
All FTSE-listed companies are considered for the
index but to qualify for inclusion companies must
meet at least two of the seven indicators of Social
and Stakeholder Criteria either globally or in their
home country, two of which relate to gender
(FTSE, 2004a). One requires companies to adopt ‘an
equal opportunities policy and/or a commitment to
equal opportunities or diversity in their annual
report or web-site’. The second requires evidence of
equal opportunities systems including one or more
of: monitoring of policy and workforce composi-
tion; flexible working arrangements and family
benefits (at least three of flexible working time, child
care support, job sharing, career breaks, or mater-
nity/paternity pay beyond the legal requirements);
or at least 10% of managers being women or the
proportion of managers who are women or from
ethnic minorities exceeding two fifths of their rep-
resentation in the company.
The most obvious weakness is that reporting on
these gender criteria is optional so that companies
need not give information about them to qualify for
the index. Thus it enables the inclusion of gender
reporting and accountability but does not require it.
Moreover, the training and employee development
criteria, and the employee consultation criteria
require no information about gender. Nor is there a
requirement for information about women’s board
level representation, despite the existence of the
Female FTSE Index (Singh and Vinnicombe, 2003).
Recent developments in the index provide a
model that could be applied to gender equality. In
2003, following broad human rights consultation,8
the criteria for the Global Resource Sector expanded
to include information on the upholding of universal
human rights. Companies with significant involve-
333
ment in ‘countries of concern’, are now required to
make a human rights impact assessment and link this
to risk assessment procedures. Forty seven companies
have adopted these criteria requiring them to train
staff in human rights, to consult local human rights
stakeholders, and to publicly report their human
rights policy and performance (FTSE, 2004). Con-
sultation has also taken place on supply chain labour
standards, and on stakeholder engagement. On the
positive side, the index enables companies to
describe and gain credit for their work on gender
equality/diversity though, unlike impacts on the
environment and general human rights, companies
are not obliged to report their gender impacts.
Workplace equality/diversity issues are reflected
far more comprehensively in the BITC’s Corporate
Responsibility Index launched in 2002. In 2003 it
attracted 139 companies including over half of the
FTSE100. The survey (BITC, 2003a) requires
information about how workplace employee issues
are related to corporate strategy, including in the
corporate values statements and strategic action
plans; board member responsibility; material risk and
opportunity assessment; and written policy state-
ments on workplace and employee issues. However,
these, and questions about integration of workplace
issues into company policy and practice, do not
specify gender equality/diversity. No information is
requested here on women’s membership of com-
pany boards.
The compulsory Workplace Management Practice
section requires information about key employee-
related issues (risks and opportunities) and whether
corporate objectives have been developed accord-
ingly. It asks about management targets for these
objectives, employee-related programmes to achieve
them, and whether they are monitored. Guidance
notes are provided on such workplace issues as
diversity, equal opportunities, work-life balance, and
remuneration and suggest that improvements can be
demonstrated with reference to external benchmarks
such as that of Opportunity Now (BITC, 2003b).
This encourages a flexible approach to reporting EO/
diversity workplace achievements against specified
targets in order to increase company ratings on the
index. However, gender equality information is not
specifically requested.
Companies are required to report on two out of
five Core Social Impact areas. One of these, Diversity
334 Kate Grosser and Jeremy Moon
in the Workplace, asks how companies demonstrate
leadership on diversity (e.g. through policies, board-
level champions, membership of organisations
committed to diversity, benchmarks, management
objectives). It also asks about: budgets/resources for
achieving the company’s diversity goals including the
associated business case; staff development
programmes to promote diversity; and their take-up
by different diversity strands, and links between
voluntary diversity activity and performance appraisal.
It asks whether companies have mainstreamed
diversity (‘diversity-proofed’) through employment
processes of recruitment, management, promotion
and succession planning, and redundancy. Informa-
tion is required about the diversity profile of staff
leaving the organisation. Companies are asked if their
workforce profile is measured by various diversity
strands, including gender, (e.g. information about job
applicants, employees, position, grade, performance
management profiles and pay scales), and whether
improved diversity performance can be demonstrated.
Despite considerable detail accorded diversity
issues, with the exception of workplace profile and
leadership questions, these are undifferentiated. Thus
companies addressing this section are encouraged to,
but need not, give information about gender spe-
cifically. Moreover, in 2003 only 43% of the top 100
(and 5 of the top 10) companies in the index chose
to complete this section of the survey (BITC, 2004).
Since it is possible to rate highly on this index
without giving detailed information about gender
we conclude that it has not yet been mainstreamed
here.
In sum, we have evidence of gender equality/
diversity workplace issues becoming more promi-
nent in CSR and CSR-related reporting guidelines
but they tend not to be mainstreamed, particularly in
governance sections. It is interesting to note the lack
of reference in almost all of these guidelines to equal
pay, despite the UK government prioritising this
issue and its link to productivity in the economy
(EOC, 2004:1). Whilst the Opportunity Now/EOC
Equal Pay Forum assists employers conducting equal
pay reviews, most CSR reporting tools have not
incorporated reference to them. Questions about
stakeholder consultation do not include a gender
dimension.
We now turn to explaining the relative lack of
progress we have found through consideration of the
representation of gender issues in stakeholder pro-
cesses.
Gender mainstreaming and corporate social
responsibility politics: stakeholders
Notwithstanding the opportunities and first steps
evidenced above, successful gender-mainstreaming
would have led to greater prominence of gender
issues in CSR reporting systems. This raises the
question of the status of gender issues in stakeholder
relations. These are, after all, common features of
CSR policy development as illustrated by the
FTSE4Good Index Philosophy that ‘…developing
positive relationships with stakeholders…’ is essential
to CSR policymaking in which companies should
‘Ensure that employees and other people with
whom they work are entitled to rights such as:
freedom from discrimination…’ (FTSE4Good,
2004, p. 4).
At company level women’s participation in
decision making is manifest in appointment to
management9 and representation on company
boards. Other opportunities for women’s wider
participation through stakeholder relations poten-
tially lie in the development of CSR systems and
reporting tools reflecting women’s roles as investors,
employees, suppliers10, consumers and members of
society whose lives are impacted by company prac-
tice. To what extent have stakeholder pressures
reflected and promoted gender issues?
At face value this might be expected to be a
substantial source of ideas contributing to business
agendas as women constitute 46% of the UK
workforce, over half of whom are in the private
sector (DTI, 2004a) and just over half of society.
Opportunity Now employers increasingly get staff
feedback in order to more effectively meet their
workplace equality goals (Opportunity Now, 2004).
Overall, however, while some companies have
engaged with women stakeholders more widely,
there appear to be no obvious vehicles for bringing
women’s perspectives on business society issues to
corporate agendas through the stakeholder route.
One possible reason is that women are margin-
alized in CSR. It was recently reported that men
dominate positions of CSR executives, be it in
companies, NGOs, investors, professional service
 Gender Mainstreaming and Corporate Social Responsibility
organisations, institutions, higher education and
industry bodies (Ethical Performance, 2005, p.2).
Coleman attributes the failure of CSR actors to
engage with gender to the corporate citizenship
debate being ‘framed as practical/strategic or possibly
ethical, but not political’ (Coleman, 2002, p. 22).
While there are many women working in CSR
it is noticeable how predominantly male-gendered the
movers and shapers in corporate citizenship are…
Viewed as a political rather than a procedural process,
issues of inclusion and exclusion, of scrutiny of the
power to define and contribute to the debate become
critical if this is to be an opportunity for the realisation
of some new reality, a process of co-creation of
something other than business-as-usual. (2002, p. 22).
Yet the business argument for stakeholder engage-
ment is based on recognition of the need for dia-
logue with different constituencies, to improve
various aspects of business practice, and to maintain a
good reputation and a license to operate.11
Discussions about stakeholder engagement have in-
cluded the principles of inclusivity and completeness
in the field of social accounting (AccountAbility,
1999). Both perspectives therefore require that
women stakeholders are able to participate effec-
tively.
How then are ‘voiceless’ stakeholders to be heard
and relations with them normalised?
Women are well-represented within the Global
Reporting Initiative and on its Stakeholder Council
and Board of Directors (both are currently chaired by
women), and gender issues are discussed within GRI
working committees. However, the GRI database
does not include civil society women’s organisations
whilst general human rights and environmental civil
society organisations are well-represented.
O’Dwyer (2003) argues for a greater attention to
non-managerial stakeholder voices in order to
enhance their contribution to holding organisations
accountable for actions that impact on them. He
alludes to two emerging research agendas. The first is
the production of ‘silent’ and ‘shadow’ social reports
to impose broader accountability relationships on the
organisations. The second aims at giving ‘voice’ to
non-managerial stakeholders by engaging directly
with stakeholder groups. This may be particularly
significant not only to women non-managerial
employees, but also to women’s NGOs which
335
appear under-represented within some important
multi-stakeholder initiatives where key CSR tools
are being developed.
In CSR terms investors are primary stakehold-
ers. Ethical Investment Research Service (EIRIS)
research (1999) found that 57% of women would
want their pension fund to favour companies with
a good record on equal opportunities, compared
with 38% of men. Yet it does not appear that SRI
fund criteria have mainstreamed gender equality so
as to enable this voice to be reflected. SRI has
probably had a greater and longer impact on
gender issues in the USA. Following extensive
stakeholder consultation, including with business
and women’s NGOs, The Calvert Women’s Princi-
ples became the first code of conduct to focus on
‘business corporations as vehicles for addressing
gender inequalities and advancing the global
empowerment of women’ (Calvert, 2004, p. 1),
by requiring accountability on this issue. These
state that
Corporations will promote and strive to attain gender
equality in their operations and in their business and
stakeholder relationships by adopting and implement-
ing proactive policies that are publicly disclosed,
monitored, and enforced’ (2004, p. 5).
This applies also to employees of their contractors,
suppliers and others through stakeholder processes.
The section on Employment and Income stipulates
that
corporations will promote and strive to attain gender
equality by adopting and implementing wage, income,
hiring, promotion, and other employment policies that
eliminate gender discrimination in all its forms (2004,
p. 6).
The Management and Governance Principles
include policies for women’s recruitment to mana-
gerial positions and directorships to ensure their
participation in all levels and areas of decision-
making and governance. The Principles on
Education, Training, and Professional Development
cover: opportunity and access issues; special
programs for young women; health, safety, and
violence; civic and community engagement; and
business, supply chain, and marketing practices. It
remains to be seen how many companies sign up to
336 Kate Grosser and Jeremy Moon
these Principles and whether they are integrated into
mainstream SRI indexes. Given that Wal-Mart has
marked the class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit
against the company as ‘material’ financial risk in its
filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (Associated Press Release, 23.VI.2004),
investors may take a greater interest in such issues in
the future.
Individual UK SRI investors have begun to
address these issues. For example, Henderson Global
Investors’ SRI funds now prefer:
… those UK companies which have conducted an
equal pay review or have made a formal commitment
to do so. We will also encourage companies that have
yet to take such steps to do so through our engagement
programme. (Henderson, 2002).
Having associated the financial and professional
service sector with risks of unequal pay, Henderson
gives special encouragement and guidance to com-
panies developing their data systems to address these
issues, encouraging consultation with unions and the
EOC (Henderson, 2003). EIRIS asks companies
whether they do equal pay reviews, but this infor-
mation does not contribute to company ratings.
Despite limitations there is some evidence of
progress since Adams and Harte’s (1999) finding of
disclosure to wider stakeholder groups from the mid
1990s. It remains to be seen whether UK investors
follow Calvert’s example in consulting women in
developing their investment criteria.
Discussion and conclusions
We have argued that there is potential for CSR to be
a vehicle for gender mainstreaming, driven by a
combination of governmental, business and social
imperatives. We have demonstrated that the
reporting of gender workplace issues is at least
compatible with, and in some cases manifests aspects
of, GM. We have also indicated that there is room
for further development. We have suggested that
one reason for the relatively tardy progress in the
technical aspects of reporting gender issues may be
related to the absence of stakeholder avenues for
gender issues to be advanced. This raises what we
have described as the second point of linkage
between GM and CSR, their political dimensions.
Thus the question of what should be reported is not
simply a given but reflects the under-representation
of women’s issues in stakeholder processes. This may
be described as a function of power (from an NGO
perspective) or of recognition and relevance (from a
business perspective).
The extent to which CSR can contribute to
further GM will be a function in part of the extent to
which the latter’s relatively transformative agendas
can be integrated into business practices. Again,
there are some possibilities here. While GM distin-
guishes transformation from integration, such that in
the former there is systemic change (Walby, 2004),
the CSR community discusses mainstreaming in
terms of integration. The BITC CSR index survey
(2003a) investigates how companies organise,
manage and integrate CSR (including workplace
issues) throughout their operations. ‘Is it part and
parcel of the company culture? Is it integrated into
the strategic decision making processes of the
company and linked through into internal gover-
nance and risk management systems?’ (BITC, 2004,
p. 2). This is effectively the language of mainstrea-
ming and could readily be further applied to gender
issues. For example, if the reference to general
workplace issues in this part of the BITC survey
were replaced by a specific reference to gender
equality, the questions on integration would ask:
how are gender equality issues linked to perfor-
mance management of staff and board members?; are
gender equality issues included in training through-
out the organisation?; do remuneration and bonus
systems support the integration of gender equality
issues, and are they integrated into strategic decision-
making processes (e.g. choosing business partners,
selecting pension fund managers, differentiating
products)?; what stakeholder engagement is under-
taken on gender equality issues; and how is it pub-
licly reported? Whilst Opportunity Now does
address these issues through its benchmarking pro-
cess they have not been fully incorporated into most
company wide CSR benchmarking systems.
This view of mainstreaming is reflected in the way
some companies have tried to integrate EO in the
workplace. For example, 26% of employers partici-
pating in the 2003 Opportunity Now benchmarking
process claimed to provide incentives for managers
in the form of EO performance goals (Opportunity
Now, 2004). In 2004 Opportunity Now investi-
 Gender Mainstreaming and Corporate Social Responsibility
gated how employers integrate diversity so that it
becomes part of the organisational culture, trans-
forming the way organisations work, and its con-
tribution to the success of mainstream business
activities. The research examines the breadth of
integration (indicated by diversity principles being
routinely adopted/referred to/adhered to through-
out the business12) which implies some impact on
the culture of organisations and, through their
stakeholders, the wider society. Examples given
include encouragement of new work-life balance
opportunities for fathers (e.g. British Telecom), and
requirement that higher wages be paid to women in
supply chains (e.g. Barclays). Guidelines for
employers on domestic violence issues have also
been developed (Opportunity Now and Women’s
Aid, 2003). Thus, as with the Calvert Women’s
Principles, integration is seen not just as an internal
organisational and workplace issue, but as a
transformational process extending to corporations’
external impacts on gender relations.
The second measure of integration examines its
depth (indicated by whether ‘diversity principles are
communicated, understood and accepted by the
majority of employees’13). Barclays claim to assess
progress towards depth of diversity integration in
their scorecard system. Indicators such as diverse
representation within the organisation, and evidence
from employee surveys are used (Opportunity Now,
2004a).
Our research has drawn attention to the additional
potential arenas for the representation of women’s
voices as stakeholders in company practices, as
employees, community members, consumers, sup-
pliers and investors, in CSR systems and processes.
Notwithstanding certain shortcomings of emerging
practice, the paper has pointed to the possibility of
CSR complementing government regulation for
GM.
Notes
1
We do not consider gender issues in supply chains
here but see Barrientos et al. (2003) and Oxfam (2004).
2
The paper thus differs from other analyses of business
and gender issues. Borna and White conclude most of the
research in three JBE special issues on women in
management focus on ‘‘‘sex’’ or ‘‘gender’’ differences or
337
both’ (2001, 89). Many contributions imply an ethical or
responsibility dimension rather than enframe their analysis
with it. Others conclude that business should review their
practices, e.g. ‘[o]rganizations need regularly monitor and
assess perceptions of gender inequity held by those
employees who increase the diversity of the workplace
along with those in the majority’ (Ngo et al., 2003, p. 237).
3
Even legislation does not guarantee compliance as
illustrated by Adams and Harte (1999) finding that
between 1991 and 1995 only 34% of the top 100
companies complied in full with the only UK mandatory
EO reporting concerning the employment of disabled
persons. (Companies Act ,1985, Sched.7 Para 9).
4
Guidelines are provided on such issues as workforce
consultation and methods for examining Recruitment
and Selection; Promotion, Transfer and Termination;
Training and Development; Work Organisation; Condi-
tions of Service; Arrangement for Dealing with Sex-based
Harassment; and Arrangements for Dealing with Preg-
nancy, Potential Pregnancy and Breastfeeding.
5
The focus on equal pay is important because, as noted
by Rubery (2004) , narrowing gender differences in
human capital characteristics such as education, training
and employment experience, seems to be a necessary but
not sufficient condition for closing the gender pay gap,
and we need also to look at labour markets and wage
structures, and to correct gender differences in returns.
This was also noted by the ILO report ‘Time for Equality
at Work’ (2003), the first global report on the elimination
of discrimination in employment and occupation.
6
The first guidance from the UK government on
HCM reporting.
7
266 companies have responded to improve their
environmental practice, and 47 companies have made
changes to meet new human rights criteria.
8
This involved nearly 200 responses from corporations,
fund managers, non-governmental organisations and
private investors.
9
EIRIS provides the independent research into corpo-
rate behaviour to enable ethical investors (e.g. FTSE 4
Good) to make informed and responsible investment
decisions. It has begun to gather data on the percentage of
women in management compared with their proportion
of the overall workforce. Yet despite having the highest
female workforce participation rate in Europe and high
educational performance, women still comprise only
9.7% of top UK business leaders (EOC, 2004).
10
Women in supply chains also appear to have little
voice in CSR practice (Prieto and Bendell, 2002).
11
See Shapiro (1999).
12
Specifically, this could include recruitment, promo-
tion and talent management, marketing, product design
338 Kate Grosser and Jeremy Moon
and development, women as clients, supplier diversity,
community affairs, CSR, reporting, investor relations,
and corporate governance.
13
Specifically this could reflect best practice in training
and awareness raising, dominant management styles,
networks, role models, work-life balance, leadership and
culture change.
References
AccountAbility: 1999, AccountAbility 1000 (AA1000)
Framework (Accountability, London).
Adams, C. and G. Harte: 1999, Towards Corporate
Accountability for Equal Opportunities Performance (Asso-
ciation of Chartered and Certified Accountants,
London).
Barrientos, V., C. Dolan and A. Tallontire: 2003, ‘A
Gendered Value Chain Approach to Codes of Con-
duct in African Horticulture’, World Development
31(9), 1511–1526.
Beveridge, F., S. Nott, and K. Stephen: 2000, ‘Mains-
treaming and the Engendering of Policy-Making: A
Means to an End? Journal of European Public Policy
7(3).
BITC: 2003, Indicators that Count. Social and Environmental
Indicators – A Model for Reporting Impact (www.bitc.
org.uk).
BITC: 2003a, Business in the Community’s Corporate Respon-
sibility Index 2003, The 2003 Survey (www.bitc.org.uk).
BITC: 2003b, Business in the Community’s Corporate
Responsibility Index 2003, Guidance notes (www.bitc.
org.uk).
BITC: 2004, Companies that Count, Measuring, Managing,
and Reporting Responsible Business Practice (www.bitc.
org.uk).
Borna, S. and White, G.: 2001, ‘‘Sex’’ and ‘‘Gender’’:
Two Confused and Confusing Concepts in the
‘‘Women in Corporate Management’’ Literature’,
Journal of Business Ethics 47(2).
Cabinet Office: 1998, Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment
(http://www.womens-unit.gov.uk/1999/equal/htm).
Calvert (An Ameritas Acacia Company): 2004, The Cal-
vert Women’s Principles: A Global Code of Conduct for
Corporations (Calvert Group, Bethesda, MD).
Carroll, A.: 1999, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility –
Evolution of a Definitional Construct’, Business and
Society 38(3).
Catalyst: 2002, Women in Leadership: A European Business
Imperative (www.catalystwomen.org).
Catalyst: 2004, The Bottom Line: Connecting Corporate
Performance and Gender Diversity (www.catalystwom-
en.org).
Coleman, G.: 2002, ‘Gender, Power and Post-structur-
alism in Corporate Citizenship’ Journal of Corporate
Citizenship 5 (Spring).
Commission of the European Communities: 2002,
Communication from the Commission Concerning Corporate
Social Responsibility: A Business Contribution to Sustain-
able Development (EU Commission, Brussels).
Council of Europe: 1998, Gender Mainstreaming: Con-
ceptual Framework, Methodology and Presentation of Good
Practice. Council of Europe. EG-s-Ms(98) 2 Feb.
Dex, S.: 2004, ‘The Business Case for Family Friendly
Policies’, Paper presented to ESRC Gender Mainstrea-
ming Seminar, DTI, London, February 2004.
Dickens, L.: 1999, ‘Beyond the Business Case: A Three
Pronged Approach to Equality Action’, Human
Resource Management Journal 9 (1).
DTI: 2003, Business Case for Diversity and Equality
(Women and Equality Unit, London).
DTI: 2003a, Improving life at work, advancing women in the
workplace. Good Practice Guide (Women & Equality
Unit, London).
DTI: 2003b, Accounting for People Report (London).
DTI: 2003c, Accounting for People Consultation Paper
(London).
DTI: 2003d, Delivering on Gender Equality, Supporting the
PSA Objective on Gender Equality 2003–2006
(London).
DTI: 2004, Draft Regulations on the Operating and Financial
Review and Director’s Report. A Consultation Document
(London).
DTI: 2004a, Gender Briefing April 2004, (Women and
Equality Unit, London)
DTI 2004b Flexible Working The Business Case. 50
success stories.
EIRIS: 1999, Pensions survey. Pensions and ethical
policies: Summary of findings.
EOC: 2004, Britain’s competitive edge: Women,
Unlocking the potential. Equal Opportunities
Commission.
EOWA: 2004, Compliance Guideline (Equal Opportunities
for Women in the Workplace Agency www.eowa.
gov.au).
Ethical Performance: 2005, ‘Men dominate CSR jobs’ 6 (8).
Friedman, M.: 1970, ‘The Social responsibility of Busi-
ness is to Increase its Profits’, The New York Times
Magazine 13.
FTSE: 2004, The FTSE4Good Criteria Development and
Company Engagement Report (www.ftse.com/ftse4-
good/).
FTSE: 2004a, The FTSE4Good Inclusion Criteria
(www.ftse.com/ftse4good/).
Giscombe, K. and M. Mattis: 2002, ‘Leveling the Playing
Field for Women of Colour in Corporate Manage-
 Gender Mainstreaming and Corporate Social Responsibility
ment: Is the Business Case Enough?’ Journal of Business
Ethics 37 (1).
Great Place to Work Institute, UK, 2004: 2004 UK’s 50
Best Workplaces – Gender.
GRI: 2002, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (Global
Reporting Initiative, Boston).
Hertz, N: 2001, The Silent Takeover (Heinemann, Lon-
don).
Henderson Global Investors: 2002, Socially Responsible
Investment. Closing Britain’s Gender Pay Gap (Hender-
son Global Investors, London).
Henderson Global Investors: 2003, SRI Quarterly, Au-
tumn 2003.
ILO: 2002, Corporate Success Through People: Making the
International Labour Standards Work for You. Rogovsky,
N. and Simms, E. ( ILO Geneva).
Kelly, Liz: 2003, ‘Human Rights and Gender Mains-
treaming’, Paper presented to ESRC Gender Mains-
treaming Seminar, Leeds, 24–5 October 2003.
Kingsmill, D.: 2001, A Review of Women’s Employment and
Pay (Women and Equality Unit, Cabinet Office,
London).
McWilliams, A. and D. Siegel: 2001, ‘Corporate Social
Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective’,
Academy of Management Review 26 (1).
Matten, D., A. Crane, and W. Chapple: 2003, ‘Behind
the Mask: Revealing the True Face of Corporate
Citizenship,’ Journal of Business Ethics 45 (1/2).
Moon, J.: 2002, ‘Business Social Responsibility and New
Governance’ Government and Opposition 37 (3).
Moon, J., A. Crane, and Matten, D.: 2003, ‘Can Cor-
porations be Citizens?’ Business Ethics Quarterly
(forthcoming).
Moon, J.: 2004 ‘Government as a Driver of Corporate Social
Responsibility: The UK in Comparative Perspective’
International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility
Research Papers Paper No. 20 (http://www.notting-
ham.ac.uk/business/ICCSR/index.html).
Monbiot, G.: 2000, Captive State: The Corporate Takeover
of Britain (Macmillan, Basingstoke).
Mosesdottir, L., S. Roivas, K. Reinicke, and B. Thor-
bergsdottir: 2004, The European Employment Strategy
and national employment policies. Addressing the employ-
ment and gender chanllenges of the Knowledge Based Society
(Second report of the EU project ‘‘From welfare to
knowfare. A European approach to employment and
gender mainstreaming in the Knowledge Based Soci-
ety’’ www.bifrost.is/wellknow/Files/Skra_0005517.
pdf)
Ngo, H.-y., S. Foley, A. Wong, and R. Loi: 2003, ‘Who
Gets More of the pie? Predictors of Perceived Gender
Inequity at Work’, Journal of Business Ethics 45 (3)
339
O’Dwyer, B.: 2003, ‘Stakeholder Democracy: Challenges
and Contributions from Accountancy,’ International
Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility Research Papers
No. 18 (http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/IC-
CSR/index.html)
Opportunity Now: 2000, Women in Senior Management in
the UK (London).
Opportunity Now: 2001, Equality and Excellence: the
Business Case (London).
Opportunity Now: 2002, Sticky Floors and Cement Ceilings;
Women in Non-Managerial Roles in the UK (London).
Opportunity Now: 2003, Benchmarking Report 2003
Gender Equality in the Workplace (London).
Opportunity Now: 2004, Benchmarking Report. Diversity at
work: Tracking Progress on Gender (London).
Opportunity Now: 2004a, Diversity Dimensions, Integration
in to Organisational Culture (London).
Opportunity Now and Women’s Aid: 2003, Domestic
Violence and the Workplace. Good practice guide for
employers.
Owen, D.: 2003, ‘Recent Developments in European
Social and Environmental Reporting and Auditing
Practice – A Critical Evaluation and Tentative Prog-
nosis,’ International Centre for Corporate Social Responsi-
bility Research Papers No. 3 (http://www.nottingham.
ac.uk/business/ICCSR/index.html)
Oxfam: 2004, Trading Away Our Rights Women Working in
Global Supply Chains. Oxfam International.
Pollack, M. and E. Hafner-Burton: 2000, ‘Mainstreaming
Gender in the European Union’, Journal of European
Public Policy 7 (3).
Prieto, M. and J. Bendell: 2002, If You Want to Help Us
Then At Least… Start Listening to U:. From Factories and
Plantations in Central America. Women Speak out About
Corporate Social Responsibility (Final report on codes of
conduct to improve the situation women in Southern
Workplaces, for UK Department for International
Development).
Rees, T.: 1998, Mainstreaming Equality in the European
Union, Education, Training and Labour Market Policies
(Routledge, London).
Rees, T.: 2002, ‘The Politics of ‘‘Mainstreaming’’ Gender
Equality’, in Breitenbach et al (eds).
Rees, T.:2004, ‘Reflections on the Uneven Development
of Gender Mainstreaming,’ Paper presented to ESRC
seminar, Gender Mainstreaming: Comparative Analy-
sis. Leeds University, May 2004
Rubery, J.: 1998, Gender Mainstreaming in European
Employment Policy. A Report by the European
Commission’s Group of Experts on Gender and
Employment in the Framework of the Fourth Action
Programme for Equal Opportunities for Women and
340 Kate Grosser and Jeremy Moon
Men. http://www2.umist.ac.uk/management/ewerc/
egge/egge_publications/mainstreaming.pdf
Rubery, J.: 2002, ‘Gender mainstreaming and gender
equality in the EU: the impact of the EU employment
strategy’ Industrial Relations Journal 33 (5).
Rubery, J.: 2003, ‘Gender Mainstreaming and the Open
Method of Coordination: Is the Open Method Too
Open for Gender Equality Policy?’ Paper presented to
ESRC seminar, Gender Mainstreaming: Theoretical
Issues and New Developments, Leeds University,
October 2003. http://www.leit.is/thjonsla/go.aspx
?r=le&url=http://google.com
SAM: 2003, Research Corporate Sustainability Assessment
Questionnaire (Zurich. SAM Research Inc).
Shapiro, G.: 1999, ‘Quality and Equality: Building a Vir-
tuous Circle’, Human Resource Management Journal 9 (1).
Scarbrough, H. and J. Elias: 2002, Evaluating Human
Capital (CIPD).
Singh,V. and S. Vinnicombe: 2003, The Female FTSE
Report (Centre for Developing Women Business
Leaders. Cranfield School of Management).
The Sunday Times: 2004, The Sunday Times 100 Best
Companies to Work for 2004
Vinnicombe, S.: 2004, ‘The Business Case for Women
Directors’, Paper presented to ESRC Gender Mains-
treaming Seminar, DTI London 2004.
Walby. S.: 2002, ‘Feminism in a Global Era’ Economy and
Society 31 (4).
Walby, S.: 2004 ‘Gender Mainstreaming: Productive
Tensions in Theory and Practice’, Paper for ESRC
Gender Mainstreaming seminar, University of Leeds.
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/sociology/people/swdocs/
Gender%20Mainstreaming%20Over view.pdf
International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility,
Nottingham University Business School,
Jubilee Campus,
Wollaton Road,
Nottingham NG8 1BB,
U.K.
E-mail: Jeremy.moon@nottingham.ac.uk