How can family businesses keep themselves from splitting? By separating ownership and management

This article was first published in the Economic Times on March 10, 2021, Co: Author: S.Subramanian;

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/how-can-family-businesses-keep-themselves-from-splitting-by-separating-ownership-and-management/articleshow/81427776.cms 

Affiliation to a business group has many advantages in emerging economies. Access to internal capital, labour and product markets often provide the affiliated firms with competitive advantages in highly competitive markets. Being a part of the same group provides the firms with a common identity, mutual trust in ensuring coordination between the legally independent firms and framing joint-venture norms as in the case of the Tata group. The Tata Group is planning to enter the retail business in a big way, with a super-app, by combining the strengths of various Tata firms like TCS, Cliq, Croma and Trent.

Similarly, the cost of capital is also cheaper for the business group affiliated firms, compared to the standalone firms. One of the mains reasons for the success of Reliance Jio in the telecom business is the access to low-cost capital being a part of Reliance Industries. The access to low-cost capital provides a head-start while entering new ventures or in providing resources to a troubled group firm.

Further, the group firms can always seek proven talent from affiliated firms, immersed in the group’s work culture, to pursue new ventures or resolve problems. When the Murugappa group acquired the troubled CG Power recently, it appointed group veteran Natarajan Srinivasan, a proven talent, as CEO. The appointment was quick, saving valuable time, which otherwise would be spent on a lengthy selection process. Further, he could also quickly tap other proven talent across the group to resolve specific problems at CG Power.

Despite these obvious and proven advantages, why is it that the family business groups split?

Traditionally, in Indian family-controlled business groups, the family members were employed in the group firms at leadership position, by virtue of family membership. This worked well during the license raj era. The competition was limited, and success of the firm depended on the ability to deal with the bureaucracy to a large extent. Being a family member, the executive was able to use the family connections to manoeuvre the bureaucratic maze. The need for family connections to conduct the business to a greater extent worked as the glue that kept the family and the business together, generation after generation. But as the governmental controls came down, the role of connections within the government and bureaucracy started to come down. With increased competition, talent and innovation started to make a difference in the performance of the firm. Thus, it became imperative many family businesses to look outside for fresh ideas and talents to manage the businesses while they remained owners.

Many family businesses continue to appoint their progeny as the successor for the management of the company. All things being equal, it would be the right decision as a family member would bring greater continuity and would be steeped in the values of the family. However, when the next-gen is not the best person to lead the company, either due to lack of capability or willingness, it becomes a disadvantage for the firm and the group at large.

Especially in a business group, the individual capabilities of the family members playing executive role in affiliated group firms and the performance of those firms differ. Differing performances of group firms imply unequal contributions to the business group by the family members. This typically leads to an uncomfortable relationship among family members. This might also become a vicious cycle as the differences between family members may feed on to the poor performance of group firms. Even if all the firms in the group do well, there are often differences between the family members about executive decisions. The differences feed the need for a formal split in the business group.

Many Indian family-owned business groups have undergone split in the last two decades — Thapars, Munjals, Jindals, to name a few. Many of them had family members at the executive positions. Some groups managed the separation seamlessly like the TVS group and RPG group, while many other splits — like Ambanis and Kirloskars — happened after bitter fight among the family members.

We posit that if the advantages of a business group are to be more or less retained, a conscious separation of ownership and management must be made. The family members must restrict themselves to monitoring role (non-executive board positions), leaving the firm management to qualified professional managers. This is not to say that family members should not join the business at all. They should if they are the best talent available to manage the company. There should be a clearly laid out criteria for them to join the business that should be at par with that applicable for a non-family talent pool. Thus, even if the family member occupies executive leadership position, it should be based on merit and experience and not by virtue of being a member of the family. This is easier said than done. However, some business groups, like Aditya Birla group, Burmans and Mahindras have done it successfully, showing the path for other groups.

In the long run, the realization for the need to keep the group together, and subsequent action to keep the ownership separate from the management, will be critical to keep the business group together and reap the benefits of being a business group.

Perspectives on the Banking Dilemma in India: A Q&A with Vivek Kaul

This interview was first published in Risk Intelligence on March 5, 2021; https://www.garp.org/#!/risk-intelligence/credit/counterparty/a1Z1W000005krEZUAY

Recent projections by the Reserve Bank of India confirm that non-performing loans remain a significant hazard for banks. What are the origins of this risk, what’s the connection to COVID-19, and what are the prospects for India’s economic recovery?

Bad loans and deteriorating asset quality continue to plague banks in India. Last September, the gross non-performing assets ratio (GNPA) at Indian banks stood at 7.5%, but that number potentially could double in just a year’s time.

In its recent financial stability report, the Reserve Bank of India estimated that Indian banks’ GNPA ratio could increase to 13.5% under a baseline stress scenario and 14.8% under a severe stress scenario by September 2021. What’s more, for public-sector banks (PSBs), GNPA may rise to nearly 18%.

Vivek Kaul, the author of Bad Money: Inside the NPA Mess and Hot It Threatens the Indian Banking System, is a well-known commentator and podcaster who has written several books on India’s economy. He talked with Risk Intelligence about the NPA dilemma, the impact of COVID-19, default risk, regulatory flaws, and India’s path to economic recovery.

Risk Intelligence (RI): Can you pinpoint the primary reason for the bad debts and non-performing assets (NPAs) in India? Where does the fault actually lie?

Vivek Kaul (VK): If you look at the current phase of bad loans, which have accumulated over the last five years, I think the main reason for that lies in the period pre-2008. Between 2004 and 2006, the Indian economy grew by greater than 9% annually, resulting in a great deal of optimism among the politicians, bankers, businessmen, entrepreneurs and the public, in general. Suddenly, there was this story going around that India will be the next China, which basically meant that since China was growing in double digit rates, India would follow a similar path.

Entrepreneurs and businesses saw an opportunity. They believed that the growth would fuel demand for goods and services. They started to invest in the infrastructure that would drive this growth and fulfill the demand. The data between 2004 and 2008 shows that the loans to industry given by banks in India went through the roof, and that is where it all started:  the belief that India would continue growing at 9%.

RI: In India, the government uses PSBs to increase the money supply in the market. The latest financial stability report of the RBI, released in January 2021, says that the GNPA ratio of PSBs may increase to 17.6%. That number is frightening.

VK: It needs to be mentioned that if you calculate the numbers properly, they are even worse. What has happened is that the categorization of IDBI Bank - which was by far the worst-performing PSB, with a very high NPA of almost 32% - has been changed to that of a private bank. IDBI has NPLs of close to ₹500 billion, but these are now categorized by the RBI as the bad loans of a private bank, rather than a PSB.

Another well-kept secret of banking in India is that once a bad loan has been on the balance sheet of a bank for four years, it can be written off. After that period of time has elapsed, the loans drop from the balance sheet of the bank, reducing the bad-loan numbers for PSBs.

Moreover, Indian banks have a very low recovery rate of bad loans. Once you take these factors into account, it gives an entirely different dimension to the story.

Here’s what will happen: the bad loans that were recognized, let's say, in 2016, 2017, and 2018, will keep getting dropped off from the balance sheet of banks in the next couple of years. This will lead to the bad loans number coming down in the 2020-2021 financials of the banks. But there will also be fresh bad loans, which we will start to see on account of COVID-19.

RI: You mentioned about the mid-2000s and the optimism that followed. But then the global crisis happened in 2008, which led to the optimism not being there. What do you think the spirit of the times now is with the COVID-19 slump and recession? How will it impact the mess further, and what will recovery look like?

VK: This time around, the issue is a little different. Common sense tells us that this time there will be retail defaults, as well corporate defaults, because salaries have been slashed and people have lost jobs. The entire informal sector has seen huge destruction.

The data for listed Indian corporates for the quarter July to September 2020 actually shows that their profits went up, mainly because they have cut down their costs. But when a corporate cuts costs, someone else's income is being impacted.

For example, if you're a corporate who's making profits, and you've managed to cut down on your raw material costs, some supplier somewhere is seeing reduced business.  As a consequence, that supplier is likely doing the same thing with some of its third-party vendors. The impact is felt across the hierarchy, and that’s problematic.

We haven't yet begun to see the impact of this, because there is a case going on in the Supreme Court about whether the interest on loans during the COVID-19 months should be waived. Until that decision arrives, banks are not allowed to recognize defaults as bad loans. So, will we come to know how bad the defaults situation is at PSBs only after the Supreme Court hands down its decision.

It is also important to remember that more than 50% of all retail loans are home loans, and people will try their best to not default on home loans. So, that is a very good thing going for banks. But the other kinds of loans – e.g., credit card debt, personal loans, consumer durable loans and auto loans - will see an uptick in the defaults.

RI: In this case, culture could also play a big role, right?  In the U.S., the subprime crisis was essentially driven by home-loan defaults, but in India, people probably try to hold on to their homes more dearly, correct?

VK: Yes, the stigma of losing your home is huge in India. People will try selling everything, defaulting on everything else before they default on their home loan.

The other good thing is that even if people default, banks may not lose much. The first reason lies in the loan-to-value ratio (LTV). The LTV of entire home-loan business in India is between 65% and 70%, giving some margin to the banks.

What’s more, over and above the registered price of a house, in many parts of the country, there is a so-called “black portion” in mortgages, which gives a bank the right to recover most of the home loan, if defaulted, by selling the house.

RI: You mentioned in your book that there was an era of easy money in the Indian financial system in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2009. Do you predict the same will happen after COVID-19?

VK: That is already happening. The amount of money floating around right now is just humongous.

Banks don't know what to do with it. That is clearly visible in the fact that, one, they’re depositing billions of rupees with the RBI to the reverse-repo window, because they don't have any use for that money.

There is indeed a huge amount of liquidity in the system. Some of this has been driven by the RBI printing money, some of it has been driven by the fact that the psychology of a recession is totally in place.

Even though interest rates are falling, people want to save money with banks as deposits because, as of now, they are more worried about return of capital than return on capital.

People are scared. They have lost jobs, and salaries have been cut. Even for those who have not been economically impacted, the psychology of fear is at play, given that everyone wants to be prepared for a situation where, say, jobs are lost, and they are unable to find new positions.

Businesses are not borrowing, too, because with private consumption coming down, there is no need for businesses to borrow and expand. All these factors have come together, and there is consequently a huge amount of liquidity in the financial system.

RI: What can you say about India's path to economic recovery and the current so-called technical recession that we are in? How does it compare to other countries?

VK: The Indian economy contracted by around 15.7% during the half-year from April to September of 2020. In between April and June, we were right at the bottom. Between July and September, we were in the bottom quartile, though not right at the bottom. There were countries, like Chile and UK, which performed worse than India.

Now, to answer your question about when the economy will recover and when growth will go back into positive territory, there are varying opinions. But what most people are not talking about is the fact that India will not return to its 2019-20 GDP level until either late 2021 or early 2022, at the earliest. By the time we see this return, moreover, we will have lost two years of economic growth.

Another point to keep in mind is that a lot of this economic contraction is not simply because of COVID-19. The economy had been slowing down much before the pandemic struck. Indeed, if you look closely at the data between October and December 2019, India grew by just 4%. So, issues which were plaguing the Indian economy, even pre-pandemic, will now only get worse.

For example, the investment-to-GDP ratio has been falling in India since 2012, and that is not going to improve anytime soon. A lot of growth that is happening, or will happen, is basically jobless growth.

The rate of unemployment has been coming down, but how that rate is coming down is very interesting. It is because the labor force participation rate - proportion of the population that is looking for jobs - is also declining.

What that means is that many people who have been unable to find jobs have stopped looking for a job, and, hence, have dropped out of the labor force. This is a very worrying trend, because India anyway has a low labor force participation rate (especially among women), and I think this will only get worse post-pandemic.

The growth will eventually come back. For an economy of India’s size, people will eventually consume and spend money, and we can debate about t when this will happen. But long-term growth prospects of India have now, I think, been hurt, and all the talk of 8%-9% growth is overly optimistic. At this stage, even a 6% growth rate will be brilliant for India.

Lessons from TVS Group rejig: Towards filling each other’s cup but not drinking from the same cup

This article was first published in the Economic Times, January 18, 2021, Co-author: S. Subramanian; https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/lessons-from-tvs-group-rejig-towards-filling-each-others-cup-but-not-drinking-from-the-same-cup/articleshow/80322258.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

The announcement by the TVS group to rejig its ownership structure nudged us to examine the changing weave structure of business groups in India. Business groups are an integral part of the social and economic fabric of emerging economies. Their ubiquity suggests their continued relevance and impact on the economy. They are here to stay but are we seeing the beginning of a change in the form in which they have traditionally existed in India?

In a highly cited research paper published in the Journal of Finance in the year 2000, Harvard Business School professors Tarun Khanna and Krishna Palepu wrote, “the most diversified business groups add value by replicating the functions of institutions that are missing in this emerging market [India]. These institutional voids make it costly for individual firms to deal with product, capital, and labour markets because of information problems, imperfect contract enforcement, inability to enforce property rights, and flawed regulatory structures.” As such, it is argued that affiliation to a business group enables a firm to reduce the negative effects associated with weak institutional setups of emerging markets such as India.

In India, business groups also emerged as a tool to diversify into different businesses and set up multiple companies to overcome a few of the license-quota-permit raj challenges. Affiliated firms benefited from the reputation, political and bureaucratic connections, internal lending mechanisms, access to scarce resources, synergies, and economies of scale of the business group. Business families exercised substantive administrative control over the group firms, often ensuring that the whole (group) was greater than the sum of its parts (affiliated firms).

There have been apprehensions, however, about the functioning of the business groups, especially inefficient allocation of valuable group resources, poor reporting, transparency, and governance. In recent years, high profile corporate misadventures such as the Satyam scam where the promoter pledged the shares of Satyam to fund the operations of another group firm, Maytas; unravelling of the Zee group; fund diversions at Fortis-Religare group; group level governance opacity suggested by the exit of Cyrus Mistry from the Tata group; have pointed towards the agency costs associated with the business group structure. However, there seems to be a consensus that business groups have a net positive impact on the economy as well as the affiliated firms.

Since 1991, the Indian economy witnessed several policy reforms aimed at opening up of the economy. It resulted in concentrated efforts to improve the institutional mechanisms. Legal and regulatory reforms with respect to financial markets and efforts towards ease of doing business hint at the impending weaning away of the “filling institutional voids” advantages associated with business groups in the long run. Does this mean that business groups would eventually disappear in India? Evidence from the developed economies with limited institutional voids suggests otherwise. Business groups are thriving in Japan (ex. Mitsubishi group), South Korea (LG group), and Hong Kong (Jardine Matheson). We believe that they will continue to remain relevant in India too though with renewed contours.

Consider for example, the situation when units of a family have crossholdings in the group companies even though each unit may manage just one company. The ultimate benefit due to a family unit from the company that it manages may not be in congruence. The synchronizing of ownership at the TVS group suggests an attempt to simplify the ownership structure at the group level and doing away with crossholdings. It also points towards a greater alignment of interests between the owners and managers. Over time, the influence of a unit of the family over the companies managed by other units of the family may come down.

The family would need to keep in mind the ties that bind them, even as each unit claims greater independence. Common traditions, social practices, and collective identity should be strengthened further and capitalized on. Maintaining familial togetherness, despite being separate, will be the key to continuing to support each other when in need. Formal efforts towards sharing of learnings, goals and gaps in resources would be needed to ensure greater family awareness (as opposed to involvement) and thereby timely pooling of resources when needed by any one unit. Similarly, efforts to evolve a sense of belongingness amongst the different units of the family and the stakeholders of each of them will need to be undertaken.

As such, we might see the emergence of “family groups” separate from “business groups”. Where, the broad family is together, but businesses are separate. Where the purpose is not to fill institutional voids, but to “fill each other's cup but drink not from one cup”, as Kahili Gibran would have put it.

A generational shift in purpose and influence

Women constitute 18 percent of family business leaders globally. The highest percentage belonging to family businesses in Europe and Central Asia. Traditionally, women have been relegated to “invisible” role in the family businesses in administrative duties, or as informal advisors or to exclusively managing the household. However, the role of women in family business has been evolving over the last few decades.

The STEP Project Global Consortium and KPMG Private Enterprise surveyed over 1,800 family businesses from 33 countries across the globe, to reflect upon how demographic shifts are changing the role of women in family businesses – the value that women contribute, the various forms of influence they may have on the success of their businesses and the families and the unique competitive advantages they can deliver. Thomas Schmidheiny Centre for Family Enterprise, Indian School of Business being the only member from India conducted the survey in India with responses from 53 companies across both manufacturing and services sectors.

The report finds that women in family businesses are slowly breaking the stereotype and engendering greater diversity at the workplace. Though women continue to face the dilemma and role conflict, they are equipping themselves to balance the obligations at work and at home. “Both men and women contribute to gender stereotyping and hence they need to work together and clearly define the roles, responsibilities and communicate to all stakeholders”, said Dr. Nupur Pavan Bang. “Organizational practices and policies are required that promote fairness and minimize bias”, she further adds. Some of the salient findings of the report are: 

Emerging from the shadows: Women are now equipped with the required education and training and actively taking up positions of power, authority, and decision-making roles in the family business. They are taking up leadership positions in the so-called masculine industries such as manufacturing, mining, and construction. 

The ‘hidden’ CEO: The societal and cultural bias have women play the role of a chief emotional officer. They are required to nurture and take care of the emotional needs of the family, keeping the family together and perpetuating the family’s values and traditions across generations. Instinctively, these unique characteristics make women holistic leaders with unique management styles and are an asset to the organization. 

Redefining “women’s work”: Women in family businesses, especially Millennials, are breaking down the barriers and redefining how women in non-traditional businesses are perceived. Many highly competent women leaders are successfully managing their family businesses in male-dominated industries such as steel and scrap-metal processing, cement manufacturing and the production of hardware products. They have the knowledge, experience and skills in their business and are valued and respected by the employees and customers. 

Transformational power of women: Though women continue to face role conflicts, they are able to balance the need at the workplace and at home. They have sophisticated and transformational leadership style, judgement, and unique outlook. 

Succession by merit: Traditionally in family businesses, succession is based on primogeniture, which discourages women to consider professional careers in their family’s business. However, certain country level rules such as gender equality movements and one-child policy in China have given women better access to resources. Family firms’ decision on succession are increasingly being driven on merit and capability instead of gender. 

Societal change and family business leadership: There has been a push from governments around the world to address the issue of under-representation of women in business. For example, In India, the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 conferred property rights to daughters (married or unmarried) and granted them equal rights as the sons. Also, the mandatory gender quota for women on corporate boards introduced by the Companies Act (2013) prompted family firms to have higher percentage of women representation on the boards as compared to non-family firms. However, most of the family business leaders believe that quotas are not the answer and only help to generate awareness of the existing bias. 

Outdated mindsets: Women in family businesses can bring about the change in organization and society and help mentor, guide, and develop the pipeline for future women leaders. 

The findings of the survey are relevant to the family businesses in India too. Women in Indian family businesses have been breaking the various cultural and societal biases and perpetuating the businesses to new frontiers. Yet, in India, female participation in work force is decreasing and is one of the lowest in the world. India is placed at 95 out of the 129 member countries in the UN SDG gender index score and is ranked below the global average on gender equality. Women in family businesses are well placed to lead the way to bring about greater gender parity, offer and create opportunities for other women too. 

The editorial team behind the report comprised of Dr. Nupur Pavan Bang and Yashodhara Basuthakur (Thomas Schmidheiny Centre for Family Enterprise, Indian School of Business), Andrea Calabrò, (STEP Global Academic Director & IPAG Family Business Institute, IPAG Business School), Mary Jo Fedy, Karmen Yeung and Tom McGinness (KPMG) amongst others.

Ideals of Diversity and Inclusion Confront Pressures of the Pandemic

This article was first published in the Risk Intelligence, GARP, October 09, 2020; Co-author- Sai Nitya Bodavala

https://www.garp.org/?gclid=CjwKCAiAnIT9BRAmEiwANaoE1X4rhFetaNK1DLTbwhctSbYRfytVuS2XlAAat-3d08bCZpDi59HqLxoChLMQAvD_BwE#!/risk-intelligence/culture-governance/conduct-ethics/a1Z1W000005jKKbUAM

The economic downturn is a stress test for a pillar of ESG policy and analysis

In a 2015 report, The Power of Parity, McKinsey & Co. concluded that if women fully participated in the world economy, global GDP would increase $28 trillion by 2025. India alone could account for $770 billion of that amount.

In the United States, according to a recent study by Citi, racial inequality cost the economy as much as $16 trillion over a 20-year period.

The benefits of gender and racial equality – the diversity and inclusion objectives now embraced by much of the corporate world – are more and more evident. The tide rose and prosperity spread during years of economic growth. Will the pandemic-constrained economy put these gains and commitments at risk?

“The global pandemic has certainly brought to light a renewed focus on diversity and inclusion, reinforcing the reality that we are all in this together,” Debra Walton, chief revenue officer of Refinitiv, said in September when the financial data and technology company released its annual Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) Index.

Those advocating greater representation of women in executive suites were heartened when Citigroup – which ranks 60th on the D&I Index top 100 – designated Jane Fraser as its next CEO, effective in February.

Ranking	Company	Overall Score
1	BlackRock, Inc.	81
2	Natura & Co Holding SA	80.25
3	Accenture Plc	80
4	Royal Bank of Canada	79
5	Industria de Diseno Textil SA	78.5
6	L'Oreal SA	78
7	Allianz SE	77.75
8	Telecom Italia SpA	77.75
9	Novartis AG	77.5
10	Bank of Nova Scotia	77.25

“The global pandemic and social unrest this year has reinforced the focus on diversity and inclusion in the workplace coming from different business stakeholder groups,” said Elena Philipova, global head of ESG at Refinitiv. The D&I Index, now in its fifth year, based on hundreds of environmental, social and governance data points and topped by asset management giant BlackRock, “emphasizes the critical importance for companies to commit to, measure and report on their diversity journey beyond gender. Sustainable and resilient workforce is the fuel for businesses especially during volatile times.”

Gaps Remain

And yet, only 37 of the Fortune 500 corporations are led by women, and minorities remain significantly under-represented on corporate boards, according to an Institutional Shareholder Services ESG analysis reported in the New York Times. 

Those boards must contend with the reality, as expressed in a Bloomberg Professional Services blog article last year, that “companies that do not evolve with the times, embody the principles of their target markets and implement clear diversity initiatives will quickly find themselves struggling to retain clients – especially in light of the wealth transfer to the millennial generation that is expected in the next five to ten years.”

In support of women, companies have altered workspaces to be more accommodative to breastfeeding mothers, implemented leadership development programs, and encouraged women to enter into traditionally male sectors such as manufacturing. 

For When Women Thrive, Businesses Thrive, Mercer analyzed workforce gender equality in multiple industries and geographies. “The overall representation of women at an average organization is 47% across all functions and career levels,” Mercer senior consultant Ayçe Nisancioglu writes. “Women comprise 58% of support staff and 21% of executives. Among [126] financial services organizations participating in the survey, there are fewer women compared to men entering the workforce, and women are hired at lower rates compared to men in all levels, except the senior manager level.” 

Internal Labor Market Map on Financial Services Organizations

Source: Mercer

Job Loss

Historically, in economic downturns, men's jobs have been more at risk than women's, owing to men's greater representation in sectors such as manufacturing. In the recession of 2007-'09, 5.5 million men lost their jobs, versus 2.5 million women. Sectors hit hardest by COVID-19 – leisure and hospitality, health and education, and retail trade sectors – have a disproportionately high number of female employees, making them 1.8 times more likely than men to lose their jobs,” McKinsey says.

An analysis by Ashoka University economics professor Ashwini Deshpande found that in India, men lost 100 million jobs in April 2020, as opposed to 17 million women. However, absolute numbers can be deceiving. When compared to March-April of 2019, 29% of men reported a loss in employment in April 2020, women 39%. The pandemic has left a larger percentage of women unemployed.

In India's informal sector, in 2017-18, 4.9 million domestic workers were considered regular but unprotected, two-thirds of them women. Current social distancing norms disallow these women from working, meaning that if they were the sole earners in their family, they have no source of steady income. Even in those sectors where working from home is a possibility, women face considerable difficulties. 

Childcare and Chores

The advances of women in the corporate world, and into jobs that were traditionally male, has contributed to a redefinition of conventional gender roles. The expectation that women must still manage their household has not abated, however. Working women have had to devise ways to manage their work, their home lives, and raise their children. Having different physical spaces – home and office – can be helpful for balancing these activities. The pandemic has upended this idea entirely. 

The closure of schools and offices forces all family members to stay at home and figure out a new dynamic. With parents working from home and having to care for children with little to no chance of getting additional help, women seen a regression in role expectations. An OECD report found that women in India on average spend six hours a day on unpaid care work, while men spend 36 minutes on the same. 

In the context of the pandemic, a Boston Consulting Group study of working parents in the U.K., U.S., France, Germany and Italy found that women are currently spending 15 more hours on household and childcare activities per week than men. The results are reinforced by Cambridge-INET Institute in Inequality in the Impact of the Coronavirus Shock: Evidence from Real-Time Surveys. 

“When men went to war in times when conquest and bravery were the proud badges to wear, women stepped up and supported the soldier in every way they could,” said an Economic Times article. “The working woman has been largely lonely in contrast, in a society that still can't see women as holding important positions at work that cannot be compromised.” It seems to be accepted now that when push comes to shove and a choice must be made about whose job is more important, the woman's job takes a back seat, and she is duty-bound to take household responsibilities. If support systems – extended family, household help, day-care centers – crumble, so may women's professional prospects. 

Waning Productivity

The amount of time that women are spending on unpaid care work cuts into what they can devote to their jobs. A study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in the U.K. found that “mothers are doing paid work during 2 fewer hours of the day than fathers, but they do childcare and housework during 2 more hours each. Mothers combine paid work with other activities (almost always childcare) in 47% of their work hours, compared with 30% of fathers' work hours.” 

A report published in Nature said the number of hours that female academics were able to dedicate to research during the pandemic has come down significantly. This was, again, owing to the increased time spent on childcare and housework. Such impacts could set back the cause of women for future generations.

The U.S. employment report for September 2020 showed the percentage of women working or actively looking for work was 55.6%, the lowest since 1987 (with the exception of last April and May). “We know that women leaving the workforce to care for children for a while has lasting effects on their earnings, their seniority and their climb up the ladder,” Julia Pollak, a labor economist with the career site ZipRecruiter, told the New York Times. 

Digitization and Credit

Some of the touted benefits of digitizing the workplace are heightened efficiency, greater flexibility, faster implementation and the like. But how does the digitization benefit women? 

A lot of small-scale female entrepreneurs in services such as salons, food catering and boutiques have lost their livelihoods due to the pandemic. The impact of digitization is questionable. 

However, should the digitization within these sectors be designed in such a way that it increases access to formal credit for these women, it may be beneficial. Currently, small-scale women entrepreneurs have a tough time accessing loans to fund their enterprises, but digitizing their banking and simplifying the credit process may ultimately help then to revive their businesses. 

For women working in sectors where digitization is possible, perhaps more research needs to be done to determine mental health effects. Working from home has brought om feelings of isolation and depression. Although work-from-home is intended to offer more flexibility, it could also be argued that the workday for women never seems to end, and there is no clearly defined line between work and home life. 

Sustain the Commitment

COVID-19 has brought about unforeseen changes in the lives of everyone, forcing adaptation to a “new normal.” Still unresolved is the question of who bears the brunt of this adjustment. 

Despite all the strides toward gender equality, there has also been a reversion to conventional roles that may set women back by a decade or two. Avoiding this dismal outcome will require a policy response by governments and companies. Writes Bloomberg Opinion columnist Elisa Martinuzzi, “As governments shift from handing out financial lifelines to restarting and rethinking their economies, they could tie aid to goals of sustainability, such as improving the balance of women in companies' leadership.” 

Diversity and inclusion efforts can suffer when survival is at stake. Ian Cook, vice president of data analytics company Visier, argues that D&I must be strongly embedded in decision-making processes so that companies remain true to their values and uphold commitments that they have made to their employees, especially during a time of crisis. And this is sure to reward them in the long run. 

“Make sure that inclusion is a core value of the organization – not just something you do to ‘check a box,’” leaders of the Center for Talent Innovation (CTI) and Center for Workforce Excellence wrote in Harvard Business Review. “For instance, when CTI's CEO Pat Fili-Krushel was head of HR at Time Warner, they instituted a tracking and reporting system to measure progress against the diversity and inclusion goals for each division. Leaders were held accountable with 10% of their bonuses tied to their goals.” 

This is the 21st century. It is a shame that many women still have to explain equality to men. While ways of nature cannot be questioned or undone, in most other areas, let merit alone be the deciding factor. Society and culture change when people want them to change. And this change cannot be brought about by just women. Men must equally participate in bringing about the change that is on their lips, but not always in their actions (– well, for most. Not all).