This article first appeared on Diligent Market Intelligence's Voting newswire. To register for a demonstration and trial of the product, click here.
Men continue to dominate positions of power in U.S. boardrooms, and the gender gap is now widening at a pace that has surpassed many other key global markets. Across U.S.-listed companies overall, women hold just under 27% of directorships, compared with 32% in Canada, 31% in the U.K., 33% in Germany and almost 44% in France, leaving U.S. boards the most gender-imbalanced among their global peers. The situation is slightly better at more prominent U.S. companies, however. Women now hold around a third of seats at the S&P 500 and 30% at Russell 3000 companies, Diligent Market Intelligence Governance data show. But recent director appointment trends suggest this imbalance is becoming even more entrenched. Women directors represented just over 22% of new appointments to U.S. company boards in the first quarter of 2026, down from just over 30% in 2023 and around 25% last year. Leadership roles Women are even scarcer in roles that concentrate authority, occupying fewer than one in 10 CEO positions and about one in nine board chair functions at the S&P 500. At the Russell 3000, the ratio stands at about one in 13 CEOs and fewer than one in 10 board chairs. Patricia Lenkov, managing partner at Agility Executive Search, said the distinction between presence and influence is critical. “Putting women in the boardroom is step one,” she said. “Step two is putting them into leadership roles — chair, lead independent director, audit chair. Once women start occupying those roles, diversity tends to become self-perpetuating.” Jonathan Foster, managing director of Current Capital Partners and a director at Amcor, Five Point and Lear, attributed part of the disparity to historic, entrenched recruitment norms. “Historically, boards were sort of a club,” he told DMI. “If the early members of the club were largely white males, and they were, they were probably going to recruit people who looked a lot like them.” For much of the past decade, pressure from large asset managers, proxy advisors and, in some cases, state-level legislation helped narrow the gender gap. “When the Big Three index funds say they expect a certain number of women, it’s going to happen,” Foster noted. However, more recent years have seen that momentum slow considerably as the regulatory and political environment has turned more hostile to overt diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Executive orders targeting DEI programs under the Trump administration, along with subsequent changes to voting policies from proxy advisors and major asset managers have changed the goalposts and the conversation around board composition. Building the pipeline As expectations evolve, boards are increasingly framing diversity as part of a wider succession and skills issue, rather than a standalone objective. Both Foster and Lenkov cautioned against rigid numerical mandates. “Requiring a certain percentage is not the way to solve the problem,” Foster said. “The way to solve the problem is to build the funnel of potential directors.” In practice, that funnel begins below board level, according to industry sources who spoke to DMI. While directors are “very visible” because their pictures appear in the proxy statement, Foster noted that “there are more white males in the senior leadership team by far than any other type of background,” which ultimately shapes the pool of potential directors. Lenkov similarly observed that “historically…board roles have only really been chief executive officers and chief financial officers” and that “women have not been in senior leadership roles, so there has been a pipeline issue,” particularly in senior, profit-and-loss-owning positions that have traditionally been the main feeders into board and committee leadership. Challenging the status quo As issuers plan future board refreshments, advisors note that investors continue to recognize that diverse groups make better decisions. "Astute investors understand and adhere to corporate governance best practices. They also recognize the value that diversity brings to decision-making," said Lenkov. "A core part of many activist theses focuses on improving boards that have become outdated and populated by directors whose backgrounds no longer align with the company’s current challenges and opportunities. Executing that vision requires challenging the status quo, identifying directors with the requisite experience and perspective, and not simply relying on individuals already known within existing board networks."
