Sexism is not Glencore's worst problem

By THIS IS MONEY
Updated: 06:05 EDT, 26 April 2011

Say what you like about Simon Murray, the veteran Hong Kong entrepreneur appointed to chair Glencore, but he cannot be accused of dullness.

The choice of a 71-year-old polar adventurer and former French Foreign Legionnaire as chairman of Glencore, the controversial commodity trading giant floating on the London stock market next month, always promised to be entertaining and so it has proved.

Murray created a furore with his views on women in the boardroom, making it clear he wouldn't be rushing to recruit any.

This isn't shocking – plenty of gentleman of Murray's vintage think 'pregnant ladies' are a nuisance because they 'have nine months off'.

What is shocking is that – rather like Andy Gray and Richard Keys, the football commentators who got themselves into hot water for mocking a female assistant referee – he was oblivious to the fact it is now considered unacceptable to say such things out loud.

His remarks on women are actually mild by industry standards.

He could pass for a radical feminist next to Graham Boustred, the former deputy chairman of Anglo American.

A couple of years ago Boustred tried to slur Anglo's chief executive Cynthia Carroll, with the vile suggestion that female directors were ineffective because they were sexually frustrated – unlike male bosses, who could always resort to call girls.

So one must not expect too much. Murray's original unscripted remarks had the authentic flavour of an ageing expat holding forth over a pink gin.

His less-than-convincing apology – in which he spouted about how businesses that fail to address the under-representation of women will be at a competitive disadvantage – exuded the unmistakeable whiff of the PR man.

To be fair, even the most ardent campaigner for female representation would hardly expect Glencore's board to be stuffed to the gills with women, given the nature of its business.

The whole episode would be a bit of a sideshow were it not for the fact it highlights Glencore's lack of concern, or even awareness, of UK corporate governance sensibilities.

It is astonishing that the chairman of a company of this size was so blissfully unconscious that it is de rigueur for chairmen these days to pay lip service to women on the board and that to do otherwise will create a stink.

But even more worrying than the spat about sexism is Murray's account of his appointment. He recounts how he was approached only a month ago about the job by his pal Nat Rothschild, the banking heir and also a friend of Glencore's chief executive, Ivan Glasenberg.

The orthodox route to finding a chairman is to hire expert search consultants, who will conduct an exhaustive trawl of suitable candidates in a process that could take many months.

It is not usual practice for one chum to hire another at the last minute, still less to talk openly about the machinations of the old-boy network.

It is intriguing to think of Nat Rothschild, the multi-millionaire scion of the banking dynasty, acting as an elevated species of errand boy.

Perhaps he was happy to play the go-between because his association with Glasenberg promises to be very rewarding: in the float, Rothschild stands to double his money on a £25m investment in 2009 in Glencore bonds, which were made available only to a select few investors.

And Murray is not the only friend of Nat to grace Glencore's board. Tony Hayward, the BP chief executive who presided over the Deepwater Horizon fiasco, is to be senior independent director. Investors, however, might ask precisely what the word 'independent' means in this context.

Simon Murray's views on women may be questionable, but his assertion that Glencore has no questions to answer on corporate governance defies credence.

We should be grateful to him for sharing his insights into the company's thinking on boardroom behaviour, since his handlers will no doubt be keen to muzzle him from now on.