Growth without inclusion at the top

This article is authored by Arati Porwal, senior country head-India, CFA Institute.

Corporate India’s gender gap is not a pipeline problem. It is a design flaw. India is not short of capable women. That argument no longer holds. India stands at an economic inflection point. Market capitalisation has surged, companies are expanding, and corporate India is increasingly aligned with global sustainability norms. Yet, a recent analysis of 300 listed companies, covering more than three-quarters of India’s market capitalisation, reveals a sobering truth: Growth has not translated into gender inclusion, especially at the top

Gender Equality. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

Across universities, classrooms are filled with women who are not only participating but excelling. Nearly half of all higher education enrolments today are women, and in STEMM fields, they account for 43%. These are not symbolic gains. They represent a generation entering the workforce with skills, ambition, and a clear sense of purpose.

And yet, as these women move into corporate India, something begins to shift.

Not immediately, not visibly, but steadily. Careers stall, opportunities narrow, and over time, fewer women remain in positions where decisions are made.

The gap is not at entry. It emerges along the way.

Corporate India is expanding. Workforces are growing, sectors are evolving, and companies are hiring at scale.

But growth has not translated into inclusion.

There is a tendency to assume that time will correct this imbalance. That as more women enter the workforce, representation will improve organically.

The data suggests otherwise. Without intent, growth simply reinforces existing patterns.

The most telling evidence lies at the top.

Women continue to occupy only about 18 to 19% of board positions. Among key managerial personnel, the gap is even more pronounced, with fewer than one woman for every seven men. In a majority of companies, there are no women in these roles at all.

This is often described as a pipeline issue. It is not.

Women are entering organisations in significant numbers. What is missing is continuity. The system does not support their progression at the same pace or scale.

The result is a thinning pipeline, not at the start, but in the middle. By the time leadership roles are in view, too few women remain. Women account for between 18 and 19% of board seats and barely 12% of key managerial personnel (KMP) positions. For every seven male KMP, there is less than one female counterpart. Almost two-thirds of the sample companies have no female KMP at all. The data show that women are entering the workforce but are not rising proportionately into decision-making roles. Representation among KMP improved only marginally from 11.1% to 12.4% over three years, hardly the pace required to change outcomes.

If representation is uneven, remuneration is starker.

Male directors earned 3.6 times the remuneration of female directors in FY 2024–25, up from 2.9 times three years earlier. At the KMP level, male executives earned 70% more than female KMP in FY 2024–25, although this gap has narrowed from over 100 percent in FY 2022–23 .

By contrast, at employee and worker levels, gender pay ratios are far closer to parity, though even here the ratios have slipped.

Compensation is often treated as a technical matter, shaped by roles, tenure, and performance.

But it also reflects organisational belief systems.

When women consistently see lower financial recognition at senior levels, it shapes expectations. It influences whether they stay invested in long-term career growth or begin to recalibrate their ambitions.

Parity at entry means little if inequality defines the top.

Not all industries tell the same story, and this contrast is instructive.

Sectors such as information technology and financial services have made visible progress, with women comprising between 23% and 34% of the workforce. These sectors have, to an extent, adapted to new workforce realities.

In contrast, sectors like energy, materials, and utilities continue to see female participation in the range of 4% to 6%.

These differences are often attributed to the nature of work. But that explanation is only partial. Where progress has occurred, it has been driven by conscious structural shifts in hiring, retention, and workplace design.

Where it has not, legacy systems continue to dominate. SEBI’s Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) framework has significantly improved corporate disclosure, but the next phase must focus on comparability and actionable insights. Standardising KMP definitions, introducing role-level workforce and remuneration disclosures, and moving beyond generic diversity statements towards measurable metrics such as promotion rates, retention gaps, and succession planning indicators would strengthen transparency and enable more meaningful benchmarking.

Most organisations today do not see themselves as exclusionary. Policies are in place, diversity is acknowledged, and intent is often genuine.

But the barriers that matter now are rarely explicit.

They are embedded in everyday processes. In how performance is assessed, often rewarding visibility over impact. In who is mentored and sponsored. In how leadership potential is defined, frequently in ways that mirror existing leadership.

They are reinforced in career paths that assume uninterrupted trajectories, leaving little room for deviation without penalty.

In this context, the issue is not whether companies discriminate. It is whether their systems are designed to produce equitable outcomes.

At present, they are not.

This is why gender parity cannot be treated as a standalone diversity effort.

It is, fundamentally, a question of organisational design.

When women enter in large numbers but do not rise proportionately, it reflects a structural imbalance shaped by culture, incentives, and accountability.

Organisations measure what they prioritise. And too often, gender equity is not measured with the same rigour as growth or performance.

That needs to change.

Companies must look beyond hiring targets and examine leadership pipelines with equal seriousness. They need to make pay disparities visible and explain them with transparency. They must track mid-career attrition and understand why women leave or are left behind.

Equally, there is a need for greater consistency in how senior roles are defined and reported. Without clarity, accountability remains diluted.

Most importantly, leadership must own the outcome.

India is doing its part. It is educating women, equipping them, and preparing them to participate fully in the economy.

The question is whether its workplaces are evolving at the same pace.

Because the gender gap we see today is not a reflection of women’s capabilities. It is a reflection of how organisations continue to be structured.

And until that structure is reimagined, the gap will remain.

Not just in numbers, but in leadership, opportunity, and the future of work itself.

(The views expressed are personal)

This article is authored by Arati Porwal, senior country head-India, CFA Institute.