• +6012-6268490
  • hey@thegblog.org

Economics

Leaning In to the Patriarchy?

thegblogteam No Comments

There are a lot of universal truths in Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s brand of feminism for the working woman, #LeanIn. In 2013, she published a book called Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead’ that asks women to “sit at the table”, or “lean in.” She laid bare the hard-hitting truth that women are socialized into being less successful at work through the effects of gender-normative behaviour.

Lean In highlighted the troubling leadership ambition gap between the sexes. Unmistakably, this gap manifests when women learn that they are being socially taxed for displaying the same “bossy” traits that men do in order to get ahead in the workplace. In response, Sandberg asks that we “lean in” by being more assertive, and to move towards a leading, rather than a following, role. With her establishment of Lean In circles, perhaps Sandberg’s biggest contribution is that she has empowered many women to admit that they want career success and helped them build the confidence that it takes to get there.

At a time when feminist discourse is not popular, Lean In has dominated the bestseller charts worldwide and made subtle gender discrimination within the workplace far more visible. With her easygoing, agreeable nature and her commitment towards being both a business leader and a full-time mother, Sandberg singlehandedly humanized the image of the “boss lady” who is stereotypically perceived to be an emotionally barren, unmarried, and unforgiving woman. With over 21,000 Lean In circles across 97 countries, Lean In feminism has taken off and soared amongst a following of quintessential 21st century working women. Oprah Winfrey goes as far as to dub Sandberg as “the new voice of revolutionary feminism.”

 

Image via Huffington Post

 

Aside from Sandberg’s palpable role model effect, perhaps the reason why Lean In resonates so well with the current generation is because it places the autonomy back in the hands of women, and gives them assurance that they could change their own fate. Lean In asks women to question their internalized sexism and modify their own behavior to adapt to the system. It doesn’t ask of them to dismantle the patriarchy that entraps them, nor its capitalistic structure that further ensnares them in their own oppression.

It is telling that the definition of feminism within Lean In begins and ends with achieving gender equality within the system. We need not challenge the structures of the imperialist, racist, capitalist patriarchy we live in; instead, we feed into it.

While the impact of Lean In, as well as Sandberg herself, has been positively admirable, as a feminist blueprint it is deeply flawed. As a self-proclaimed feminist manifesto, its approach makes it seem as if women’s lack of endurance and adaptability were the problem, rather than the systemic inequality. Structural barriers to access equal opportunities do not just disappear when women set their minds to do something with gusto.

It is rarely the case that privileged men within the system will merrily extend the benefits of corporate capitalism to women if only they had the determination to “lean in”.

For every Sheryl Sandberg, we have an Ellen Pao who leaned in, played by the rules of the system and ended up losing a gender discrimination suit against her Silicon Valley firm. So, as far as being a model for gender equality, Lean In is a small patchwork on a disintegrating quilt.

 

Image via Wall Street Journal

 

What is also glaring about advising “all women” to work within the confines of capitalism is that this is a platform that best serves privileged women, who often experience more solidarity with privileged men, than they do with poor women or women of colour.  With a personal worth just shy of USD 1 billion, two Harvard degrees and having been declared by Forbes as the fifth most powerful woman in the world, Sandberg’s approach to workplace empowerment is decidedly privileged as well.

She is privileged enough to be able to successfully negotiate her paid maternity leave plan, a closer parking spot and better working hours by leaning in. Women in low-income professions simply do not have the bargaining power that a corporate executive may hold with their superiors. OECD reports that 73.8% of the Malaysian workforce is composed of low-skilled labour and with female labour participation at only 53.6%, the majority of female workers would not be able to access such workplace benefits by leaning in.

Sandberg is also privileged enough to have had a supportive spouse who was willing to share the household work and the raising of their children (up until his untimely passing a few years ago). Findings from research up to the year 2000 show that almost 1 million families in Malaysia are being raised by single mothers who cannot access that same support structure. In fact, many women with spouses still do not have the privilege of support; the Malaysia Human Development 2013 report evidenced that most women had to quit their jobs in order to take care of their children and household.

Understandably, the under-representation of women in any sector is still a feminist issue. But to the extent that the solution fuels a capitalistic structure that sustains gender inequality in other ways, Lean In bolsters the patriarchal design.

 

Image via ABC News

 

Women are far more likely to have household responsibilities than men, but those work will never be compensated in a capitalistic free market. Women are overrepresented in low-paid service industries. Women are more likely to have financial dependants which curbs their ability to pursue educational and skills enrichment for career advancement. Women are more likely to be unemployed altogether and to be fully reliant on social security. Thus, to focus on the plight of wealthy, employed women within the capitalistic structure would not only be short-sighted, it subverts feminist goals by marketing a false sense of equality through abolishing the glass ceiling for women at the very top of their careers.

On top of that, a capitalist feminism pushes for a class bias that does not reflect the diversity of female aspirations in society, nor does it address the sexist attitudes displayed in the everyday treatment of female colleagues in ways that are not reflected by the pay gap.

While Lean In does speak to its male readers by asking fathers to take a bigger role in their home life, at no point does it offer men any admonition on how to unlearn their sexist thinking within the workplace.

The problem with gender prejudice is that it is normalized into one’s subconscious; that without active self-interrogation of one’s decisions, or having their privilege called out by a third party or through structural reform, it goes unchecked. That sexism trickles down to hiring processes, performance assessments, job promotions and the granting of valuable opportunities in the workplace. Lamenting for women to try harder in a system that systematically disadvantages them might be a pragmatic move, but with trifling payoff and a demoralizing milieu.

To lean in is perfectly rational. It pursues self-advancement in a way that is appealing, commonsensical and practicable. But what’s necessary is never easy. The social, political, and economic solution for gender equality has to rest on the elevation of all women through the dismantling of the patriarchy. What will make things easier for all women will remove the structural barriers for each individual woman. But the reverse is not true: what makes life easier for one individual woman will not necessarily make things easier for women at large. Instead, by leaning into the patriarchy, we may end up making it harder for others to revolt against it.

 

Feminism and the Invisible Capitalist Leash

thegblogteam one comments

 

Feminism is synonymous with the emancipation of women and other oppressed minorities from all aspects, be it within social contexts and cultures or economic and political spheres. Since its emergence in the 1980s, the feminist movement in Malaysia has worked very hard, from providing shelters to protect women and children from domestic violence, to creating systemic legal reforms such as the passing of the 1994 Domestic Violence Act and the inclusion of “gender” under Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution in 2001 to fight against gender discrimination.

While these are big milestones, victory is far beyond our reach. At the very core, Malaysian women are still expected to be feminine and to aim for marriage and motherhood; while our men are taught to be masculine and to be strong, superior figures devoid of sentiment and weaknesses. We are taught that gender and sexuality only exist in a binary and any deviation from that accepted binary is unnatural. In the previous general election (GE13), one of the Barisan Nasional party manifestos was “to provide women with the choice of being at the forefront of business and innovation, without giving up their natural instincts as homemakers”.

Unfortunately, our toxic and ignorant political landscape is not the only challenge faced by the Malaysian feminist movement in the ongoing battle to create an egalitarian state. The silent yet deadly mercenary that is the capitalist nature of our economy not only hinders our ability to create systemic change, but also creates new forms of exploitation and inequality in Malaysian society.

 

Feminism has now become a vehicle for capitalist organisations to further entrench their efforts to build a free-market society. Feminist ideals used to be radical notions; these days, however, you can see feminist narratives being tossed around like confetti at parties, not just by famous public figures and celebrities, but also by profit-oriented organisations. Last week, our very own Malaysian feminist, Thulasy Suppiah wrote about the opportunistic nature of brand feminism which exploits the feminist narrative as a profit-making tool,  while at the same time being an effective platform to un-demonise the feminist label.

Honestly, that debate is quite advanced for Malaysia, as Malaysian companies have yet to even recognise the potential value of feminism; nor do we see our celebrities being aware of gender and identity politics.

But as feminists, do we celebrate the mainstreaming of feminism by western corporations and media?

Should we simply be grateful that people don’t look at feminists as crazy people? Or do we actually have a say in what portrayal of feminism is positive and supportive, and which will bring negative, latent harms to the cause as a whole?

 

Image via Free Malaysia Today: [http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/09/29/wao-slams-slimme-white-ad-on-domestic-abuse-victim/]

 

State-managed capitalism in Malaysia has made it far more difficult for feminists to fight against injustices because it gives corporations and private entities huge room to exploit femininity and  perpetuate misogynistic beauty standards, while creating a 500 billion USD cosmetic industry around it. Degrading advertisements which use women as subservient sex objects have been allowed just so corporations can sell burgers, tongkat ali drinks and slimming products. Sexist discussions have been allowed to take place on air on local radio stations. Television series which normalize domestic violence and movies which romanticize rape have been allowed to be shown to millions of viewers. All these happen without any form of government intervention, because god forbid, government regulations stop businesses from making profits.

To make things worse, capitalism also creates various splinter factions of feminism, or self-proclaimed feminists who are extremely individualistic in nature. Take choice feminism, for example. As writer Mai Mokhsein argues in her article The Choice Feminist Delusion, the personifications of women’s subordination are now being repackaged as liberating personal choices and hijacked by corporations and all arms of the media to gain profit. And because they are smart enough to brand their actions with the illusion of agency and empowerment of women, we will never know if these personal choices are made by women because of the patriarchy, or in spite of it.

Indirectly, capitalism takes away the responsibility of the government to create change and to fight for the emancipation of women, and places these burdens on individuals. To paraphrase writer Anna Leszkiewicz, mainstream feminism manipulates us into thinking that politics is personal. Worried about rape? Buy this nail polish that can detect drugs in your drinks. Concerned about unfair standards of beauty? Buy this expensive makeup and wear it for yourself, not for men. Troubled by the continuous oppression of women? Buy these t-shirts with feminist slogans on them for RM99 and beat the patriarchy in style. This takes away the awareness that politics and public engagement are necessary to create long-lasting and meaningful change.

The biggest harm in all this is that state-managed capitalism has rebranded the image of feminism into one where women comply with predominant feminine traits and cultural expectations, as exemplified by celebrities, and use their voices to speak up on easy, shallow subjects, in the vein of corporate campaigns. Sure, this makes feminism more sellable, but at the same time, it makes non-mainstream feminists who choose to propagate tough, sensitive issues look extremely unnecessary, distasteful and objectionable – thus, diluting the importance and depth of other issues on the feminist agenda. It makes it way harder for feminists to obtain support and fight for the other things that matter.

History teaches us that capitalism in Malaysia has entrenched social injustices in the past. Post independence, Tunku Abdul Rahman adopted the British laissez faire model of capitalism. This system, also known as free-market capitalism, allowed private businesses to flourish with minimal government intervention, in the hopes that corporations would self-regulate within the natural, unobstructed market forces.

This had allowed the British to dominate commercial agricultural production and export. While it managed to tremendously increase our per capita income to the third largest in Asia at the time, the people were extremely unhappy as poverty rates had increased amongst the locals. It took Malaysia one bloody racial riot in 1969 to realise that market regulation is necessary to ensure equitable wealth distribution for the people and avoid exploitation. The government then introduced the New Economic Policy (NEP) in the 1970s to focus on thorough socio-economic restructuring of society in an attempt to reduce poverty and promote national unity.

Fast forward to almost 47 years later, one would argue that Malaysia has yet to achieve a desirable level of national unity, nor have we successfully eradicated poverty. The World Bank ranked Malaysia’s gross domestic product (GDP) at number 37 out of 195 economies in 2016. Sadly, we also ranked 30th out of 150 economies on the Gini Index, which measures the extent of income and wealth inequality in society. Worse still, the Global Gender Gap Report 2016 ranked Malaysia at 106th position out of 144 countries, a testament to the magnitude of disparities and inequalities between women and men in our country.

This begs the question: does our unique capitalist economy really balance the rights of private businesses while focusing on wealth distribution to the people, as alleged by our former Minister of Finance II Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop? Is our capitalist economy failing Malaysians, particularly women and other minorities, as we witness the widening gender gap despite improvements to our overall GDP?

Is our capitalist economy bribing Malaysian politics with the promise of profit to shut down criticisms forwarded by the feminist movement on the manipulation and exploitation by the media and corporations?

The government has intervened before to put certain regulations in place in an attempt to address poverty. We don’t know how long it will take before we see certain forms of government intervention to address the current inequalities and injustices perpetuated by capitalist structures. Not that we’re all fond of government intervention, but it’s naive to assume that corporations will self-regulate and position themselves as change agents within society. After all, they are not accountable to the people. Corporations may try to sell feminism, but the purchasing power lies in our hands which should be held together arm in arm, to create a louder, coherent voice in demanding for a more equitable and just state, because we have a long way to go.

Brand Feminism: Exploitative or Empowering?

thegblogteam No Comments

There appears to be a rising “feminist” awareness amongst women and girls in this country – wouldn’t you say? Where there used to be very little discourse on issues  such as child-marriages and child-brides, there is now, thanks to social media who gave people a platform to express their opinion and public outrage. Where traditionally superheroes were generally of the “macho” male persuasion, we now see more female-led superhero flicks: think “Supergirl”, “Wonder Woman” and the all-female “Ghostbusters”. Have you noticed an increasing number of advertisements with empowering messages for women, replete with emotional appeals for a cause, while at the same time subtly pushing a product or brand? Or the feminist agendas that are now being trumpeted by celebrities such as Emma Watson? Or  well-known personalities such as Kim Kardashian and Ivanka Trump, self-proclaimed entrepreneurs who appear to be styling themselves as role-models for young women?

The term “feminist” in the context of this article is used rather broadly: to denote ideas or values associated with women’s emancipation and empowerment. The feminist movement has endured a difficult history. Now, of course, we’re past the times when our valiant predecessors had to fight for the most basic of human rights for women. This led to feminism being cast-aside as obsolete and unnecessary. Demonised even, as an agenda that seeks not for equality and a just and equitable society, but one that desires for women to rule the world and assume the throne of oppression – as men have for many centuries.

With celebrity feminism and corporate feminist advertisements, feminism has now been repackaged, if you will, into something far more acceptable and attractive – to even men. Feminism is now mainstream. Or as close to it as it possibly can be in Malaysia at least.

Let’s consider corporate advertising appropriating feminism, both the good and the bad. Remember Dove’s #SpeakBeautiful campaign (2015)?

 

 

Feminist advertising campaigns are designed for the new-age consumer. Relatable content containing emotional appeals that invariably link back to the company’s own corporate social responsibility, is made accessible and shared through social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Dove’s campaign was not merely an advertisement with a strong social message about how women viewed themselves. It was an advertising campaign many people reacted to positively and actively participated in and which, to Dove’s credit, it has consistently followed-up with subsequent campaigns such as the recent Dove Real Beauty Campaign (2017).

We would be wise to note that Unilever PLC, the company that owns Dove amongst other consumer brands, is a consumer-products company whose products some 2.5 billion people use “to feel good, look good and get more out of life”. Unilever joins a slew of other companies that have successfully commoditized feminism by employing feminist causes to increase revenue. So whilst Dove’s efforts to address women’s self-esteem may be one of the positive examples of corporate feminist advertising, we would be remiss to ignore that campaigns such as these strategically incorporate brand activism to garner consumer support for its products. In other words, these initiatives would fail or never would have seen the light of the day if they did not promise to be profitable.

Dove, for example, is unlikely to espouse controversial feminist goals such as a woman’s freedom to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. The messages corporations adopt therefore, are largely dictated by market-factors and traditional corporate goals: femininity in the traditional sense and what is deemed culturally acceptable to the local community. Self-esteem is an easily marketable commodity simply because it is the friendliest on the feminist agenda.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing – positive ad campaigns from Dove, Always’ #LikeAGirl campaign, Nike Women’s Believe in More may be self-serving, revenue generating tools for big corporations and do not necessarily seek to advance the feminist ideals of social equity and equality. But they are infinitely better than the patriarchal nonsense that advertising used to rely on: gender stereotypes that are false but easy to convey and promote. Sorry, did I say used to – lest we forget how corporations have used their advertising power to promote sexist and misogynistic tropes even in modern times, here are a few select examples: Watson’s Blackface Raya advertisement and Firefly’s Butt Reduction advertisements for air travel discounts.  

If feminist advertising tends to evoke and rally emotional responses to the feminist cause, then celebrities have made it cool and trendy to embrace feminism – or brand feminism at least.

 

Consider Kim Kardashian – with 100 million followers worldwide many of whom are probably young women looking to emulate her success – repeatedly demonstrates that she has agency and is an empowered woman – everything she does is (or at least appears to be) an informed and conscious choice. Her brand of feminism would appear to advocate for women to strive for the perfect body (try her “Fit in your Jeans by Friday” DVDs) whilst treating ourselves to beloved sugary treats like, cupcakes (try Kim Kardashian’s Vanilla Cupcake Mix from Famous Cupcake – available online, just so you know).

Kardashian’s choices however are quite anti-feminist. Take for example her picture in the Paper magazine which was reminiscent of a Hottentot woman by the name of Saartjie Baartman who, in 19th century Europe was paraded around as a freak show because of her large buttocks. The image, whilst it appears to demonstrate an independence of choice, epitomizes patriarchal, misogynistic structures that are antithetical to female empowerment.  It is not difficult to see that Kardashian benefits from her celebrity and as Andi Zeisler writes in her article We Were Feminists Once: “Individual celebrities are great at putting an appealing face on social issues. But the celebrity machine is one that runs on neither complexity nor nuance, but cold, hard cash.” (at pages 132-133) (excerpt as found in Janell Hobson’s “Celebrity Feminism: More Than a Gateway”)

And yet, it would be nearly criminal for us to disregard the potential of using celebrities as poster-children for important feminist issues: positive examples include Patrick Stewart against domestic violence, Michelle Obama on her ‘Let Girls Learn’ campaign and Emma Watson advocating for Gender Equality. Quite unlike Kardashian, these celebrities are not purely individualistic and self-interest motivated. They forward specific and difficult issues that fall squarely within the ambit of the feminist agenda, not just issues that bring them certain kind of profit or popularity.  They have inspired young women and girls to follow in their stead and make feminist advocacy on important issues like violence against women and education, cool and trendy.

It need not be highlighted that feminism – all waves of feminism – has not yet achieved equality or a just and equitable society. Whilst many advances have been made for women and girls everywhere in the form of socio-economic advancement and better legislative protection of their fundamental rights for instance, there is work yet to be done. Some may view celebrity and corporate feminist advertising as the hijacking of fundamental feminist principles for monetary gain or publicity. This is true but we cannot ignore how corporate and celebrity machinery can also be used to neutralise negative perceptions of feminism and bring much needed attention to subjects that are taboo or under-represented. Feminism has been viewed as anti-feminine and misrepresented by many as misandry. Perhaps, a re-branding of feminism is exactly what is needed. It may be a temporary fad, before both corporations and celebrities move on to the next cause but that shouldn’t prevent feminists from capitalizing on the platform now available to us. #MaketheBestOfIt.

A Call for Gender Diversity From the Top of the Ladder

thegblogteam No Comments

The current global conversation on corporate governance hones in on the need to accelerate greater diversity on corporate leadership and management. The call for diversity includes variants such as gender, ethnicity, age, and skill set. This entry seeks to highlight the importance of improving gender balance in the composition of corporate leadership.

Some may question the reason for this emphasis. Others may say, “If the woman is, at all, capable, shouldn’t she be in a position of authority? Why is there a need for such an initiative? After all, promotion should be given based on meritocracy, should it not?” Making it a requirement for any board of leadership to intentionally allocate a seat for a woman, simply to fulfil gender diversity, would mean the practice of merit-based performance may have been compromised.

Having a woman on any leadership board should never be about meeting a prerequisite, filling a quota, or heeding a need to satisfy the government’s call for an agenda. Rather, it should be about ensuring qualified and competent women are given access into the positions worthy of their merit without having to fight against barriers that exist because of their gender.

The barriers that the women of today need to overcome stems from a misguided prejudice and skewed perception, both of which will hinder their progress into positions of power or senior management roles. A Harvard Business Review article sums up the following as some of the barriers faced by females:

Prejudice: Men are promoted more quickly than women with equivalent qualifications, even in traditionally female settings such as nursing and education.

Resistance to women in leadership: People view successful female managers as more deceitful, pushy, selfish, and abrasive than successful male managers.

Leadership style issues: Many female leaders struggle to reconcile qualities people prefer in women (compassion for others) with qualities people think leaders need to succeed (assertion and control).

Family demands: Women are still the ones who interrupt their careers to handle work / family trade-offs. Overloaded, they lack time to engage in the social networking essential to advancement.

 

Image taken from The 30% Club Malaysia chapter

 

Closer to home, the Diversity Action Committee in Singapore found the reason why women are still sidelined – when it comes to most senior positions – are due to corporate governance practices of firms. Companies in Singapore are not required to disclose board diversity practices, which means change is not a necessity. Because of that, women in Singapore bear the brunt of this oversight, with board renewals being stagnant –22% independent directors stay on longer than 10 years – making the percentage for promotions impossibly slim. In addition, 93% of appointments of new directors are sourced through personal contacts or network from the male-dominated senior corporate leader’s pool, saturating top ranking positions with even more male corporate leaders.

To counter this linear perception and encourage a positive response to the call for corporate gender diversity, female corporate leaders from around the world – including Malaysia in 2015 – have established a country-specific ‘30% Club’. This industry-driven initiative aims to bolster better corporate leadership and governance, as well as increase corporate performance for the benefit of companies and their shareholders through board gender diversity.

 

We return to the pressing question of the day: Why is it imperative to have women onboard?

 

A 2012 report by Standard Chartered Bank, Women on Boards: Hang Seng Index discovered that top-ranking companies on the index had a number of women on their boards. Topping the list is Hang Seng Bank, with four women, representing 31.3% of its board. Conversely, the three lowest ranking companies have no women in their board.

A study on 1,643 companies on the MSCI World Index has proved that companies with strong female leadership delivers a 36% higher return on equity, averaging at 10.1% return on equity from the end of 2009 to September 2015, compared to companies without women at the most senior ranks, which scored an average of 7.4%.  The Singapore Board Diversity Report 2014 – The Diversity Dividend found that boards with gender diversity have an average return on assets of 3.3% versus 0.3% of those without.

The numbers do not lie; the data is proof that having gender diversity points towards a positive growth in a company’s performance.

It didn’t take long for boards to realise that a better gender balance in senior ranks is a business issue, not a woman’s issue, Helena Morrissey – who established the first 30% Club (United Kingdom) said. Simply put, achieving a gender-variant board is an effective way to moving forward and grow because it enhances decision-making with new perspective that represents female consumers. This delivers a richer customer insight throughout their service and production value chain.

Diversity of skills, experience, and gender are also regarded as key indicators of good governance, which is likely to attract more investors.

 

Image taken from The 30% Club Malaysia chapter

 

With an expected turn to Asia for global business focus in the near future, it is an opportune time for the new Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance to champion gender diversity and effectively root for the Prime Minister’s message to increase women’s participation in boards and senior management level in Malaysia.

The Code is part of a three-year strategic plan to advance key corporate governance priorities, which includes plans for collaborations with industry groups and stakeholders to increase women’s participation in the top 100 companies on Bursa Malaysia. The new Code will require PLC to disclose their targets and measures to meet gender diversity in their annual report. For companies on the FTSE Bursa Malaysia Top 100 Index or companies with market capitalisation of RM2 billion and above, their board gender composition should include a requisite minimum of 30% women.

With regards to the progress of our nation on this, Malaysia leads the way with the largest year-on-year increase in women representation from 8.3% to 12.5% (2014), ahead of 10 economies in the Asia-Pacific region. Whilst this achievement is commendable, we are still far from our goal. Currently, the number of women representation stands at 16.8%.  The aim is to raise women participation on board to 30% by year 2020, which would mean the drive, work, and effort done at present needs to be accelerated to close the gap within the next 3 years.

To help companies source for women directors, Malaysia has developed a Women Directors Registry to provide data of all eligible and qualified Malaysian women for board positions. Besides providing structured training curriculum that includes board readiness assessment, coaching and mentoring programs are already in motion, to ensure sufficient qualified women are in the pipeline to take up the seats in the board.

With such initiatives and a growing pool of women corporate professionals in Malaysia, it seems, to me, that the 30% women on board by 2020 target, very much plausible and possible.

Here’s hoping for another ‘Malaysia Boleh’ achievement we can all be proud of!


References

  1. Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership by Alice H. Eagly and Linda L. Carli – Harvard Business Review, Sept 2007
  2.  Singapore Board of Directors’ Survey 2015
  3.  The MSCI World Index, which is part of The Modern Index Strategy, is a broad global equity benchmark that represents large and mid-cap equity performance across 23 developed markets countries.
  4.  NUS Business School, by Dr Marleen Dieleman, Dr Qian Meijun and Mr Muhammad Ibrahim.
  5.  Study on Australia, China Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea by Korn Ferry and the National University of Singapore Business School 2014.
1

Get in Touch!

We're fun to talk to. We promise!