It's no secret that corporate boards aren't exactly bright, shiny reflections of the American population. Diversity has long been an issue, and was raised anew by a recent Huffington Post article. It noted a new report by the Alliance for Board Diversity which found that white men held 71.2 percent of board seats at Fortune 100 companies in 2004. By 2010, the percentage had grown slightly to 72.9 percent.

However, during the same period, the share of board seats held by black men dropped from 7.8 percent to 4.2 percent. The total number of Fortune 100 board seats held by all women, Latinos and Asian Pacific Islanders grew minimally.

The role of Sarbanes-Oxley and other major reform legislation has figured in this discussion. When Sarbox was new, some argued that it would expand opportunities for women and minorities. The idea was that the new requirement regarding independent directors and an audit committee head with financial expertise would push boards to expand their searches and finally add more women and minorities. But it really hasn't happened that way. It seems like wishful thinking now.

The reality may be that the Sarbox requirements pushed boards to fall back on the ranks of former CEOs, CFOs and audit firm executives--a group that tends to be predominately male and Caucasian.

Although board diversity doesn't appear to be a major issue in the minds of shareholder activists or proxy advisory firms, it is an interesting issue worth revisiting.

For more:
- here's the article

Related Articles:
Big bank boards still deficient
Should boards add more operational experience?
Time to rethink corporate boards