Interloop Limited, the sock maker to giants like Nike, Puma and Adidas, and the latest to enter the stock market with a bang (read: “Interloop: knocks the socks off”, March 19, 2019), is employing more women in non-traditional jobs. So says a case study conducted by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Pakistan Business Council (PBC). The study talks about the need for gender diversity in STEM around the world and how in Pakistan, women make up less than 10 percent of STEM professionals, mostly concentrated in the medical field. Interloop is trying to change that. Great, other Pakistani companies should definitely follow suit (and socks), but it does lead to an important thought. When it comes to gender parity, are we asking the right questions?

There is no argument that around the world, women are far behind men, when it comes to employment opportunities and wage parity. As per Mckinsey’s “Women in the Workplace” study in 2018, companies are very committed to gender diversity, but they are not acting on their intentions (for more global data, check out Mckinsey’s work as well as WEF’s Gender Gap Report).

In Pakistan: labour force participation is critically low with majority of women working in the informal sector, many unpaid. In the formal sector, they work on average 4.3 more hours per day and earn 77 percent of what men earn for the same qualifications, and so on. (More numbers here: “Women at war”, March 9, 2018) Women are hired mostly at secretarial, clerical or administrative level jobs, few in technology and engineering related fields. They are also visibly absent in managerial or leadership positions. As per the advocacy group Woman on Board, only 35 of 878 directors on the boards of KSE-100 in 2016 were women, with only 10 female CEOs for the nearly 500 listed companies in Pakistan.

So the five case studies conducted under the IFC banner together with PBC’s members (Artistic Milliners, Interloop, Packages, National Foods and HBL) present a great opportunity. Efforts to integrate more women in STEM, in leadership and middle management positions and become equal opportunity employers in the true sense are laudable. But the question is why should these be the role models? They are clearly exceptions to the rule. A status quo has already been established and business as usual is working fine. But we also know this: businesses care about the bottom line. And that is what future research and case studies should be laser set on to prove that women are beneficial for the bottom line, that their contribution to different professions and to leadership positions are ultimately good for the company’s and investors’ returns. Back it up with numbers!

To an extent, IFC’s case studies do that by presenting the motivations behind hiring more women (and it does that best with the case study on Artistic Milliners). For instance, Interloop’s motivation is to maximize its resources to gain economies of scale, it must tap into “Pakistan’s underutilized female talent” while National Foods believes that with the economy changing, households require secondary sources of income and as women step out to work, companies like National Foods are responding to the new talent pool, and so on.

But the issue gets water downed with statements like “hiring, retaining, and promoting more women…benefits the communities”, following it up with “strengthens our business as well”, it almost feels like a CSR activity. There is also a greater focus on how to attract and retain female employees, rather than why to attract and retain female employees. Intuitively, what is the greater problem to solve? Creating demand for working women or creating supply of willing female workers?

While attracting a female workforce is important: targeted recruitment drives, work safety and anti-harassment policies, transportation services, sports, day care, training and soon., if these case studies are best practice examples for the industry (since studies like these come far and between), they need to make a stronger economic case for businesses. In fact, it goes the same for female employee retention policies. Inherent cultural biases will only change when companies feel they will do better with women on board. Policies to ensure women are on board and staying will have to follow.

The point is simple and it is this: the words “gender diversity” earns several eye rolls around the world when they are mentioned, a few more in this part of the world. The larger business community does not consider the gender gap an issue.

Even if companies do hire more women, the problem is also wage parity and promotion opportunities. Companies will not undergo these cultural shifts or create opportunities for women to be competitive and move up the ladder if this is not considered a major problem on the docket that needs solving. If an international financier like the IFC is concerned about filling the gender gap, its research needs to stop soft-balling the issue. To start with, it needs to curate far more compelling cases.