We’ve written often about the lack of representation of Latinos in the media, and the way that shores up stereotype and shapes misperception. We’ve written about the lack of representation of Latinos in politics almost as frequently, and talked about how that lack plays a part in slowing economic and social progress for our communities, and how it cements voter apathy. Distinct as they are, both are structures of power and mostly, those structures have let only a select number of Latinos pass through the doors and into positions with enough authority to make a change.

Corporate America has also been one of those structures. Not so much at the management level (see our recent story about the rise of the Latino corporate leader) but certainly, and decisively, at the highest level: in the boardroom. Latino inclusion on Fortune 500 boards hovers around 3 percent, according to the Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility. Approximately 70 percent of those Fortune 500 boards have no Latino representation at all.

As Judge Nelson Díaz — who knows a bit about seeking to better Latino representation in both the political and corporate arenas — told Hispanic Executive magazine earlier this year: “There are 872 Fortune 1000 companies without a Latino representative on their boards, and several of the companies use the same individual for three or more of the Fortune 1000 appointments. There must be better distribution since our commitment, knowledge, and capacity to make businesses better is evident by those presently serving on corporate boards.”

The report we prepared this week for AL DÍA shows that the boardroom’s glass ceiling  is even worse in Philadelphia. We looked at the top 40 companies of several types — publicly traded corporations, Eds and Meds, Arts and Culture organizations, and those with governmentally appointed boards — and came up with this figure: 2 percent.

2 percent. 24 seats out of the 1,143 board seats at the 40 companies. But really only 20 Latinos, since some of them serve on two and three boards at a time.

What this means for Latinos in Philadelphia is that at the highest levels of business where deals and decisions that forge the character and culture of corporations, of their interaction with and investment in our city, and of their leadership in our national enterprises are being test driven, Latinos aren’t even in the passenger seat, much less the driver’s.

Díaz, who sits on the boards of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Temple University and PECO and is a founder and current officer of the Latino Corporate Directors Association, says it is important for Latinos to be on boards because they “bring diverse knowledge, skills, and experiences that increase profitability.”

Research backs him up about the profitability of diversity. In a multinational study conducted by McKinsey and Company in 2014: “The analysis found a statistically significant relationship between a more diverse leadership and better financial performance. The companies in the top quartile of gender diversity were 15 percent more likely to have financial returns that were above their national industry median. Companies in the top quartile of racial/ethnic diversity were 30 percent more likely to have financial returns above their national industry median. Companies in the bottom quartile for both gender and ethnicity/race were statistically less likely to achieve above-average financial returns than the average companies in the dataset (that is, they were not just not leading, they were lagging).”

So, if diverse boards spell more profitable organizations, why isn’t every Philadelphia corporate entity a paragon of inclusivity?

Forthright as always, Díaz told AL DÍA it is because “there are a lot of older white men who don’t want to retire.” 

The typical board is a gerontocracy of sorts, where ability to remain on a seat until ill-health or even death removes you, is both solace and revenge on an all too youth-adoring U.S. society. There’s prestige and obligation, power and expectation balanced in being (and staying) a part of the old boy network. But also,  serving on a board of directors offers ongoing remuneration at a time of life when many of the members may be scaling back on work hours or fully retired. Even mid-level board memberships can pay more than the median Philadelphia annual salary — and some pay in the six figures.

But that “incumbent” generation of board members, with all its bona fides and honors long settled in place is, on some boards in Philadelphia at least, making way for a quite different set of board members. Gabriela Guaracao, Farah Jimenez and Jennifer Rodriguez (the first two on the board of Einstein Healthcare Network, the third on the board of the Reading Terminal Market), all of them young and exceedingly accomplished Latinas, are the face of the new generation of corporate and nonprofit boards in the city.
And not a minute too soon given Philadelphia’s changing demographics and its emerging millennial leadership.

It is our hope that that as we compile this report on an annual basis we will be able to track just how this new generation of board members is opening the doors for other diverse board members, and to thereby track numbers that indicate revitalization, inclusivity and transformation across all the anchor institutions of our city.