There are two jaw-dropping aspects to the nauseating circus at the Dorchester, AKA the last (thankfully) Presidents Club annual dinner. One is that the event took place in 2018. Even in the early 1990s, a business dinner of this type would have been seen as deplorable, or at least that would have been the official line from the companies and organisations these men represent.
Therein lies the second astonishing feature: the hypocrisy of rich businessmen parading their equal opportunities credentials during the working day and then pitching up to a hideous sleaze-fest in the evening.
They will rationalise it, of course, by saying they were off duty, that it was a private event for charity, and that they are as appalled as anyone by allegations of sexual harassment.
Come on, though, the “we’re shocked” line doesn’t wash. This was a men-only dinner where 130 “hostesses” in short skirts were paraded on stage and the auction lots included a night at a strip club and a course of plastic surgery to “add spice to your wife”. Being surprised that female staff were groped, harassed and propositioned during a booze-fuelled evening is like being shocked that gambling took place in a casino.
As for the charity angle, it’s absurd. WPP’s Sir Martin Sorrell, who was not at the event, called it “regrettable” that his firm was withdrawing support from a Presidents Club “that has done a lot of good work”. Why have regrets? You can still donate money to Great Ormond Street and children’s charities if you wish. Or try sponsoring a fundraiser where debasement is off the menu.
Then there’s the private-life defence. Yes, we all have one. But if you are, say, Tim Steiner, co-founder and chief executive of Ocado, you’re taking a risk with your company’s reputation if you attend a dinner that will appal most of your staff and customers.
“There’s a mindset that runs through Ocado like a stick of rock: a willingness to do the brave thing, the hard thing, the right thing,” says the corporate website. Mr Steiner bravely declined to comment.
The depressing, as opposed to merely shocking, part is that a couple of decades of boardroom sermonising about corporate responsibility may not have achieved as much as thought or hoped. Most male bosses, it is still possible to believe, would run a mile from the Presidents Club shindig. But then you read some of the readers’ comments on the FT exposé and you wonder whether misogynist attitudes still run deep in the business world. Many readers applauded their paper’s reporting, but more than a few were indignant.
Here’s a sample: “I‘m amazed by the puritanical tone of this piece”, “where does the FT get the audacity to violate the civil liberties of President Club members to report on their behaviour?”, “this overly sensitive, childish, shallow zealous leftist hysteria is getting really silly”, “would prefer for the FT to stick to what it’s best at, and revealing society stories are not part of that”.
A society story? Perhaps it is – a story of a society of 360 men who have just destroyed another chunk of that “trust in business” they so often preach about.
Stone digs in at Crest
Stephen Stone, chief executive of Crest Nicholson, could be excused if he no longer wanted to continue in the job. He has done it since 2005, he has been on the board since 1999 and he will be 64 next week.
He has overseen thrills and spills at the housebuilder, including an over-leveraged buyout that went badly and a triumphant return to the stock market in 2013. Conditions for the sector look good and Crest is trading well, so this would be the ideal moment to take a bow.
Well, Stone is off, but he’s not going far – just to the chairman’s seat. This is a serious governance no-no since the UK corporate governance code is clear: “A chief executive should not go on to be chairman of the same company.”
The principle of “comply or explain” applies but the company’s explanation isn’t convincing. It’s the usual one about wanting to retain “expertise”. OK, but in doing so, Crest is running the risks the code tries to address – insularity and lack of challenge in the boardroom.
Crest reckons it can cope by hiring a new deputy chairman, Leslie Van de Walle, plus two more non-execs. Stone has also said he will limit himself to three years as chairman. It’s still not obvious, though, why Patrick Bergin, the new chief executive, can’t just be allowed to get on with the job without his long-serving predecessor on his shoulder; Bergin has already done a full year warming up as chief operating officer.
Crest says it has had “an extensive consultation” with its shareholders, which is not quite the same as claiming full support. At least one top-15 investor is sceptical. Last year’s pay report at Crest was rejected by a 58% majority. That’s not a great position from which to appeal for loyalty.
