Around the world, hundreds of international social impact organisations are working towards equality, justice and participation. However the underrepresentation of women in the sector’s leadership reflects a gap between the sector’s aims and its own structures and culture.
That’s why we built the FAIR SHARE Monitor: to annually measure the proportion of women on staff and in leadership in some of the largest and most well-known organisations. In doing so, we track progress towards a FAIR SHARE of women leaders by 2030.
You are here.
The FAIR SHARE Monitor is a data-based tool to measure and track gender equity in the international social impact sector. Based on this data we either receive from organisations or research for them, we create a ranking of organisations based on who has a FAIR SHARE of women in their leadership and who doesn’t (yet). The first Monitor was published in 2019 and results will be published annually until 2030.
The progress, stagnation or regress of each organisation is measured and made transparent from year to year – making the FAIR SHARE Monitor a tool with which both individual organisations and the sector as a whole can hold themselves accountable to gender equity.
What’s new?! This year we chose to let organisations with the same FAIR SHARE Index share the same rank position, as not to disadvantage anyone.
Find out more about the FAIR SHARE Monitor here.
The FAIR SHARE Index defines the positioning of an organisation in the Monitor. The Index shows how well or poorly women are represented in leadership based on our criteria for a FAIR SHARE. The lower the index, the more fairly women are represented in leadership. The perfect Index would be “0” but to acknowledge fluctuations in staff, we defined an index below 15 as a desirable FAIR SHARE, thus the green on the left side of the monitor.
The FAIR SHARE Index is measured as follows:
it takes into account if there are at least 50% of women on all organisational levels (the average representation gap, across overall staffing, senior management and Boards)
if there is a difference between the share of women in the total workforce and women in leadership (the FAIR SHARE Gap).
Both gaps are added to calculate the FAIR SHARE Index.
Calculating the index this way meant organisations with more women leaders than the share of women staff received a negative score, and the higher the proportion of women leaders, the worse this score would be. For example, an organisation made up of 40% women staff and 60% women leaders would be penalised for this gap, even though it actually indicates a positive shift from the norm and a willingness to go beyond the minimum benchmark of 50/50. In 2021 we therefore adjusted the formula to ensure that a FAIR SHARE gap in favour of women (more women leaders than their share of staff) would not be penalised in the same way as a FAIR SHARE gap in favour of men (more male leaders than their share of staff). We do this by applying a 50% correction to the score of such organisations.
The best possible result is 0,0 while the worst mathematical option is an index of 132. This number would result if 99% of the staff were women and 100% of leadership positions were filled with men.
Rank: Position in the FAIR SHARE Monitor based on the organisation’s FAIR SHARE Index.
Organisation: The name of the organisation.
Women on staff: The percentage of women on staff.
Women in Leadership: The percentage of women in senior management teams and supervisory bodies.
BIWoC of women Leadership: The percentage of Black, Brown, Indigenous and women of colour (BIWoC) amongst women in all leadership positions.
FAIR SHARE Index: The Index shows how well or poorly women are represented in leadership based on our criteria for a FAIR SHARE
 |
 |
 |
|
| Data was approved by the organisation. | This is a committed organisation. | We could not find data on the number of women on staff, thus have assumed a 70% representation. | A blank space indicates that an organisations did not provide data on BIWoC. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| An index progress by 10% since the previous year. | An index regress by 10% since the previous year. | No significant change of the index since the previous year. | There is always a first time. It’s the organisations first participation in the Monitor. |
Current data on gender representation in 61 organisations
(Status: 17.03.2022)
|
Rank |
Organisation |
Women on Staff |
Women in Leadership |
BIWoC of women Leadership |
FAIR SHARE Index |
|
1 |
Terres des Hommes |
100% |
100% |
0 |
|
|
2 |
Global Witness |
70% |
71% |
50% |
0,7 |
|
3 |
Greenpeace International |
49% |
50% |
0,8 |
|
|
4 |
350.org |
61% |
63% |
17% |
1,1 |
|
5 |
Sightsavers International |
51% |
50% |
35% |
2,0 |
|
6 |
Skateistan |
52% |
56% |
33% |
2,3 |
|
7 |
CIVICUS |
77% |
75% |
83% |
2,4 |
|
8 |
Plan International |
47% |
49% |
3,6 |
|
|
9 |
The B Team |
63% |
62% |
0% |
4 |
|
10 |
Pact |
62% |
59% |
31% |
4,4 |
|
11 |
Frontline Aids |
73% |
83% |
50% |
5 |
|
12 |
WeMove Europe |
59% |
70% |
0% |
5,4 |
|
13 |
EngenderHealth |
47% |
59% |
50% |
7,0 |
|
14 |
Christian Aid |
52% |
50% |
60% |
7,5 |
|
15 |
Norweigan Refugee Council |
40% |
47% |
8,5 |
|
|
The Nature Conservancy |
53% |
47% |
29% |
8,5 |
|
|
16 |
HelpAge |
49% |
48% |
8,6 |
|
|
International Planned Parenthood Federation |
75% |
67% |
8,6 |
||
|
17 |
CARE International |
39% |
47% |
8,7 |
|
|
18 |
Wikimedia Foundation |
47% |
62% |
30% |
8,8 |
|
19 |
Room to Read |
70% |
61% |
43% |
9,1 |
|
World Vision International |
43% |
45% |
47% |
9,1 |
|
|
20 |
Oxfam International |
63% |
55% |
9,7 |
|
|
21 |
BRAC International |
71% |
61% |
9,9 |
|
|
22 |
Mercy Corps |
70% |
60% |
40% |
10,0 |
|
23 |
Restless Development |
46% |
64% |
10,1 |
|
|
24 |
AMREF Health Africa |
42% |
44% |
11 |
|
|
25 |
VSO -Voluntary Service Overseas |
39% |
54% |
43% |
13,3 |
|
26 |
Transparency International |
56% |
45% |
22% |
13,9 |
|
27 |
Democracy Reporting International |
56% |
47% |
14,2 |
|
Rank |
Organisation |
Women on staff |
Women in Leadership |
BIWoC of women Leadership |
FAIR SHARE Index |
|
28 |
DRC -Danish Refugee Council |
39% |
65% |
19,0 |
|
|
29 |
EEB – European Environmental Bureau |
65% |
47% |
4% |
19,3 |
|
30 |
The One Acre Fund |
43% |
37% |
60% |
19,4 |
|
Friends of the Earth |
78% |
58% |
19,4 |
||
|
31 |
Human Rights Watch |
70% |
51% |
29% |
19,8 |
|
32 |
IRC – International Rescue Committee |
48% |
39% |
11% |
21,2 |
|
33 |
Ashoka |
70% |
50% |
33% |
22,1 |
|
34 |
Habitat for Humanity |
66% |
47% |
22,4 |
|
|
Partners in Health |
70% |
48% |
26% |
22,4 |
|
|
35 |
The Overseas Disability Charity |
70% |
47% |
13% |
24,2 |
|
36 |
Change.org |
70% |
46% |
83% |
25,8 |
|
37 |
Article 19 |
68% |
48% |
38% |
27,2 |
|
38 |
Search for Common Ground |
70% |
45% |
15% |
28,5 |
|
39 |
Save the Children International |
70% |
45% |
10% |
28,7 |
|
40 |
ONE |
68% |
43% |
39% |
31,2 |
|
41 |
CBM – Christoffel-Blindenmission |
53% |
34% |
31,9 |
At FAIR SHARE we believe that data is an important tool to make certain aspects of our societies tangible and visible – for example, when it comes to equitable representation in our sector. At the same time, the transformation the sector needs will require more than just women in decision-making positions: we need to reimagine the understanding of leadership itself.
That’s why we advocate for Feminist Leadership, which offers guiding principles for this process and acts as a valuable tool for power analysis.
To learn more and explore what Feminist Leadership can mean for you or your organisation, follow the link below.
Rank |
Organisation |
Women on Staff |
Women in Leadership |
BIWoC of women Leadership |
FAIR SHARE Index |
|
42 |
Sierra Club |
70% |
43% |
58% |
32,7 |
|
43 |
Amnesty International |
65% |
38% |
35,6 |
|
|
44 |
ActionAid International |
70% |
50% |
100% |
36,7 |
|
45 |
SOS Children’s Villages |
70% |
40% |
30% |
38,6 |
|
46 |
Islamic Relief Worldwide |
31% |
20% |
100% |
39,4 |
|
47 |
ACTED |
70% |
38% |
11% |
39,9 |
|
48 |
Finn Church Aid |
70% |
47% |
0% |
40,0 |
|
49 |
Landesa |
70% |
38% |
0% |
41,7 |
|
50 |
Reporters Without Borders |
61% |
36% |
20% |
45,1 |
|
51 |
Red Cross, International Committee |
70% |
35% |
11% |
46,9 |
|
52 |
MSF – Médecins Sans Frontières |
70% |
40% |
33% |
49,0 |
|
53 |
Concern Worldwide |
70% |
40% |
13% |
49,3 |
|
54 |
Action Against Hunger |
70% |
29% |
33% |
54,8 |
|
55 |
Catholic Relief Services |
70% |
27% |
33% |
55,6 |
|
56 |
ADRA International |
50% |
17% |
67% |
59,4 |
In addition to the Monitor ranking, we have put together a report with our analysis of the data.