The number of women directors involved in running Britain's biggest businesses has been in steady decline for the last three years, despite new Labour creating a ministerial post dedicated to redressing gender inequalities when it came to power in 1997.

Among the largest firms listed on the London Stock Exchange, only 57% have a female representative on the board, according to a study published by Cranfield University's school of management. This compares with 58% of FTSE 100 companies last year and 64% in 1999.

Furthermore, of this small band of women directors, more than 85% occupy part-time, non-executive roles. Only 10 women hold executive positions - and they are outnumbered by their male colleagues by more than 17 to one. Last year 11 women held executive posts.

Mary-Ann Stephenson, director of the Fawcett Society, which backed the study, describes the findings as ''disappointing but not surprising'', and argues that the heavy weighting towards part-time directorships hints at an element of tokenism regarding female appointments.

''We need to get beyond tokenism,'' she said. ''If you have a board with just one women member - whether she was a token appointment or not - she will always be seen as 'the woman on the board' and not as just another board member.''

One part-time, non-executive director, Stella Rimington, who heads the remuneration committee at Marks & Spencer, recently told the Guardian that she had been ''shocked'' by the attitude taken to female appointments among Britain's biggest firms, including M&S.

''There is still a real sense of 'we need a woman on the board, a woman's point of view','' she said. ''Some have been more overt about it than others. One chairman said to me, 'we need a woman on the board, but I'm not sure I can convince my colleagues', which was absolutely breathtaking! I wouldn't join such a company.''

A spokeswoman for the Industrial Society, which also backed the study, said the research suggested male-dominated boards are reluctant to draw on the talent of women employees and, as a result, perpetuate the glass ceiling effect.

''Women are proving their ability in education, as entrepreneurs and in the workplace,'' she said. ''Against their success in these areas, the inability of boardrooms to include women among their numbers begins to look like resistance.''

Harriet Harman MP, the solicitor-general, heads a working group encouraging companies to promote women to board level, and has promised to put pressure on corporate Britain to change.

''We lag far behind the US, where business recognises the value of diversity and reflects on their boards the importance of women employees and women consumers,'' she said.

''Our target [is] that within the next two years there should be no all-male boards in the FTSE top 100 ... The boards of British business should be a meritocracy, not just 'chairman's chums'.''

Despite the trend away from women directorships, the study shows that the most successful FTSE firms are among the more progressive, with 17 of the top 20 by market capitalisation having female board members. Of the bottom 20, half remain all-male preserves.

Sectors in which women are most under-represented at director level include tobacco, energy, and the media - although the only female chief of a FTSE 100 firm is Marjorie Scardino of publishing group Pearson.

Financial services, pharmaceuticals and retail are among the more women-friendly sectors. Marks & Spencer ranks as the most balanced boardroom, with a quarter of directors being women. Logica is second, with Legal & General and AstraZeneca joint third. At the bottom of the rankings are BHP Billiton and Standard Chartered, which have 18 board members each, none of them women.

The government recently published its long-awaited employment bill outlining a number of changes to the rights of parents in the workplace which many hope will help women progress further up the corporate ladder and allow fathers to take a bigger role at home. Proposed changes include the introduction of a right to two weeks' paid paternity leave and, for mothers, six months' paid maternity leave and a further six months unpaid.

But a number of corporate leaders have suggested that efforts to accommodate parents in the workplace will be at the expense of businesses and Britain's competitiveness at an international level.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001

Simon Bowers