I'm a director a small (<10 people) scientific company and we are currently recruiting. I'm certain the policies I have in place mean we will get the best applicant for the job. I'm also bliddy sure google et al have pretty good policies in place to hire the best person presented to them.
If* people think that having a workforce which statistically matches the general population then work needs to be put into sorting stereotypes right at the start of schooling. Remove the idea that girls don't *do* STEM / IT so that the distribution of 'good enough' candidates that hits the hiring managers desk is more diverse. Only then will companies have something to answer for numbers such as those reported here.
Before this story I hadn't even [looked at / thought about] the gender split of my interview shortlist because it is irrelevent (it's 5:3 F:M BTW).
* why is it more benifical for my business to aspire to sync my staff demographics to that of the public than it is to just hire the best people? If I currently had 6 men on the books and the best candidate was also a male, where is the advantage overlooking the man and hiring the next best candidate that happens to have a fufu?