It has been commonplace to blame women for the gender pay gap. Among the numerous attempts to explain away the problem, are these: More men than women choose education or training that will lead them to a high-flying job, women need to be more confident in asking for financial rewards, and they shouldn't choose children over career advancement if they want to make more money.

But the statistics disprove such analyses, time and again and around the world - women are not paid at the same level as men in a single country. It cannot all be down to reticence and a lack of ambition.

In the UK, results released by the Chartered Management Institute shows the problem may even be getting worse. On average women are paid 23.1 per cent less than men in the same jobs. Last year the figure was 22.8 per cent.

In Scotland the gap is even higher, the worst regional gap in the UK - 29.2 per cent. That means a woman in the same job as a man earns, on average nearly £11,000 less than him, every year.

The difference can be due to direct wage differences, differences between similar roles across the gender divide (janitors tend to be better paid than cleaners, for example). Or it can appear in the differences in bonuses paid to men and women.

The CMI is calling for more transparency and targets to help tackle the problem. It is hard to argue against the former. Cosy secrecy where men are quietly paid more to do the same job as similarly qualified women has no place in the 21st century.

But the notion of targets is liable to cause more controversy. The perennial criticism of targets is that they lead to positive discrimination - the women who benefit will do so at the expense of better-qualified men, it is often claimed. Top appointments should only be made on merit.

This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation, such a blatant piece of misdirection that it is hard to see much changing unless it is robustly challenged.

The status quo is that appointments are not being made on merit, pay is unfair. Where targets are set they do not introduce unfairness, they attempt to replace it. And there is ample evidence that a better balance in senior positions is good for business.

It is true, but lazy to state that some women put family before career advancement. Implying women simply "opt out" of fairly paid employment in favour of unpaid domestic labour is to suggest the role of mothers in families and society is a sacrifice women choose and men play no part in. This is a tired stereotype. We need a shift in attitudes, and that should start with simply paying women better.

New laws due to come into effect next April should make some difference. Large companies will have to report on how much they pay their male and female staff and the CMI are starting encourage them to begin thinking about this now.

Public opinion matters to businesses and some will surely be trying to get their house in order over the coming months, less their Investors in People awards have to be replaced by plaques reading "Investors in Men".