What is the future of equality, inclusion and diversity? Having become a hot button issue in political and media debate presents challenges to those trying to pursue inclusion in workplaces in the public, private and charity sector. How to navigate these challenges is one of the themes that British Future will be exploring during the party conference season and beyond. These are some signposts for how organisations might consider how to navigate the pressures of polarised times.
Differentiate hostile backlash from legitimate critique and challenge.
The US administration led by Donald Trump is leading a hostile challenge to all forms of diversity and inclusion work inside and outside government. Britain is not America – in either the breadth or intensity of political polarisation. This can be seen in attitudes to equality, diversity and inclusion too. Newly published research from More in Common demonstrates that there is a public majority in favour of the principles of EDI work – but also shows this is under pressure from increased contestation. Maintaining a broad coalition of support depends on differentiating between hostility to the principles of pursuing inclusion work, and reasonable questions about how to get it right.
Get the framing right – to ensure that inclusion is about everyone.
Many people intuitively believe that equality, inclusion and diversity exist to protect and promote disadvantaged minorities. These initiatives are also associated with fair chances for women: a majority group in society that has historically been under-represented in spheres of influence and power.
What could be emphasised more often is that everybody is protected from discrimination. The UK has ‘protected characteristics’ in law: that people should not face discrimination on the basis of age, race, religion or belief, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, marital status or pregnancy. Practical approaches can help to reinforce this message. It is a good idea to avoid pejorative language about historically over-represented groups – that organisations feel “pale, male and stale”, for example – since a ‘fair chances’ approach would narrow the gaps in gender balance while seeing the contributions of men and women as equally valuable.
Consistency matters – but that can require different approaches.
For reasons of bandwidth and capacity, organisations have sometimes focused on specifics: on gender balance, because women make up half the population; or focusing more on race in response to public events, such as the Black Lives Matter anti-racism protests of 2020. It is important for legitimacy and effectiveness to demonstrate a holistic approach across all strands. There has been a lag effect on finding consistent ways to measure social class inclusion, though the guidance and advice of the Social Mobility Commission has helped. Working to establish a coherent strategy that applies similar principles – fair chances and no unfair barriers – to all dimensions is important for legitimacy, and to avoid an unconstructive ‘competing grievances’ approach about which fairness claims and causes should get attention.
Collect the evidence of what is needed – and what works
A strong evidence base is important to make the case for which interventions are needed, and to deploy capacity and resources where it will make a difference.
Yet there is strong and persistent evidence that implicit bias remains a challenge in recruitment: academic studies, which submit identical CVs for jobs changing only the name, found different interview and call-back rates for those with ‘minority-sounding’ names. Organisations could test and monitor in real-time whether or not they have this problem, or have found ways to address it, for example by applying the name-change method to a sample of applications.
There is patchy and weak evidence as to how far training to raise awareness of this issue is useful or ineffective. Without more emphasis on evaluation and impact, it may generate scepticism among employees and stakeholders as to whether the motive for inclusion work was presentational, rather than a substantive contribution to improved organisational performance.
Separate contested political debates from core values – to avoid retreating too far
Challenges to be consistent are increasingly leading organisations to be more reticent about engaging in public issues that do not directly impact on the organisation and its work. Organisations that found it easy to express solidarity with Ukraine after the Russian invasion often found it much more difficult to navigate the Middle East conflict, after the Hamas attack on Israeli citizens and the devastating impact on Gaza of the Israeli military response.
As organisations become increasingly aware of some of the risks and challenges of inclusion work, is there a danger that they will retreat too far?
Doing so could create important reputational risks with staff members. Younger employees, in particular, may want to join organisations that are ambitious about the future of inclusion, and there may be different perceptions across generations about what kinds of approach are fair or balanced. Employees and customers will have a range of different views on mainstream democratic debates such as party politics or questions like Brexit. But it could undermine the commitments set out in an organisation’s mission statement about its vision and values if it finds itself going mute on core principles of equality and inclusion.
British Future is hosting fringe events with KPMG at both Labour and Conservative conferences to discuss these themes. ‘Creating Inclusive Workplaces: Challenges, Choices and Change’ is on Monday 29 September 18:00-19:00 at Labour Conference in Liverpool (Main ACC arena, Meeting room 11A ). ‘Unlocking Opportunity: The case for Inclusive Employment’ is on Monday 6th October 18:00-19:30 at Conservative conference in Manchester (Midland Hotel, Trafford Room).
More details on the British Future website.
