"Diversity is a fact, but inclusion is a choice we make every day. As leaders, we have to put out the message that we embrace and not just tolerate diversity."
–Nellie Borrero (Managing Director, Senior Strategic Advisor – Global Inclusion & Diversity at Accenture)
Working in the Risk intelligence space in sustainability, many times we hear passionate interest from senior leadership of most companies to embrace gender diversity or in many cases include the differently abled, but less than 80% of these initiatives have been successful in meeting their goals. Year on year we see the same commitments in the annual reports but very little movement towards the goals.
If you go through Sustainability reports of most companies which is filed with stock exchanges you will see ambitious targets of over 20%-30% for diversity and inclusion at the shop floor level.
The same targets will be lower in the senior management of 1%-5% of workforce in terms of diversity quotient.
Current scenario : Does it mean companies are doing only lip service? Or they genuinely have their intent in the right place but are not able to meet their goals?
In our interaction with boards, it’s a bit of both.
a) Companies wanting to embrace diversity or inclusion but not sure of the changes which would need to be taken across the board.
b) Companies and boards are not sure of the ROI on investments made to increase diversity and inclusion goals.
There is very little measurement and reporting and metrics for people to track in terms of building a use case for diversity and inclusion.
At Impactree.ai while working to understand diversity and inclusion in the retail sector in India through our platforms we worked to connect with over 1000+ stakeholders in the retail segment employing PWDs and we realized through our basic myths over time.
Employer perspective :
Myth 1 – People with D& I cannot be put in front of customers - Increased customer satisfaction : Key to increased hiring by employers was customer satisfaction. Of[1] the 73 employers across the country who participated, 57% employers experienced an increase in customer[2] satisfaction in outlets which hired candidates with disabilities.21% of employers felt
Customers who shopped there were quoted as saying “I come to this coffee store every morning to get my morning coffee. It helps that the staff are super cheerful and sweet but also, I have noticed that they employ people with disabilities (PWD). I feel that by coming to this store I am adding to their income and contributing to their growth. In a way I am doing good karma.”
Additionally, 21% noted that hiring candidates with disabilities demonstrated a commitment to inclusivity as well as improved their brand image.
Given that 80% of jobs in the retail sector involve customer interaction, employing candidates with disabilities has the potential to raise awareness and promote sensitivity on a broader scale.
Yes, there was significant training involved by the organizations encouraging PWDs in the workplace and many had a mentor and buddy system to ensure that it works. But organizations who planned for the same were able to reap the benefit.
2. Myth 2 – High attrition among PWDs: Employers who recruited people with disabilities in junior levels said their average attrition rate for PWDs was only around 4% with industry average for able bodied workers being as high as 19% in the retail sector.
Employee perspective – From being dependent among 60% of PWDs post placement were able to contribute in some way to expenses at home. The biggest win for PWDs is that 24% of families are involving PWDs in decision-making at home as they are income contributors. Over some time this would break down social barriers for these PWDs which have existed for a long time.
But even with these significant wins we still see lesser inclusion of PWDs in the retail sector.
Bringing us to the question what is needed to increase these numbers
A) Getting companies ready – Companies in when it comes to diversity and inclusion are merely checking the check boxes. Human resource managers need to plan the career roadmap for people with disabilities or different gender. Hiring at one level and not being able to show a career roadmap to progress means more people will drop off the system after a point.
Here industry bodies and private bodies and technology players can play an important role in terms of defining the benchmarks for companies to prepare their workforce and company.
Secondly for a interim period a class of companies may need support in terms of subsidies or business benefits and other incentives to cover some of the organizational costs for embracing diversity and inclusion. But this overtime after structural changes are made will reap rewards in the long run.
B) Answering the Why ? From reviewing preparedness to system changes Human resource personnel should address the key questions
a) Why do you want to embrace diversity or inclusion?
b) Are they the same thing as per you or do perceive a difference?
c) What is the value you think being gender diverse or inclusive can bring to your organization ? If we look at it from Corporate social responsibility lens only, we can’t go beyond charity or tick boxes to unlock the value ?
d) And most importantly are you prepared?
Like other things in an enterprise lifecycle these Gender diversity and inclusion goals are easy to set on the outset but the key aspect companied need to address is
a) How ready are their process and systems ready to embrace diversity
b) Is their physical infrastructure even ready from an inclusion or diversity standpoint
c) Are their performance management, human resource or operations systems and personnel sensitized for such changes
d) And can the company unlock value other than media optics to drive the same on a consistent basis
C) The approach - it has been observed that even when diversity and inclusion is practiced in companies it is only in the bottom level and not on the top. There is very few changes in the top level to deal with compliance. If we want real change there has to be set processes that follow a top down approach where it starts from the board level then trickles down to the base.
These are topics we see very less acknowledgement or thought process into. If not thought through we are doing a band aid approach seen by:
Results - If these topics are not thought upon, we will see results like though people are employed less than 57% employees are given increments to even beat inflation.
Resignations - Employers justify the same with cost of integration and changes needed to be made to their systems to allow for inclusion. But even on a net basis if benefits gained through customers are not passed to employees over long-term vulnerability and dissatisfaction will creep into the system.
Discomfort – Organizations will hire diverse gender and abilities and not have physical infrastructure for their comfort and increase personnel and organizational risk.
A good way to start assessing some of these multi-dimensional risks to undertake a deeper materiality assessment and organization preparedness exercise before setting sustainability goals.
The GRI standards and other sustainability standards have outlined basic principles for companies to understand their preparedness for diversity and inclusion. That could be a start to drawing a continued roadmap with learning and development, mentorship and organization growth for a strong diverse and inclusive workforce.
Comments