Category: Articles

Author: Aniela Unguresan

Founder, EDGE Certified Foundation

Share

Making Your DE&I Goals Meaningful

Conversations around business goals – sales targets, growth targets, share of market targets, competitive positioning, and so on – are entirely natural. That’s how businesses run. You need to know where you go, how to get there and how you ‘course correct’ if you need to.

But talk about Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DE&I) goals and the conversation suddenly changes – it becomes emotional and people around the table start to feel uncomfortable.

It doesn’t need to be this way. DE&I goals can be a driver of sustainable business success in the same way as goals to increase sales, increase market share or improve competitive positioning.

In this article, we explore some of the misconceptions around DE&I goals and offer practical advice for setting meaningful DE&I goals.

DEI goals uphold the principle of meritocracy

Some organizations undoubtedly feel uncomfortable about setting DE&I goals. But why? This sad reality is founded in a critical misconception: that setting DE&I goals is contrary to the principle of meritocracy; that setting the goals will somehow lower the standards when it comes to the type of talents that we value.

However, talent, skill, competence, ambition and drive are equally spread – it’s 50% male, 50% female, and very diverse in terms of race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, age nationality, and working with a disability status. As such, the principle of meritocracy is not compromised by driving forward DE&I change. It is, in fact, supported.

Organizations should be seeing DE&I goals as a targeted, intentional and measured way to proactively manage the careers of high-potential, diverse talent as they move their way up in organizational settings that were not designed with their specific needs in mind.

In this way, DE&I goals allow organizations to take a firm step towards a genuine meritocracy, not a step away from it.

DE&I goals are a targeted, intentional and measured way to proactively manage the career of high-potential diverse talent.

How to set meaningful DE&I goals

1. Focus on outcomes

A DE&I goal is a key result that shows how an organization is moving towards the objective of DE&I. They should be both quantitative and qualitative:

• Quantitative DE&I goals relate to representation and where an organization stands on pay equity
• Qualitative DE&I goals relate to the inclusiveness of the organization’s culture and the effectiveness of their DE&I policies and practices for ensuring equitable career flows.

However, DE&I goals are not declarations of intent. A good DE&I goal must be about outcomes – how the culture of the organization is progressing towards being more inclusive and how the representation in the organization is evolving to include more diversity.

Stating that “DE&I is an important strategic objective for our organization,” is not a goal. A DE&I goal is a commitment to increase a company’s representation of diverse talents by X% or wanting to reduce the gender pay gap by half.

2. Create a timeframe

To be effective at driving change, DE&I goals must be measurable. Organizations must have a clear, specific way to track progress against that goal or target. And one way to do this is to make them time-bound. For example: “We want to increase the representation of diverse talents by X% within the next three years,” or “We want to cut our gender pay gap in half during the next financial year.”

A deadline is important because the moment it is hit, it triggers a meaningful conversation about how DE&I is advancing:

• If the goal is achieved, your organization knows exactly what it must continue doing for continued DE&I success
• If the goal has been missed, understanding why allows your organization to course correct.

For your outcomes to be truly measurable, your organization must have a way to track progress within a set timeframe – one that allows you to have those meaningful conversations about why you are, or are not, hitting your targets.

3. Ensure transparency and accountability

As with any business-critical goal, DE&I goals should be communicated to the relevant internal and external stakeholders. And that means there must be a clear mechanism of transparency around what those goals are.

There are many ways to set DE&I goals, but above all, they must be realistic. Many leaders believe that they must inject a high amount of energy into the system to change the status quo. But being too ambitious can mean that nobody in the organization truly believes that those goals can be met. Or that nobody really understood how those goals were set or how they were meant to contribute to achieving those goals.

So, while ambition is admirable and DE&I goals should be stretch goals, they must also be realistic and transparent. Employees at different levels and across different functions must have a clear view of:

• How those goals were set
• How they are expected to contribute towards reaching those goals
• The accountability mechanisms in place.

4. Consider intersectionality

It’s natural for organizations to tackle one aspect of DE&I at a time – for example through the lens of gender or through the lens of race and ethnicity – and set goals in terms of outcomes and results that are expected.

However, how can you dive deeper? Can you consider, for example, the representation of women in a certain age group or ethnicity, or coming from a certain part of the world, and the same for men?

It is important to be broad in terms of the aspects of diversity within your organization and base your DE&I goals on the characteristics of your workforce and the talent which is available for your country of operation and for your specific industry.

This can best be achieved by taking an intersectional lens when setting goals for your organization.

5. Think holistically

A common trap many organizations fall into is focusing on inputs. For example, they will say “We want to increase representation in hiring” and set a goal based on the input (recruitment) rather than on the outcome (representation).

The result of this approach is that diverse hiring may increase but that promotions have not been considered, and that high-performing talent exits the organization. Nothing has moved in terms of representation, despite the actions the organization has taken.

This is why it’s essential to consider DE&I holistically and unpack all the elements of the outcome you want to achieve. Instead of focusing on diversity hiring goals alone, for example, also consider promotions and retention. Ensure all inputs are working towards the common goal rather than tackling specific elements in isolation.

Without this holistic view, many organizations assume that they are in control when in reality, they are not.

The difference between mandatory and voluntary DE&I goals

It is important to make the distinction between mandatory DE&I quotas and voluntary DE&I goals.

Mandatory quotas are straightforward. They are time-bound and focused on important outcomes, which are board representation, pay equity and executive committee representation.

They are very powerful instruments – public policies that allow legislators to signal the importance of these issues for the health and wealth of that society. And, of course, these requirements are non-negotiable.

In contrast, DE&I goals set by an organization are, as with any other business goal, voluntary.

In this way, mandatory targets and voluntary goals work well together. Legislative requirements stay focused on a small number of ultimate outcomes – they represent the tip of the iceberg. And the voluntary business goals form the rest of that iceberg by allowing organizations to proactively manage DE&I within their company.

Legislation can help or to hinder what companies are doing, but quotas are not a replacement and are not a substitute for the efforts of the organization.

How to achieve your DE&I goals 

DE&I goals must be an objective measurement, time-bound, trackable and transparent, and with accountability mechanisms set in place. And this is where EDGE Certification powered by EDGE Empower can help, by providing:

• An analytical framework that allows your organization to understand its current status – benchmarking to understand what outcomes your organization can achieve
• Two-year cycles to ensure goals are time-bound
• Transparency and accountability through independent third-party verification of EDGE Certification
• EDGEplus, which looks at men and women as diversified groups and measures the intersectionality between gender and other aspects of diversity: race/ethnicity, gender identity, working with a disability, nationality, age, and sexual orientation
• A rigorous and proven data-led approach, shaped by leadership thinking and the experience of real-world practitioners, to ensure a holistic DE&I strategy.

Success fosters motivation

EDGE Certification works in two-year cycles because we know that setting ambitious but reachable goals within shorter timeframes can help your organization accelerate progress.

For example, if your organization has management levels with only 20% female representation, it is likely unrealistic to say: “We want to be to have a 50:50 male and female representation in the next five years across all the management levels.”

A more realistic goal would be “30:70 representation across all management levels within the next two years.”

Once that target is achieved, you can set a new one to achieve 40:60 representation in the following two years. And then two years after that is achieved, you can realistically aim for 50:50.

This keeps your organization focused on achieving the goals it has set and keeps you motivated by allowing you to demonstrate progress. This is also exactly how the three levels of EDGE Certification function:

• EDGE Assess – recognizing commitment
• EDGE Move – showcasing progress
• EDGE Lead – celebrating success.

Organizations achieving an EDGE Certification will analyse their workplace from a gender-binary standpoint. At any of the three levels, organizations may choose to deepen their analysis, through a gender and intersectional lens, by choosing EDGEplus.

Examples of DE&I goals and achievements from EDGE Certified organizations

• L’Oréal has made multiple public commitments to DE&I, including: “Accelerate the inclusion of people with disabilities,” and in France, increased the direct employment of people with disabilities, from 4.33% in 2010 to 5.40% in 2021.
• One of Capgemini’s ESG priorities is to “Enhance a diverse, inclusive and hybrid work environment,” and the organization aims to achieve 30% of women in executive leadership positions by 2025.
• The European Investment Bank state that: “Improving gender balance and working towards gender equity is a social and business imperative for the EIB.” They reported an increase of women in managerial positions from 20% in 2012 to 30% in 2021.

More than 230 large organizations in 50 countries representing 24 industry sectors have attained EDGE Certification at one of the three levels of EDGE Certification. See the full list of EDGE Certified organizations.

Book a demo

Wherever you are in your DE&I journey, whether at the very beginning or further along, EDGE Empower helps accelerate your progress, and through EDGE Certification visibly prove it – applying the same discipline and rigour that you would to other business-critical missions. Learn more by booking a demo, today.

Download PDF

Author: Simona Scarpaleggia

Board Member, EDGE Strategy

Share

The 27th UN Conference of the Parties (COP 27) ended in disappointment, despondent delegates leaving Sharm el-Sheikh having promised much and achieved very little.

I was disappointed too, for it was yet another gathering of the most powerful nations in the world that failed to recognize that a global climate crisis will not be solved unless and until we fight inequality, and in particular gender inequality. Put another way, our planet, and the future of humankind, cannot be sustainable until we reach full gender equity.

So why is this the case? And what is the link between ‘sustainability’ and gender equity? Even before a tranche of COP participants committed to UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, UN Women had published multiple reports that proved that women are disproportionately affected by most, if not all, of the problems addressed by the SDGs.

When it comes to the climate crisis, in particular, it is women and children who physically suffer the most as a result of drought, floods, famine, and climate-related forced migration.

When it comes to the climate crisis, in particular, it is women and children who physically suffer the most as a result of drought, floods, famine, and climate-related forced migration. Their position is weakened; their vulnerability increases, and they are often subjected to terrible acts of violence in the stampede for survival. 

The effects of the climate crisis are not gender neutral. In fact, women are also ‘structurally’ used to minimize waste be it water, energy, or food and to protect nature.  

Moreover, most of the efforts and focus are on reducing the carbon footprint while ignoring other factors that impact the lives of people, and particularly women.  

Take the decisions made in certain developing countries regarding the use of stoves in rural areas. Traditionally, women cook over wood. Indeed, as many as three billion people worldwide use wood as their principal source of cooking fuel. But wood, as we know, creates emissions that are potentially harmful to a person’s health. Stoves appeared to be the answer, until it was discovered that the carbon emissions of the stoves were only slightly lower than those generated by wood, and so the project was scrapped. No-one seemed to look at resolving the issue another way. Had they considered more fully the impact on women and children’s health of burning wood, and simply fitted a simple and inexpensive filter to the stoves, they would have both reduced emissions and reduced the potentially detrimental effect on women’s health in one go. 

If we want to tackle climate change seriously and realistically, we cannot ignore women, their conditions, and their needs.

If we want to tackle climate change seriously and realistically, we cannot ignore women, their conditions, and their needs. In this climate crisis, women can be formidable agents of change. So what needs to be done? 

•  Firstly, we need to actively promote women’s representation in climate policy and decision-making. Women should be part of all the decision-making conversations. Their unique perspective, their holistic approach, their sense and sensibility should all be taken into account in devising future sustainability strategies. Representation matters. No decision should be taken about people (of any gender, age, race and ethnicity etc.) without those people having a say and being consulted in the process. 

• Secondly, we need to reduce the gender data gap. Data regarding the impact of climate change on population, on health etc. should be dis-aggregated by gender; only by doing this can we truly understand the existing imbalance and the consequences of any decisions taken. (It also makes sense to connect this data and measurements to show how a country, or an organization, is performing in relation to ESG, and their multiple existing intersections.) Data is key. It provides a more objective and reliable picture of the situation, and the results can be monitored, compared, and followed-up over time. It also reflects the importance of having more women and girls engaged in STEM careers.
• Finally, there needs to be cultural change. Men are ‘wired’ to set and respond to targets; women tend to see things differently, and are more holistically protective. Making it more culturally acceptable for men to ‘care’ about the environment, rather than wishing to destroy it, would be a revolutionary step, as would having women as part of the decision-making team. Institutions, organizations and indeed governments have a responsibility to make this happen.

Of course, gender is just one social category. A truly intersectional approach to sustainability must consider not just gender, but also other dimensions of diversity such as age, race and ethnicity, disabilities, and more. Those who are affected by the problem must be part of the solution, or the answers to some of the world’s biggest questions will never be found.

Download PDF

Author: Aniela Unguresan

Founder, EDGE Certified Foundation

Share

The start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the first effects of a softening economy, the killings of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd, and the announcement by the world’s largest investment firm to put environmental, social, and governance (ESG) at the centre of its investment approach happened in 2020. The convergence of the four issues ignited conversations in the board, break, and dining rooms, and investment conferences about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) in the workplace. The dialogue was unlike any prior discussion.

Businesses rushed to profess their ESG principles – especially for DE&I, which sits behind the S in ESG – as racial tension and gender inequity featured prominently in news coverage, and trillions were invested based on social investing criteria. Companies cobbled together organization-wide initiatives, programmes, training sessions, and guest speakers. Websites were overhauled and microsites were created to demonstrate awareness and action on DE&I, which became a driving factor for ESG investors. Indeed, socially responsible investing worldwide jumped to $51.1 billion in 2020 and nearly $70 billion in 2021.

Employees, potential employees, board members, and investors were energized by the possibility of realizing the benefits of DE&I in the workplace now that a promise was in place.

With constant media coverage, an explosion of investment decisions now significantly grounded in DE&I factors, and pressure from employees, the budgets for human resource departments were expanded, more Chief Human Resource Officer positions were created, and many more Chief Diversity Officers were established. These were signs of momentum. After decades of neglect, those actions created expectations that progress would soon be made on various workplace issues, including pay, race, and gender equity. Progress was sure to arrive sooner than later. Employees, potential employees, board members, and investors were energized by the possibility of realizing the benefits of DE&I in the workplace now that a promise was in place.

Now, two years down the road, there has been incremental progress on DE&I. And the results have been mainly at the margins of equality, inclusion, mentorship, and opportunity. While there have been plenty of conversations, organizations are not crossing from discussions about equity, respect, and rights to meaningful and sustainable action.

Perhaps it shouldn’t come as a surprise that 80% of companies are going through the motions on DE&I and not holding themselves accountable, according to a 2021 study by the Josh Bersin Company and Perceptyx.

Perhaps it shouldn’t come as a surprise that 80% of companies are going through the motions on DE&I and not holding themselves accountable, according to a 2021 study by the Josh Bersin Company and Perceptyx. Evidently, company leaders find it challenging to invest in impactful DE&I action when there is pressure to meet short-term financial goals. Perhaps DE&I supporters should not have gotten their hopes up as high as they have.

Being a CEO isn’t easy with businesses affected by cultural, environmental, political, and societal issues. However, the lack of progress on DE&I is dismal. Why? I believe the root issue can be attributed to a lack of will to truly engage even though stakeholders and shareholders are genuinely troubled by inequities and discrimination, expectations for progress are at their highest levels, and frustration is increasing. The good news is that CEOs can build the will to undertake and advance a productive DE&I strategy.

Gaining willpower begins by leading up. As the top decision-making body in the company, the board is critical in creating an environment that prioritizes, supports, and invests in actions that benefit the organization, including DE&I. The CEO needs board support to do more than tinker at the margins by updating hiring policies and arranging bias training sessions. To lead board directors more effectively and put the business on a consequential path, CEOs must present the board with a vision that ties the company to the world in which we live, confirm the purpose and values of the business, and embed DE&I goals as fundamental to company’s sustainable business success.

With the board’s support, the next step is to work with the executive team to secure a mandate that can permeate the entire organization and to create a management plan. As DE&I is the collective blend of differences and similarities that include individual and organizational characteristics, values, beliefs, experiences, backgrounds, preferences, and behaviours, this is the step in the process where CEOs ensure that the senior leadership identifies the right DE&I strategy and priorities and fully supports them.

Steeled with a vision and mandate to advance DE&I within the company, it’s time to empower the diversity and HR teams.

Steeled with a vision and mandate to advance DE&I within the company, it’s time to empower the diversity and HR teams. These are the operational areas where a significant amount of the implementation will happen. The people in these teams need to be empowered to develop the DE&I roadmaps and budget, orchestrate the implementation of the concrete actions, track and measure progress, and adjust the course as needed.

Working through these steps will strengthen the will to make meaningful change, and it will spark a journey to cultivate a culture of openness and respect that will be smooth and productive.

Businesses must engage on the issues of our time or risk financial and moral bankruptcy. Recently, the proverb – if there’s a will, there’s a way – was on display. Yvon Chouinard, the founder of the clothing company Patagonia, showed extraordinary will when he announced that the company’s non-voting shares will be provided to a group devoted to protecting the planet. This move undoubtedly confirms Patagonia’s values and is a strategic move to ensure the company has a future. With this action, advocates for environmental progress have a champion.

Who will have the will to be DE&I’s champion?

Download PDF

Author: Aniela Unguresan

Founder, EDGE Certified Foundation

Share

Whenever the world enters a period of economic downturn, organizations are obliged to take difficult decisions on spending. Often this means cutting headcount, as we’ve seen with recent announcements from Meta, Twitter, and Amazon.

Typically the challenges are cyclical, and the outcomes predictable. This time around, however, the downturn is different. Inflation is high and the business environment is tough, and many markets are dealing with labor shortages and struggling to attract and retain talent. Unemployment is unlikely to rise to the heights seen in previous economic retreats.

A document produced for the Paradigm For Parity Annual Meeting 2022, Leadership Now: Shaping the Future, featured US data from Gallup. It illustrated why, in a time of economic strife, organizations need to avoid making knee-jerk decisions.

Gallup found that for the first time, employees (and potential employees) value the efforts that organizations make in relation to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I).

Gallup found that for the first time, employees (and potential employees) value the efforts that organizations make in relation to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I). It’s as important, Gallup notes, as remuneration in the decision-making process as to whether to join or stay with a business: when compared with pre-pandemic data, 14% said they would leave for better pay and benefits, but 9% would leave if not treated with respect, and 6% would leave for a better work/life balance. What’s particularly interesting is that the last two figures increased in prominence, while the first fell.

There are two more facts from the survey that should be of concern to organizations struggling with staff: 1 in 4 employees said they have been recruited in the past three months, and 1 in 10 said they have been recruited even though they were not actively looking for a new job or even watching for opportunities.

A surmountable challenge

It’s clear that employers have a challenge, but it’s not insurmountable if corporate mindsets in relation to HR and DE&I change. Often considered a discretionary spend, they are typically the first to be cut as they are not seen as relevant during a downturn. DE&I suffers from an image problem; a ‘fair-weather’ activity, when in truth, the more we equate diversity with sustainable success, the more we should see this spending as essential.

Times have changed for organizations wanting to attract, retain, motivate, and develop talent. Regrettably, those that categorize DE&I expense as discretionary will be left with individuals who only preserve the status quo – leaving little opportunity to turn around corporate fortunes.

We must recognize that societies are ageing and that in some, ageing faster than the younger generations can be integrated into the workforce.

Employees value values

Many, and the young in particular, place greater emphasis on the value and importance of an organization’s record on DE&I. This is especially so when looking for a new position or if deciding to stay. Having DE&I embedded, along with flexible working, is no longer seen as a perk; today they are expected. This means that in the current economy organizations cannot slow down their efforts and investments in DE&I. On the contrary, the size of an organization’s investments matter, and to ensure they are successful requires harnessing those tools that help empower, upskill and transfer knowledge.

For corporate sceptics, making knee-jerk cuts – including cuts to DE&I – may work in the short-term, but for the medium- and long-term, they create risk, especially as economic cycles appear to be becoming shorter.

Consider the effect of the pandemic on airlines. Collectively, they removed hundreds of thousands from payrolls almost overnight, but such cuts came back to haunt them when travel very quickly reopened. With oversold flights and no staff, traveler discontent made the headlines following the cancellation of countless holidays. Of course, the airlines had to make changes, but those changes should have been executed with an eye on the future success of the organization and not just the short-term interests of shareholders.

As Gallup found, how an organization is viewed – even when individuals aren’t proactively looking for work – is a function of how actively it invests in DE&I.

As Gallup found, how an organization is viewed – even when individuals aren’t proactively looking for work – is a function of how actively it invests in DE&I. It’s true that employees require fair remuneration, but they also want to work for organizations that respect both their views and their work.

Of course, organizations need to respond to economic drivers, but they must do so with an eye on their people and associated investments. Just as every action has a reaction, so consequences follow from every decision taken. Future success is dependent on DE&I being built into an organization’s long-term plans.

Download PDF

Simona Scarpaleggia says that the day has come to end economic violence against women.

Author: Simona Scarpaleggia

Board Member, EDGE Strategy

Share

It is a sad indictment of the world we live in today that we have to have a special ‘International Day for the Elimination of violence against women’. That there is violence against anyone is shameful enough; that there is violence against women, and which needs to be recognized in an official awareness day, is somehow even more depressing.

Governments everywhere have a moral and actual responsibility to protect their citizens, and civilized society should see any forms of violence as abhorrent. But violence, of course, manifests itself in many different ways, physical and mental. One of the most insidious and subtle – and least talked about – is economic violence against individual women, and indeed against whole female populations.

According to UN Women, violence against women and girls ‘is one of the world’s most prevalent human rights violations, taking place every day, many times over, in every corner of the globe’.

According to UN Women, violence against women and girls ‘is one of the world’s most prevalent human rights violations, taking place every day, many times over, in every corner of the globe’. It prevents their full and equal participation in society, and the magnitude of its impact, both in the lives of individuals and families and society as a whole, is immeasurable. Economic violence, often seen as a sub-set of domestic violence, involves making or attempting to make a person financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, withholding access to money, and/or forbidding attendance at school or employment.

Yet economic violence goes further than that, and some countries are guilty of creating legal barriers that prevent a woman’s full economic participation. According to the World Bank’s ‘Women, Business and Law 2022’ report, a shocking 178 countries maintain legal barriers that prevent women from being fully financially independent, and it is estimated that as many as 2.4 billion women globally don’t have the same economic rights as men. In 86 countries, women face some form of job restriction and 95 countries do not guarantee equal pay for equal work.

Many of the most guilty in perpetuating economic inequality are governments in the Middle East and Africa. When it comes to access to property and other assets, less than 50% of the economies in the Middle East and North Africa Region (MENA) account for gender differences in property and inheritance laws. This won’t come as much of a surprise, but there are countries much closer to home – in Europe or North America – who still persist in enacting laws that make women subservient to men, and wives subservient to husbands, in financial matters, not least access to state pensions.

Such unwarranted and inexcusable financial exclusion is expressed in many different ways: limiting, for example, a woman’s access to credit; denying them access to (or even opening) a bank account or owning a credit or debit card. This has several knock-on effects, not least blocking women’s access to healthcare, employment, and education. In many countries and communities this effectively excludes women from making financial decisions so that they become, what might be considered, a ‘non-subject’ when it comes to income, inheritance or property.

Women are denied the freedom to make their own choices because of the lack of material resources – and a lack of material resources leads to an undermining of self-confidence and self-worth, and all of the negative consequences this brings.

It is not an exaggeration to state that such coercive behaviour, which spans countries and continents, keeps women in a semi-slavery state, with no apparent escape. They are denied the freedom to make their own choices because of the lack of material resources – and a lack of material resources leads to an undermining of self-confidence and self-worth, and all of the negative consequences this brings.

Women are not only subjected to economic violence by their governments, but also by their partners and society at large. Being denied access to education means being denied the tools for understanding and managing economic matters. Obliging a woman to ask for money for any purchase – be it related to grocery shopping, the children’s education or leisure – and requiring them to justify every individual expenditure is both humiliating and damaging, as is the use of blackmail and threats meted out to woman for economic related reasons.

So what is to be done? How can economic violence against women and girls be ended? In 2016 and 2017 I had the honour of co-chairing the UN High-level Panel on Women’s Economic Empowerment. Financial exclusion and its consequences was one of the issues we discussed and for which the Panel provided a number of recommendations that are still valid today. 

In particular, we highlighted three key areas where urgent action was required:

• Legislation and social norms. Countries and institutions need to act to reform discriminatory laws and regulations that adversely impact women and would help bring about a change in social norms. Laws that hinder women’s access to secure land tenure, inheritance and property, for example, should be eliminated, equal pay legislation should be enacted, and the prohibition for women to do certain jobs should be removed. And there is much more that can be done in all sectors of the economy.
• Access. Besides guaranteeing access to physical assets, Governments and institutions need to act to guarantee women access to the same mobile and digital financial services technology that men currently take for granted. Women are currently denied access to some of the most basic tools, including online banking or even being able to fulfil simple tasks such as making payments into their own accounts (if they are allowed them!).
• Education. Financial education should be provided to all people, men and women, girls and boys, to ensure more equitable access to – and management of – financial resources.

Financial education should be provided to all people, men and women, girls and boys, to ensure more equitable access to – and management of – financial resources.

Eradicating economic violence against women has to be the objective of all countries and of all governments, in the developing and the developed world. There can be no excuses: it is right, it is fair, and it improves women’s lives. Perhaps more than this, it increases the prosperity of their family and their community and society at large.

Removing violence and delivering economic empowerment is essential to advancing freedom and democracy.

Download PDF

Simona Scarpaleggia considers why it is important that women are equally represented in democratic parliaments worldwide.

Author: Simona Scarpaleggia

Board Member, EDGE Strategy

Share

In times of conflict, unrest, and uncertainty, as people we are all programmed to look to our leaders for reassurance and guidance. In times of peace, we are also inclined to look at our respective governments, and the role that politics and politicians play in determining our future health and prosperity.

‘Democracy,’ as the former UK Prime Minister and wartime leader Winston Churchill once said, ‘is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.’ He was clear that it was a concept we should cherish, until something better could be found.

The concept of a democracy is founded on the principle that every person of age in a country can participate in political life if they so wish and have their say in decisions taken that impact their lives, from the taxes they pay, to the quality of the environment in which they live. They can choose to be engaged directly by being an elected representative, or by voting for someone else who best represents their views and their priorities.

Logic tells us that the best way for all of our collective views to be taken into consideration before any future policies or actions are decided is to have an equitable balance of representatives, men and women, young and old, and different ethnicities.

Unfortunately, all logic seems to have gone out of the window, especially when it comes to looking at the representation of women in democratic parliaments worldwide. Data from the United Nations makes for alarming reading.

• As of 19 September 2022, there are 28 countries where 30 women serve as Heads of State and/or Government. At the current rate, gender equality in the highest positions of power will not be reached for another 130 years.
• Just 13 countries have a woman Head of State, and 15 countries have a woman Head of Government. Only 21% of government ministers were women, with only 14 countries having achieved 50% or more women in cabinets. With an annual increase of just 0.52 percentage points, gender parity in ministerial positions will not be achieved before 2077.
• As a further point of interest, the five most commonly held portfolios by women ministers are: Family/children/youth/elderly/disabled; followed by Social Affairs; Environment/natural resources/energy; Employment/labour/vocational training, and Women affairs/gender equality.

The situation is bleak in most places you look. In the US, women make up only 24% of the US Senate and 28% of the Congress. In the European Parliament, the situation is a little better: it has seen a steady increase in the proportion of female members (MEPs) over the years, from 16% in 1979 to 39.5% in 2021.

Some countries have a higher number of female ministers than male: Nicaragua leads the way (58.8%) with Sweden (57.1%) and Belgium (57.1%) close behind. But these are the exceptions, not the rule. The WEF Global Gender Gap Index shows that even though the global average share of women in ministerial positions nearly doubled between 2006 and 2022, they still represent a minority (from 9.9% to 16.1%) and that situation doesn’t appear likely to improve any time soon.

But why should we care? Why is it important that women are equally represented in parliaments? There are perhaps three key reasons: first, because it is right and fair; second, because it captures the thoughts, views and experiences of the whole population, and not just a potentially biased few; and third, because it provides relevant role models opening to a more inclusive approach in other walks of life.

Women should of course have equal representation in parliaments because it is fundamentally unfair otherwise. Equal representation would mean that both men and women had equal access to politics and political parties.

The first point is perhaps the easiest to deal with. Women should of course have equal representation in parliaments because it is fundamentally unfair otherwise. Equal representation would mean that both men and women had equal access to politics and political parties, to election lists and, if the electoral law is correctly and fairly applied, it would be statistically likely that a balanced representation would be achieved.

The second point is also easy to grasp. Parliaments should mirror society, and better decisions are made, and policies determined, by capturing the needs of both male and female citizens. Take the important issue of gender budgeting.

Today many disparities and inequalities between the genders appear to have become embedded, to a greater or lesser extent, in the baseline of public policies and the allocation of public resources. The negative impacts of this legacy are evident across many policy domains, including the labour market, education and health, as well as gender disparities in management and leadership.

In recent decades, much work has been done to promote ‘gender mainstreaming’, i.e., designing all public policies with gender equality in mind. The 2015 OECD Recommendation on Gender Equality in Public Life set out a multi-dimensional approach for advancing gender equality as a core principle of modern public governance, including the promotion of gender-responsive policies, gender budgeting, and closing the gender gap in public leadership and public employment.

Gender budgeting is used to identify the impact of public policies on both women and men. If, for example, a government was seeking to reduce the cost of public transport, it might look at cutting a particular route or reducing service at particular times of the day. But it would also assess how any proposed changes might in fact create a bigger problem, say, for working women, who might have a greater need of public transport to get to work outside of ‘rush-hour’ timetables or to different parts of a town or city. By adopting this approach, and mirroring the needs of the society they represent, they achieve the dual satisfaction of delivering gender equality within a required budget. Extending this concept into other areas of policy making, and future laws and regulations on health, child-care, parental leave etc would enormously benefit from a balanced contribution of men and women to the decision-making process.

It is important to not only monitor and talk about representation in parliaments but also to apply the proper social pressure to ensure a growing number of women are represented.

The third good reason why a more balanced representation of women in parliaments is needed is in relation to role models. Role models provide inspiration to others. They demonstrate what is possible, not just in a political career but also in other public service or professional endeavours. This is why it is important to not only monitor and talk about representation in parliaments but also to apply the proper social pressure to ensure a growing number of women are represented.

Some countries have opted to introduce quotas to address the imbalance of female representation. Others, like Italy, have created electoral mechanisms that on the surface should guarantee a 50:50 split, but in practice are easily by-passed. This is especially disappointing, since on the one hand it suggests an authentic commitment to improving equality, while in reality it delivers nothing of the sort, and neither do they appear ashamed by it.

Ensuring women are equally represented in democratic parliaments worldwide should not be something a country can play around with. Supporting women’s equal participation and leadership in political and public life is, after all, essential to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 that those countries have committed to. But true equality will only be achieved if it is made a priority, and because the benefits of doing so are clearly communicated and understood. Only that way can we accelerate the process and produce visible results.

Download PDF

Simona Scarpaleggia reveals the importance of inclusive language in the workplace and how it helps to attract and retain talent.

Author: Simona Scarpaleggia

Board Member, EDGE Strategy

Share

Words matter. The way we speak and the terms we use can influence the understanding and the interpretation of what we are saying and what we really mean much more than we realize.

This, in itself, is not a recent revelation. Scholars have been debating the point for years. Everyone understands the importance of language – and indeed the power of oratory – in all walks of life, from politics to marketing, and every point in between. Language can be intentionally blunt, or unintentionally subtle, and linked directly to our subconscious where meaning and associations are created and become somehow ‘structural’ sources of discrimination or exclusion.

Take hurricanes. When the National Hurricane Center first started ‘naming’ Atlantic tropical storms, they only featured women’s names (even in languages such as Italian, French or German where the word for hurricane is masculine!). It was not until 1979 that men’s names were first introduced, by which time the ‘damage’ had been done; women were forever associated with the catastrophic effect that a storm can bring!

I am sure the association was never intended, nor was any sleight intended in an incident in which I was personally involved many years ago. As deputy country manager of IKEA Italy, I attended an awards ceremony hosted by the Government to receive an honour on the company’s behalf. To celebrate the occasion, I was handed an engraved plate, as well as a commemorative tie! As if this wasn’t discriminatory enough, rather than making things better, the Government Minister then compounded the issue by saying simply: ‘Never mind, perhaps you can give it to your husband!’

The story serves to show how words, although not intended to insult, can in fact be most insulting and betray one’s own discriminatory tendencies. Conversely, adopting a more inclusive language, and being more thoughtful about what we say and how we say it, can go a long way to creating an environment where people feel safe, included, and respected. Careful use of language can help initiate and facilitate the change towards a more inclusive and equitable society.

Inclusive language

So, what do we mean by inclusive language? Simply put, it means words and language that avoid expressions that explicitly or implicitly exclude a particular group of people, be they women, ethnic groups, different age groups etc. A typical example, often quoted, is our use of ‘mankind’ instead of ‘humankind’ or using masculine pronouns or endings to indicate plural subjects. At worst it can mean using words that perpetuate prejudice against a particular group. The good news is that both individuals and organizations can consciously adopt an inclusive language and learn how to use it.

One golden rule of inclusive language is the so-called ‘person-first language’. By emphasizing the person, regardless of any specific ‘diversity’, it becomes the uniqueness of the individual that is of value above all else.

The use of inclusive language is not a fad, neither is it something that should be ignored. Inclusive language is important in organizations to prevent unconscious bias.

The use of inclusive language is not a fad, neither is it something that should be ignored. Inclusive language is important in organizations to prevent unconscious bias, to make prospective job candidates feel welcome to apply, and for existing employees to feel comfortable to lean in or to pitch their ideas.

The issue has been debated at the United Nations and there are in fact UN guidelines for gender inclusive language.

The UN guidelines highlight three basic principles: the first is to always use non-discriminatory language (i.e. – use forms of address that are consistent with their gender identity); the second is to make gender visible only when it is relevant for communication (e.g. in a job advertisement, it may be relevant to state ‘he or she must have five years’ experience’); and thirdly, do not make gender visible when it is not relevant for communication (as in the case of mankind, man-made, manpower etc.).

Top Tips

So, how can organizations help themselves to adopt or further improve inclusive language, especially when it comes to attracting new staff? Here are some top tips:

1. Use non-discriminatory language
   A few examples will help illustrate what using non-discriminatory language means. It is inclusive to say: ‘the person living with a mental health condition’ instead of ‘the mentally ill’. Similarly, ‘older adults’ instead of ‘the elderly’ or ‘senior citizens’. Perhaps some of the most blatant examples of discriminatory language relate to gender, especially when used in the workplace. It is not inclusive, for example, to use words like ‘Chairman’. Neither is it inclusive to start a meeting with ‘Hi guys’. Unconsciously, masculine pronouns are used in speeches and conversation most of the time. Some non-inclusive language is even embedded in grammatical structure; several European languages distinguish between male and female by ending words with a gender specific desinence. Simple changes can make a significant difference: appointing a ‘Chair’ or a ‘Chairperson’ immediately resolves the issue, as does starting a meeting with a cheery ‘Hi folks’. And when it comes to pronouns, ‘they’, ‘his or hers’ or ‘Ladies and Gentlemen’ requires very little effort but can lead to a very great improvement.
2. Eliminate bias of race, religion and national origin.
   As a simple rule of thumb, never mention an individual’s race, religion or heritage. It is completely irrelevant. It is simple enough to champion diversity by showing different ethnicities through your marketing communications, social channels, website etc.
3. Avoid gender bias
   Be clear in declaring your commitment to an equal and diverse workplace and do not use gender-specific pronouns. Address prospective candidates by using ‘they’ or ‘you’ and use gender-neutral job titles (such as salesperson, sales executive, businessperson etc.). Most important of all is to avoid language that might be perceived (and associated) with a masculine environment, such as talking about meeting ‘aggressive targets’ or ‘dominating a room’. Use more inclusive references to the organization’s purpose and values.
4. Avoid age bias
   Similar to tip 2, make sure that your organization’s brochures, websites and videos feature people of all ages. Do not ask for ‘digital natives’ or ‘young and exuberant’, when in doing so you exclude highly proficient, highly motivated digital experts who may feel unwelcome and disinclined to apply for a role or a promotion on grounds of age.
5. Be inclusive of people with disabilities and neurodiverse workers
   Language that proclaims that an individual ‘must be able to lift weights up to X kg’ will exclude a number of candidates who are perfectly capable of ‘operating equipment that allows weights of up to X kg to be lifted’. Also stating that your organization has ‘sports and other employee clubs’ is more inclusive and more appealing to the majority than ‘you will be participating in sporting competitions’. Explaining your approach to remote working and flexible hours also supports a more inclusive culture.
6. Do not overstate the qualifications required
   Research proves that women are reluctant to apply for a job unless they feel confident that they meet all (i.e., 100%) of the criteria specified in the job application. Men, on the other hand, will apply if they believe they have 60% of the skills required. Stating, therefore, if a qualification or requirement is a ‘must’ as opposed to a ‘nice to have’ is advised.
7. Talk about your organization’s DE&I strategy and policies
   By being open about your organization’s approach to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DE&I) you will go a long way to raising interest in your business to a much wider audience of candidates as well as reinforcing your brand’s reputation as an employer.

Words do indeed matter, and perhaps even more so in an age of new technology and science where gender parity is still far from being a reality.

Words do indeed matter, and perhaps even more so in an age of new technology and science where gender parity is still far from being a reality and where organizations struggle to find female talent.

So, to leave you with another thought: it is the coders, programmers and digital experts of today who will influence how machines will ‘learn’ and ‘think’ in the future, which illustrates why a gender balanced digital workforce is so important to our shared future. And something else to consider: this is all to be achieved in the context of an IT industry where the word to end a program or file is perhaps the most non-inclusive of all: ‘abort’.

Author: Aniela Unguresan

Founder, EDGE Certified Foundation

Share

‘Activist investors’ are never far from the front page in their efforts – often frustrated – to change how a company is run, despite only having a minority stake in the business. But while the concept of an ‘activist investor’ is not new, what is new is how in recent months they seem to be making Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) generally, and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DE&I) specifically, their principal battlegrounds. Indeed, in the US in particular, such ‘conflicts’ are unprecedented.

Take, for example, the conservative activist investor Vivek Ramaswamy. Ramaswamy, with the support of Peter Thiel, the co-founder of PayPal, recently sent letters to the CEOs of Apple and Disney as part of an anti-ESG campaign. In the letters they urged the recipients to refrain from making political statements on behalf of their companies, or making hiring decisions based on race, sex, or political beliefs.

An opponent of ESG investing, Ramaswamy’s Strive Asset Management seeks to combat what he sees as pressure on companies to consider liberal politics before the bottom line; he wants to use the power of shareholder votes to refocus large companies on maximizing profit and shareholder value, a goal which he says boardrooms have strayed from.

We’re in interesting times and the US mid-term elections demonstrate that it’s very easy for ESG to become highly politicized.

Separate the substance

Of course, one’s view of this depends on how you see ESG as a force for change. But we’re in interesting times and the US mid-term elections demonstrate that it’s very easy for ESG to become highly politicized. This is despite the fact that the term ‘ESG’ itself is far from being a household concept, and those that might have a vague notion of its meaning are still wondering what happened to CSR!

Let’s try to separate the substance from what has become a politically charged anti-ESG conversation and start by asking a fundamental question: what is the true purpose of a company? Are companies simply there to make money for the shareholders? Or do we believe that companies should create value for all of their stakeholders, to benefit not just a privileged few, but a much wider society?

Quite understandably, there are those who feel that companies should be run to generate profit and profit only. Those who adhere to this principle will define their fiduciary duty accordingly and will make investments judged against this singular principle: to make money.

Quite understandably also, there are those who see the role of companies in a very different light. There are business leaders and their supporters who believe that organizations exist to use effective market-based mechanisms to create prosperity for everyone involved. To that end, they will view their fiduciary duty through a somewhat different lens.

Does it have to be, as George Orwell wrote in Animal Farm, ‘Four legs good; two legs bad’, or can opposing ideas co-exist in harmony?

But who is right and who is wrong? Should one point of view be applauded and the other chastised? Does it have to be, as George Orwell wrote in Animal Farm, ‘Four legs good; two legs bad’, or can opposing ideas co-exist in harmony?

The highly polarized world in which we live makes it hard to believe, but the reality is that different ways to run a business have always co-existed. And it shouldn’t be forgotten that it’s ultimately shareholders who decide the rationale for a company’s operations, as they invest according to their own views and objectives. What is particularly interesting, however, is that if we look at the most successful and longest-established organizations, they tend to be those who see their role as being more than ‘just’ creating shareholder value in isolation. US-based Campbell’s and Heinz are two traditional companies that illustrate this point well. They have been successful in adapting to seismic changes within their respective markets over the last 150 years and shaping their offering because they put stakeholders at the center of what they do and their vision of fiduciary duty.

The danger of weaponizing ESG

But there is another element to the anti-ESG movement to consider; that it has been weaponized. This is something that my colleague David Pritchett discussed recently when he commented on the sharp increase in resolutions relating to racial and civil rights and pay equity.

The debate hasn’t been helped by the way in which the anti-ESG movement uses the terms ESG, ESG investments, and ESG orientation to mean whatever they want them to mean to support their own arguments. In practice ESG requires assessing the risk profile of an organization against recognized ESG criteria. This is something that the European Union has seen value in for it has regulated and created clarity around the term.

In practice we apply filters to how we judge organizations on their ESG standards. On pollution, for example, we may consider an organization’s ESG profile and whether its anti-pollution policies are acceptable. This can be seen as ‘negative filtering’. The polar opposite is to apply a positive filter and use a risk assessment profile. Rather than ‘anti-pollution’ we might consider an organization’s pro-active and demonstrable investments in renewable energy.

It could be argued that these are two sides of the same coin. There’s nothing wrong in being in either camp – either being ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ ESG. But we must recognize that the anti-ESG movement is more often than not fueled by a lack of understanding of where risk evaluation and outcome orientation truly lay. It’s not surprising. As NYSE president Lynn Martin recently noted, some companies are trying to water down ESG regulations: “I don’t think anyone can argue the positive effects that, for example, diversity and including additional diversity has had on business… [but] environmental is a bit stickier…”.

It’s therefore perfectly fine to hold opposing views as they can co-exist – and in harmony too. But for this to happen we need to subscribe to the idea of informed debate, the essential attribute of a functioning democracy.

It’s therefore perfectly fine to hold opposing views as they can co-exist – and in harmony too. But for this to happen we need to subscribe to the idea of informed debate, which is the essential attribute of a functioning democracy.

The moral is that we shouldn’t preach. We shouldn’t try to convince others at all costs that our own point of view is superior, neither should we disrespect them because they think differently to us. This naturally brings us back to acknowledging the fundamental need for diversity, equity and inclusion in everything we do in society, in the workplace, in our families and in our communities.

Download PDF

The importance of transparency in ensuring corporate commitments to DE&I deliver Real. World. Change.

Author: Simona Scarpaleggia

Board Member, EDGE Strategy

Share

We are all familiar with the subject of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DE&I). Never a day goes by without some business leader providing an interview to the media or making a presentation at an investor meeting promising great change in terms of how their workforce is recruited, treated and paid. And yet the rhetoric rarely, if ever, matches the reality.

The World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Index, for example, makes rather depressing reading. While overall gender parity has improved since the report was first published in 2006, the overall gain is a miserly 3.8%. To put this into context, if the pace of improvement was to continue at that rate, it would be a full 132 years until the pay gap is finally closed. And in some countries, the gap has actually gone backwards.

As individuals, we witness – as consumers, employees or management experts – an array of declarations of intent. We hear how leaders ‘aspire’ to make a difference. Whether such aspirations are real or imagined, the fact is that those very same leaders are seldom in place long enough to drive – or be accountable for– the changes that need to happen. They end up being little more than empty words and vague promises that work well for a sound bite, and to be seen to be doing and saying the right things, but rarely result in any positive action.

Change will happen, but at present it is being forced upon an unwilling audience by the hard ‘stick’ of regulation and compliance, rather that the carrot of what a truly equitable workforce can deliver.

The NextGenerationEU post-COVID recovery plan, for example, includes a package of funding specifically allocated to improving gender equality whereas various corporate governance codes of practice with the UK, Germany, Italy and others now require businesses to disclose key information relating to gender equity and pay.

There was considerable excitement around the EU’s plan for gender quotas, and a new Directive that seeks to ensure women have at least 40% of seats on corporate boards. The issue is not the Directive itself, but rather how it is forcing change rather than bringing all parties willingly to the table. Even though bias and a tendency to maintain the status quo of privileges are two factors that tend to hinder the progress towards a more equitable workplace, pressure from stakeholders for greater equity is already strong and growing. Leaders know that they must steer their organization towards having a more diverse top table, but they do not want to surrender their freedom to make their own decisions, neither are they wholly convinced about whether a more equitable board works.

The real solution to improving gender equity is around transparency and being able to measure and evidence real progress towards a more equitable workforce. Indeed, measurement is the most necessary component in turning an aspiration into something tangible and deliverable. It is also essential that progress is measured to a recognized and agreed common standard, so that performance can be compared across countries, industries, and nations, and anchored to an agreed starting point.

So how is this best achieved? Organizations can create a transparent, effective, and sustainable equity system based on three pillars:

• Clear, standardized, and comparable measurement. This means agreeing to third-party certification as the highest-level of quality and objectivity regarding the DE&I policies you have in place and the progress you have made.
• Setting specific, realistic, and achievable short-term goals as well as confirming longer-term ambitions. This means less vague promises that will be forgotten about long after the current CEO has moved on and more immediate and precisely-defined goals where success can be more easily evidenced and monitored.
• Accountability of leaders and organizations. This means making business leaders truly accountable for their promises and their actions, and not simply making bold statements to satisfy the City.

Put simply, increasing transparency will ultimately deliver what everyone is looking to achieve: Real. World. Change.

Increasing transparency in this way will deliver a number of benefits. It will flush out incidents of attempted greenwashing or pinkwashing and avoid accusations from third parties that a business is being disingenuous in its intention of creating a more equitable workforce. It will safeguard those policies that an organization may already have in place relating to ESG, and further strengthen them. And it will put pressure on business leaders not simply to say the right things, but also do the right things too, and walk their talk.

Put simply, increasing transparency will ultimately deliver what everyone is looking to achieve: Real. World. Change.

Download PDF