Does your EDI strategy pass muster?

Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) policies are supposed to eradicate discriminatory practices, resulting in more inclusive workplaces where employees’ improved wellbeing, motivation and engagement result in higher levels of performance, staff retention and greater employer, client and shareholder satisfaction. Given the economic benefits of EDI, most financial services companies have now adopted EDI policies. It made good business sense and there were no apparent downsides.

Scepticism regarding EDI strategies is emerging, however. Although it was thought businesses were getting serious about EDI, a 2021 survey reported that approximately 80 per cent of US companies are ‘just going through the motions and not holding themselves accountable’ and others are providing questionable EDI data to boost their environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores to attract more investment.[1]

EDI strategies, when scrutinised, are increasingly being exposed as lacking real intent; they are mere empty-rhetoric window dressing used for marketing to create misleading company images. In other words, they are an example of ‘diversity washing’,[2] implemented solely to increase the bottom line, sell products and persuade clients that the company’s policies are ethical and ‘employee-friendly’.

Meaningful commitment to EDI requires an investment of money and time and much more than what many businesses are currently doing, which typically only includes mission statements on the corporate website; references in HR manuals; one-off unconscious bias training given to employees virtually; token females appointed as non-executive advisory directors at the C-suite table; and reliance upon employees themselves to address EDI issues.

Age discrimination

An area where businesses’ EDI strategies are substantially falling short is age. Less than 8 per cent of all EDI strategies include age, even though ageism is one of the ‘isms’ still prominent in EU, Swiss, UK and US workplaces and is considered the most common type of discrimination in Europe. As life expectancies increase, a disconnect has been created between the years people want to work and the period employers consider them to be employable.[3] Despite laws, such as the UK Equality Act 2010, making age discrimination illegal, many employers continue to have secret agendas to nudge out older workers who are not ready to retire, replacing them with younger ones under the misguided assumption it will save costs and reap greater benefits.

Although both men and women experience age-related discriminatory work practices, senior women are covertly pushed out of the workplace at a greater speed by managers valuing youth and short-term cost reductions over career successes and experience.

To reap the benefits of a productive, age-diverse workforce, businesses need to move beyond outdated beliefs and false narratives, such as younger workers being more innovative and dynamic. Such stereotypes are pervasive, harmful and wholly inconsistent with the significant number of studies on older workers, which all conclude that the stereotypes do not hold up to reality. Contrary to common belief, youth is not a key attribute for a successful business and there is no evidence to suggest that older workers correlate to lower productivity. Some of the highest costs to an employer are recruitment, employee turnover and training.

A multi-generational workforce helps a business maintain a reputation of integrity and industry expertise while also positioning the business to provide for clients’ preferences. Different generations can help each other: older employees can serve as role models and mentors to younger employees.

Changes to consider

Companies should rectify EDI strategies if they do not encompass ageism and, specifically, gendered ageism. It should be the goal of every company to create an inclusive culture that honours basic trust.

Companies should rethink practices and ensure EDI mission statements are not mere buzzwords that do not stand for anything and are reflected in real policies integrated into the business strategy. EDI education in all managers’ leadership, learning and development training is vital, and EDI should be further ingrained into systems, to gauge the level of inclusion and ensure it is funded properly.

Adopting such measures demonstrates a real intent to make change. Anything less than adopting all of the above changes could be viewed as an EDI strategy that is neither diverse nor inclusive and may be seen as diversity washing, a reputational stain that will not come out easily in the wash.