Independent report

Annex B: Summary of roundtables held for the Inclusion at Work Panel

Published 20 March 2024

Background

The Secretariat for the Inclusion at Work panel hosted a series of in-person and virtual roundtables in September 2023. 

The main focus of the roundtables was to understand:

• organisations’ and experts’ experience of navigating diversity and inclusion (D&I) in the workplace
• how an Inclusion Confident Scheme might support employers in improving their D&I practice

This document gives a thematic summary of the 5 roundtables held in September 2023. 

Roundtables held: 5

Dates: 13 to 28 September 2023

Number of participants: 22

Thematic summary

What works (and doesn’t) with D&I

Many participants across the 5 roundtables expressed that D&I was a very complex, convoluted area for which there was often inconclusive evidence on what works, although some took the view that there was some consensus and examples of what ‘good’ looks like. 

Some participants pointed to practical examples of initiatives that had worked. For instance, it was remarked that pay transparency constituted good practice, and that all organisations should adopt this. Others remarked that a focus on training and education as a means to achieving inclusion was often fruitful.

However, some remarked that there were prevalent examples of how organisations D&I strategies were either not working, or being detrimental. One individual suggested that D&I was being affected by fads, giving the example of unconscious bias training which they deemed to have harmful effects. Another explained that D&I training was sometimes having adverse consequences because people who took it were more likely to be complacent . A number of participants spoke of ‘box-ticking’ D&I practices which led companies to implement initiatives for the sake of being compliant, to avoid negative PR, and to placate various stakeholders, without meaningfully identifying inclusion issues within the company and developing effective solutions. 

A number of critiques were offered for where organisations were going wrong with D&I. Many participants touched on the lack of evidence-led practice. For instance, one remarked that despite evidence showing that white working-class populations were often more disadvantaged than ethnic minority groups, they were often not deemed to be disadvantaged and organisations appeared to have a blanket policy of favouring minorities in their D&I strategies. It was also suggested that D&I policies were often not effective because senior leaders were not meaningfully invested in identifying specific problems and designing appropriate solutions. Rather, it was said, leaders were merely ‘going along with’ the D&I policies that indemnified them from internal and public critique, and litigation.

Some participants gave first-hand examples of effective/ineffective practice. This included the bringing together of industry professionals regularly to share insights and best practice. 

A number of barriers for why many organisations were struggling with D&I were highlighted, such as: 

• results not being replicable
• organisations finding it too difficult to access and understand best practice
• D&I policies being too complex for senior managers to properly understand and implement

Indicators of ‘good’ D&I

Participants were asked what indicators they would expect to see in D&I interventions that were effective. A range of indicators were offered. A prevalent theme related to compliance with equality legislation. It was remarked multiple times across different roundtables that many companies were misinterpreting and/or misapplying the law (particularly as it related to sex, protected beliefs, and positive discrimination). Some of the reasons given for this were poor clarity within the legislation itself and bad guidance being given to organisations. That being said, it was suggested that this was sometimes a product of many large companies being multinational and therefore having a convoluted understanding of equalities law internally. 

Similarly, it was remarked that a ‘good’ D&I strategy was one that was very conceptually clear – that is, was rooted in a clear understanding of terms such as ‘equity’, ‘equality’ and ‘inclusion’.

Data and evidence were also raised multiple times as good indicators of meaningful D&I approaches. It was raised that good practice necessitated multivariate metrics to understand which groups were underperforming, and why. Similarly, it was mentioned that an indicator of good D&I was interventions that recognised that ‘equality’ was not a zero sum game, and should be seen as a universalist pursuit – that is, ‘not just trying to create equality for women, but also for men too’.

Another participant mentioned that a limited number of indicators that could be tracked over time would indicate a robust commitment to standardising and measuring outcomes (rather than continually ‘moving the goalposts’ with changing metrics). Another mentioned tracking workplace statistics, outcomes, and evaluating interventions. However, a counter-point that was offered was that ‘tickbox approaches’ should not be viewed as necessarily negative and avoidable, explaining that they were often a byproduct of companies trying to maintain standardisation by using fixed, simple indicators they could measure themselves against.

Another emergent theme which was said to indicate ‘good’ D&I was the ability for employees to speak openly about their views on D&I. This was expressed as “robust commitment to diversity of thought”, “open discussions which include opposing views”, “inclusion of thought”.

A number of participants also mentioned employee experience in the workplace as a measure of D&I success. Some expressed the idea of a ‘gap’ between what the company was projecting and what employees were feeling. Many referred to the idea of ‘carrying your employees with you’ as a good indicator that a company was taking a meaningful approach to D&I.

A number of individuals also expressed that a good D&I strategy should be rooted in ‘actual issues’ within the individual organisation. Some participants suggested that many D&I interventions ‘presupposed’ a problem, and that organisations were not doing serious work to identify the exact nature of their inclusion problems. It was remarked that this led to organisations designing D&I interventions that were geared towards tackling ‘inequalities at the national level’, rather than those within their own organisation.

Data

Data was a theme that was persistently raised across all the roundtables. The importance of organisations’ D&I approaches both being rooted in data and also evaluating data was raised multiple times.

Many mentioned the need for companies to put data at the heart of their D&I approaches in order to determine which indicators are observable, measurable, and standardisable with a view to creating robust metrics for D&I within their organisations. When data was spoken about, in the majority of instances, the participants were referring to quantitative data and metrics. ‘Hard’ data on recruitment, retention, progression, and pay were mentioned as important indicators several times.

However, some participants also said that qualitative data was also an important aspect of D&I for reasons such as: 

• a ‘bottom up’ approach meaningfully involves employees
• employee feedback with assurances of anonymity could provide useful insight for training leaders
• ‘quieter voices’ could feed into interventions
• leaders would find it difficult to ignore the feedback of their own workforce

Some participants also gave examples of how the use of data within their organisations had been impactful.

However, the difficulty of collecting and analysing data was also raised. Some noted that it was a much easier task for larger organisations than for smaller ones, the latter of whom would be unlikely to have the resources to do that. As such, it was remarked that small organisations would benefit from guidance on feasible approaches on monitoring D&I. 

However, not all comments on data use were positive. It was remarked that a preoccupation with data could create perverse incentives because in order for a company to be seen to be improving, it had to continually “beat its previous outcomes”, which could lead to an obsession with quantity rather than quality. Another critique offered was that, although measurable outcomes were key, cultural changes were also necessary to drive meaningful D&I changes.

Diversity of thought

The theme of ‘diversity of thought’ (or lack thereof) was raised as a significant barrier to creating truly inclusive workplace environments.

A number of participants recalled their own experiences of being ‘discriminated against’ because, they claimed, their views did not align with those of others in the organisation. Anecdotes were offered by a number of participants recounting their experience of bullying, harassment, and legal cases.

It was discussed that the perceived lack of freedom of speech in the workplace (which was linked a number of times to employers misunderstanding equality legislation) was having a censorious, chilling effect on the workplace at large, with many employees feeling unable to give their honest views about D&I in the workplace. It was remarked that this was a recipe for ‘bad policymaking’.

Another line of discussion centred around the notion that D&I in many organisations was ‘elevating the voices of some groups at the expense of others’. Words such as ‘bullying’ and ‘oppressing’ were used when discussing the treatment of those who expressed views that were deemed unpopular or controversial by other employees. These views often centred around gender, race, and religion.

As well as freedom of speech issues for employees, the issue of freedom of speech for organisations was also raised a number of times. Many participants expressed the idea of employers being worried about ‘saying or doing the wrong thing’ on D&I, and that avoiding negative PR was sometimes driving the actions they were taking (or not taking) – rather than being driven by ‘what works’. Participants, however, had a generally positive view about businesses genuinely wanting to ‘do the right thing’.

Clarifying concepts and the law

A core theme that emerged across many discussions was the need to clarify employers’ obligations under the Equality Act. This was mostly discussed in relation to balancing sex-based rights against those of transgender individuals in the workplace. Multiple participants also raised this issue in relation to protected beliefs. A number of participants suggested that some organisations, in an attempt to go ‘above and beyond’ in their D&I efforts (albeit with good intentions) were actually falling foul of the law as a result. As such, there was a widespread view that a key part of the ICS should be supporting organisations to properly understand the Equality Act.

As well as clarity on legislation, participants also discussed how there was a need for clarity on concepts relating to D&I. Examples raised included: 

• the concept of ‘D&I’ itself, and what was meant by the constituent terms ‘diversity’, ‘equity/equality’, ‘inclusion’
• disability (some participants expressed that it had become a sort of ‘catch-all term’ for illness, including mental illness)

Making the scheme work

Participants were prompted on what features they believed might make a new, voluntary inclusion confidence scheme most effective, or ineffective.

Many participants remarked that the scheme should focus on practical, real-life examples of interventions organisations can feasibly implement to meet their business goals, and not ideologically driven. It was raised that it was important that interventions were directly related to specific issues organisations could address, rather than a general idea of ‘increasing inclusivity’ in the abstract.

A key theme was that the scheme needed to make very clear why it was necessary, and why it would help businesses improve D&I practice. 

The ability to share knowledge between large and SMEs was mentioned many times as one of the most useful incentives for businesses to join the scheme. 

The importance of the scheme being explicitly an Equality Hub (Cabinet Office) and Business Department endeavour was also raised on the basis that this would give it more legitimacy amongst potential users, and would highlight that D&I was not just an equality issue, but fundamentally a business issue as well.

How the scheme should be structured was also raised. Some participants believed it would be more effective if the scheme were a guiding framework rather than a prescriptive guideline. Other participants believed it should be structured around key aspects of the employee lifecourse: recruitment, retention, progression.

The issue of data was raised multiple times (as summarised in the Data section above). Participants discussed how a scheme should have clear guidelines about what sort of D&I data to collect, and how, in order to aid setting meaningful targets, measuring progress, and evaluating outcomes.

Many participants highlighted that senior buy-in for an ICS was crucial for it to be an effective tool for influencing practice. Some participants suggested that there was often not strong enough leadership on D&I, and even if HR and middle managers were attune to the different possible D&I interventions and had willingness to implement them, they were often not equipped with the necessary skills nor supported by senior management.

There was a consensus amongst participants that for the ICS to be impactful, it had to have very clear incentives for membership. Multiple participants remarked on the importance of the scheme having practical, evident utility for organisations, with a clear relevance to their organisational goals. Other incentives raised included: 

• clear criteria against which scheme members would be assessed
• a focused set of measures employers can work towards
• a focus on recruitment and retention tool
• access to networking and learning opportunities
• a tool for comparing and contrasting organisations on the scheme

Disincentives for membership were also discussed. These included: 

• the scheme replicating other charters and schemes already out there
• having no follow-up (that is, once organisations join the scheme, they simply remain on the scheme without having to provide any ongoing evidence of compliance)
• creating further burdens rather than simplifying and clarifying