By Michael Stuber, the European D&I Engineer

One day after the tragic fatal attack on Mayor of Gdansk (Poland) Paweł Adamowicz, many media outlets spread allegations about the “reported” mental illness of the attacker. What messages do we recall from other attacks? And how is it relevant for corporate D&I?

Understanding the motive(s) of a criminal offense forms part of root cause analyses and hence, mitigation and public sense-making. In the assassination of Gdansk’s mayor, Paweł Adamowicz, the international media quickly spread explanations, including the following two main components:

• The fact that the attacker had a criminal history for armed attacks for which he had spent more than five years in prison
• An allegation or reported perception that the attacker suffered from mental health problems

Although the quality of the information seems to be clearly different (one proven, one alleged), some media mixed the two, e.g., “Authorities allege … a history of crime and mental illness.” (The Washington Post). It is worth noting that in other cases a different kind of connection is offered in the media.

Quick judgments: Terrorists attack the mainstream society

When the majority, dominant, or mainstream society appears to be the target of a crime, reports quickly, sometimes too hastily, include an allegation of terrorism. One day after a knife attack on two tourists in Amsterdam, the media reported this: “Authorities believe the man to be part of a 12-member Islamic terror cell,” based on data carriers found at the man’s house. There were no reports regarding whether the attacker was examined for mental illness, just like there were no reports about whether radical material was found in the home of the Polish attacker.

Analysts of different forms of communication conclude that the two explanations seem to be mutually exclusive: Once a terrorist allegation is established, mental illness will no longer be discussed, and vice versa.

Narratives: Hate crime or terrorist attack?

The different ways crimes are described include implicit assumptions about both the targets and the attackers, and lead to different evaluations:

• Hate crime: When an individual attacks another individual representing a certain group sharing a personal or social characteristic (difference). Such will often be considered a singular case and mental illness might well be brought in as an explanation, while other factors are not considered.
• Terrorist attack: When random members of a country or a larger community are attacked by a representative of an organization with ideological or political motives. For decades, politicians have been using this narrative to define enemies of their respective state, system, or society.

In recent years, though, a new quality of hate crimes seems to have been emerging, which can be described as a borderline case between the two aforementioned concepts.

Ideologically fueled hate crimes against civil society

The assassination of Polish Mayor Adamowicz presents unanswered questions: While Adamowicz was recognized as a supporter of the current Polish opposition, this does not seem to lead to an assumption that the attack was aimed at civil society, open and liberal values, or democracy. This would nudge the case away from the mental illness notion and closer to the terrorism paradigm. Similarly, the reason for the attack was quickly identified as individual hate. The BBC, however, included the additional hint that “… many commentators are blaming Poland’s bitter political divisions and widespread online hate speech.” This would mean that a larger dynamic might have been involved and it would be careless to marginalize the deed as a singular, individual act.

But it is not easy to break up the established dichotomy between individual hate crimes and organized terrorist plots. For in recent years, the concept of terrorism has been connected more firmly with extremist positions:

• Some politicians have made excessive use of the term terror to justify discriminating actions (Trump’s travel ban) or to push the boundaries to include everybody who criticizes their policies (Erdogan’s 200,000+ inmates, the world’s third highest per capita ratio and the highest number of jailed journalists).
• Academic analyses of U.S. media reports of terrorist attacks (2006–2015) show that Muslim extremists receive 357 percent more coverage—particularly by national news outlets—than those committed by non-Muslims. Separate reports found that between 2008 and 2016, right-wing attacks and plots outnumbered Islamist attacks 115 to 63, and were also carried out more often (35 percent foiled plots vs. 76 percent).

Such factors make it difficult for everyone, experts and the public alike, to identify when influential groups, or the state itself, nurture aggression against societal groups, which happen to overlap with the D&I agenda. While in European countries, some of this happens within democratic, yet biased, public discourse (excused sexism, wide-spread racism, homophobic norms, or denial of local Shoah collaboration), the international community seems quite helpless when a government protects or supports anti-Diversity action.

Relevance for D&I practitioners

The cases described here may appear extreme, but there are analogous cases in the workplace. While crime is not a workplace issue, different narratives about singular cases or provocations of the mainstream exist in companies as well—for example when corporate cultural biases are involved. They may include so-called explanations about career aspirations or leadership qualities of various diversity groups. The underlying assumptions of such simplistic statements are often not even recognized, let alone questioned. In addition, depending on the power distribution, inappropriate behaviors might be covered, explained, or excused in different ways and at times, biases are perpetuated by corporate activities.

Organizations that consider themselves advanced in their D&I practices will find an opportunity to explore subtle, embedded, implicit, or hidden biases in their strategies, programs, practices, or processes. Whether similarity biases can be mitigated by exposing people to others different from themselves will help, forms part of the following article.

By Michael Stuber, the European D&I Engineer

Exposing yourself to differences is known to contribute to reducing biases. Following this thought, researchers tested the role of nationality in interpersonal relationships among expats. They found significant interplay.

It serves as an ideal test laboratory: The expat community in the United Arab Emirates. There, researchers applied a multilevel study design that included 63 supervisors and 221 subordinates, mostly from outside the UAE (94 percent and 95 percent respectively, from Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Syria, and Yemen). About half of the relationship dyads between supervisors and subordinates (46 percent) were from the same, and 54 percent from different, countries of origin.

Influence of nationality on supervisor—subordinate relationships

In such a multicultural setting, researchers were able to investigate whether nationality influenced the quality of human relationships, when the context was more or less culturally diverse. They found that nationality does indeed play a role in leader–member relationships, but with this caveat: The quality of relationships that individual subordinates have with their supervisors is positively and significantly influenced by national similarity, but only when their workgroup is very diverse. When a workgroup is rather homogenous, the influence becomes negligible.

Social identity and “black sheep”

Social identity theory suggests that a diverse work environment might be related to greater feelings of uncertainty, thus heightening one’s awareness of surface similarity and increasing attempts to connect on that basis. For the case of more homogenous expat groups, the researchers mention the possibility of the so-called “black sheep effect”—individuals judging unlikable in-group individuals more negatively than out-of-group individuals.

Beyond the obvious: contextualized diversity dynamics

The study contributes to the body of research that challenges existing myths about intra-group bonding and support in diversity. The pledge for more women on boards, for example, often includes the assumption that they would not only attract, but also promote, more women across the ranks and support equality in general. However, a large-scale study described later in this section shows that the latter does not hold true regarding gender pay gaps. It echoes, with regard to gender, some of the results of the expat study summarized above.

The combined key learning of the two studies is two-fold:

• On a general level, it is critical to develop more awareness for biases that are not so rarely embedded in D&I narratives. Some of them serve as toxic elements, while others create blind spots and divert attention and energy away from key issues into areas where low to no impact on the system is created.
• On a specific level, the studies reconfirm the need to pay the utmost attention to the various levels of organizational culture, including observable behaviors, proclaimed values and their perception and interpretation, and most tricky, the invisible norms and unwritten rules that often serve as the strongest barriers to D&I.

By Michael Stuber, the European D&I Engineer

Two new studies paint an alarming picture: One shows a strong increase in xenophobia; the other shows that true attitudes towards women in management positions are much more negative than usual surveys indicate.

A study from the University of Duesseldorf (Germany) quantifies, for the first time, the “social desirability” factor for in the area of women in management. The researchers found that true attitudes were less positive than surveys usually suggest. This insight not only sheds new light on many diversity studies, including employee surveys. It may also cast a shadow over current data on growing xenophobia, in Germany for example.

What people really think about women in management

Prejudices against female leaders are more widespread than previously thought, for participants in surveys on sensitive issues sometimes respond dishonestly. The extent of the known phenomenon of social desirability is quantified by means of an indirect questioning technique to record the actual attitudes of respondents. This enabled researchers to show that significantly more people have reservations about female executives than direct questions suggest—37 percent instead of 23 percent!

Double encryption exposes both women and men

The advanced survey format CrossWise is based on random encryption and guarantees respondents the confidentiality of their answers to questions on sensitive topics. When compared with conventionally collected results, this kind of survey shows that women are more inclined than men to respond in ways they believe will be more readily accepted by others. At the same time, women’s reservations about their “gender comrades” in management are significantly lower than men’s. The indirect survey method led to the following results in comparison to the traditional survey method:

• 28% of women showed reservations (compared to 10%)
• 45% of men showed reservations (compared to 36%)

It should be noted that this quantification of the effect of social desirability was specific to the questioning techniques used. Another survey method, the pencil-to-paper method, appears to be less susceptible in this regard. However, other factors can also influence the results of survey, scientists warn. It has, for example, been repeatedly suspected that the presence of latent and manifest xenophobic statements by politicians and other public figures in the media is likely to fuel negative attitudes in society. This is one explanation for the following survey results.

Growing, multilayered xenophobia

The latest survey wave of a long-term study on xenophobia in Germany shows that almost one in three Germans holds xenophobic positions, and that the devaluation of individual groups is growing. The researchers distinguish between the agreement to individual xenophobic statements (e.g., perceived alienation by Muslims, assumed exploitation of the welfare state, or anti-Jewish views) and so-called manifest xenophobia in the form of a consistent agreement with all statements that are regarded as xenophobic. The latter increased from 20.4 percent in 2016 to around 24.1 percent in 2018. Six percent of German citizens currently have a clear right-wing extremist view of the world. Although this figure has risen slightly, it is lower than the figure at the beginning of the longitudinal study in 2002, when it was 9.7 percent.

Rejection in the labor market, rejection of religious minorities, and advocacy of right-wing dictatorships

The Leipzig Authoritarianism Study 2018 (formerly called the Centre Study) provides insights into society’s basic attitudes towards a number of items:

• 36 percent of Germans agree with the statement that foreigners only migrate there to exploit the welfare state
• 36 percent consider Germany to be alienated to a dangerous degree by foreigners
• Over a quarter would send foreigners “back home” if jobs were scarce in Germany
• Every tenth participant agrees that “Jews have something special about them and don’t really suit us”; an additional 20 percent agree with this statement to some degree

Dr. Decker, author of the study, still sees “dangerous magnitudes of anti-Semitic thought patterns.” At the same time, the devaluation of other groups perceived as “foreign” or “deviant” has increased. Aggression against Sinti and Roma, asylum seekers, and Muslims continues to increase. Slightly more than half of the respondents (one third in 2010) feel like “foreigners in their own country” due to the (perceived) number of Muslims living there. Putting this into perspective, in 2009 there were an estimated 4.2 million Muslims in Germany, between 4.4 and 4.7 million in 2015 and about 5 million today—compared to a total population of 82 million.

By Michael Stuber, the European D&I Engineer

Will more women on boards lead to more equality in an organization? Or do multinational teams promote intercultural relationships? While some numbers support such linkages, deeper research provides a more sophisticated picture.

Current representation data published by the European Commission show that gender equality progresses in countries where some related legislation is in place. The supporters of mandated female representation on corporate boards interpret this as a proof that women at the top drive gender equality. A new, large-scale empirical study now shows that this does not apply to equal pay.

Female bosses have no impact on female—or male!—earnings

Are the earnings of female employees affected by either a) having a female line manager themselves or b) a greater proportion of female managers in total within the organization? Two rival theories—that women are agents of change or that they are cogs in the machine—were empirically tested.

Large-scale empirical research provides an intriguing finding beyond an all too familiar overall picture: While in the sample the average hourly wage of men was 8.33€ compared to 7.74€ for women (not adjusted), the presence of female managers was found to have no significant effect on either female or male earnings. This applied to both tested hypotheses: the supposed influence of the overall proportion of female managers and the fact that an individual manager was female. This means that (more) women in management does not contribute to closing the gender pay gap, nor does their increased presence create a disadvantage for men (as sometimes alleged).

Unique research design

In a unique way, the study analyzed manager–employee linked data from nine European countries: Bulgaria, Finland, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In order to avoid statistical biases, they included not only the individual employee level (N=9,267), but also the departmental (N=706) and organizational levels (N=236) in the data analysis.

Able but not willing, or willing but unable?

The results of the analysis support the hypothesis formulated by the researchers that female managers function as “cogs in the machine.” The question remains, WHY do they have no impact on existing pay gaps, even where their direct reports are concerned? The scientists provide a mixed explanation that they might be partly not willing (“queen bee” theory) and partly unable (in lower ranks) to influence the situation.

Regardless of the explanation, the findings emphasize the need to consider other elements in addition to representation. The results specifically point toward various types of biases that are often overlooked when focusing on individual blind spots or implicit associations. Systemic biases embedded in many HR or leadership processes or models, or in the organizational or management culture, are particularly relevant in this respect. Unfortunately, many of them are now being reproduced in a digital world that was supposed to be more equal than offline reality.

By Michael Stuber, the European D&I Engineer

Empirical analyses of YouTube, Instagram, and online music videos show that the presence of women focuses on stereotypically feminine topics and formats, while overall, they are underrepresented. Companies can avoid a toxic spill-over of online gender bias into the workplace.

If you believe that men and women are similarly represented on, for example, YouTube, your perception equals that of young people. Eighty percent of 13- to 19-year-olds think that an equal number of males and females perform on YouTube. The reality is one woman for every two men. What could be even more worrying are the stereotypes that are perpetuated across all formats. As if this were not enough, experts also warn about the excessive posing and playing norms on social media that are seen to foster gender biases, such as the male self-marketing and mutual promotion tendency.

When bias becomes (online) normality

Think women, think beauty, fashion, and household? Think men, think gaming, comedy, and sports? What sounds like an outdated parody of black-and-white gender images actually summarizes the results of an empirical analysis of YouTube formats by gender. While 71 percent of women show themselves in a private context (and related topics), men position themselves more in public, and they cover many more fields and declare their online activities more often as “professional” compared to women. Experts found a stunning consistency of these gender-separating results.

Pressure to idealize yourself: boys fake more than girls

In a second study, gender dynamics on Instagram were analyzed, including the impact of influencers. A strong normative force was found in which influencers play a key role in reducing existing diversity within both gender groups (no third-gender or intersexual aspects were examined in this study). The analysis shows that girls who follow influencers consider it more important to be slim than their friends who don’t follow. Boys, on the other hand, are more inclined to optimize their online pictures according to gender norms: Wider shoulders, stronger arms or legs, or added six packs. The researchers point out that the original idea of Instagram, to capture the moment in a spontaneous and natural way, has been distorted.

Similar gender biases in corporate culture, talent management and leadership

While companies have implemented many meritocratic HR processes, most still struggle with gender biases embedded in unwritten rules that also influence the application of objective processes or tools. Some of the rules that have emerged in the online world are unfortunately fueling some of the still-existing implicit biases in corporate realities:

• Idea of infinite talent supply creates the notion of replaceability and a demand for perfectionism
• Fulfilling expectancies is considered more important than authenticity
• Everybody can impose and apply their own rules on others
• Only the moment counts, not your achievements over time or to date
• Adaptability is required as the rules may change overnight
• Popularity (gained by likes and agreement) is more important than critical thinking

For YouTube, scientists have confirmed that “the structures of the medium (logic of the algorithm, expectations of the audience, financing possibilities) influence the content” as it relates to gender biases.

For many corporate processes, experts observe the exact same dynamics: Structural and cultural defaults are perpetuating gender biases which continue to result in uphill battles for women, while limiting the impact of superficial D&I initiatives.

The progress of past years can easily be eroded or reversed when gender biases are re-introduced through the online culture. It may or may not be a coincidence that offline images of digital natives include beards, burgers, and boasts for men versus flowers, skirts, and princesses for women.

Platform of opportunities

Regardless of the hefty biases researchers found, there is one element that should be acknowledged going forward: Online platforms provide an almost equal opportunity for all, and it is largely up to the individual to grasp it. That includes deciding what to use the platforms for. Accordingly, the described studies talk about the “self-staging: of men and women—with the exception of music videos, where women are often portrayed in a sexualized way (53 percent of Top 100 videos show women without their heads).

One group was found to literally take advantage of online opportunities: Ethnic minorities are well represented on YouTube: 32 percent of female and 49 percent of male YouTubers analyzed were categorized “with a migration history” (= the vague equivalent for ethnic or racial or BAME minorities applied in Germany to consider waves of immigration over the past 50 years).

However, the mutual relationship of D&I and the digital transformation goes far beyond bias overspill, as the following article shows.

By Michael Stuber, the European D&I Engineer

Although the trend is not new, the profoundness of digital transformation is only about to become clearer. While most areas feel as if they had to follow (or obey) digital standards, D&I should not only be seen as an object, but also as a driver of this change.

As a value chain, Diversity & Inclusion has the potential to contribute to many business priorities. While this has been described in detail for innovation, productivity, marketing, or organizational effectiveness, it appears to be less clear for digital transformation. Since this megatrend is seen as the dominant force impacting each and every area of (business) life, a more thorough look from a D&I perspective is important.

The Scope of digital transformation

Like every industrial revolution before, digitalization creates numerous disruptions, including huge opportunities, as well as losses, in quite a few industries or job families. While automation is already felt in many everyday situations, the dynamics of change present challenges for many involved, mostly due to its pace, complexity, and profoundness. Resilience has become a key need in this respect. At the same time, the dynamics of the new ways of working and an “everybody-can-do-anything” attitude needs to be managed. Finally, the redistribution of work to fewer jobs, some less and some more skilled, presents a challenge for individuals, as well as economies.

What D&I contributes to the success of the digital transformation

With thousands of start-ups and a specific generational culture, the digital era has created a widespread belief that everybody can achieve (and create) anything. This founding age spirit creates huge positive momentum which, at times, ends abruptly. D&I can add significant value by facilitating a self-awareness process for individual strengths (or weaknesses) and foster the recognition of existing solutions that have already been created by others (as opposed to starting from scratch). In many of these processes, generational, cultural, or competence gaps exist that can be addressed easily and effectively through a holistic process of D&I.

Related to the multiple changes that are going on and yet to come, D&I promotes an open mindset that is key to successfully driving digital transformation. Fostering open-mindedness is a critical component of well-designed D&I processes and unfortunately, lacking in many normative (e.g., policy- or metric-driven) frameworks. The other key component of successful D&I strategies focuses on inclusive behaviors and communication, which inevitably could and should encompass more flexibility and adaptability. Finally, as a theme that cuts across all elements of the D&I value chain, D&I contributes a fresh look at capabilities and, more specifically, new leadership competencies that are required in a digitalized world.

Reversed perspective: What is the impact of Digitalization on D&I?

Based on the success of digitalized HR processes, including standardized online applications and automated evaluation tools, D&I experts were filled with hope that the digital revolution would help to overcome existing barriers or biases toward diversity. Closer analysis and more in-depth research have shown, unfortunately, that most tools cannot meet this expectation for reasons that are embedded in the tools:

• Artificial intelligence creates knowledge and insight based on existing data and the patterns included in these data. This means that AI will inevitably reproduce biases that exist in the current reality. A powerful example of this dynamic is the attempt of the London Metropolitan Police to use AI to evaluate public CCTV data
• Software that is programmed to perform people processes, such as CV screening or evaluation, will reproduce biases that might well be embedded in the code—stemming from the designer or programmer who has to set criteria for the software to operate (e.g., if a career break is counted negatively, positively, or neutrally).

However, people analytics tools also show that dealing with bigger data in an effective way can create new insight that is relevant (and helpful) for D&I in that it unveils previously hidden patterns of attrition or subtle inequalities for example.

Some fundamental biases of the Digital Revolution

Previous industrial revolutions created inequalities. While this does not mean that it is happening again as a result of the current digital transformation, past experience should prompt us to check current dynamics with regard to D&I. In fact, some new technologies are widely described as drivers for D&I, as they improve accessibility (e.g., for people with disabilities), employability (e.g., remote work for people with dependent-care responsibilities), and inclusion of people in various global locations in collaborative processes.

However, it has been noted by many authors that digital success stories are usually “his story” and almost never “her story.” This may be fueled by the persisting gender gap in STEM education and professions, as well as by gender biases in the start-up environment, including among venture capitalists. In her book Bienvenue dans le nouveau monde, Mathilde Ramadier busts many of the myths that have been glorifying the start-up industry.

On the other hand, recent analyses have shown that the hi-tech industry does not automatically qualify as a role model for D&I. Their corporate cultures and employment policies have been admired for a long time—often overlooking the fact that the industry is operating in a more favorable setting compared to the steel, retail, or tourist industry, for example. New data and incidences provide clues that many of the larger hi-tech firms suffer from many of the same issues as corporations in more traditional industries.

This article provides an analysis on this specific aspect: http://en.diversitymine.eu/cool-hi-tech-brands-finally-hit-by-harsh-di-reality/

By Michael Stuber, the European D&I Engineer

It has literally become a fashion to position yourself as pro-diversity, including in contexts that historically were struggling with many, most, or all aspects of D&I. Here is why we must be careful about full-mouthed statements from famous, rich, or powerful people, and how companies can make their D&I communication credible and accepted.

In rare unanimity, the media commented on Heidi Klum’s effort to reposition her TV show Germany’s Next Top Model with a diversity flavor—it was described as parody of itself. There might be an entertaining element, when diverse candidates add color, authenticity, or extravagance to a mold that before had only been famous for its uniformity. However, what should concern not only D&I professionals, but all of us, is the fact that the idea of diversity is corrupted when it is applied in random contexts or stereotypical ways. Candidates with diverse backgrounds are reduced to their otherness and overexposed in a way that is just as insulting as the extreme normative approach of the show had before.

Similar, negative reactions to BlackRock’s Diversity statements

Some were surprised that BlackRock’s pro-diversity statements also provoked highly negative reactions. When the investment giant announced its intention to increase its efforts and expectations regarding board diversity, it was not the first time. This time, however, many questioned whether or not it was adequate that an investor brought up the topic in the way Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, did. A closer look reveals small toxic elements and also implicit bias embedded in the case.

Understanding the particular context

Whether it is fair or not, based on their perceived characteristic of short-term profit and stock price focus, investment management firms were traditionally not seen as promoters of D&I. As an increasing body of research, including studies by investment experts, provided evidence that diversity and inclusion was good for both profitability and performance, asset management specialists warmed to the idea. However, their actions were under scrutiny.

First pointing to the ‘others’

When BlackRock, by far the largest publicly held asset management firm, first communicated about board diversity to companies in which they had invested, the message was not much discussed by D&I experts or the media. It was noted, however, that there was a discrepancy between what was requested from others and what the often male-dominated company did internally. In addition, D&I had been added as a second topic to climate change, which was the headline of that Shepard’s Message.

Crossing a red line

In 2019, however, the tone of BlackRock’s diversity communication had slightly changed and suddenly created heated reactions. This year, D&I was added to a pledge for purpose—again within the context of the annual BlackRock letter to CEOs. D&I was combined in a fluffy way with other “issues […] from protecting the environment to retirement to gender and racial inequality, among others.” The approach was unfortunate in several respects and provoked polarized reactions from cheerful support on one side and to hefty backlash on the other. None of that was related either to questions about internal BlackRock D&I or to potentially questionable objectives of the company.

Consistency, clarity, coherence

It appeared that connecting D&I with a broader societal agenda upset a part of the target group that preferred that an investment firm should stick to its business realm. Actually, many companies experience the same effect: When management positions D&I somewhere between business and philanthropy, criticism grows faster and stronger, compared to a solid business-based storyline—another aspect related to the polarizing effect of making gender or racial inequality part of a corporate mission. These and other topics have become explicit elements of public political battles where a large group of people only sees either/or: them versus us, red versus blue, etc. In this context, BlackRock’s statement was opposed by those who had a different opinion—for it was perceived as an opinion in the first place.

What high-profile communication about D&I has to consider

In a polarized context, where racism, sexism, ageism, and homophobia have become parts of reality again, D&I must be a more elaborate than in the beginning, when creating attention and raising basic awareness was appropriate and enough. Lessons from the above and other cases include the following:

• Back to Business: In a business context, base your D&I story on business arguments only, and make sure these are firmly connected with corporate priorities
• A Clear Priority: Position D&I as a dedicated contribution to the business agenda and not as a second or support item of another trendy topic with which “everybody agrees”
• Choice of Timing: Choose a business context for your D&I communication and make sure it is just as recurring as other business communications (market, financial, etc.)
• A Proven Approach: There is a ton of evidence for the value-add and benefits of diversity today, which should be reflected in your D&I language; today, there is still too much language of “belief” or “conviction.” which must be replace by “knowledge” and “proof.”

By recalibrating the positioning and communication of D&I, the approach does not become less human, nor does it lose its social impact. A clear, sharp, and sometimes hard appearance provides the objective base for D&I that is required in an often hostile and sometimes aggressive environment. Allowing and encouraging everyone to identify with and engage in D&I is another element that is key in this regard—and therefore, widely discussed and considered going forward.

By Michael Stuber, the European D&I Engineer

The operator of London’s public transport network, TfL, has banned advertising from eleven countries that breach human (LGBT) rights. The reaction reaches far beyond the individual “Brunei case,” and affects global airlines and tourist boards. It raises the question: How many more countries could be criticized for different forms of anti-diversity policies?

At first, it looked like a mostly symbolic move, when celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres, George Clooney, or Elton John supported a global boycott of nine hotels tied to the Sultan of Brunei. The country had introduced anti-gay legislation and first defended it against initial international criticism. Insisting on their position triggered a much bigger wave of criticism, including business-based moves of large companies that excluded the Brunei-owned hotels from their lists of business accommodations, as well as reactions of a much larger scale. This is both important and noteworthy, for human rights-based boycotts aiming at correcting public or corporate policies have, over decades, had mostly modest effects. The initiative of Transport for London (TfL) creates a new quality and dimension in this field. However, it also raises another question on a higher level: How many countries have anti-diversity policies in place that would merit some form of penalty?

How big businesses are negatively affected by anti-gay policies of their home countries

The interesting effect of TfL’s reaction is that we are no longer talking about a call for boycott of a few luxury hotels. Transport for London suspended advertising with companies or public bodies from eleven countries that impose the death penalty (or the possibility of it) for consensual sex between same-sex adults, according to human rights organizations. This ban means that companies like Emirates Airlines or Qatar Airways, or tourist boards like Pakistan Tourism, will no longer be given the opportunity to purchase advertising space on London’s transport network, where some 31 million journeys take place every day.

In addition to Brunei, 11 other countries are affected: Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, UAE, and Yemen.

TfL has confirmed to the media that their advertising partners have been asked not to approve any new campaigns from those states and their state-owned entities, while a review is ongoing that the mayor of London requested. In addition, the Green Party requested that these businesses should also be excluded from sponsorship opportunities the TfL may offer.

Human rights principle consistently applied in the public sphere

The TfL ban establishes a new business relevance of state diversity policies on several levels: It not only affects one country that happens to be in the spotlight, it also directly affects commercial business. And it not only targets the state, but also all companies from the respective countries. To this end, the approach is as consistent as it is powerful, and it aims in a clever way at the corrective influence that iconic companies can have on their states. A spokesman explained the rationale for the City of London: “Given the global role London plays in championing LGBT+ rights, the Mayor has asked that TfL reviews how it treats advertising and sponsorship from countries with anti-LGBT+ laws.”

Which other areas could be addressed?

As a unique initiative, the TfL ban raises the question, why have so many other public and private bodies with similar high standards or aspirations done business with these states and their companies over decades—and continue to do so? Such harsh political critique was only occasionally voiced by radical LGBT groups.

Another broader question refers to other anti-diversity legislation that exists in many countries, resulting in difficult living conditions for women, ethnic minorities, religious groups, or other societal groups such as Roma and others. Issues occur quite randomly for some countries (China more than many others) and for companies from some industries (automotive more than software) which shows that there is a need to create some form of consistency. But which bodies could potentially provide robust information of the existing situation and, more important, who would be in the position to decide upon appropriate responses?

Some frameworks already exist that routinely check the policies and procedures of business partners, such as vendors in large tenders or publicly traded companies as part of financial analyses. Experts say it would be possible to apply similar processes when preparing business deals and that such an application would require substantial conviction, leadership, and determination.

By Michael Stuber, the European D&I Engineer

Marketing experts from five countries on four continents were surveyed about diversity in advertising. Their answers show that they know what is expected from them. However, mindsets and actions vary.

Among marketing experts, there seems to be a surprising level of agreement across the globe when it comes to diversity. Collectively, across the countries surveyed, the latest Shutterstock research shows nine in ten of Generation X (91%) and Millennial (92%) marketers believe they are expected to use more diverse representation in their campaigns, and 88% of Generation X and 90% of Millennials believe that this helps the respective brand’s reputation. At the same time, they realize that there is still room for improvement with regard to D&I. The level of perceived opportunity has not only remained on the same level as in the previous year (2017 figures in brackets), criticism of campaigns for being sexist or stereotyping persists.

Agreement to “room for growth in using more diverse images” by country:

• Australia: 87% [93%]
• Brazil: 95% [92%]
• Germany: 86% [n/a]
• U.K.: 88% [93%]
• U.S.: 89% [91%]

Vast differences: purposes and priorities for D&I in marketing

In assessing the criteria for selecting imagery for campaigns, differences that appear to mirror the respective local business mindsets emerge:

While in Germany, more tactical considerations could lead marketers to use more diverse imagery (create an emotional reaction (32%) and improve shareability of images (32%)), Brazilian (44%) and Australian (38%) marketers were more interested in the connection between the images and the brand message. The North Atlantic geographies think that such imagery will best represent modern day society (British (45%) and American (37%))—or should they have said customers and markets?

Brazilians lead on transgender, androgynous, and non-binary gender images

Over the past 12 months, 36 percent of Brazilian marketers have used more images featuring women in their marketing campaigns, 19 percent have started using more images of transgender models, and 18 percent have featured gender fluid, non-binary or androgynous models—leading the way, compared to the other countries surveyed. They also rank highest (45%) for having used more images featuring racially diverse models in the last 12 months.

UK struggling with regulation-based gender issues

Following the recent introduction of the Advertising Standards Authority’s (ASA) gender stereotyping ban, 74 percent of UK marketers say they have been impacted by that standard (compared to 57 percent the previous year). Half (51%) of the respondents also agree that there are some company concerns that gender-neutral advertising could negatively impact their bottom line, while 60 percent (younger generations more, older less) agree that gender is no longer as important a factor when it comes to targeting in marketing campaigns.

Traditional mindsets in Germany

Echoing discussions of the past 15 years, 60 percent of German marketers agreed that a gender stereotyping ban (similar to the UK’s) should exist for advertising in Germany, and 50 percent believe it is important to support gender fluidity through marketing campaigns. Both are the lowest figures among countries surveyed, and relatively low agreements within the context of the survey. The country also ranks last regarding the use of more images featuring racially diverse models, transgender models, or people with a disability.

Scope and Learning for D&I and marketing practices

While this latest research does not analyze the actual imagery in advertising, it sheds light on the proclaimed opinions, perceptions, and intentions of marketing experts. Their answers may or may not be influenced by social expectancy, peer group think, or messages spread in special interest media and filter bubbles. Similar to the results from previous research, high levels of interest are coupled with low awareness for the hard business case. Furthermore, the question of diverse imagery may only be one element of a larger approach that accommodates differences within the mass market and market segments in a credible and relevant way.

Larger-scale data about the extent to which this is already happening are scarce and exist mainly for local markets. However, they consistently show that neither product nor communication strategies—above or below the line—nor sales (front end, customer service…) are close to the diversity of the actual existing customer base, regarding ethnic or cultural diversity, gender, LGBT, age, religion, or disability (cf. the following article).

Instead, the internet provides a platform for different communities to finally voice their anger about, for example, sexism in advertising, as well as all-white or all-young approaches in marketing. The persistence of these campaigns confirms the high percentage of agreement regarding room for growth for D&I in marketing.

By Michael Stuber, the European D&I Engineer

Shortly after SuperValu launched its Autism-Friendly Shopping project—following an 18-month development and piloting journey—their competitor Lidl followed with Autism Aware Quiet Evenings. Hefty backlash over an incident showed Lidl the size of the learning curve companies need to follow in order to tap into diverse market segments.

Basic accessibility in public spaces and stores in most Western or industrialized countries is a no-brainer today. New technologies have helped hugely to drive the inclusion of people with disabilities. A report by Accenture calculated that “new technologies have the potential to bring an estimated 350 million people with disabilities into the workforce over the next 10 years.” What is needed is to keep accessibility in mind when starting to think about new developments (along other diversity aspects).

The Accenture report provides an overview of five key areas needed to create more positive experiences for people with disabilities and lead a people-centric digital revolution: Universal design, Artificial Intelligence, wider partnerships, talent market, and new industries. Customers with disabilities, however, are only mentioned in a brief aside. The extent to which differently abled market segments are marginalized, for example by the retail or hospitality industries, is illustrated by the campaign Help Me Spend My Money, launched by the social enterprise Purple in 2017. According to UK research, shopping, and eating and drinking out, rank as the top three most difficult experiences for disabled persons. U.S. figures show that they are also three times more likely than people without disabilities to never go online (23% vs. 8%).

Experts recommend that companies need to do a proper journey mapping to understand customers with disabilities in order to be able to respond to their needs and eventually, serve a much larger clientele as countless examples of the so-called “from the margin to the mainstream” effect have shown in the past.

First steps to create Autism friendliness in Irish retail stores

For many, the predominant image of accessibility includes wheelchair access, accessible web technologies, and perhaps, Braille. The challenges for people with autism, in everyday situations such as shopping, are as significant as they are unknown to many. Noise, light, crowds, and other elements can create stress, often to an extreme extent. In 2016, the Irish retail chain SuperValu started a step-by-step learning journey and development process to assist customers with autism in shopping at their stores. Initial steps included the following:

• Autism-friendly shopping times (quieter, low lights, fast track till)
• Introduction of Autism Lifeskill Friend (ALF) trolleys (providing clipboard for images of articles to buy and a “finished” box, so that children with autism can focus on something and participate in shopping)

The retail chain worked with subject-matter-expert partners, such as Middletown Centre for Autism and AsIAm to develop additional supports, including these:

• Sensory Store Maps–indicate high intensity and low intensity areas in store
• Photos of store–visualize the store trip before you visit
• Store sounds–download and listen to get familiar with our store sounds

A dedicated webpage makes these items available and provides additional explanations. http://supervalu.ie/real-people/autism-friendly

Lidl Ireland’s bumpy catch-up

SuperValu’s competitor, Lidl Ireland, also carried out tests and pilots in 2017, and announced in March 2018 that they would begin offering Autism Aware Quiet Evenings across all of their 194 stores in Ireland and Northern Ireland on April 2, World Autism Day. In addition to reduced lighting, no music, priority queuing, and lowered till scan sounds, they offer extra assistance upon request. The Irish Equality Status act already requires stores to allow autism assistance dogs (similar to dogs assisting blind people). Lidl also announced that they will train all store teams “to gain a greater understanding of autism (…).” An incident that occurred just prior to the announcement made headlines and demonstrated the need for such information. A woman, her son who has autism, and his specially trained autism assistance dog were asked to leave a Lidl store in Dublin. This happened despite explanations about the situation, the child’s needs, and the dog’s official blue jacket. Lidl Ireland quickly sent their unreserved apology.

D&I change process: Accepting the need to be on the journey together

Not only in the field of disability but in the D&I arena at large, it has become important for everyone involved to understand the need to learn and grow together. The breadth and depth of what needs to be understood and addressed is typically much larger than people think. And more complex than many of the cool solutions presented online or at events.

Hence, along the development process, everyone involved will experience learning moments, including those who see themselves as “in the know.” A careful analysis of your customer touch points, starting from very early communication all the way to potential moments of truth and follow-up contacts, will provide an impression of what companies should consider when planning to include diverse costumers more consciously.

This kind of thorough approach, which goes beyond nice initiatives or projects, will show how your business and your customers can benefit from intelligent Inclusion.