Strategic Responses by European Companies to the Diversity Challenge: an Online Comparison

LRP Long Range Planning 37 (2004) 295–318

long range planning

www.lrpjournal.com

Strategic Responses by European Companies to the Diversity Challenge: an Online 5 Comparison Val Singh and Se´bastien Point

Diversity management is a rethinking and reframing of equality management. It has particular significance in Europe with its increasingly diverse populations, homogenous leaders and aging workforce. Corporate websites are often the first point of call for prospective recruits, partners and investors, and they often contain ‘diversity statements’. This study investigates the web-based promotion of ‘diversity’ by 241 leading companies in eight European countries. This paper focuses particularly on the drivers and stages of diversity management and finds large differences across Europe. It identifies drivers for diversity management as better performance, enhancing corporate reputation and meeting stakeholder needs. The authors also found six stages of diversity management implementation and discuss their implications for human resource management. Q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Scan the appointments pages of a UK newspaper and you will increasingly see frequent advertisements for well-paid heads of diversity management. Elsewhere in Europe, it is just as obvious that an increasing number of European companies now see diversity as important. Diversity in this context means the range of individual differences to be found in any group of people, including visible differences such as race, ethnicity and gender, and less visible 5

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 19th EGOS Colloquium, Copenhagen, 2003. Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1234-751-122; fax: +44-1234-751-806; e-mail: [email protected]




0024-6301/$ - see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2004.05.009

differences such as political affiliation and sexual orientation. The challenges of diversity currently faced by European companies include managing intercultural communication and cooperation, national and regional stereotyping, racial and ethnic diversity and asylum-seekers, adjusting to new roles of women, addressing aging populations and declining birth-rates, managing the complexity deriving from new member states, and globalisation.1 Yet there is continued homogeneity of leaders in top companies, as evidenced by the Higgs Review of corporate governance in the UK. Diversity is indeed a complex and important issue for European companies, given the multicultural, multilingual, multiethnic populations within the continent’s borders. However, despite practitioner coverage on how to manage diversity, there is as yet little empirical research on whether companies in Europe have shifted from older forms of equality management to diversity management, nor on their rationales for adopting the popularly advocated strategies for diversity management. One way of identifying company-espoused policies is to study how they promote their strategies to stakeholders. Websites are useful outlets for corporate reporting, providing an image of corporate commitment to diversity, especially as an indicator of corporate social responsibility. Websites are also useful data sources for researchers, providing access to corporate strategies. We therefore explore how leading companies in Europe explain and promote their diversity management policies in the new medium of the worldwide web. A key article by Dass and Parker maps out strategic responses to the need for diversity management, which informs our analysis.2 We also draw on an exploratory study into how leading UK employers manage diversity, and a study of corporate reputation management in French, German and UK companies through descriptions of human resource policies in annual reports.3 Only one previous study was identified relating to the discourse analysis of diversity in French and German companies but that included annual reports and some websites.4 We are interested in the voluntary disclosure of diversity policy on websites, and the patterns around such disclosures, particularly the stated drivers of diversity management. We gathered data from 241 top company websites across eight European countries (Finland, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK). Using discourse analysis of corporate website diversity statements, we identify and discuss the drivers of diversity management, the strategic responses to the challenge of diversity and espoused strategies for diversity management. The paper concludes with consideration of implications for practitioners, and suggestions for further research in this new field.

The changing European context Managing people with diverse characteristics is a new challenge for employers in Europe. Until the 1980s, the issue of equality in the workplace was mainly focused on women, as they changed their employment patterns and remained in (or returned to) employment after having children. Women sought equality in the workplace, and in the UK, legislation in the 1970s introduced policies for equality of opportunity (with intentions of equality of outcome) at work. At the same time, immigration brought newcomers into Europe. In the UK, many came from former colonies, and immigrants now form around 7 percent of the population, a proportion that rises in London and the cities. France and the Netherlands have similar colonial heritages with permanent settlement of many immigrants. Germany has had its ‘guest workers’ for four decades, with strong resistance to offering citizenship rights. Switzerland and Sweden have grown outward-facing businesses resulting in a high proportion of multinational companies with non-national, often professional employees. More recently, immigration (including asylum-seekers) has become a feature of most European countries, including Scandinavia. Legislation was extended in some countries to include anti-discrimination policies on grounds of race as well as sex. In the 1990s, anti-discrimination legislation in the UK was extended to 296

Strategic Responses to the Diversity Challenge

include disability, and in many European countries a range of other differences (including age, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and union affiliations) are dealt with by protective legislation or codes of practice driven by the European Union, for whom equality and social integration are important principles. However equal opportunities legislation has not removed the so-called ‘glass ceiling’ for women, nor for ethnic minorities. As recognition dawned that equal opportunities policies did not result in the equal outcomes anticipated, new ways of managing difference emerged, including diversity management.

A model for understanding approaches to managing differences Managing differences can be approached from various perspectives with a variety of responses. Dass and Parker suggest four main perspectives: resistance, discrimination and fairness, access and legitimacy, and learning, each with a strategic response to the challenge. First, the resistance approach ignores diversity issues. This tends to result in persistent homogeneity as those in power are likely to recruit and promote people like themselves. The argument is that if people are good enough, they will succeed, whatever their background, hence no intervention is required. The strategic response is reactive.

If people are good enough, they will succeed, whatever their background Second, the discrimination and fairness perspective sees difference as a cause of problems. In this perspective, the aim is to protect those who are different, by ensuring a level playing field and assimilating difference, but a consequence is that in the process, the dominant group’s characteristics are privileged as ‘the norm’ and the minority group is cast as ‘the other’. Equal opportunity (EO) measures fall into this category, using principles of ‘sameness’ based in social justice. EO policies came as a response to social protests over gender, racial and social injustices limiting equal access to employment and promotion. By declaring that everyone is treated equally, this well-intended approach tends to sweep under the carpet the additional hurdles at work faced by those who are different, which means that they may not get an equal chance to develop to full potential. Also within this perspective is ‘affirmative action’ (AA), a strategy that ensures successful placement of minority applicants. AA policies for gender parity in management and leadership may attract a backlash from males, and are also often unpopular with women who do not want to be seen as ‘token’ appointments. However, others would strongly argue that it is sometimes necessary to take such action to redress persistent imbalances and change ‘the norm’ so that once the role models have established themselves as competent, further intervention is not required. The strategic response in this paradigm, often aimed at pacifying minority groups, can be seen as defensive. The access and legitimacy perspective frames diversity as creating opportunities. Differences are valued, often in response to demographic pressures, and there is an emphasis on inclusion. Within this paradigm, there has been a trend towards the ‘capabilities’ approach, derived from the United Nations Charter for Human Rights, whereby employers are responsible for creating a workplace wherein differences are respected, where individuals feel fairly treated, and where their capabilities are developed to full potential, through treatment (e.g. work/life balance programmes) provided for all employees.5 The strategic response is accommodative. An increasing interest is taken in using diversity to improve access to new markets and to legitimise the Long Range Planning, vol 37

2004

297

employer’s reputation. However, the main objective of this approach is to enable individuals to feel included and respected, rather than exploitation of individual talent. The fourth perspective is the learning approach, which recognises that managing differences and similarities offers wide-ranging opportunities but also incurs costs. Rather than assimilate or just value differences, there is an overall systemic acculturation process not just concerning minority individuals but for all employees as they learn about other perspectives and the value of cultural as well as demographic diversity, resulting in a pluralist or multicultural organisation. This is where the managing diversity philosophy fits in, making a stronger and wider business case for diversity, particularly important in terms of recruitment of the best talent.6 However, competitive advantage may also be gained through generation of variety of thinking, leading to more creativity and better decision-making. But it requires deep culture change, championing from the top, a flow through line management to each individual, consistency and constant reinforcement, and accountability for behaviour. Within this paradigm, the strategic response is proactive, with individual and organisational learning in the short and longer term. This philosophy is in alignment with a resource-based view, in that the value of people, human capital, can be enhanced by cultural and demographic diversity to provide sustainable and non-imitable advantage in an increasingly complex and competitive world.7 Diversity management has a universality that may make it more acceptable in organisations than affirmative action. However, the managing diversity approach has been criticised as a smokescreen or rhetoric which allows subtle discrimination to continue, and is sometimes said to ignore the social structures that reproduce discrimination.8

The managing diversity approach has been criticised as a smokescreen which allows subtle discrimination to continue Drivers for change to diversity management The business case is often cited, but there is little research regarding actual drivers for change. In a US study, Cox and Taylor suggested four groups of drivers: social responsibility; the inevitability of diversity (cost of not managing diversity and resource acquisition); value in diversity (marketing, creativity, problem-solving); and added organisational value (e.g. organisational needs for flexibility).9 A later study reported US human resource managers’ views that the top five reasons for managing diversity were better utilisation of talent, increased marketplace understanding, enhanced breadth of understanding in leadership positions, enhanced creativity and increased quality of team problem-solving.10 In a UK study of 11 leading private and public sector employers, diversity managers ranked the drivers for diversity management. Labour market demographics came first, including specific factors such as local labour markets and organisational needs for flexible workers. This was followed by top management commitment, then by political and legal forces, while competitive advantage, the need to represent the marketplace or local community in the workforce, and customer and media pressure were reported as more recent drivers. Social and ethical forces drove change in the public sector, whilst globalisation was a key driver for multinational companies. The ability to work and learn transculturally was seen as important for all staff, especially managers, even in the public sector. Internal pressure was not a strong driver, but varied where there were lobby groups such as women’s networks or strong trade unions. We found no research investigating drivers for diversity management in other European countries. Hence, this study explores rationales given by top companies across Europe. 298

Strategic Responses to the Diversity Challenge

Diversity statements are a form of corporate communication, and sometimes, a means of corporate reputation management Diversity statements—promoting policies to stakeholders Diversity statements are a form of corporate communication, and sometimes, a means of corporate reputation management. A positive image is usually presented by the company to enhance or redress its reputation, as a form of impression management.11 Diversity statements are similar to ‘mission statements’ described by Campbell as ‘an expression of the company’s purpose and ambition’ in that they are symbolic texts, widely circulated and intended to guide behaviour internally, as well as present evidence of ‘good management’ to external stakeholders.12 Bart’s study of mission statements on the worldwide web found that only 45 percent of a sample of 100 Fortune 500 companies decided to post their mission statement online.13 Only five companies responded to his inquiry regarding rationales for putting the statements on the web. These included reinforcing company values, giving broad exposure to the mission, being publicly accountable for the company’s commitments to important stakeholders, and attracting and reassuring customers. These factors are relevant in this study of diversity statements. Communication of strong values is a key task for strategic human resource managers.14 There are several stakeholder groups who are likely to be influenced by diversity statements, particularly the people who will form the talent pool for the next generation of managers and leaders. Research has shown that initial attraction to a company depends on perceptions of its image, and that promoting good corporate social performance (CSP) attracts high-quality applicants.15 A further objective may be to make existing employees from diverse backgrounds and with diverse characteristics feel included, respected and part of the talent pool for leadership. Another stakeholder group is the investor community. The way in which companies manage diversity is becoming a strong value in itself. Individual and institutional investors wishing to integrate social and environmental criteria in their investment decisions may demand disclosure of company commitment to diversity. Consequently, factors such as the promotion of women and minorities, and policies and practices supporting disabled workers and customers may be seen as important indicators of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and commitment to diversity. International guidelines have recently been drawn up for companies promoting CSR which include diversity and equal opportunities statements as indicators of CSP.16 Importantly, a new meta-analysis of 52 studies of corporate social and financial performance indicates a virtuous cycle link between CSP (incorporating people-related factors such as reputation for good diversity management) and corporate financial performance, strengthening the business case for managing diversity, and promoting it to stakeholders.17 The discourse of ‘diversity management’ The term ‘diversity management’ represents a changing discourse used by the company as a vehicle for communication. Discourses are embodied in texts of various forms. They create social reality, shaping our understanding of the world through concepts, objects and subject positions, in a context of existing social structures and discourses whereby social relations are constructed, maintained and changed within institutions such as companies.18 Some actors will have major roles in creating the discourse, while others will have no voice, but all are involved in interacting with it. Discourse analysis examines texts and other representations in their historical and social contexts. It seeks to reveal the way in which the phenomenon under study has been (re)produced and maintained through communication. The way in which diversity is ‘framed’ by the company will reflect a particular view of the world by those with the power to formalise and make explicit their diversity management policies. Discourse analysis involves not just text but also visible representations. For example, a study of the images porLong Range Planning, vol 37

2004

299

trayed in annual reports of 30 top Dutch companies showed the extent to which traditional gender roles were embedded.19 Through analysis of texts, evidence may be found as to whether new structures are being promoted or inequalities maintained and reproduced. Within organisations, new social processes, such as diversity management, challenge the existing structures of power and domination which were legitimised in earlier discourses.20

New social processes, such as diversity management, challenge the existing structures of power and domination There is a gap in knowledge concerning how diversity policies are promoted. Only two previous studies have been found. Kirby and Harter explored sources that promoted diversity initiatives, such as texts and handbooks as well as nine consultant websites in the US.21 In their view, the metaphors around diversity and equality were focused on exploitation of diversity for the employer’s advantage, rather than change towards a more inclusive culture for the individual. In a comparative study, Bellard and Ru¨ ling investigated the transfer of diversity discourses from the US to Europe, examining 38 French and German annual reports and websites. They found superficial adoption of the discourse by some companies, but no profound impact of diversity management philosophies, evidenced by continuing socio-cultural differences between statements of French and German companies. While French companies emphasised diversity in terms of professions and cultural or national identity within their country’s business world, German companies promoted diversity as international experience to be gained externally. However, this study did not fully explore the diversity concept in terms of added value and the business case, nor did they consider drivers and equality/diversity management strategies promoted. Our aim is to examine how leading companies promote diversity on their websites in the changing context of Europe, with its demographic shifts and increasing globalisation. A separate article reports the meanings and types of diversity portrayed by this sample of top companies.22 The objectives of this article are to identify from online statements the drivers of diversity management and the espoused philosophies that underpin the management of difference in these companies. The research questions driving this study and examined in this paper are therefore: . To what extent do top European companies make reference to diversity and/or equality on their websites?

. What are the drivers for diversity management indicated in such statements? What underpinning philosophies of difference are promulgated by top companies across Europe, and are there differences across countries?

Methodology A social constructionist approach was taken to examine the texts of online diversity statements, to explore, analyse and reveal patterns, themes and underlying philosophies of diversity, acknowledging that the texts were constructed by the authors (the companies) and deconstructed and reconstructed by us as researchers.23 Indeed, we do not know who in most of these companies was responsible for the creation of the diversity texts nor for the design of the web pages. In some cases, the statements were reportedly made by chief executives but usually no clues were given as to the level at which the statements were officially endorsed and philosophies espoused before being placed in this digital showcase. Nonetheless, the messages communicated through the websites reveal important information about diversity values and policies, whether or not they are enacted (exploring this latter point is not the goal of this paper). At that level, they are one of several lenses through which various stakeholders can view the com300

Strategic Responses to the Diversity Challenge

pany. We drew on discourse analysis to review our findings, as it provided complementary insight into our deconstruction of the text meanings. The website material has one other major advantage over questionnaires and interviews, especially given the sensitive nature of the inquiry: accurate data can be obtained for every company sampled, without bias from respondents. In addition, if we found nothing on the site on diversity, this revealed a lack of attention to promoting corporate values and policies on an increasingly important topic. Our interpretations of discourses revealed here may not be those intended by the companies, but are understandings informed by our particular backgrounds and interests in diversity management, corporate reporting and impression management. Sample Following a literature review on diversity management and corporate identity, we undertook a desk-based study of top companies by market value in eight European countries. We selected the 241 companies on the basis of their inclusion at the top of their respective national stock exchange and listings in the European sections of the Financial Times, at January 2003. (See Appendix A). Data collection and analysis We examined website pages to find specific corporate diversity and equal opportunities statements, also using search engines for ‘diversity’ and ‘equality’ in the respective languages as well as in English. Almost all the sampled companies had well-developed websites in English. We decided to limit data collection to website material but to exclude annual reports even where available as downloads, because of differing legal requirements for reporting policies on disability, for example, in the various countries. We wanted to examine voluntary disclosures regarding diversity. We collected both quantitative and qualitative data from the websites. Specific statements on diversity/equal opportunities were imported into qualitative analysis software (QSR Nudist 5) and coded, using a detailed hierarchical thematic coding framework, with agreed definitions for each node, based on the reading of the literature. We then worked on different subsets of the eight-country data, agreeing on changes to definitions and adjusting the coding on a very frequent basis. We jointly agreed reports and explanations for the findings. We took a realist approach to our study. According to Bhaskar, reality is captured through three domains: objectively observed empirical events; actual events or realities, which may be experienced subjectively and interpreted by others; and real processes, or the underlying mechanisms which generate events, from which explanations are sought based on the empirical or actual domain data.24 In such studies, multiple methods are appropriate. Although this is essentially a social constructionist and exploratory study of the discourse of diversity, examining the language used in diversity statements, the data set comprised 241 companies, which enabled statistical differences between companies to be considered, using SPSS software. To enhance statistical power, we grouped the companies into three regions: the UK (50 companies), 82 companies from Scandinavia (Finland, Norway and Sweden) and 109 companies from continental Europe (France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland). Chi-square tests were undertaken on the ‘drivers of diversity’ data to examine relationships between variables, followed by t-tests to consider whether the data indicated independent samples by region. As well as chi-square tests to explore relationships between regions and the ‘stage’ and ‘strategic response’ variables, non-parametric Mann–Whitney tests were used to compare pair-wise differences between the three regions (as the data were not normally distributed). Diversity and equality statements We found considerable differences across countries. Half of the 241 companies used the word ‘diversity’ (or national language equivalent) within their web pages. UK companies were by far the greatest users of the word, with more than four-fifths using the term, compared with only Long Range Planning, vol 37

2004

301

one-fifth of Finnish companies. However, when companies did not use the term ‘diversity’, they frequently mentioned equal opportunities and anti-discrimination practices. Of the 241 sites surveyed, 174 referred to anti-discrimination, EO or diversity management practices. Some companies had diversity statements in several locations on their websites. There were 95 statements on Careers and Human Resources pages, with five countries (France, Holland, German, Sweden and Norway) having most of their statements there. We found 57 statements under Corporate Profile or Business Values pages, and 53 under Corporate Social Responsibility. Swiss companies had similar numbers under Corporate Profile/Business Values and Careers/HR. Finnish companies were evenly spread with slightly more under Corporate Profile. The exception was the UK, where more statements (33) were located under CSR headings, with 21 statements under Careers/HR and 18 under Corporate Profile/Business Values pages. Some companies used photographs of people on diversity pages who were visibly different from the typical white European employee; 57 percent of Swedish companies and 48 percent of UK companies did so, compared with only 6 percent of Dutch companies. Many Asians (especially women) were depicted as technical experts in white coats and laboratory/hospital workplaces, in contrast to some of the black subjects who were shown in informal clothes with full smiles. Another image was a successful youngish Asian female entertaining another woman in a restaurant business meeting. In one photograph, a European male is shown surrounded by ethnically diverse young workers, indicating that management is still white and male—in other words, social structures of power and dominant relations were unchanged.

Some companies used photographs of people on diversity pages who were visibly different from the typical white European employee The drivers for diversity management From these texts, we sought to identify indicators of corporate rationales for diversity management policies. Of the 241 companies in the sample, 131 (54 percent) indicated in their web statements why they were taking action on managing diversity and/or equal opportunities. Some companies gave several reasons. However, while almost all UK companies (92 percent of those mentioning diversity/equal opportunities) gave reasons why management of differences was important, only around half of companies from the other countries gave explanations. Dutch companies had the lowest response, but this is not surprising, given the findings of Rubery that Holland was almost the slowest country in Europe to develop mechanisms for gender mainstreaming.25 Representation of women in Dutch corporate leadership is low, most women work part-time, and the issue of managing diversity for competitive advantage may not yet have been expressed as vigorously as in the UK. From the 131 companies expressing a rationale for managing diversity and equal opportunities, we identified 20 drivers, which we collapsed into 13 categories under three headings: Better Performance; Stakeholders’ Needs; and Reputation and Environment. Enhanced performance items formed the biggest group of drivers, with 40 percent of companies providing such a rationale for diversity management. When companies were grouped by region (UK, Scandinavia, and Continent) chi-square tests revealed significant differences (p > 0:000) between the three regions in the proportion of companies mentioning each of the three types of drivers. Additionally, t-tests revealed that the proportion of UK companies mentioning each of the three types of drivers was very significantly larger than of continental companies (p > 0:000), as well as compared with the Scandinavian group (p > 0:000). However, differences between proportions of Scandinavian and continental companies mentioning drivers were not significant, except on Reputation and Environment, where more Scandinavians mentioned this (p ¼ 0:043). See Table 1. (Appendix B gives details of responses by country.) 302

Strategic Responses to the Diversity Challenge

Table 1. A regional comparison of companies stating drivers for diversity on corporate websites

Drivers mentioned in diversity statements

UK

Scandinavia

Continental Europe

Chi-square significance level

Better performance Better reputation and environment Meet stakeholder needs

88% 72%

43% 28%

42% 16%

0.000 0.000

42%

10%

13%

0.000

Better performance There was strong acknowledgement that diversity can give competitive advantage: 88 of the 131 companies gave this response, although often did not specify what would be enhanced. Both Norsk Hydro and Shell stated that they needed to manage diversity, indicating to managers that this was a business imperative. Shell stated: ‘To continue to grow value, we need to refine, develop and leverage our areas of competitive edge. These include: our extensive global reach; our ability to attract people of the highest calibre and diversity to reflect our global presence and to develop, motivate and retain top talent.’

Some companies talked specifically about the company’s performance and commercial success, especially the Swiss companies. Baˆ loise used evidence-based rationality to make the case for diversity. ‘An environment conducive to top-notch performance includes equal opportunities for men and women, evidenced by practice.’

The second most frequent response item across all eight countries was talent management, which was said to lead to better succession planning and leadership. This reason was given by 59 percent of the 131 companies mentioning diversity. While some companies used the present tense, others such as Barclays acknowledged in their use of the future tense that they were moving forward but were not there yet. ‘This rich diversity is an invaluable source for our leadership’ Nestle´ , Switzerland ‘Becoming a more inclusive organisation will enable us to capitalise on the talent of all our employees, recruit and retain the best people regardless of their background and improve our services to diverse customers and communities. That’s why we are putting so much focus on equality and diversity right across our organization.’ Barclays, UK.

Another theme in enhancing performance through diversity management was the increased creativity and innovation which might be obtained from a workforce with wider experiences, perspectives and understanding. Forty-five companies gave this rationale. Adidas took a normative view, perhaps hinting at difficulties which have arisen from diversity in the past, particularly as many of the new German workers differ by religion. ‘Religious and cultural diversity should not be a source of conflict but rather a source of inspiration and an opportunity to integrate ideas from all over the world.’ Long Range Planning, vol 37

2004

303

Allied to this driver was the view that diversity when well-managed could lead to better decision-making, through exploration of more options. Siemens expressed this forcefully. ‘Diversity improves competitiveness by enlarging the potential for ideas and innovation. Diverse teams addressing problems from varied perspectives will be more productive and achieve better solutions.’

Another benefit of increasing diversity is increased international awareness when people from other countries and cultures are employed and their different views valued. This response was given in a higher proportion in Swedish companies, reflecting their export-led business culture. Overall, 31 websites gave this rationale, including Pharmacia. ‘Pharmacia is 43,000 employees in over 60 countries . . . . Together, our diverse talents, interests and dedication are moving Pharmacia into the vanguard of pharmaceutical care.’

Enhancing change competence appeared to be more important for Norway and France than the other countries, while no Dutch companies mentioned this at all. The French statement below from Lagarde`re anchors this change competence in multiculturalism, typical of the findings from the Bellard and Ru¨ ling study. ‘What company can run ahead of market changes and conclude partnerships and alliances in media, multimedia, automotive and high technology businesses without the backing of staff skilled in their fields and yet open and receptive to different cultures, with different stakes at play?’

Adding value/meeting stakeholders’ needs Improved customer service was the fifth most often cited reason for diversity management. This was strongly positioned as a driver of diversity management by the few Dutch companies who gave a reason, but not given at all by the Norwegians. This may reflect that some of the larger Norwegian companies operate in very traditional industries (e.g. forestry, oil and gas) where face-to-face service may be more limited compared with large retailers, for example. ‘Heineken’s employees and associates are as culturally diverse as our customers, working to deliver the perfect beer in every part of the world. Whatever the local circumstances, they win customers and partners by sharing a passion for enterprise, quality and enjoyment.’ Heineken, The Netherlands.

Eighteen companies mentioned shareholders on their websites on the pages relating to equality and diversity, but only five talked specifically about diversity management and shareholder needs. Some took a holistic view of diversity management in relation to shareholders and other stakeholders as well as employees and customers. ‘Our most senior executives have personally signed a charter entitled ‘‘Success through Inclusion’’ setting out our vision and commitment to equality and diversity for our employees, our customers, for the community and for shareholders.’ Barclays, UK.

The low percentage of companies mentioning shareholders is interesting as it indicates limited awareness of the increasing importance of communicating to a wider range of stakeholders, as suggested by Scholes and Clutterbuck. 304

Strategic Responses to the Diversity Challenge

‘By capturing the strengths of our differences, and leveraging them to gain competitive advantage, we strive to meet or exceed the expectations of our customers, employees and shareholders.’ Siemens, Germany.

Such messages have particular impact when coming directly from the top, as was the case with HBOS. ‘Our aim is to build shareholder value within a responsibility agenda, covering critical issues like governance, equality and diversity, community relations, environmental protection, business transparency and fair dealing.’ James Crosby, Chief Executive, HBOS, UK.

These statements indicate a longer-term commitment, not just to diversity, but to good management practice and social as well as financial performance. Corporate reputation/environment The third most frequently cited rationale (46 of the 131 companies stating drivers) was creating a better environment for the employees, mentioned by 26 UK companies. Within this heading, we included responses about inclusion and improving employee satisfaction. There were responses on this from six countries, but not France and Switzerland. ‘. . .the diverse mix of personalities and expertise that gives our company its rich culture and unique atmosphere.’ Akzo Nobel, The Netherlands. ‘We’re committed to encouraging everyone to contribute in an environment where they feel respected and valued.’ Boots, UK.

Having a company with an inclusive culture and good environment can lead to enhanced reputation. Companies in Germany, France and the Netherlands put forward a higher proportion of statements about corporate reputation and image. ‘Deep respect for the diversity of different nationalities, cultures and opinions are the hallmark of our business activities.’ Degussa, Germany. ‘In order to attract and retain qualified employees, the company must have a reputation and image as one that values diversity.’ DaimlerChrysler, Germany.

Swedish and UK companies talked about the need to show good corporate citizenship, not just in a local but also an international context. ‘The good reputation of BAA is one of our most valuable assets. We must observe and respect the culture and traditions of each country in which we operate.’ BAA, UK. ‘We conduct our business as a responsible, corporate citizen in the worldwide society.’ BG, UK.

Putting findings on the drivers of diversity into context with previous studies, Table 2 highlights that there are new emphases coming in the business case for diversity, to do with adding value for shareholders, and a more explicit focus on corporate social responsibility. The shareholder argument is interesting, and may have come out of recognition that the managing diversity philosophy is more acceptable if it can be shown to positively impact the bottom line. Diversity management takes a strategic perspective, that diversity is an asset and an under-tapped resource. Evidently some of these companies are taking this very seriously. Company repuLong Range Planning, vol 37

2004

305

Table 2. Drivers for diversity: comparison of the findings of this study with earlier work

Drivers for diversity identified in web statements

Enhanced performance (not specified) Talent management (including better recruitment, promotion, leadership) Enhanced creativity International awareness, intercultural relations Better decision-making, problem solving Flexibility Enhancing change competence Meet customer needs, better marketing Adding value for shareholders Create better environment, inclusion, employee satisfaction Better image, reputation Good corporate citizenship, social responsibility Avoid discrimination, stereotyping

This study: eight European countries

UK diversity managers’ views, Singh et al., UK [2002]
























US HR managers’ Suggestions by views, reported by Cox and Taylor, USA [1991] Robinson and Dechant [1997]
























































tations are impacted by the public’s view of them as good corporate citizens. Diversity management is increasingly seen as an international indicator of good CSR, and almost all the UK companies are clearly following the Global Reporting Initiative recommendations by disclosing their policies.

Diversity management takes a strategic perspective, that diversity is an asset and an under-tapped resource. Stages of diversity management indicated online We used the Dass and Parker model as a reference point at the second stage of coding, to group the codes identifying stages. We set criteria for allocating the companies into categories by stages in the journey from espoused equal opportunities towards diversity management, relating these to the philosophies for managing diversity. In Fig. 1, we bring together the drivers and the stages of diversity management, derived from our understanding of the literature and previous work. We recognise that these are not necessarily stages that all companies wish to move through, as some may prefer an equal opportunities or capabilities approach and demonstrate no intention of moving to a ‘diversity for competitive advantage’ stage. We identified six stages rather than the four expected from the Dass and Parker model. In the Invisible group, there was only one UK company. The Defensive group was split into those companies who just mentioned discrimination, and those who presented an equal opportunities philosophy. They could be seen as two sides of the same coin. We also split the Accommodative group into those presenting a respect and capabilities philosophy and those describing diversity management without giving a business case as to why it was important. 306

Strategic Responses to the Diversity Challenge

Figure 1. Moving towards managing diversity for competitive advantage

The cross-national comparison Table 3 summarises the stages and the strategic responses by region. The Proactive group contains 70 percent of UK companies, indicating a significantly more proactive management of diversity than their European peers. Chi-square tests revealed highly significant differences (p > 0:000) for the stage and strategic response data on the 241 companies by region (UK, Scandinavia and Continent). As the data distribution did not pass the normality test, we used non-parametric Mann–Whitney tests pairwise between the three regions to see if they were independent samples. Differences in the positioning of companies into the various stage and strategic response categories between the UK and continental companies, and between the UK and Scandinavian companies were highly significant on both stage and strategic response (p > 0:000) but there was no significant difference between Scandinavian and continental companies on either category. After the UK, German companies seem to have moved furthest in promoting diversity management. Appendix C provides data for each country. With so many UK companies showing their policies online, we gain rich insight into their discourses, in contrast to Finnish companies where only 57 percent of companies say anything about equality, only 42 percent mention diversity, and of those, just over a third give a rationale for managing it. We now move to examine the evidence which led to categorisation of the companies by stage and response. Invisible stage In this category, we placed all the companies not mentioning diversity or equal opportunities on their websites, nor any set of words from which readers might easily ascertain the company stance on diversity, for instance, respect for cross-cultural differences. Surprisingly in this webbased age, almost three out of every 10 companies fell into this invisible category, reinforcing Bart’s findings that many companies do not post strategy documents to the web. This may be Long Range Planning, vol 37

2004

307

Table 3. Top company strategic responses to the diversity challenge, and stage reached, by region

Philosophical approach (Dass and Parker)

Resistance

Discrimination and fairness

Access and legitimacy

Learning

Strategic response UK Scandinavia Continental Europe Stage reached

Reactive

Defensive

Accommodative

Proactive

2% 39% 34%

6% 10% 15%

22% 27% 30%

70% 24% 21%

Invisible on-line

Avoid discrimination

Equal opportunities

Respect/capabilities

Diversity Management

2% 39% 34%

0% 1% 9%

6% 9% 6%

6% 9% 13%

16% 18% 17%

UK Scandinavia Continental Europe

Diversity as competitive advantage 70% 24% 21%

because they do not have such a statement, or may have overlooked the advantages of promoting diversity. Most of these companies had careers or people policy sites with encouraging words, indicating that people would be developed. But careful examination and searches of the websites revealed no clues to their diversity policies. ‘If your career objectives include the challenges of a global market in one of the most competitive industries in the world, Autoliv might be the place for you.’ Autoliv, Sweden. The Autoliv statement is typical of many cases, where international careers and the global nature of the business were featured, but with no indication of equal opportunities or diversity management. Perhaps mention of the ‘global’ organisation indicates that cross or multicultural awareness will be valued, and hence is a synonym for valuing diversity, but the link is not explicit. Failure to mention such issues can create scepticism among potential stakeholders because of the implied lack of attention to this issue, and hence may lead to perceived low standards of employee relations. This is said to be the case for CEO statements in annual reports where people issues are dealt with in a cursory manner.26 This category fits the ‘Resistance’ mode identified by Dass and Parker. Diversity and equality are perceived by their absence on websites to be non-issues, the status quo is maintained, and the strategy is ‘Reactive’.

Diversity and equality are perceived by their absence on websites to be non-issues. Avoid discrimination stage Companies who talked about not allowing discrimination were categorised here. They used defensive language without stating the positive side of equal opportunities. The first mention of their equality policy makes diversity as an issue which needs to be controlled and policed, despite probable good intentions. Only 5 percent of companies fell into this category, with none at all in the UK, Germany and Finland. Numico’s statement is representative of this small group. 308

Strategic Responses to the Diversity Challenge

‘We are determined to refrain from any form of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, creed, age, sex, national origin or disability.’ Numico, Netherlands.

Equal opportunities stage Another small group comprises the 16 companies indicating an equal opportunities stance, without mentioning diversity or competitive advantage. The equal opportunities philosophy is to treat all employees equally, a stance which may be critiqued on grounds of ignoring differences and indicating an expectation of assimilation from those who are different. That may or may not have been the intention of the authors of the statements. As in the text of TPG, a statement about non-discrimination is also often linked to disclosures on equality. ‘We aim to create equal opportunities for all our employees, without discrimination under equal circumstances on grounds of sex, race, religion, marital status and age.’ TPG, Netherlands.

The order of these two themes may impact how these texts are received by stakeholders. The diversity strategies of the companies placed in these two categories can be regarded as Defensive, protecting those who are different, assimilating differences and providing a level playing field. Respect for the individual/capabilities stage At this node, we coded a group of statements indicating that differences would be respected, and that individuals would be encouraged to develop. In most cases, the organisation promised to provide the right kind of environment, following the United Nations Human Rights and ‘Capabilities’ philosophy. ‘All Ahlstrom employees are encouraged to work at the limit of their capabilities for their personal fulfilment and development and to make us all more productive. . . . Respect for Each Other— Respecting individual opinions and attitudes, which may differ from our own, is especially important as Ahlstrom expands around the globe.’

As the philosophy in these companies is to value the individual, with an emphasis on access and legitimacy, we have allocated this group to the Accommodative cell of the model. Diversity management Almost a fifth of the sample was placed in this category, where companies stated that diversity was supported and valued. However, despite mentioning diversity, companies in this group did not indicate why it was important to them. ‘We value the diversity of Akzo Nobel and make use of it. We want to give you a taste of what we have to offer for experienced people: A diverse, international company.’

Nordea Bank also indicated evidence for the two earlier stages of our model in its statement, while the Royal Bank of Scotland indicated that it had moved from a compliance and antidiscriminatory position to valuing difference. RBS also specified that diversity management and respect for the individual had to be a concern for everyone, from board members to managers and individuals. ‘We are committed to equal opportunities. We seek high professionalism and make it possible for our employees to develop and assume responsibility. We support diversity and a fair representation of women and men as well as ethnic minorities in our organisation.’ Nordea Bank, Finland. Long Range Planning, vol 37

2004

309

‘Managing diversity: valuing the differences between people, rather than just complying with the law.’ Royal Bank of Scotland, UK.

Some companies presented their equality philosophy as managing diversity, but framed diversity as demanding attention and presenting a challenge for managers and employees. Although they are moving towards the ‘learning’ perspective, they do not yet present the positive side of diversity strongly enough to be included in the latter group. ‘The internationalisation of Telenor has given the group a cultural, social and professional diversity, which puts new demands on our managers and employees.’ Telenor.

Such statements could be seen as problematising those who are different by those in power. This may be unintentional, but the wording of these statements has an impact on readers, and hence careful reflection needs to be given to the aims of statements to align them with the words used. Together with the respecting differences/capabilities group of companies, we placed this group in the Accommodative strategy category of the model. Diversity as competitive advantage This was the biggest category, strongly influenced by the large percentage (70 percent) of UK companies who gave positive reasons for managing diversity, seeing it as a source of competitive advantage. We identified the specific rationales in the ‘Drivers’ section of this paper, as better performance, meeting stakeholder needs and managing corporate reputation and environment. ‘ABB wants to achieve the best performance possible in all areas of the company. To do this, it needs the best people in the market. And obviously the best people will consist of both men and women.’ ABB, Sweden. ‘Our cultural diversity is a valuable asset because we do business in a global market.’ Schneider, France. ‘We firmly believe that the creation of a diverse workforce and an inclusive working environment are vital to BP’s long-term success and competitive advantage in global markets.’ BP, UK.

In some cases, the language is very warm, ‘a cherished value’; ‘we welcome’, ‘we embrace’, while in other cases, the language is straight, rational and businesslike as to why diversity is valued. Such contrasts represent the ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ faces of human resource management. ‘Bayer’s workforce is diverse, and we work hard to embrace our differences.’ Bayer, Germany. ‘To deliver products that meet the needs of individual consumers, we need people who respect other cultures, embrace diversity, never discriminate on any basis.’ Nestle´ , Switzerland. ‘GlaxoSmithKline welcomes the talent of people from diverse backgrounds to provide the expertise, dedication and imagination to propel us toward a prosperous future. GSK, UK.’

In some cases, a rationale is presented that the best businesses value diversity, and hence, by promotion of their own adoption of such practice, these companies are claiming a right to be seen as a ‘best business’. The UK’s Lloyds–TSB provides such an example. ‘As diversity becomes truly ingrained in the cultures of the most successful organisations, good companies aim to improve their appreciation of difference. The UK’s best businesses are proactive 310

Strategic Responses to the Diversity Challenge

in their management of equality and diversity. They are aware that valuing difference is a key factor in providing excellent customer service and helps organisations to stand apart from competitors.’

In other words, promoting diversity is being used in several ways: to make the company attractive to potential employees, but also to enhance reputation as a legitimate ‘best business’. Such actions could be seen as corporate acclaiming behaviour, part of a repertoire of impression management strategies. A number of companies mentioned diversity as competitive advantage and the challenges that they thought this would bring. This is a more positive way to frame diversity than we found in the ‘diversity management’ stage, because the positive side of diversity management is emphasised as well as the challenges and costs of doing so. The French company Renault emphasises the sustainable benefits of social equity, in other words, diversity management. ‘The three components of sustainable development—economic efficiency, social equity and environmental protection—represent a major challenge for an international group such as Renault.’

Such statements indicate that companies have thought very seriously about the implications of managing diversity well, with the difficulties and challenges acknowledged rather than hidden from view. This group of companies were put into the Proactive cell of the model. The Renault, GlaxoSmithKline and Lloyds–TSB diversity statements are excellent examples of the criteria for that cell, with a long-term perspective, recognition of potential conflict, and a unity-in-diversity, or multicultural approach emphasising organisational learning for competitive advantage. Fig. 2 presents the overall findings of this study regarding stage by country, with each of the 241 companies in the original sample allocated to one of six categories described above. Managerial implications A number of strategic issues arise from these findings. First, an understanding is needed that the journey from reactive anti-discrimination policies towards respect, inclusion and proactive diversity management (as indicated in Fig. 1) involves careful use of words as well as a change of the underpinning philosophies of managing difference. Our survey shows that around half of the sampled websites used the word ‘diversity’ in connection with people issues. Almost three-quarters of them mentioned something on equality and/or diversity, but what about the other quarter who did not even mention diversity or equal opportunities? The absence reveals something about the company’s attitudes towards diversity. This is particularly important for

Figure 2. Stages of diversity management across 241 Top European companies Long Range Planning, vol 37

2004

311

continental and Scandinavian companies with no mention of diversity on their websites, who may soon be facing significant demographic changes. Second, an understanding of the language (or ‘discourse’) of diversity is central to effective text-based promotion (such as web material) of inclusive strategies. But critical analysis reveals that some companies frame diversity negatively. It would be more effective to avoid hostile labels—or those that may be perceived as such (e.g. ‘anti-discrimination’)—and instead emphasise inclusion and the positive aspects of diversity. But it should not just be a question of relabelling. Promoting diversity management is not just another management fad, but implies new thinking about inclusion, talent management, reputation and environment. It also requires acceptance and commitment at corporate level. Our survey showed that very few companies define diversity in their statements, but this can be helpful as it sets a context within which the stated policies can be interpreted—which presumably is why the issue is mentioned on the website. Only just over half of the companies clearly indicated why they were taking action on diversity and/or equal opportunities. By highlighting the value of diversity from their perspective, companies may better legitimise their message and themselves as good employers. Furthermore, identifying the business case in online statements would help acceptance of the value of diversity, and help promote diversity management as a corporate strategy. However, companies need to pay careful attention to how they communicate this new approach and to the way in which diversity is described and depicted, or the old discourse surrounding inequalities may be perpetuated, as could be seen in some photographs on diversity pages. The discourse constructing diversity as a problem could endorse a negative rationalisation of the issue. The diversity message needs internal consistency, succinctness, believability, motivational force and impact and vision. Some of our sample companies blanketed their diversity statements in lengthy pages of detailed anti-discrimination policies, diluting the impact of the well-meant message.

Promoting diversity management is not just another management fad Third, diversity statements should not give an impression of an organisational climate where every employee feels fairly treated, respected and valued, if this has not yet been achieved. Some companies acknowledged that diversity management was a challenge, and that they had not yet got it right but were doing their best. Very few companies have as yet embedded diversity into their official corporate values, but just as mission statements can help reinforce corporate values, diversity statements can give exposure to new policies and show corporate commitment to change. Incorporating diversity into the core values of the company, as Astra Zeneca has done, sends a very powerful message to stakeholders—which if we take the resource-based view, can help the competitive advantage in the longer-term. RBS indicates in its diversity statement that the board is monitoring progress. John Browne, CEO of BP, makes a personal statement about the need for diversity management. When the message is endorsed from the top it becomes a strategic discourse itself—the old discourse is on its way out and a new set of social relations has been introduced. Finally, there may be increasing pressure to bring new and diverse voices on to decisionmaking bodies, as organisations realise that developing a set of cloned leaders may not be the best way forward. (Note that the UK government’s recent Higgs Review calls for more diversity of non-executive board directors for better corporate governance.) In our survey, only the UK company Boots and the Swedish company Autoliv mentioned diversity of the corporate board. More companies could promote their policies to manage the diversity supply chain up to board level, indicating good corporate governance. 312

Strategic Responses to the Diversity Challenge

Conclusions Diversity management is being promoted on corporate websites by a third of the 241 top companies across Europe as a new philosophy of dealing with people’s differences in a way that can bring strategic advantage (as well as enhance individual careers) and as part of corporate social responsibility. The business case is made across a range of indicators, including better performance, added stakeholder value, enhanced corporate reputation and a better environment. These drivers are now seen as worthy of placement on corporate websites, and UK companies are significantly ahead of their European peers on this issue. There is great variety in the framing of messages, from warm and inclusive language to factual statements about diversity benefits. This study is one of the first to examine this aspect of diversity management, and does so across eight European countries. Our work extends that of Bellard and Ru¨ ling on diversity discourses in French and German companies, in that we cover eight countries, and that we have looked at voluntary disclosures, thereby obtaining statements that companies have chosen to make, rather than those required by law. Hence, we feel that we have come nearer to how these companies really want to promote or ignore diversity. We also have provided empirical evidence building on Dass and Parker’s model of strategic responses to the challenge of diversity, indicating that there may be six stages of diversity management. Further research is needed to examine to what extent the espoused policies and practices of diversity management presented on corporate websites are enacted in these companies and in other countries. It would also be useful to ascertain whether there is a connection between diversity statements and corporate social as well as financial performance. A well-communicated set of inclusive and shared diversity values could lead to enhanced employee motivation and satisfaction, and the careful articulation of diversity statements, values and policies could lead to improved management of valuable diversity resources resulting eventually in improved financial performance. Further research could ascertain whether the strategic credibility (and hence stakeholder value) of companies promoting diversity is stronger than those who ignore it. We have striven to carry out this collaborative project as rigorously as possible. Nevertheless, we need to highlight several limitations. First, we only examined website material. Some companies may have had diversity statements in online annual reports. Further research should examine diversity policies in annual reports and CSR reports. Second, we acknowledge that websites are frequently updated, so our study takes a snapshot view early in 2003. On checking back for some queries, we found that several Dutch companies had introduced or updated diversity/equality statements since data collection. Finally, when we failed to find anything relating to diversity and equality, we used company search engines where available to confirm the lack of information, but our findings were on a ‘best efforts’ basis. We acknowledge the impact which we may have had as researchers, not just in terms of analysis of the discourse of diversity, but also as influencers of diversity statements themselves, as companies may analyse search terms of website visitors and react accordingly. We have identified how corporate website material can provide data from every company in the sample, as access does not depend on an informant within the company, who might not wish to respond to a questionnaire on a sensitive topic such as diversity management. The corporate website may therefore be useful for other researchers. The study provides a benchmark for how diversity management has been promulgated in European top company websites in 2003. Diversity statements are small but increasingly important vehicle for corporate communication to external as well as internal stakeholders of a key message—to value, utilise and learn from this vital and undertapped resource. It is not possible to say whether the web-based statements are rhetoric without substance, or whether real progress is being made on diversity management. This study provides a beginning on this important issue. Long Range Planning, vol 37

2004

313

314

Strategic Responses to the Diversity Challenge

ABN AMRO Aegon

Akzo Nobel ASML Buhrmann DSM Fortis Getronics Hagemeyer Heineken ING

KPN Numico Philips

Royal Ahold TPG VNU Wolters Kluver

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

AEX (The Netherlands)

Danone Dexia EADS France Telecom Lafarge Lagarde`re L’Ore´ al LVMH Michelin

Casino Guichard Cre´ dit Agricole Cre´ dit Lyonnais

Air Liquide Alcatel Alstom Aventis AXA BNP Bouygues Cap Gemini Carrefour

Accor AGF

CAC40 (France)

Henkel HVB Group Infineon Linde Lufthansa MAN Metro MLP Preussag

E.ON EPDOS Fresenius

BASF Bayer BMW BOSCH Commerzbank Daimler Chrysler Degussa Deutsche Post Deutsche Telecom

Adidas-Salomon Allianz

DAX (Germany)

Appendix A. The composition of the sample

BSkyB BT Cadbury Centrica Compass Diageo Gallaher GlaxoSmithKline GUS

BOC Boots BP

Abbey National Associated British Foods Alliance and Leicester Anglo American AVIVA BAA BAE Systems Barclays BAT BG BHP Billiton

FTSE (UK)

Metso M-Real Nokia Nordea Bank Orion Outokumpu Partek Pohjola Rautaruukki

Kesko Kone Metsalitto

Elcoteq Elisa Finnair Finnlines Fortum Huhtamaki Ilmarinen Instrumentarium Kemira

Ahlstrom Amer

HEX (Finland)

Pharmacia Sandvik SAS Scania SEB Securitas Skandia Skanska SKF

Industrivarden Investor Nobel Biocare

Atlas Copco Autoliv AstraZeneca Electrolux Ericsson Fo¨ renings Sparbanken Gambro Hennes and Mauritz Holmen

ABB ASSA ABLOY

OMX-A List (Sweden)

Bergesen Elkem Gjensidige NOR Kvaerner Norgesgruppen Norske Skog Norsk Hydro Orkla Royal Caribbean Cruises Schibsted Statoil Stolt Neilsen Storebrand Tandberg Telenor Tomra

Aker Amersham

Oslo Børs (Norway)

Serono SGS Sulzer Swatch Group Swiss Life Swiss Reinsurance Swisscom Syngenta UBS

Novartis Richemont Roche

Ciba Clariant Cre´ dit Suisse Givaudan Holcim Julius Bauer Kudelski Lonza Nestle´

Adecco Baˆ loise

SMI (Switzerland)

Long Range Planning, vol 37

2004

315

Suez TF1 Thale`s Thomson Total Elf Viv. Environnement Vivendi Universal

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

45 46 47 48 49 50

40 41 42 43 44

PSA PPR Renault Saint-Gobain Sanofi-Synthelabo Schneider Socie´ te´ Ge´ ne´ rale Sodexho Alliance

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

RWE SAP Schering Siemens Thyssen Krupp

Sampo Sanomawsoy SOK Sonera Stora Enso Tamro Tietoenator UPM Kymmene National Grid Transco Uponor Orange Varma Pearson Wa¨ rtsila Prudential Reckitt Benckiser Reed Elsevier Rio Tinto Royal Bank of Scotland SAB Miller Sainsbury Scottish and Energy Scottish Power Shell Transport and Trading Six Continents Standard Chartered Tesco Unilever Vodaphone WPP

HBOS HSBC Imperial Tobacco Kingfisher Legal and General Lloyds TSB Marks and Spencer MMO2

SSAB Svenska Cellulosa Svenska Handelsbanken Swedish Match Tele2 Telia Volvo

Unaxis Zurich Financial

316

Strategic Responses to the Diversity Challenge

Mentions diversity Number of companies in sample % Using term ‘diversity’ or translation % Of companies mentioning diversity/equality giving rationale for policy Drivers (number of companies mentioning drivers) Better performance Reputation/environment Stakeholder needs Individual items Better performance Items Enhanced performance Talent management Enhanced creativity International awareness Better decision-making Flexibility Enhancing change competence Stakeholder needs items Meet customer needs Meet shareholder needs Reputation/environment items Create better environment Better image Good corporate citizenship Avoid discrimination 38 42% 37%

16 3 4

12 5 5 2 2 1 3 4 0 0 3 0 0

50%

12 11 2

8 5 4 3 2 3 3

2 0

8 1 1 2

France

34 21%

Finland

3 5 0 0

4 1

7 4 7 2 3 1 2

13 7 4

50%

28 59%

Germany

4 1 0 0

3 0

5 2 2 0 0 0 0

5 5 3

33%

18 39%

Netherlands

1 2 0 1

0 1

5 5 2 1 1 1 3

8 3 1

44%

18 56%

Norway

Appendix B. Companies mentioning diversity, and drivers for diversity management, by country

4 1 4 1

5 0

7 6 8 8 2 1 1

15 9 5

53%

30 40%

Sweden

0 1 1 1

3 0

7 2 3 0 1 1 1

11 2 3

40%

25 40%

Switzerland

26 9 14 5

20 3

37 30 14 15 9 12 3

44 36 21

92%

50 86%

UK

46 23 20 10

41 5

88 59 45 31 20 20 16

124 76 43

54%

241 55%

Total

Appendix C. Top company strategic responses to the diversity challenge, by Country Strategic Response Reactive

Defensive

Accommodative

Proactive

Stage reached

Invisible on-line

Avoid discrimination

Equal opportunities

Respect/ capabilities

Diversity management

Finland France Germany Netherlands Norway Sweden Switzerland UK

43% 32% 32% 28% 39% 33% 32% 2%

0% 8% 0% 17% 6% 3% 16% 0%

9% 5% 4% 11% 6% 10% 4% 6%

9% 16% 11% 17% 6% 10% 8% 6%

17% 22% 18% 11% 28% 17% 24% 16%

Diversity as competitive advantage 23% 16% 36% 17% 17% 27% 16% 70%

References 1. G. Simon, The future of ‘diversity’ in Europe, European Business Review 12(2), 57–61 (2000). 2. A. P. Dass and B. Parker, Strategies for managing human resource diversity: from resistance to learning, Academy of Management Executive 13(2), 68–80 (1999). 3. V. Singh, G. Schiuma, S. Vinnicombe, Assessing diversity management, Third International Conference on Theory and Practice in Performance Measurement and Management, Boston, July (2002). Point S. Les ressources humaines dans les rapports annuels d’activite´ en Europe: apports des the´ories de la contingence du management et du management de l’impression, doctoral dissertation, IAE, Universite´ Jean Moulin Lyon III, October (2001). 4. E. Bellard and C.-C. Ru¨ ling, Reflections and projections of boundaries in the diversity management discourses in the United States, France and Germany, 17th EGOS Colloquium, Lyon, July 2001 5. S. Gagnon and N. Cornelius, Re-examining workplace equality: the capabilities approach, Human Resource Management Journal 10(4), 68–87 (2000). 6. P. Rosenzweig, Managing the new global workforce: fostering diversity, fostering consistency, European Management Journal 16(6), 644–652 (1998). 7. O. C. Richard, Racial diversity, business strategy and firm performance: a resource-based view, Academy of Management Journal 43(2), 164–177 (2000). 8. D. R. Litvin, The business case for diversity and the ‘iron cage’, 16th EGOS Colloquium, Helsinki, 2000, A. Lorbiecki and G. Jack, Critical turns in the evolution of diversity management, British Journal of Management 11 S17–S31, special issue (2000). 9. T. Cox and S. B. Taylor, Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational effectiveness, Academy of Management Executive 5(3), 45–56 (1991). 10. G. Robinson and K. Dechant, Building a business case for doing diversity, Academy of Management Executive 11(3), 2131 (1997). 11. R. Hooghiemstra, Corporate communication and impression management—new perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting, Journal of Business Ethics 27 55–68, See also S. Point (2001) (2000). 12. A. Campbell, Mission statements, Long Range Planning 30(6), 931–932 (1997). 13. C. K. Bart, Exploring the application of mission statements on the World Wide Web, Internet Research 11(4), 360–368 (2001). 14. E. Scholes and D. Clutterbuck, Communication with stakeholders: an integrated approach, Long Range Planning 31(2), 227–238 (1998). 15. D. B. Turban and D. W. Greening, Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees, Academy of Management Journal 40(3), 658–672 (1996). 16. Global Reporting Initiative, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, Boston, USA (2002). 17. M. Orlitzky, F. L. Schmidt and S. L. Rynes, Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis, Organization Studies 24(3), 403–441 (2003). 18. C. Hardy, I. Palmer and N. Phillips, Discourse as a strategic resource, Human Relations 53(9), 1227–1248 (2000). Long Range Planning, vol 37

2004

317

19. Y. Benschop and H. E. Meihuizen, Keeping up gendered appearances: representations of gender in financial annual reports, Accounting, Organizations and Society 27, 611–636 (2002). 20. N. Fairclough and R. Wodak, Critical discourse analysis, in: T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction vol I, 258–284, Sage, London (1997). 21. E. L. Kirby and L. M. Harter, Speaking the language of the bottom-line: the metaphor of ‘Managing Diversity’, Journal of Business Communication 40(1), 28–49 (2003). 22. S. Point and V. Singh, Defining and dimensionalising diversity: evidence from corporate websites across Europe, European Management Journal 21(6), 750–761 (2003). 23. L. Phillips and M. W. Jørgensen, Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method, Sage, London (2002). C. Oswick, T. W. Keenoy and D. Grant, Discourse, organizations and organizing: concepts, objects and subjects, Human Relations 53(9), 1115–1123 (2000). 24. R. Bhaskar, reclaiming reality: a critical introduction to contemporary philosophy, Verso, London (1989). 25. J. Rubery, Gender mainstreaming and gender equality in the EU: the impact of the EU employment strategy, Industrial Relations Journal 33(5), 500–522 (2002). 26. A. H. Segars and G. F. Kohut, Strategic communication through the world wide web: an empirical model of effectiveness in the CEO’s letter to shareholders, Journal of Management Studies 38(4), 535–556 (2001).

Biographies Dr Val Singh is Senior Research Fellow in Organisational Behaviour, at Cranfield School of Management where she gained her doctorate. Her current research includes the annual Female FTSE Index, women leaders, diversity management, mentoring and role models. She has published widely in both academic and practitioner journals, and has spoken about her research at many international events and conferences. [email protected] Dr Se´ bastien Point is currently Lecturer of Human Resource Management and International Management at the Universite´ de Franche-Comte´ , France. He is also Visiting Fellow at Cranfield School of Management in the UK. His research interests include diversity management, organisational discourse and impression management. Current research centres on analysing organisational discourse, through both corporate annual reports and websites. [email protected]

318

Strategic Responses to the Diversity Challenge