Multinationals balance global values with local EDI strategies

Are companies quietly quitting EDI? New research from the Thomson Reuters Foundation suggests diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives may be becoming less visible in corporate reporting. Its analysis of nearly 3,000 global companies found that public targets on ethnicity and disability remain relatively uncommon and only around a quarter of companies are publicly reporting workforce ethnicity data, with reporting at board level lower still. Reuters asks whether some organisations are now “quiet quitting” EDI. But are employers really stepping back from diversity and inclusion initiatives, or is something more nuanced happening? We’ll ask a D&I expert that question. 

For multinational organisations, this question has become increasingly important as they navigate very different expectations across different parts of the  world. While EDI initiatives have come under growing political and legal scrutiny in the United States, employers in the UK and Europe continue to operate within legal and regulatory frameworks that place significant emphasis on equality, inclusion, and workplace conduct.

That has created a practical challenge for global employers. How do you maintain a consistent set of organisational values while operating in jurisdictions that are moving in different directions? And if the language around EDI is becoming more contested, how should employers adapt without losing sight of the objectives they are trying to achieve?

Some commentators suggest that what we're seeing is not so much a retreat from EDI as a change in how it is presented. The underlying goals may remain the same, but the language, branding and delivery of programmes are evolving. Rather than being framed explicitly as diversity and inclusion initiatives, programmes may increasingly be discussed in terms of culture, belonging, leadership development or people strategy.

For many multinational employers, the answer appears to be adaptation rather than retreat. So what does that look like in practice? Kate Dodd is Head of Pinsent Masons’ D&I consultancy, Brook Graham and earlier she joined me by video link to discuss it. I started by asking her what we mean when we say organisations are regionalising their DEI strategies:

Kate Dodd: “So what we mean by that they tend to be maintaining a global approach to things - so they will continue to have a global strategy and a global purpose - but they will look regionally about what they're doing practically to determine whether or not it's lawful. Businesses are very used to doing this around the whole the whole scope of EDI, so there will be jurisdictions in which it's not lawful to gather diversity data, for example. There are certain things you cannot ask in different jurisdictions, so I think businesses are well used to that, and then what they are doing is that they are really looking at what programmes can remain, and what programs need to change. There is a real change in language and I think that goes well beyond the US. I've seen that in the UK, and elsewhere as well. It's not an ideological change, so they are maintaining the principles of what they're doing and why, but they're changing the language that they're using. So we're seeing a shift away from the kind of the kind of topic headings of diversity and inclusion sometimes and we're seeing it more towards culture, towards leadership development, towards people development. So it's the same thing, but it's badged differently, essentially, and we're seeing that throughout, and I actually don't think that's a bad thing at all. I think it's important that those responsible for culture and EDI are willing to flex and keep this really fresh. So you would already be wanting to see that type of language developing, businesses talking about belonging, for example, rather than necessarily talking about diversity, particularly when things like diversity can be really widely misunderstood or misinterpreted. Then the other thing I think is really worth thinking about, though, is that there are aspects of positive action style programmes. Those are the types of things that are really targeted at a particular underrepresented group, and businesses are being very careful to decide whether or not those can continue on a global scale or whether or not they need to be looked at on a locality by locality basis to decide whether or not they can continue in the format that they are in So, something, for example, like a women's career development programme or, perhaps, a graduate programme that's aimed at certain groups of underrepresented graduates. Businesses are going to be very wise to consider whether or not those are relevant and not just - hopefully, they've always considered whether they're lawfully compliant in each jurisdiction - but also whether they're relevant and also how that will land within that jurisdiction in particular.”

Joe Glavina: “Just thinking about some of the practical steps employers could take when adapting EDI for different jurisdictions? So maybe a privileged legal review of all EDI content, perhaps?”

Kate Dodd: “Yes, so I think doing a privileged legal review is a really useful way to understand where you're at and, if you are going to make changes, what you're going to change and why. The reason to do it under legal privilege is, of course, because it allows you to have conversations, it allows you to work out what the least worst - often it might be the least worst approach to take on things - and doing that under legal privilege means that, let's say that you then later face a claim from an individual who says, well, look, there was this programme that was amazing, and that I would have been entitled to go on, and that I was waiting my turn to go on that was that was there to address the disadvantages that I face, that has now been removed, there's been nothing else put in place for me, and I feel that I've been disadvantaged by that. Now, if you've then got a load of information that is disclosable, so that's anything really that's relevant that isn't covered by legal privilege or by litigation privilege, then you're going to have to give that over in the case of any claim, and therefore doing it on a legally privileged basis allows you to have some difficult conversations internally to work out what your potential legal liability is of either continuing with a programme or not continuing and I think it's really important that businesses do that and that they don't simply do a knee jerk reaction of saying, all right, okay, this could be seen as being positive discrimination and therefore we're going to stop doing it. Often businesses are at risk of going too far the other way as well. So we will often see businesses who will have a problem, have an exam question almost, a difficulty in relation to underrepresentation, particularly often at senior levels, and they will want to do things that they think are going to really work to kind of turn the dial on it and, actually, when they come to us to ask about it, we say, well, yes, that would definitely turn the dial but actually you're going too far there, that would be disadvantageous to those who don't meet that particular, whatever kind of under representation it is, and that would be likely to be positive discrimination rather than positive action. These are the kind of conversations that you really want to be having under legal privilege with your legal advisors so that you can understand exactly what's going on and then make a decision and then take whatever action you're taking on an open basis thereafter.”

Joe Glavina: “One of the issues for employers is going to be around the internal communications, Kate, so making sure there’s one coherent DEI message globally while running different models in the US and the UK?

Kate Dodd: “Yes, absolutely, and this has probably been one of the most challenging things that our clients have been dealing with and one of the things that we've been talking to clients about is, how do we have a globally consistent message? And the answer is, it's pretty hard. It can be pretty hard at times. It's why taking a values-based approach, having a global ideology whilst being really clear about the fact that you have got different things that are required by local legal systems, is going to have to be the only way. I think honesty is going to be really important here and businesses have always had to be flexible. There are things that, for example, are very common and are very well established, let's say, in the UK that for businesses who are operating, let's say maybe in the Middle East, they simply don't have the same kind of legal framework in order to pursue some of those aims. So an obvious one would be around LGB, in particular, rights and programmes etcetera along those lines, and I say LGB, and not LGBT, because the framework is different in relation to those. So I think honesty, having a candour, many clients we've worked with over the years, we've had almost a global statement but then underneath those you will have local country policies. So you don't have one global policy because you can't actually have something that's consistent so you have a global statement, almost, of intention with then local country policies that allow you to take into account both the legal and also the cultural differences in each of those jurisdictions and it may even just be something as simple as there are certain topics that are culturally not spoken about in workplaces in some jurisdictions that are in others and it's really important to speak people's language, to not be seen as kind of trying to take a round peg in a square hole type of thing. So it's about being flexible and about being sensitive as to how things will land in each jurisdiction as well, of course, as being legally compliant in those jurisdictions.”

So the key takeaway for HR is that, while some organisations may be becoming less public about diversity and inclusion initiatives, many are not abandoning the underlying objectives. Instead, they are reassessing how those initiatives are described, structured and delivered across different jurisdictions. For multinational employers in particular, the challenge is maintaining a consistent set of values while adapting to different legal, cultural, and political expectations around the world.

If that is an issue your organisation is currently grappling with, and you would like advice on reviewing or adapting your approach, please do contact Kate. Her details are on the screen for you.

- Link to Reuters article: ‘Are companies quiet quitting DEI?’