Defining and Dimensionalising Diversity: Evidence ...

Pergamon

European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 750–761, 2003  2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain doi:10.1016/j.emj.2003.09.015 0263-2373 $30.00

Defining and Dimensionalising Diversity: Evidence from Corporate Websites across Europe SE´BASTIEN POINT, Universite´ de Franche-Comte´, Besanc¸on VAL SINGH, Cranfield School of Management The corporate ‘diversity statement’ is a new tool increasingly used by large companies to promote diversity management policies on their websites. Through an examination of these on-line texts, we identify how companies construct the meaning of ‘diversity’ through its dimensions. Few companies actually define diversity. However, dimensions of diversity cover a wide-ranging set of individual differences, not just gender and race but other visible and less visible differences that might lead to discrimination in the workplace. By comparing statements from 241 top companies in eight countries (Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK), we reveal how the definition of ‘diversity’ and its dimensions as used on websites varies across Europe.  2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Anti-discrimination, Diversity, Equal opportunities, Equality, Europe, Corporate websites, Top companies

Introduction Dealing with diversity is increasingly important. As workforce demographics in Europe undergo relatively rapid change, with forecast reduction of young entrants due to falling birthrates, more women entering and remaining in the workforce, and an increased proportion of immigrant workers, manag750

ing diversity has become a challenge for companies across Europe seeking the best talent. There are several strong arguments for managing diversity. First, the war for talent means that companies seek the best individuals from a global talent pool, and hence they are changing the way in which they promote their human resource policies to prospective employees (Rosenzweig, 1998). Leading companies such as HP, Johnson & Johnson, General Electric and Shell place strong emphasis on developing diverse talent pools and enhancing diversity in their leadership and succession planning process (Fulmer and Goldsmith, 2000). Second, rankings of corporate social responsibility now consider many different aspects of diversity, including race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. Hence companies need to ensure that they have appropriate policies in place, and report them to stakeholders. These include present and future employees, customers and suppliers, as well as shareholders, who are starting to demand that companies disclose their commitment to diversity (sometimes even asking chairmen at annual general meetings). Some large investors such as pension fund managers are choosing to invest more in companies with positive records in community involvement, environmental management, and employee relations. Diversity management can be seen as part of that set of good practices. Moreover, an international image is important to attract international investors (Heijltjes et al., 2003). Therefore, diversity management reflects

European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 750–761, December 2003

DEFINING AND DIMENSIONALISING DIVERSITY

a proactive business reaction to rapid cultural and sociological change. A third point to make is that many companies now view diversity management as a way of addressing the need to reflect the diversity of their customers through having diversity of employees who can better understand and communicate with them. This should result in better customer and supplier relationships, which in turn could lead to improved financial performance. Two recent UK exploratory studies of diversity managers from both private and public sectors reported that managers believed that there was a direct link between diversity and improved business performance, although performance measurement was at an early stage (Singh et al., 2002; Schneider-Ross, 2002). Another strong argument for diversity management is that recognising and valuing diversity as a resource for the organisation can create competitive advantage. By capturing a wider set of opinions and experiences through a broader lens, more creativity and better decision-making can be achieved, as diversity generates a variety of thinking across the organisation. However, diversity needs to be managed well otherwise conflicts are not resolved and voices are not heard (Kochan et al., 2003). Hence, managing diversity can enhance the organisational capability for change in today’s turbulent and complex environment (Singh et al., 2002; Cox, 1993). The issue is critical for Europe, given its multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-ethnic population and many internal borders. Diversity itself is a relatively recent concept in research terms, gaining in popularity since the early 1990s. However, we are interested in how diversity management is promoted by companies in their corporate literature, and in particular for this paper, how diversity is defined and promoted in the latest medium, the world wide web. Only two studies were found which explored the discourse around ‘diversity’ presented on-line, a US study of nine consultants’ websites and diversity course materials, by Kirby and Harter (2003), and a comparison of 38 French and German sites by Bellard and Ru¨ ling (2001). To our knowledge, no academic study has previously explored on-line diversity statements made by companies across Europe. Furthermore, no studies were found which explored corporate definitions of ‘diversity’, nor the criteria encompassed by diversity statements, indicating a gap in the literature regarding empirical definitions of diversity used in the corporate world, and more importantly, the lack of international comparisons in this respect. The aim of this paper is to explore how leading companies across Europe construct and define diversity and its dimensions in their communications to stakeholders through on-line web statements. We first consider the literature on diversity and diversity management. Second, we report on the data collection

and analysis of statements gathered from 241 top company websites across eight European countries (Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK). Next, we report the definitions of diversity used by these companies as well as the types of diversity described throughout the company websites. Finally, we consider the contribution and limitations of our study, and make suggestions for further research.

(Re)defining Diversity ‘Diversity’ has become a word widely recognised by policy-makers, social commentators, academics and the general public. According to the research literature, ‘diversity’ is complex, and embraces many definitions with different meanings and contexts. Its most common meaning in an employment context is associated with numerical composition, i.e. workplace demographics (Thomas, 1996), but when associated with management, may be to do with inclusive behaviour (Rosenzweig, 1998). It is important that companies have a clear working definition of ‘diversity’ in their particular context in order to target appropriate interventions and monitor progress (Singh, 2002). According to the Oxford English Dictionary, diversity means ‘being diverse, unlikeness, different kind, variety’. Litvin (1997) characterises diversity as having six primary dimensions (age, ethnicity, gender, physical attributes/abilities, race and sexual orientation) and eight fluid dimensions (education, geographic location, income, marital status, military experience, parental status, religious beliefs and work experience). These vary in degrees of visibility. Primary attributes are more visible, whereas secondary attributes are less visible or even invisible, particularly those which are more psychological and jobrelated. Diversity is not just seen as demographic differences. McGrath et al. (1995) see diversity as a cluster of attributes, which are demographic (e.g. race, gender, age etc.), task-related knowledge and abilities; values, beliefs and attitudes; personality and cognitive and behavioural styles, and status in the organisation. According to social identity theory (Ashforth and Mael, 1989), individuals categorise themselves and others by these categories and their various combinations. However, although people have multiple identities, some identities are more salient than others in particular contexts such as the workplace. Inevitably, social categorisations involve the construction of in-groups and out-groups, and the members of the out-group are categorised as ‘other’ by the more powerful in-group. People tend to stereotype others by such groupings particularly in organisational settings, with enhanced perceptions of ingroup members’ performance, leading to such per-


751


sistent phenomena as ‘think manager, think male’ (Schein and Mueller, 1992). However, diversity research often fails to acknowledge the importance of contexts within which social identity categorisation takes place, and Triandis (1995) says that diversity is a socially constructed issue that must be examined in a cultural-historical context. Most studies of diversity appear to have been undertaken in the United States, where there is a very specific cultural, social and historical context. Whilst the historical context there led to career disadvantage for people of colour, the issue of being black may be less important than of tribal connections or social class as dimensions of diversity in a country where almost all of the population is black. Triandis makes an important point regarding cultural distance, that ‘people who cannot communicate, who come from cultures with different social structures, different assumptions, religions, economic situations and standards, will have a very hard time working together’ (p. 230). Managing diversity enables interpersonal and cross-cultural understanding to improve communication and cooperation across groups of difference. There is a European historical and social context to this study. Whilst legislation has been implemented to ensure equal opportunities in many European countries, in practice there has not been equality of outcomes, as is evident from the numbers of white middle or upper class males in senior management, especially of the larger companies. Hence, diversity presents a barrier that needs to be dealt with if all talents are to be recognised, developed and utilised to the benefit of both the individual and the organisation.

Variety in Approaches to Managing Diversity There have been a number of approaches to dealing with diversity issues, ranging from reactive to proactive, with varying degrees of integration (Dass and Parker, 1997). In the United States, affirmative action policies were encouraged, with government contracts going to those companies with diverse workforces and an appropriate number of women and AfricanAmericans in management. However, such proactive policies regarding sexual and racial equality were not adopted by European countries. In the past, most European company policies were concerned with complying with equality legislation and not allowing discrimination on grounds of difference. Such policies could be seen as a defensive strategy against possible litigation, according to Dass and Parker’s strategic response model. Whilst the liberal approach of doing nothing to reduce inequality but letting the market decide who would rise to management and leadership positions was common until the 1970s across Europe, this was followed by an emphasis on equal opportunities (ignoring and assimilating differences). More 752

recently, the ‘capabilities’ approach has been adopted by many companies, following the United Nations Charter for Human Rights, providing a fair environment within which individuals are respected and encouraged to develop. At the same time, diversity management has attracted much interest, particularly because of the business case for its introduction. Using a philosophy which includes parts of these other approaches but with different objectives, managing diversity approaches view diversity as a resource, and individual differences are positively regarded and utilised across the organisation. The objective is to create added value for the organisation, in a process which also benefits each individual. Diversity management is now emphasised as an essential part of strategic human resource management for multi-national companies (Rosenzweig, 1998). Individuals have a wide range of talents, skills and ambitions, but very often, the capabilities of those in minority groups do not have an equal chance to develop nor to participate in leadership. The ‘glass ceiling’ blocks the career paths for women somewhere between middle and top levels of management (Morrison et al. 1992) and has a similar effect on ethnic minorities and other groups (Singh, 2002). Such hurdles can lead to talented people not developing to their full potential, leaving their employers, downscaling their ambition, and/or becoming less involved in the company’s success. This is a waste to the productivity not just of the company but also to the country. There have been initiatives at government and corporate levels to remove these barriers in many European countries, but progress has been disappointingly slow. As an illustration, international diversity in top management teams is a relatively recent phenomenon in Sweden and The Netherlands (Heijltjes et al., 2003). Diversity management is increasingly being implemented in European countries to address the identified imbalances in opportunities for promotion across different groups. However, the managing diversity approach has been criticised by several researchers as a smokescreen or rhetoric which allows subtle discrimination to continue (Litvin, 2000; Lorbiecki and Jack, 2000). It presents a universalistic approach which is more acceptable to males but which may not actually deliver change, as the social structures which initiated these long-standing inequities are left intact. Those who are different no longer have legitimation to challenge their treatment as all are treated as individuals. Liff (1999) suggests a compromise between equal opportunities and diversity management approaches, through policies designed to achieve fairness of outcomes, valuing of difference, and change of cultural attitudes as well as behaviour not just at the individual level but also at the organisational level.



Promoting Diversity Policies through the Media As diversity management is adopted by companies, they often start to promote their new strategies in their corporate literature, and more recently, on their corporate websites. Websites can be compared to corporate annual reports, justifying the company’s international involvement and international competitiveness as part of its public relations strategy to present a positive image to the company’s stakeholders (Point and Tyson, 1999). The language used in such statements conveys meaning to a variety of stakeholders. As well as annual reports, in the last 10 years mission statements have increasingly been placed on corporate websites. Bart (2001) found that 45 of a sample of 100 Fortune 500 companies had made conscious decisions to post the mission statement online, but only 25 had posted these to readily accessible pages. Bart hypothesises a significant relationship between use of corporate websites for mission statement communications and firm performance, indicating the importance of this new medium for promoting corporate values and policies. Diversity statements may have a similar impact, but it is not known to what extent companies are posting such statements online. Only two studies have been found which explore online diversity statements. Kirby and Harter (2003) studied nine United States diversity consultants’ own websites, as well as textbooks and handbooks. They identified that diversity management was promoted by emphasising the benefits to the organisation, but in the process depersonalised the diverse individual who provided the resource to be exploited. Another relevant study by Bellard and Ru¨ ling (2001) considers how three USderived ‘diversity’ discourses were promoted in annual reports and websites of 19 French and 19 German top companies. They found differences in the diversity discourses presented by French and German companies, the French focusing on cultural and professional differences, whilst the Germans tended to translate diversity into international experiences. They reported that the US discourses of diversity were only superficially adopted by French and German top companies. However, the use of annual reports to explore diversity discourses presents potential bias if one is examining the presence or absence of policies on diversity management, as legal requirements for disclosure in annual reports vary by country. In the UK, for example, equality on grounds of sex does not have to be reported, in contrast to equality on grounds of disability. By exploring online diversity statements, a better comparison can be made, as these are all voluntary disclosures of policy. As this is a study of how companies promote diversity in on-line statements on corporate websites, we take a social construction approach to examine their discourse of diversity (Phillips and Jørgensen, 2002). Through an analysis of their texts, we seek to identify patterns, themes and underlying philosophies of

diversity, acknowledging that the findings do not represent reality, but are constructed by the companies and deconstructed and reconstructed by us as researchers. Our interpretations of the discourses revealed here may not be those intended by the companies, but are interpretations, informed by our particular backgrounds and interests in diversity as it is promoted on corporate websites.

Methodology A desk-based study was undertaken of the top 241 companies by market value in eight European countries. The French researcher, familiar with the Germanic and Latin culture, took websites from top companies in France, Germany, Netherlands, and Switzerland; the UK researcher (from an AngloSaxon/Nordic culture) took those in the UK, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Companies were selected on the basis of their inclusion at the top of their respective national stock exchange lists (FTSE top 50, OMX A-list, CAC40, DAX, AEX, SMI, HEX and Oslo Børs). The sample was composed of 18 Dutch and Norwegian, 25 Swiss, 28 German, 30 Swedish, 34 Finnish, 38 French and 50 British companies. We explored each website to see whether any statements were made about diversity and equality, and we used search terms on key words (such as diversity, equality, equal opportunities, culture, women, ethnicity, and disability) in the respective languages as well as in English. Almost every company in our sample had national language pages with matching pages in English. For the Finnish companies, we examined their English and Swedish language websites, as Swedish is an official language in Finland and we lacked Finnish language skills. From our 241 companies, there was only one problem with data collection, from a Finnish grocery company. This had only one page in English and Swedish, and no mention of diversity-related terms on those pages, but we were unable to check using the ‘diversity’ search tool in Finnish, and can assume that no recruitment was sought from outside the Finnish-speaking community. We stored web pages as text files, and logged properties of the statements in an excel spreadsheet. We then took diversity statement texts and imported them into QSR Nudist 5 software for qualitative analysis. As we were located in different countries (France and the UK), we had to establish an effective way of analysing the data. In a face-to-face meeting over two days, we agreed on a coding framework with definitions for each node, based on our understanding of the research literature and the trends which we had noted in our data. We each coded the data from four countries, then merged our files using QSR Merge to retain our coding. We then each took strands of coding based on themes such as ‘defi-


753


nitions’ or ‘types of diversity’, and fine-coded all eight-country data, cross-checking on interpretations and making changes in coding structure as we went through the task. We were in frequent e-mail contact during the analysis period. The inter-coding reliability reached over 80 per cent. Reports were then made for each of the branches in the hierarchical tree structure of coding. Whilst any qualitative method induces bias due to the subjective nature of the process, we have laid an audit trail which allows an understanding of how we have reached our conclusions from our data, and how we have minimised potential bias in this process. The diverse nature of our collaboration has additionally helped us to challenge our own assumptions and stereotypes of diversity.

Results and Discussion The purpose of this article is to examine whether and how companies in eight European countries define diversity on their corporate websites, and how they construct ‘diversity’ in terms of identifiable differences. We found diversity and related statements in various locations on corporate websites, with most (95 statements) on careers and employment pages. A further 57 statements were found on corporate profile/business policy/corporate values pages, and 53 statements were located within Corporate Social Responsibility pages. Some companies had statements in more than one location. The frequency of the CSR page locations was not unexpected, as guidelines have been drawn up for companies promoting corporate social responsibility (Global Reporting Initiative, 2002), which include diversity and equal opportunities statements as indicators of corporate social performance.

Diverse Definitions of Diversity Companies using diversity management approaches need to have a clear working definition of ‘diversity’ in order to target appropriate interventions and monitor progress (Singh, 2002). We therefore sought to clarify whether companies in this sample used the word ‘diversity,’ and if so, whether this was only in relation to human resource management issues. We also investigated whether they clearly defined their meaning of the term in their website statements. As the literature review indicated, ‘diversity’ is a complex term, and embraces many definitions with different meanings. Out of 241 companies, around half used the word within their on-line statements in connection with people issues (A few companies used the word ‘diversity’ to emphasise the wide variety of their activities, but such usage is not relevant in this 754

paper). Table 1 highlights some differences between countries. UK company websites were by far the greatest users of the word, with over four-fifths using the term. In contrast, only one fifth of Finnish companies used the word ‘diversity’ in their on-line statements. However, this lack of use of the web to promote their diversity policies may not indicate unwillingness to value diversity. Indeed, we might speculate that for some Scandinavian and Dutch companies, their international business cultures may be so ingrained that messages about valuing diversity might not seem necessary. The most interesting issue is not whether companies used the term, but rather how they made use of it. Surprisingly, 30 websites (approx. 25 per cent of those who mentioned diversity) did not state precisely the meaning nor the type of diversity to which they referred. For these companies, ‘diversity’ was presented as a universal notion requiring no explanation. In an increasingly competitive, diverse and global environment, diversity provides a better chance of survival and winning. (Daimler-Benz, Germany) Cre´ dit Suisse Group’s culture is one of diverse people and shared values. (Cre´ dit Suisse, Switzerland)

Even though the meaning of the word is not explicitly defined, from the context it can be seen to be fairly close to the Oxford Dictionary definition of ‘being diverse, unlikeness, different kind, variety’. We found that 29 other web documents extended the meaning of ‘diversity’ to ‘variety’, but relating to people’s culture or nationality. These companies tended to suggest cultural (or national) variety, and the ‘diversity’ word itself referred to a mix of nationalities, languages and cultures. In this sense, the concept of diversity becomes a central concept of the discourse of multi-culturalism rather than fairness and gender equality. This reinforces the common-sense meaning of ‘diversity’, often used as shorthand for a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-ethnic workforce (Thomas, 1996). Respect: We treat all our stakeholders the way that we want to be treated with consideration for individual and cultural diversity. (Aegon, Netherlands) Leveraging the benefits of cultural diversity. (France Telecom, France) We must always hire the best people we can find. By definition, this includes people of diverse nationalities and cultural backgrounds. (Nokia, Finland)

With its constellation of concepts such as multiculturalism, ethnicity, community and so on, the discourse of diversity becomes an important way in which the abstract as well as formal equality is shown to be valued by the organisation. Moreover, the discourse is associated with provision of an



Table 1

The Use and Meanings of the Term ‘Diversity’ Across Countries CH

Use of the word ‘diversity’ or its national language 10 equivalent Percentage of companies using diversity term 40% Mentioned but not defined 6 Definition based on one criterion (culture) 3 Equal opportunities mentioned 1 Diversity of/about 1 Precise definition of ‘diversity’ 0

F

FI

G

N

NL

S

UK

16

7

16

10

7

12

43

42% 5 5 0 4 0

21% 2 2 3 0 0

59% 4 2 2 3 5

56% 3 2 0 3 1

39% 0 5 0 0 1

40% 2 3 1 3 1

86% 2 7 22 1 5

organisational climate where all employees feel fairly and equally treated in the workplace, valued by and contributing to the organisation. In this sense, the discourse of diversity may be being used as a device for managing social relations within the organisation, or as a form of moral regulation of happy co-existence. We will demonstrate our commitment by working to create a culture of inclusion and diversity founded on the fundamental belief that all employees should be treated with equal openness, honesty and respect. (Abbey National, UK) BT has been at the forefront of the evolving equality and diversity agenda for some time. We have been particularly active in establishing the business case for equality. In our view, you cannot be a successful business, competing fiercely in global markets, if the way you do business is based exclusively on a single set of cultural values. The key to success is a recognition of the power of cultural, language and behavioural diversity. (BT, UK) Our employees in all their diversity are equally important to us, irrespective of their nationality, culture, religion or sex. (MAN, Germany) We thrive on the diversity of our people and the breadth of thinking their experience brings. We offer a meritocracy, where people are valued and recognized for their contribution, rather than their backgrounds. (Standard Chartered, UK)

Only 13 companies (approx. 11 per cent of the 121 companies mentioning diversity provide a clear and precise definition of ‘diversity’ on their websites. We consider that a definition is clear when the text explains the meaning of the word explicitly, e.g. diversity means/embraces/encompasses, etc.) In the following statements, diversity is defined as valuing differences within the company.

We define ‘valuing diversity’ as accepting and respecting individual differences arising out of variation in race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, physical abilities, religious beliefs, or other ideologies. (ING, Netherlands)

A further 15 companies provided a rough definition of diversity, not in terms of valuing differences but rather by quoting the kind of differences which might be important, reflecting on the many ways in which their workforce might vary. The following definitions highlight statements such as diversity in/of/in terms of. Such meanings are derived from and are in-keeping with a language of plurality. Human ‘diversity’ is characterized by six fundamental factors: age, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, ability and religious beliefs. Other important aspects include culture, language and family status. (Deutsche Telekom, Germany) We have a diversity of customers in nationality, age, gender, and ethnic background. In order to serve them well, we aim to reflect the market. (Electrolux, Sweden) It also reflects our aim of harnessing diversity — of people, cultures, viewpoints, brands, markets and ideas — to create opportunities and strengthen performance. (BAT, UK) We want diversity in gender, age and cultural background. (Statoil, Norway)

(Diversity) means ensuring we truly reflect and serve the communities in which we operate and create a company where employees’ different perspectives are valued and their talents fully employed. (Barclays, UK)

We identified a number of differences between countries. Table 1 also highlights the variety in the conceptualisation of diversity on websites by country. The most striking difference is in the very high proportion of UK companies promoting diversity on their websites, although only five of them actually defined the term clearly. The most precise definitions came from German and UK companies, with 31 and 12 per cent respectively defining the term. In contrast, most Swiss companies and around a third of French and Norwegian companies did not specify the meaning of diversity.

Diversity means that a Ph.D. may be an African-American or foreign-born naturalized citizen; a union leader may be a former housewife; and under that accountant’s suit may be tattoos or other body adornments. Our diversity also goes beyond the outward differences to include age, education, religious beliefs, skills and much, much more. (Bayer, Germany)

When companies did not reveal their practices in terms of diversity, they nonetheless often wrote about anti-discrimination and equal opportunities policies. When anti-discrimination practices were described, a list of diversity characteristics was usually presented. Of the 241 websites reviewed for our


755


survey, 174 referred to anti-discrimination, equal opportunity or diversity management practices. From these statements framing diversity in specific terms of difference, (e.g. diversity, equal opportunities or anti-discrimination), we identified 27 criteria (or dimensions) relating to type of diversity.

philosophy of valuing all aspects of diversity. In contrast, French companies were least likely to disclose diversity dimensions. Swiss and Norwegian on-line statements often mentioned workforce diversity practices without stating any particular dimensions, yet Finnish companies tended to give very precise definitions within their diversity discourse, as is indicated by the Nokia statement given earlier.

Types of Diversity Of the 174 leading corporate websites where specifications were given about diversity dimensions, gender (or sex) was mentioned most, by 48 per cent of the companies. This was closely followed by culture (45 per cent), race and ethnicity (37 per cent), age (31 per cent), nationality and country of origin (29 per cent) and disability (28 per cent). The most frequent categories listed, gender/sex, race/ethnicity, age and disability, also correspond to the most surveyed criteria in the literature. The following examples show how companies usually present the complexity of the word (and all the dimensions it encompasses) in one sentence: We will not discriminate between applications for reasons of gender, race, religion, colour, nationality, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, marital status, age or disability. (ABN AMRO, Netherlands) Our diversity also goes beyond the outward differences to include age, education, religious beliefs, skills and much, much more. (Bayer, Germany)

Table 2 presents all the various differences specified on the websites. The 27 identified criteria can be reorganised into six categories: geography, visible differences, opinion/beliefs, social status, education/personal/professional background and other. Differences based on geographical diversity dominated within statements: 108 documents out of 174 highlighted cultural, national or language discrimination awareness. The Charter of the United Nations refers to the importance of culture and the constitution of UNESCO also refers to diversity as a ‘fruitful diversity of cultures’. Closely following the geographical group, visible differences have already been identified as potential discrimination criteria in the literature (Litvin, 1997). A third of companies also revealed their stance on diversity discrimination in terms of less visible criteria such as employees’ opinions and beliefs, particularly religion and sexual orientation. Diversity as social status (i.e. marital, social class, family/parental status and health, including a recent addition, HIV/AIDS status) was also featured on many websites. The dimensions of the ‘diversity’ concept clearly varied from one country to another (see Table 2 and Fig. 1). Most of the 27 dimensions were represented within UK websites, which led on almost all the criteria. These results reflect the current trend for top UK companies to adopt the managing diversity 756

Multi-Cultural Diversity The multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-ethnic meanings of diversity are dominant in many on-line statements, especially for German companies. Whilst UK companies strongly feature race and ethnicity (in 83 per cent of the statements) rather than culture, those from France and Germany tend rather to talk about the broader notion of culture. The French companies’ references to multi-culturalism reflect the slogan ‘black, blanc, beurre’ used during the 1998 football World Cup. For French people, the notion of ‘cultural diversity’, which encompasses both the cultural expression (heritage and creativity) and mutual comprehension of culture differences, is of most importance. Our people are from all over the world, working for us means working in a truly multi-cultural environment in which flexibility and freedom of thought are encouraged. (Cap Gemini, France)

The increasing involvement of companies in terms of foreign sales, geographic diversification and cultural diversification may explain the valuing of cultural differences on-line. This helps to promote the company’s adaptability to its environment.

Gender/Sex Diversity Gender was the most common category of diversity, appearing on 83 websites in the diversity statements. Gender/sex equality was shown to be an issue of particular concern for companies in the UK, Sweden and Finland. Interestingly, companies referred to ‘sex’ differences in 27 cases compared to ‘gender’ differences in 49 cases, reflecting the more commonly acceptable use of the term ‘gender’ for biological sex (although a few companies managed to describe gender or sex differences without actually stating either word). Such usage is in contrast to academic definitions of sex meaning biological and fixed difference and gender meaning socially constructed differences of masculinity and femininity (Cala`s and Smircich, 1995). Whilst most companies just mentioned sex or gender in a list of non-discriminatory practices, some gave specific attention to presenting a rationale for recruiting women, of which Alstom is a good example. Women now account for 17 per cent of engineering gradu-



Table 2

Diversity Dimensions by Criteria and Country

Mention diversity or equal opportunity Geographic Culture Nationality & country of origin Language Location Visible differences Gender Race & ethnicity Age Disability Colour Tattoo/physical difference/life style Opinion/beliefs/orientation Religion Sexual orientation Political opinion Union affiliation Thinking types Social status Marital status Social class/caste Parental status Family status Health status Education/personal/professional background Experience Personal background Profession Education General background Other Not specified General other

F

NL

G

CH

UK

S

N

FI

Total

25 60% 15 3 0 1 36% 5 2 3 5 0 0 4% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28% 6 0 2 2 1 16% 4 0

13 54% 6 5 1 0 54% 8 8 8 7 5 0 46% 8 4 2 1 0 15% 2 2 0 0 0 15% 2 0 0 1 1 15% 1 2

19 89% 16 6 1 0 53% 8 3 8 4 1 2 32% 5 2 1 0 0 5% 0 1 0 1 0 42% 4 1 0 3 3 21% 1 3

17 59% 9 3 1 0 47% 5 4 2 4 1 0 18% 2 3 0 1 0 6% 1 0 0 1 0 6% 1 0 0 0 1 29% 5 1

49 57% 11 20 2 0 84% 36 35 22 27 14 1 59% 21 17 6 7 4 43% 18 2 6 2 3 37% 1 5 2 1 13 12% 6 0

22 50% 8 6 1 1 54% 10 7 7 1 1 0 23% 3 3 1 2 1 14% 0 1 1 0 1 18% 2 0 3 1 2 14% 3 0

10 70% 7 1 0 1 30% 3 1 3 0 0 0 20% 1 0 1 1 0 20% 0 1 1 0 0 30% 1 0 3 0 0 30% 4 0

19 63% 7 7 3 0 42% 8 4 2 1 0 0 26% 5 2 3 2 0 26% 0 1 4 1 1 11% 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0

174 108 79 51 9 3 99 83 64 55 49 22 3 58 46 31 15 14 5 36 21 8 12 5 5 46 17 6 12 8 22 29 24 6

ates each year worldwide! More seriously though, ALSTOM has several reasons to recruit women into its teams, because it is a company that: is constantly on the lookout for new expertise, is rapidly developing its service business, and needs diversity to promote creativity and decision-making. We have thus decided to actively promote the recruitment of women. It’s not by chance that the companies doing best are also the ones that have the most women in key positions! (Alstom, France)

Women have not yet reached executive roles at the top of the larger companies in Europe. For example, only 3 per cent of the UK’s FTSE 100 company executive directors and 10 per cent of non-executive directors are female (Singh and Vinnicombe, 2002). The 2002 Higgs Review of corporate governance in the UK has highlighted the persistent homogeneity of British corporate boards. Politicians in the UK and across Scandinavia seek to increase the representation of women on corporate as well as public sector boards (Singh and Vinnicombe, 2002). Governments of both Norway and Sweden have instigated threats of affirmative action if companies do not appoint more women to executive and supervisory boards. In March 2002, the Norwegian government threatened

measures requiring that company boards are comprised of at least 40 per cent women by 2005. There are already increasing numbers of appointments of senior females to Norwegian boards. In November 2002, the Swedish government followed suit with threats of legal requirements for 25 per cent female representation on company boards by 2005. Taking Scandinavian countries as an example, the French government is also considering legal requirements for such change. Sex role stereotyping of management and leadership is still evidently continuing, and gender/sex discrimination remains prevalent despite legislation and some progress in recent years across Europe.

Age Diversity Dutch, German, British and Swedish corporate websites often raise the issue of age when discussing diversity. Age discrimination is a growing concern for the coming years. Indeed, Sweden, Denmark, the UK, Finland, Netherlands and Germany already have higher than average European rates of workers in the


757


Figure 1 Main ‘Diversity’ Types Mentioned on Website Statements on Equality by Country

55–64 age group (Le Monde, 8/07/2003). As a result of fast-approaching demographic changes, older workers will need to remain in the job market for longer before receiving pensions. Consequently, managerial action will be needed to adapt recruitment and training practices, as well as ensure a viable workplace for older workers (in terms of health and safety etc.). The on-going discussion on age discrimination may encourage companies to include age diversity in their diversity statements, ahead of forthcoming EU requirements in this matter. In the UK, it has been common for staff to retire by the age of 60, despite the formal retirement age of 65 for men and women. Until recently, British women retired at the age of 60, but this was changed to 65 by sex discrimination legislation. However, in Scandinavia, the formal retirement age is 67 for both men and women. At the time we wrote this paper, the French retirement reform as proposed by the Government, was under review, and strongly debated in France. Clearly, older workers form an under-utilised pool of talent and experience, and some companies are seeking to 758

tap that resource to meet their staffing needs. In particular, two French companies sought to benefit from the experience that older people bring to their work. Every year, ‘seniors’ join our Units, whether they are 45, 50, 55 years old or more. They contribute unique experience to which no ‘junior’ can lay claim. (Alstom, France) Diversite´ d’aˆ ges pour promouvoir l’expe´ rience de chacun. (AGF, France)

Some companies talked of age in a different way, recognising that individuals continue to develop regardless of age, and hence age was not to be used as a discriminating factor in career management. Both their career and personal development is an ongoing process and does not stop at a certain age or upon reaching a certain position. (Deutsche Post)



Ability/DisabilityDiversity

Other Types of Diversity

Like sex discrimination, discrimination against people with disabilities is generally not allowed, where they are physically able to do the job, but many disabled workers are afraid to reveal their disabilities, and many disabled people find it extremely difficult to get employment. Of the UK companies, 27 had statements regarding disability.

British companies also lead in mentioning status dimensions on their websites. Marital status, social class and caste were often mentioned within UK online statements. Marital status also seemed to be important in Finland and Sweden. Surprisingly, French companies never dealt with any of these dimensions in their diversity on-line statements. Anti-discrimination statements about individual backgrounds were important in German and French companies, and many of those websites mentioned experience or education. In these two countries, the importance ascribed to vocational training and technical expertise may explain the profile of these dimensions on their websites. These findings echo those of Bellard and Ru¨ ling (2001). UK companies focus more on personal background, referring more broadly to any personal characteristics that might make the worker be seen as different and might be a cause of discrimination.

It is the Group’s policy to give all applications for employment from disabled people full consideration in relation to the vacancy concerned and their own aptitude and abilities. In the event of existing staff members becoming disabled, every effort is made to move them to suitable work within the Group if they cannot continue in their present job. The Group offers suitable training and career development for all disabled staff. (Alliance & Leicester, UK) A significant number of people in our society have disabilities. As part of our diversity policy to ensure we meet the needs of all our customers, BT encourages applications from, and supports the professional development of, people with disabilities. As a ‘two ticks’ employer, BT guarantees job interviews for all suitably qualified disabled applicants. (BT, UK)

One of the French websites celebrated their achievements in managing diversity in terms of disabled workers. With the implementation of ‘Mission Handicap’, Carrefour in France has made a commitment to its social partners to employ and recognize handicapped workers. In France, at the end of September 2001, 2325 handicapped employees, representing 3.18 per cent of the workforce, were working in our hypermarkets. (Carrefour, France)

Surprisingly, few companies in the other countries dealt with this criterion within their on-line statements. For instance, out of 18 Norwegian websites (and ten dealing with diversity issues), none mentioned anti-discrimination and equal opportunity practices concerning workers with disabilities. As law in many countries mandates against discrimination on grounds of disability, companies might presume that it was not necessary to include this factor on their websites as it was already dealt with by law and perhaps disability was no longer a cause of discrimination in employment.

Diversity of Beliefs and Orientation Opinions, beliefs and orientation (religious beliefs, political and union affiliations and sexual orientation) are particularly featured within British company on-line statements, but these are embedded in lists of diverse characteristics rather than with specific explanations about why such diversity should be valued. Religion is a dimension cited more frequently in countries such as Finland, The Netherlands and Germany. However, the absence of these considerations in French and Norwegian websites is noteworthy.

Overall, the dimensions in Table 2 fit the characteristics suggested by Litvin (1997), rather than the cluster model indicated by McGrath et al. (1995). Most of the dimensions identified fall into the demographic category in both models. The opinions/beliefs/orientation group in Table 2 would fit the values, beliefs and attitudes cluster of McGrath’s model. In addition, professional experience might fit into McGrath’s category of task-related knowledge, skills and abilities, and thinking types would fit their personality/cognitive/jybehavioural styles cluster. But the latter two dimensions were not strongly in evidence in this sample.

Conclusions The main contribution of this study is to the diversity discourse field, through an examination of the discourse around ‘diversity’ and equality on company websites, a new medium for corporate promotion of internal policies. We have revealed how diversity is constructed differently across Europe through definitions and dimensions given by 241 top companies in diversity statements on their corporate websites. Only Bellard and Ru¨ ling (2001) have explored this issue previously, using a mix of annual reports and websites of only 19 French and 19 German companies. However, in their use of annual reports, an element of bias was introduced, as there are varying national legal requirements for particular diversity issues to be reported in annual reports. As we wished to explore the work across several countries, we have used only website material, to eliminate this cross-national bias. There are no legal requirements to disclose diversity or equality policies on-line, therefore our findings are based on voluntary disclosures in all the surveyed countries. We would argue that this has more face validity in that the presence or absence of diversity categories is as intended by the companies rather than required by law. Moreover, with the comparison across eight countries, the results of this survey highlight divergence


759


in the dimensions of diversity as constructed by these dimension, appearing on 83 websites, closely folEuropean companies. As only half of them actually lowed by culture on 79 websites. The UK is the only mentioned the word ‘diversity’ (or its national langucountry reporting almost all the identified dimenage equivalents) on-line, it is clear that this term is sions. In contrast, French companies were the least not yet automatically used when companies deal likely to disclose diversity dimensions, and where with this issue. Only 13 websites gave a clear and they did so, they revealed that they valued cultural precise definition of the word. Diversity management differences, often ignoring personal differences such is not the dominant discourse in European compaas gender and disability. The differences found across nies, except in the UK, where they are by far the most Europe in the way in which diversity is interpreted likely to want to show commitment to diversity, with and communicated to stakeholders indicate support almost all the top 50 companies promoting diversity for Triandis’ (1995) argument that ‘diversity’ is socimanagement. In the UK, there is enthusiasm for the ally and historically constructed, and that the partidiversity management philosophy. In contrast, cular dimensions of ‘diversity’ are culturally bounded. around a third of top companies in France, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland ignored diversity on their Some Limitations and Suggestions for Further websites, and only just over a third of top French Research companies promoted diversity on-line, compared to just over half of German companies. Less than a third There are several limitations regarding this survey. of top companies in The Netherlands promoted Despite having nothing about diversity on their web diversity, compared with less than half in Sweden pages, a few companies did have material relating to and Norway. Not surprisingly, given its more remote their diversity or equality management policies in location and traditional industheir annual reports, which tries, Finland had the highest available on-line in PDF For global companies like were proportion of companies not format for those willing to mentioning diversity of any the time seeking out BP, diversity management is a spend kind on their websites. such information embedded in CEO and director statements. question of “commercial In defining diversity, compaWe had decided to eliminate nies tended to reconstruct its annual reports from this study, meaning to suit their particular survival”, as they compete for as the legal frameworks for the situation, supporting Bellard content of such reports (and international talent and Ru¨ ling’s (2001) findings. disclosures regarding diversity For global companies like BP, policies) differ from country to diversity management is a question of ‘commercial country. Other companies may have reported similar survival’, as they compete for international talent and information in off-line annual reports and other corhave to deal with changing contexts such as porate material. Further research should examine reduction of expatriate managers. Similarly, interhow diversity issues are dealt with specifically in national banks have to operate in a variety of legal annual reports, even though there are differing legal frameworks and national cultures, and diversity has requirements for such disclosure. to be respected. Having staff who can understand and negotiate through such structures is essential, and that We acknowledge that websites are frequently is likely to be facilitated by diversity of backgrounds, updated, and hence our study is a snapshot of the experiences and education, as suggested by Triandis situation in early 2003. We found some unexpected (1995). In contrast, some of the smaller companies are changes in our own survey when checking data. not operating to the same extent within global markets When the latest annual reports were published in or with an international and highly educated workApril, Dutch as well as German companies took the force. For example, the Finnish grocery company opportunity to update their on-line diversity statewhose careers page was only in Finnish presented a ments. Therefore, the one-shot timing of the survey very different view compared to Shell or Standard is a limitation for this contribution, and further Chartered Bank, or even to Nokia in their own country. research is suggested to explore these issues longitudinally to chart changes in a rapidly changing busiWe also sought to identify how these top companies ness context. Indeed, an extension of the study to defined the dimensions of diversity. We found a other countries and continents would be revealing as pluralist notion of diversity, and identified 27 dimenglobalisation increases, putting pressure on talent sions associated with diversity management, of management and customer relations. which geographic and visible differences and beliefs were by far the widest used dimensions. The conOur search outcomes were determined by our own struction of diversity was built on dimensions close skills at finding the relevant data. When we failed to those described by Litvin (1997) rather than the to find anything relating to diversity, we used the five cluster model of McGrath et al. (1995) as only two company search engines (where available on of our clusters matched the latter conceptualisation websites) to confirm the lack of information, but our of diversity. Gender was the most frequently cited findings were on a ‘best efforts’ basis. 760



Further research is suggested to examine the relationship between diversity and shareholder value, which was not directly revealed in the discourses of diversity on-line. This might be explored in terms of diversity policies and enhanced corporate reputation. In addition, as companies start to measure diversity performance, a number of shareholder benefits may emerge, such as the impact of increasing inclusion on individual, team and hence company performance. Finally, we suggest that triangulating evidence is sought to see whether these companies actually implement the policies and enact the values promoted on their websites. It will be revealing to see, for example, how long it takes for the companies promoting gender and racial diversity so vigorously on their websites to appoint women and ethnic minority directors to their corporate boards. Some are on the way — but most of these European companies seem to have a very long way to go.

References Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989) Social identity theory and the organisation. Academy of Management Review 14(1), 20–39. Bart, C.K. (2001) Exploring the application of mission statements on the World Wide Web. Internet Research 11(4), 360–368. Bellard, E. and Ru¨ ling, C.-C. (2001) Reflections and projections of boundaries in the diversity management discourses in the United-States, France and Germany. In 17th EGOS Colloquium, Lyon, July. Cala´ s, M.B. and Smircich, L. (1995) From ‘The woman’s’ point of view: feminist approaches to organization studies. In Handbook of Organization Studies, eds S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. Nord, pp. 218–257. Sage, London. Cox, T. (1993) Cultural Diversity in Organisations: Theory, Research and Practice. Berret-Koehler, San Francisco, CA. Dass, P. and Parker, B. (1997) Strategies for managing human resource diversity: from resistance to learning. Academy of Management Executive 13(2), 68–80. Fulmer, R. and Goldsmith, M. (2000) The Leadership Investment: How the World’s Best Organizations Gain Strategic Advantage through Leadership Development. Amacom, New York. Global Reporting Initiative (2002) Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative, Boston, MA. Heijltjes, M., Olie, R. and Glunk, U. (2003) Internationalization of top management teams in Europe. European Management Journal 21(1), 89–97.

Kirby, E.L. and Harter, L.M. (2003) Speaking the language of the bottom-line: the metaphor of ‘Managing Diversity’. Journal of Business Communication 40(1), 28–49. Kochan, T. et al. (2003) The effects of diversity on business performance: report of the Diversity Research Network. Human Resource Management 42(1), 3–21. Liff, S. (1999) Diversity and equal opportunities: room for a constructive compromise. Human Resource Management Journal 9(1), 65–75. Litvin, D.R. (1997) The discourse of diversity: from biology to management. Organization 4(2), 187–210. Litvin, D.R. (2000) The business case for diversity and the ‘iron cage’. In 16th EGOS Colloquium, Helsinki. Lorbiecki, A. and Jack, G. (2000) Critical turns in the evolution of diversity management. British Journal of Management 11, S17–S31. McGrath, J.E., Berdahl, J.L. and Arrow, H. (1995) Traits, expectations, culture and clout: the dynamics of diversity in work groups. In Diversity in Work Teams, eds S. Jackson and M. Ruderman, pp. 17–45. American Psychological Association, Washington DC. Morrison, A.M., White, R.P. and van Velsor, E. (1992) Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Can Women reach the Top of America’s Largest Corporations? (2nd ed). Addison Wesley, Reading, MA. Phillips, L. and Jørgensen, M.W. (2002) Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. Sage, London. Point, S. and Tyson, S. (1999) What do French annual reports reveal about the internationalisation of companies? European Management Journal 17(5), 555–565. Rosenzweig, P. (1998) Managing the new global workforce: fostering diversity, fostering consistency. European Management Journal 16(6), 644–652. Schein, V.E. and Mueller, R. (1992) Sex role stereotyping and requisite management characteristics: a cross-cultural look. Journal of Organizational Behavior 13, 439–447. Schneider-Ross (2002) The Business of Diversity. SchneiderRoss, Andover (UK). Singh, V. (2002) Managing diversity for strategic advantage. Report for the Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership, London. Singh, V. and Vinnicombe, S. (2002) Report on the 2002 Female FTSE index: women directors moving forward. In Women’s Leadership Summit Conference, Institute of Directors, November. Singh, V., Schiuma, G. and Vinnicombe, S. (2002) Assessing diversity management. In 3rd International Conference on Theory and Practice in Performance Measurement and Management, Boston, July. Thomas, R. (1996) Redefining Diversity. Amacom, New York. Triandis, H. (1995) The importance of context in studies diversity. In Diversity in Work Teams, eds S. Jackson and M. Ruderman, pp. 225–233. American Psychological Association, Washington DC.

SE´ BASTIEN POINT, Universite´ de FrancheComte´, 45 D, avenue de l’Observatoire, 25030 Besanc¸ on cedex. E-mail: [email protected] Se´bastien Point is currently Lecturer in Human Resouce Management and International Management at the Universite´ de FrancheComte´ (France). He is also Visiting Fellow at Cranfield School of Management (UK). His research interests include diversity management, organisational discourse and impression management.

VAL SINGH, Cranfield University School of Management, Centre for Developing Women Business Leaders, Cranfield, Bedford MK43 0AL. E-mail: [email protected] Dr Val Singh is Senior Research Fellow in Organisational Behaviour, at Cranfield School of Management. Her current research includes the annual Female FTSE Index, women leaders, diversity management, mentoring and role models.


761