International Handbook on Diversity Management at Work; Perspectives on Diversity and Equal Treatment

Citation

Sloane, P.J. (2010), "International Handbook on Diversity Management at Work; Perspectives on Diversity and Equal Treatment", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 539-541. https://doi.org/10.1108/edi.2010.29.5.539.1

As the title implies the focus of this Handbook is on Diversity Management (DM), which is contrasted with equal opportunities (EO). Both are concerned with disadvantaged groups, embracing gender, ethnicity or race, nationality, age, disability, religion and sexual orientation, but they are not regarded as mirror images of each other. Thus, the conventional wisdom is that EO policies are a reaction to the introduction of legislation, designed to ensure compliance, while DM, a concept originating from the Hudson Institute in the USA in the late 1980s, is based on the business case that maximising the potential of all employees (including white males) will help to improve company performance. Thus, the focus of the former is on the employee side and equity considerations, while the latter emphasises the employer side and efficiency considerations. The Handbook suggests, however, that these distinctions have become blurred and that DM is just as likely to be a response to legislative requirements as are EO policies. In his introduction the editor points out that much of the DM literature is US based and scholars there regard DM as representing a break from the EO approach. He sees the purpose of the Handbook as an attempt to restore DM to its national context as well as drawing out the links to EO policies in so far as they are present.

Each of the contributors was asked to tackle the following questions. First, does EO legislation exist in the country under investigation, and if so, what does it cover and to what extent is it enforced? Second, in countries where such legislation is absent to what extent is there public discussion of such issues and which actors are engaged in these discussions? Third, to what extent has empirical research on the impact of such measures been carried out? Finally, what is the relationship, if any, between DM and EO legislation? As will become clear it is not possible to give definitive answers to all these questions.

The strength of the Handbook lies in the range of countries represented and the detailed historical background presented in each case. Here it can be compared to an earlier work by Jain et al. (Jain, H.C., Sloane, P.J. and Horwitz, F.M. (2003), Employment Equity and Affirmative Action; An International Comparison, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York and London). The Handbook has the advantage of being more recent and covering a wider range of countries, 14 as opposed to six. While the Handbook covers each country in a separate chapter, the Employment Equity book adopts a more thematic approach, devoting chapters, for example to theories of discrimination, measuring employment equity effectiveness and drawing conclusions for public policy. The country by country approach, as in the Handbook, tends to leave the reader to draw his or her own conclusions, and perhaps a concluding chapter attempting to draw out the policy implications would have been helpful. Given the difference in approach the two books should, however, be regarded as complementary rather than competitive.

The counties considered are varied in terms of background. At one extreme is India, with its caste system, and South Africa, with its history of apartheid, both requiring strong measures to deal with the problem. In India employment quotas have been applied in various parts of the public sector covering three designated groups. Yet, despite sixty years of affirmative action these groups remain significantly under‐represented. Further, private sector employers are not covered by such provisions and have shown little interest in introducing voluntary programmes. Lack of education among the lower castes remains the major problem. South Africa also has designated groups and a substantial legislative programme with affirmative action provision. Yet, for the black population in general progress still seems very slow even 15 years after the overthrow of apartheid. The lesson from both counties seems to be that legislation on its own is insufficient and what is really required is an effective programme for the education, training and development of disadvantaged groups.

Within the European Union there are extensive legislative EO provisions, which have substantially influenced policies within individual member states. Yet, there is still a variation in policies, ranging from Austria and Italy, where the development of DM is a slow and limited process to the Netherlands, where it is said to be definitely a hot topic. Several countries, including the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany and Austria (as well as Switzerland, which though not an EU member, tends to follow EU policy on a voluntary basis), have been heavily influenced by high rates of immigration. In Sweden, which is regarded as very progressive in this area, the DM concept has been grafted on to the existing immigration integration framework. Yet, in most cases DM policies are limited to relatively few organisations, often multinational enterprises, and research on the subject, as the UK contribution makes clear, remains scant and unsystematic.

The remaining countries represent a mixed bag. In the two Muslim countries, namely Pakistan and Turkey, legislation plays a limited role and low labour force participation rates hinder progress for women. Singapore is also at an early stage as far as the development of DM is concerned and the criminalisation of male homosexual behaviour is at odds with equality in relation to sexual orientation. Here tripartitism rather than legislation is the favoured means for advancing the rights of the disadvantaged. Canada stands out as being at the forefront of policy initiatives, based on multiculturalism, encouraging immigrants to maintain their cultural heritage rather than assimilate with the indigenous population and implementing extensive affirmative action programmes with numerical goals. Yet, even here significant labour market inequality remains.

What then have we learned? In many countries there is extensive EO legislative provision and serious attempts at enforcement, but major differences remain in terms of labour market outcomes for different groups. Long term economic trends, such as increased labour force participation rates for women and skill shortages, may close the gap in the representation of some groups among more skilled occupations, but education and training have an equally important role to play. There is a degree of opposition to some elements of EO policy among members of the public, employers and in some cases trade unions. This is true of affirmative action or positive discrimination and the collection of data on ethnic origin at establishment level, which is opposed by the unions in some countries. Proper empirical analysis of the impact of EO and DM on performance, job satisfaction and other labour market outcomes is largely absent (most chapters ignore the large economic literature in this area). Thus, the business case for DM has not been clearly demonstrated. The precise relationship between DM and EO is obscure, perhaps because attempts to implement the former are partial and because it appears that the success of DM requires strategic management initiatives, the commitment of senior executives and the employment of highly qualified HR staff, which is rarely the case. Despite this the Handbook contains a mass of useful information and will be invaluable to academics, policymakers and HR practitioners.