Equal Opportunity & Diversity: Making Policy Work in Public and Business Organisations

1. Equal Opportunity & Diversity:Making Policy Work in Public and Business Organisations Dr Fiona Bartels-Ellis OBE Global Head of Equal Opportunity & Diversity British Council Central European University, Budapest 20th October, 2010 Diversity Unit

2. Presentation Overview • UK Equality Landscape • Wider equality and diversity issues • Defining Equality & Diversity • The British Council • Policy to practice Diversity Unit

3. The UK Equality Landscape:Findings of the 2007 Equalities Review • UK demographic changes - increasing disability, age and ethnic diversity – hyper diversity • Britain more tolerant with strong support for equality but not at ease with its diversity - prejudice widespread, changing targets of prejudice. • Lack of awareness and understanding of meaning of equality, how it relates to what organisations do, what is permitted under law and who is responsible for delivering this. Diversity Unit

4. The UK Equality Landscape: Findings of the 2007 Equalities Review • Groups most at risk of experiencing large and persistent inequalities - women with children, disabled people, Bangladeshi and Pakistani women. • Particular concern about “NEETs” - 16-18 year-olds with no experience of employment, education and training for 6 months or more. • Widening pay gap – UK top executives paid 100 times more than average worker, in comparison to 10 years ago when were paid 40 times more. Diversity Unit

5. The UK Equality Landscape:Triennial Review - How fair is Britain today? • Considerably more diverse than a generation ago. • 1 in 10 children growing up in a mixed race household. • Changing age structure. • Minority groups more confident about expressing identities publically. • Society increasingly at ease with idea of diversity and human rights principles. • Narrowing gaps in many areas. BUT concerns remain – unevenness of progress, gap between ideals and reality. Diversity Unit

6. Wider Equality & Diversity Issues • Demographic changes • Population movements • Focus on extremism • Polarised and segregated communities • Politics of recognition • Persistent inequalities Diversity Unit

7. Wider Equality & Diversity Issues • Social exclusion • Rising expectations of employers and employees in the context of competitive global & business markets • Unfair treatment and exploitation at work • Increasingly multi-ethnic/cultural, dispersed and virtual workforces • Litigious cultures • Impact of global recession Diversity Unit

8. Wider Equality & Diversity Issues • Ensuring that similarities and differences don’t passively exist, but interpenetrate. • Maintaining the balance between diversity and cohesion – how to make sure that one doesn’t undermine the other. • How much diversity can and should we accept? • Overlapping, intersecting, and occasionally conflicting areas of diversity. • Defining corporate/European/global citizen. Diversity Unit

9. BC - Defining Equality & Diversity • Equal opportunity - focused on legislating against unjustified discrimination and fair treatment of specific groups The equal opportunity agenda aims to treat people fairly, to remove barriers to this and to redress existing imbalances, so that groups which continue to be disadvantaged gain access to opportunities for full participation in the workplace and wider society. Diversity Unit

10. Diversity - focussed on making the most effective use of the differences and similarities between people for the benefit of organisations and wider society The diversity agenda contributes to creating working environments that value a range of differences believing that understanding and managing these effectively can lead to organisational and societal benefit in rapidly changing local, national and global contexts.  Equal opportunity + diversity = Interconnected Diversity Unit

11. EHRC - Defining Equality • An equal society protects and promotes equal, real freedoms and substantive opportunity to live in the ways people value and would choose, so that everyone can flourish. • An equal society recognises people’s different needs, situations and goals and removes the barriers that limit what people can do and can be. Diversity Unit

12. Programme Areas Work-lifebalance Sexual identity Operational Activity Business Disability Gender Global Services Age Moral Legal Religion or belief Ethnicity I n t e r c u l t u r a l a w a r e n e s s / w o r k i n g I n t e r c u l t u r a l a w a r e n e s s / w o r k i n g Mainstreaming Supporting Inclusion & Human Rights Achieving impact for the UK A process not an event Aligned to our values Diversity Unit

13. The British Council Approach: Policy to Practice • Equal Opportunity Policy • Diversity Strategy • Equality monitoring and targets • Equality Screening & Impact assessment • Global Diversity Networks • Staff Survey – Equality Index • Diversity Assessment Framework Diversity Unit

14. Policy to Practice Clarity around problems and desired outcomes What do we want to achieve and why do we want to achieve it? Specialist diversity leadership Who is going to set and drive the agenda, and do they have the knowledge and skills to do this? Coherent, sustainable, fit-for-purpose strategy, aligned to the business, and supported by targets and (global) policies. Is the correct framework in place? Diversity Unit

15. Policy to Practice Targeted resources Is money being spent in the right way and in the right places? Senior level buy-in and continued support Is everyone else on board? Are we all working to the same end? Measures and metrics Are we capturing this, evaluating the benefits, and using this to inform future planning? Diversity Unit

16. Return on Investment • More equitable, consultative relationships & decision making • More consistent and transparent organisational processes • Improved* reflective diversity, staff motivation and retention • Improved understanding & response to our customers • Better understanding of the countries & cultures we work in • Improved perception of organisation & external acknowledgement • Better management of risk Diversity Unit

17. Benefits to wider society • More equal societies help growth & economic prosperity to flourish & have higher standards of living & welfare • Equality increases level & quality of human capital & creates more stability necessary for growth • Focus on groups experiencing persistent disadvantage results in more efficient use of scarce resources • Violence, conflict, insecurity, political instability & human rights abuses more likely in unequal societies • Social relations and social fabric stretched to breaking point in poorest areas of unequal societies Diversity Unit

18. Köszönöm Diversity Unit

19. Trends and Processes in Equality Policy Thinking in Europe- Bringing Social Transformation Back in - Andrea Krizsan Center for Policy Studies

20. The context • Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty (passed in 1999) gave the EU Council of Ministers the power to take action to combat discrimination on a wider set of criteria than ever before: the grounds of sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation for the first time. • 2 new directives passed in 2000: Race Directive and Employment Directive • In 2002 the 76/207/EEC Equal Treatment for Women and Men Directive was also amended • A number of other equality directives were passed since • New equality thinking and a related enforcement regime emerged in the EU and consequently within its Member States

21. Arguments • Developments since the early 2000s reframed European equality thinking by widening its scope • These developments have also brought a reconfiguration of ideas about enforcement and implementation of equality policy across Europe. • While both developments should be welcome a number of serious caveats apply and those should be carefully addressed.

22. Reframing equality policy • In response to different challenges: • upsurge of right wing political actors across Europe • recognition of the need for even protection across different inequalities • Increasing recognition of multiple inequalities • Move away from parallel thinking about different inequalities (particularly gender and ethnicity) to merged approaches which treat several inequality criteria together • Brings not only change in scope but also a change in depth

23. Approaches to equality policy Three main visions of equality inform policy thinking (Rees 1998, Squires 1994, 2007, Walby 2005) • Equal treatment – equal access • Positive action and positive discrimination • The politics of difference or mainstreaming equality The three approaches are not competing but can be seen as complementary (Booth& Bennett 2002)

24. Equal treatment – equal access • Emphasis on sameness: certain characteristics are irrelevant, cannot influence procedures • Individualistic, symmetrical • Targets of the policy: individuals who where judged based on such arbitrary criteria • Individual liability • “Tinkering” (Rees 1998) • BUT: Equal competition: many times reproduces disadvantages and inequalities • Addresses only symptoms, not roots

25. Positive action, positive discrimination • Differences exist – mostly socially determined • Equivalence, equal valuation rather than sameness • 2 versions: • More individualistic: those who differ have to be equipped to fit – individual compensation • Group based: outcome driven – positive discrimination, quota • Policy targets: members of the vulnerable groups • Group liability • Medium term, temporary impact • “Tailoring” (Rees 1998) • BUT: Structures remain the same, maintains the status quo. Discussion is shifted away from structural discrimination to redistribution

26. Mainstreaming, the politics of difference • Structural models: organizational barriers exist that are impediments for some groups rather than others • Social structures and norms underneath these are at the root of the problem: they are biased, need to be changed, better than fitting everybody in them • “overcome disadvantage without denying difference” (Squires 1994) • Implies transforming business as usual: long term • Policy target: society and its institutions • Social liability: all normal policy actors should act upon it • “Transforming” (Rees 1998)

27. Progress in current Europe • The three leg stool of gender equality (Booth and Bennett 2002) is juxtaposed with the newly emergent anti-discrimination regime • Six inequality grounds now covered mostly together in an attempt to level protection: race or ethnicity, disability, age, religion or belief, sexual orientation and gender • Anti-discrimination laws are passed in almost all countries of Europe – not more than 3 countries had such laws before 2000 • Stronger European equality protection than ever before, for more grounds than ever before, applied in all European countries with more or less efficiency

28. Caveats • “One size fits all” formula is seen as troublesome (Verloo 2006) – lowest common denominator is chosen • Reframing in the 2000s brings not only widening in scope but also increasing focus on individualized approaches: • the equal treatment approach primarily conveyed by the directives and spreading through anti-discrimination laws. • managing diversity approach (valorizing difference without understanding disadvantage connected) – making business case for equality • Criticism about a reduced, individualized understanding of diversity (Squires 2008, Benschop &Verloo 2010). Focus on individual diversity makes a better business case for equality but meanwhile looses sight of how some differences generate lower statuses. Subordinating equality goals to business efficiency: slippery slope (Squires 2008) • Widening scope does not address problems of victims of multiple discrimination (EC 2007) • Leveling takes place in a negative sense: the “three legs” approach remains largely confined to gender equality. A strong yet less developed objective prevails in all the inequality fields.

29. Reconfiguring implementation • EU level equality policy shift also brings a new, more forceful implementation regime • What matters is not just setting the norms but also establishing standards for their implementation (McCrudden 2001) • Create equality bodies (Race Directive, 2002 Amendment of Eq. Treatment Directive) • Extend the number of actors in implementation from government and judiciary to public sector and business organizations • Involve NGOs as consultative partners but also by giving them active roles in implementation

30. Equality bodies 1. • Mushrooming of equality or anti-discrimination bodies across Europe that provide protection against discrimination on several inequality grounds. • The new institutions complement previously existent institutional structures. In some cases even displace them • Inequality specific government departments (machineries – Rai 2003) • Consultative bodies • Focus of equality institutions previously in place: to give recognition and voice in policy making to specific vulnerable groups (Stetson Mazur 1995)

31. Equality bodies 2. • Adopt the model of specialized equality institutions promoted by COE (ECRI 2001), with some limited potential for addressing structural inequality issues • In practice: • they address several inequality grounds • their primary focus remains to put in place an equal treatment approach to equality • Emphasis is on efficient individual remedies with few components addressing structural inequalities • Compensate individual weakness in claiming remedies – support victims • May: conduct structural investigations, commission research, guide non-discriminatory action – pending on resources • Equality bodies become the main hubs of equality policy in current Europe

32. Other actors in implementation • Implementation of equality policy objectives is increasingly a task for an important series of actors beyond government departments and specialized bodies • Normal actors (public sector organizations, businesses) become involved • Forms of involvement: requirements to follow positive duties, issue diversity charters or equal opportunity plans: monitor, evaluate and improve equal opportunities in their respective organizations. • Large potential to make equality work

33. Caveats • Equal treatment bodies: strongholds of equality policy. Particularly in the context of the current economic crisis. BUT: they are just one institutional pillar, should be seen as such, communicated as such. Their vision is complementary to other equality visions. The “three leg stool” should not be forgotten. • Spreading out implementation tasks is transformative. BUT: the meaning of equality used is more difficult to regulate with a wider range of actors. Equality policy is a project of social change and organizations resist change. Limiting, reducing meanings is an ongoing process. The tendency to treat different inequalities together seems to work as an impetus towards more limited individualist understandings of equality • Finding meanings of equality should remain open to inclusive political debates and channeled back into implementation

34. Conclusion - Way forward • Revolutionary changes take place in the European equality regime: stronger coverage with more forceful implementation for a considerable wider set of inequalities. • Yet: in a peculiar way a step back – given our knowledge about inequalities and ways to address them – a less developed vision of equality comes to the forefront • Focus on individual differences should be complemented with looking into deeper social structural inequalities – policy knowledge gained earlier should be channeled back in

35. THANK YOU! krizsana@ceu.hu

36. A Toothless Lion? Enforcing (EU) Anti-Discrimination law Lilla Farkas, Equal Treatment Advisory Board, HU farkas.lilla@cfcf.hu

37. Models of equality enforcement • Individual justice model: Roma Rambos and GI Janes in court • Group justice model: indirect discrimination, actio popularis or class action (see also environment & consumer protection) • Equality as participation: prevent discrimination by granting protected groups right to participate in decision making • How to tackle structural, systemic, institutional discrimination?

38. Sanctions: EPD? To be effective, remedies and sanctions must achieve the desired outcome; to be proportionate, they must adequately reflect the gravity, nature and extent of the loss and/or harm; and to be dissuasive, sanctions must deter future acts of discrimination. Whatever may be written into national laws or procedures, sanctions will be none of these if there are no effective, simple, swift and sustained mechanisms for enforcement.

39. 4 tier enforcement system in EU • Pioneers: UK & NI: ADL since 1965, tried individual & group justice (formal investigations and non-discrimination notices) NOW part’ry model:+ duty to promote equal treatment. • Early birds: NL & Sweden: relatively long standing equality bodies with solid case law • Good students: FR, BG, HU: strong equality body, procedural novelties: actio popularis • Bad students: MS lagging behind with transposition, weak equality bodies, focus on individual justice

40. Group justice at procedural level: actio popularis action • no need for individual victims, case is brought by int’d NGOs • focus on patterns, trends and scenarios of discrimination • ideal in tackling institutional, structural, or de facto discrimination • minimal risk of victimisation – no individual client • perennial costs, such as maintaining contact with client or maintaining a client service for case selection can be saved • ECtHR,D.H. II, if a case is not about the violation of the rights of an individual victim, then remedies ought also to be tailored accordingly, i.e. they have to tackle ‘system failures’. • In Feryn UK argued RED does not require actio popularis • No actio popularis standing under UK law (despite TU advocacy)

41. Remedies in HU public education • Structural remedies for structural discrimination: desegregation plans imposed by legislation or by courts, ETA? • Publicity: (threat of) naming and shaming • Playing on need for (EU) funds?

42. Desegregation plans • Financial incentive since 2003: integration subsidy • Localities under duty to review their schools and ensure equal distribution of socially underprivileged children – many of them Roma, NB: ethnicity is sensitive data! • Consultation with local Roma representatives or interested NGOs not a requirement. • Since 2006 precondition for access to EU and int’l funds: Equal opportunities action plans. • EOAP: severe lack of data. • No duty to include church and private schools in EOAP.

43. Cases in HU • Hajdúhadház, Miskolc, Nyíregyháza, Győr, Kaposvár, Jászladány, Taktaharkány • CFCF v Tiszavasvári:1. finding of segregation, 2. ETA ordered town to prepare EOAP and report back about follow upwithin time limit. • CFCF v Ministry of Education: seeking 1. finding that Ministry’s failure to enforce ADL contributes to segregation, 2. order to act. Lawsuit allowed. Will result in structural changes?

44. Individual remedies for segregation before ECtHR • DH and others v Czech Republic II, Sampanis and others v Greece and Orsus and Others v Croatia II. (16 March 2010) • Note: actio popularis action is not allowed in Strasbourg! • Similar to HU, naming and shaming prior to final judgements forced respondent states to introduce remedies? Amendment to Czech public education law, evening school for Croatian Roma. • ERRC critiques non-enforcement by Cee of Ministers and MSs

45. EU funds and discrimination • HU system to avoid spending EU funds on discrimination: EOAP • General failure to monitor and sanction non-compliance => system is inadequate, segregation is on the rise • The situation of other protected groups has not improved either, eg disability • No need for further strategies re protected groups: Enforce ADL, take action!