My article was
issued in Faith in Business Quarterly volume 16.1 in 2013.
Editorial note:
In this useful and inspiring article,
Andrew Drury starts by tracing the origins of the current legislation, and
quickly goes on to show that large corporations genuinely see business benefits
in encouraging diversity and equality. He then looks at some of the intricacies
of managing diversity within an organisation, and the need to build a culture
for the whole organisation which embraces it. Finally, he gives us scriptural
inspiration to help us as individual Christians to deal with the inevitable
conflicts.
Definition
of equality and diversity
When the words ‘diversity’ and ‘equality’ are
mentioned, there are three main responses: hostility, enthusiasm or apathy.
There are, of course, those responses that are hybrids of those mentioned, but
the majority of the feedback falls within those initial categories.
There are seven
areas that are covered by equality and diversity legislation: age, disability,
sexual orientation and gender reassignment (which are wrongly placed together
as one unit), sex, race, and religion or belief. There are some organisations,
particularly in the public sector, which also include caring (for the young and
older people, as well as those with disabilities, in a voluntary capacity) as
an equality area.
It is a common
mistake to think of people within those categories as being homogenous.
Examples are; the perspectives of the older and younger person can be
different; there are a range of both visible and hidden disabilities that have
different reasonable adjustments[i]; the real differences in
culture between the various races and ethnicities (such as the Afro-Caribbean
and the Chinese); the wide range of religions and beliefs with the
miscellaneous shades within them, let alone the courts and tribunals still
trying to determine if certain beliefs qualify under the umbrella term; and
those who are more militant with regard to their same-sex orientation or those
who are wanting just to live quietly with their sexual orientation.
The purpose of
equality legislation is more than that people are treated equally and to
achieve a level playing field for all. This is achieved by giving certain
groups specified advantages, such as reasonable adjustments (in the case of
people with disabilities) or affirmative action to assist people from
under-represented ethnic and racial groups with training for career progression
as an example (as positive discrimination and quotas are illegal in the United
Kingdom).
Within the
mindset of a number of people, diversity and equality is an issue that affects
people of faith, and Christians in particularly, adversely. As the Archbishop
of York has commented: ‘…in the minds of those charged with implementing such
policies, “diversity” apparently means every colour and creed except
Christianity, the nominal religion of the white majority; and “equality”
seemingly excludes anyone, black or white, with a Christian belief in God.’[ii]
Furthermore,
there are people, including those within the Church, who think that the issue
should not affect the work environment as it would have a negative impact.
Others think that diversity and equality are irrelevant to the office or
factory. Still other people think that the subject can only be beneficial to
both the employer and the employee.
The origins
of equality and diversity in the UK
a. The
Stephen Lawrence Inquiry
In order to
have a proper perspective on equality and diversity in this country, it is
necessary to step backwards and see the historical context. The impetus to
incorporate diversity and equality into the working practices of organisations
originally came from the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry in 1999, in which the
Metropolitan Police Service was described as being institutionally racist. The
consideration of the racial issues raised by the Inquiry led to Government
Departments, public sector bodies and larger companies to give due regard as to
how they treated people within their organisations who were from the various
diversity groups, some of which might not be of minority status within the
organisations (for example, Christians were included under the heading ‘religion
or belief).
b. Legislation
In addition to
the impact of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, there has also been a legislative
impetus which has been an additional factor. There had been equality
legislation before the Inquiry (for example, on equal pay and sex discrimination),
although this tragic murder led to the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. An
addition impetus was the European Council Directive 2000/78/EC, which set out
the general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation
detailing the people who should be protected because of their circumstances. It
emphasised the fact that people should not be disadvantaged in the workplace
because of age, disability, etc. The Equality Acts of 2000 and 2010 were passed
in order to bring all of the previous diversity legislation within the United
Kingdom together.
These Acts have
been instrumental in fulfilling, to a certain degree, the Christian vision that
all people should be treated equally within the work environment. In this way,
for example, people living with disabilities are given the same advantages from
recruitment to retirement as those living without disabilities.
Employers’
Approach
Although the
initiative for equality and diversity was primarily aimed at the public sector
and larger companies, the need is now taken for granted within smaller
companies too. In a report by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), Back to work – the role of small businesses
in employment and enterprise, it was stated that small and medium sized
businesses employ a greater number of long-term sick and people with
disabilities in proportion to larger organisations. John Walker, the National
Chairman of the FSB, stated: ‘Small firms play a unique role in providing the
way to employment, especially for disadvantaged groups.
‘They have a
greater tendency in the face of recession to take on those that would struggle
to find a job, those who have not worked for a long time, have little
experience or have been sick.’[iii]
In the brief, Supply Chain Diversity, issued by the
Business in the Community (BITC) in November 2011, it states that inclusion has
both a business case (particularly for outward looking organisations) and wider
social implications with people of different racial backgrounds, people with
disabilities and women benefitting the most. The arena is best served by those
in small and medium sized enterprises of which 8 per cent are owned by people
from the black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities nationally, rising
to 24 per cent in London.[iv]
In larger firms
(such as Microsoft, Coca-cola, Pricewaterhouse Coppers), it has been shown that
a diversity and equality process that is successful in unlocking the
differences and working through and in them will also be beneficial in the
business field, showing in the area of productivity. Niloufar Molavi, the chief
diversity officer at PWC, describes it thus: ‘Diversity, ultimately, is about
how we build an organisation with talented individuals from very different
backgrounds. I don’t think diversity is ever going to become passe – unless we
believe that managing talent is no longer relevant.'[v]
It is also seen
within the larger work-life balance picture, with the latest survey showing
that employees in the United Kingdom are less satisfied with their work environment
than they are with the rest of their lives.[vi] Part of the problem is
the lack of employee engagement as to who these people are, that is their
backgrounds, beliefs and the essence of who they are. There has been a joint
study by academics from Plymouth and Cardiff universities that employees with
learning difficulties, like dyslexia, or mental health were most likely to be
bullied and harassed by managers and employers. Gay workers and young people
were also likely to be treated badly.[vii]
There is
evidence that, increasingly, employers understand the importance of diversity
and equality by the fall in the number of employment tribunal claims in the
year 2011/12, in figures released by the Ministry of Justice.[viii] Whereas, in previous
years, tribunal claims based on race and (more markedly) age had been growing,
these (and other cases based on protected characteristics) have declined. The
reason appears to be that employers are more willing to confront discriminatory
practices and help their workforce in raising awareness of the issues, such as
promoting staff networks that are based on diversity issues.
Embracing
diversity and equality has three effects for the employer:
·
Moral
– in that doing the right thing by being aware and including the lives of
employees and customers.
·
Financial
– both in encouraging the customer base and in avoiding court costs that arise
from discrimination cases.
·
Legal
– the organisation will be compliant with diversity legislation
In undertaking
these considerations, organisations would have identified themselves as
employers of choice, attracting the applications of the most suitable and able
candidates.
The diversity
and equality issue within the work environment has also be seen as responding
to the diverse customer base and also to the principle that more diverse teams
are more effective, innovative, and better equipped to deliver far superior
performance and growth. The latest Chartered Institute for Personnel and
Development (CIPD) report has reported that, of the more than 350 organisations
surveyed, 83 per cent had diversity and equality strategies and policies,
whilst 57 per cent expect this subject to become more important over the next
five years. Dianah Worman, the diversity advisor at the CIPD, stated: ‘The
overall message from the discussions was simple – a more diverse workforce is
one that delivers a superior business performance. This isn’t about ticking
boxes or chasing fads, it’s about assembling the best teams, that are
effective, innovative, creative and can deliver growth.’[ix]
Is it
‘political correctness’?
There are
inevitably problems with equality in that the rights of some categories seem to
conflict with the rights of others.
The most
obvious example is the tension between the rights of people with religious
beliefs and those with a same-sex orientation, which will be briefly addressed.
It is often with this particular aspect that the phrase ‘political correctness’
is applied. It should be noted that in this, as with other issues, Christians
do not always have the same viewpoint.
However,
whatever perspective we take in certain equality and diversity issues,
Christians
should be expected to take a more holistic approach and be
encouragers of those who face discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation.
For example, we should be inspiring people with disabilities or people of
different racial origins to be active participants in the workplace, and to be
future leaders within both the private and public sectors.
The truth is
that, if diversity and equality is incorporated sensibly and sensitively, it
can enhance the working conditions of the staff members and improve the service
delivered to customers.
There has been
a growing concern that Christians are being marginalised within the work
environment, with the increased opinion that diversity and equality is about being
politically correct instead of being about fairness. The reference is made to
the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) of the four Christian
employees: Nadia Eweida (who alone succeeded in her case), Shirley Chaplin,
Gary McFarlane and Lillian Ladele – the first two related to the wearing of
crosses, the latter two related to their objection to same-sex relations in
therapy (for Mr McFarlane) and in civil partnership ceremonies (for Ms Ladele).[x]
In respect of
Ms Ladele and Mr McFarlane, the ECHR stated that the policies of the
applicants’ employers in requiring employees to endorse the organisation’s
ethos had a legitimate aim ‘to secure the rights of others which are also
protected under the Convention [i.e. the Human Rights Convention],’ such as
same-sex relationships. Therefore, in the dismissal of these Christians by
their employers, ‘it could not be said that the national courts had failed to
strike a fair balance’ in upholding the dismissal notices against them.
The judgement
proceeded to state: ‘The Court generally allows the national authorities a wide
margin of appreciation when it comes to striking a balance between competing
Convention rights.
‘In all the
circumstances, the Court does not consider that the national authorities, that
is the local authority employer which brought the disciplinary proceedings and
also the domestic courts which rejected the applicant’s discrimination claim,
exceeded the margin of appreciation available to them.’
It is true that
some employers have taken exception to what their employees have said about
other equality areas, particularly where Christians have spoken in opposition
to same-sex relationships. It has been proved that, if views are expressed
appropriately and in a reasoned manner without any detriment to the working
environment, the employers should respect those expressed opinions.[xi]
With regard to
the cases that had been referred to the ECHR, Elizabeth Oldfield, the Director
of the Theos think tank, has commented that disputes concerning religious
freedom were ‘an inevitable part of living in a free and diverse society.’
However, she continued that the courts appeared to be erring ‘on the side of
limiting rather than accommodating religious freedom.’
She commented
further: ‘one does not have to agree with the beliefs of the applicants to
support their cases. It should not be beyond the wit of an employer to work
with strongly-held religious commitments, rather than dismiss them. However,
what we ae increasingly seeing is an unwillingness to accommodate them
reasonably.’ [xii]
Such comments
as expressed by the ECHR have led to some people suggesting that religions or
beliefs should have a version of the ‘reasonable adjustment’ to enable
employers in particular to deal with religious issues that can occur in the
workplace.
However, it has not been found popular support, mainly because of
the practicality of the measure and because other areas of equality (noticeably
those involved in the sexual orientation area) perceived it as an act of
imbalance between them.
Caroline
Waters, the Director of People and Policy at BT, has stated: ‘Inclusion is not
about treating people the same, but about embracing, celebrating and learning
from the differences between us and responding in a way that ensures our
society benefits from our combined abilities. It is important to recognise that
we all have biases but not to let them, or our fear of causing offence, get in
the way of relationships at work. If we do, we miss the opportunity to enrich
our lives and bring success to our businesses through understanding diversity.
‘The UK
workforce is now much more diverse and it’s time for a new, honest conversation
about the need to purposefully understand the nature of difference.’[xiii]
It is for
employers, in the public and private sectors, to take a measured approach in
dealing with the sometimes conflicting issues that arise, usually with regard
to religion or belief and sexual orientation but just as applicable between
other areas of equality or even within them (such as Christians taking
different views on the working practices based on their understanding of the
Bible).
The call to a
realistic and balanced attitude has been urged by Amanda Jones, who wrote:
‘Common to both the Ladele and McFarlane cases is the fact that colleagues
raised concerns over their behaviour, which lead to disciplinary action being
taken against them. If the issues had been tackled more proactively by their
employers, escalation of the disputes all the way to Strasbourg may not have
arisen. But the tensions between religion or belief and the sexual orientation
strands of equalities law are particularly vexing. In practice, the worst thing
employers could do is allow any concerns they may have over managing conflict
of rights issues to stifle their reaction to a developing situation.’[xiv]
From a legal
perspective, Audrey Williams, the head of discrimination law at solicitors
Eversheds, commented: ‘…this [i.e. the ECHR judgement on the Ms Eweida case] is
subject to an important caveat: that employers strike a fair balance between
the respective interests of religious beliefs and requirements of the
workplace.’ She added: ‘Far from eroding employer rights to restrict the
manifestation of religious beliefs in the workplace, the case preserves the
right to the employer to exercise discretion – as long as this is done
appropriately and can be shown to be legitimate.’[xv]
This attitude
is echoed in the words of Shami Chakrabarti, the Director of the civil rights
movement Liberty, who described the positive outcome in the Nadia Eweida case
as ‘an excellent result for equal treatment, religious freedom and common
sense.’ Although she did go on to describe that, in the other three cases, ‘the
court was also right to uphold judgements…that employers can expect staff not
to discriminate in the discharge of duties at work.’[xvi]
The
Christian Response
There are real
opportunities for Christians to be a positive influence in this area. There are
organisations such as Transform Work UK, Agape Workplace Ministries and the
London Institute for Contemporary Christianity who have the expertise and
experience to help believers grasp the openings that have occurred in recent
times as employers seek to promote inclusivity in their organisations. It has
been the experience of Christians in Government (which encourages Christian
civil servants, particularly in Whitehall) and the BT Christian Fellowship that
the employers have wanted to encourage their activities, in line with the
wording and the spirit of the legislation.
Having stated
that, there is often reticence by Christians to be part of the current work
landscape. For example, a Miami University study in 2011 concluded that people
with heartfelt religious conviction have ‘higher degrees of self-discipline and
self-control’ as well as being more agreeable and conscientious. However, when
the New Statesman finance columnist Alex Preston interviewed Christians in the
City of London, he discovered that none of them would be publicly identified.
One of the interviewees told him: ‘If my boss thought I was relying on prayer
to get me through the day, he’d look down on me. It would make me seem
irrational.’[xvii]
In the end, we
are reminded that our ultimate employer is not the Chief Executive, Permanent
Secretary of a Government Department or the shareholders, but it is God Himself.
We are reminded that, in having the mind of God, we should ‘serve
wholeheartedly [our employers] as if you were serving the Lord, not them,
because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever they do,
whether they are slave or free.’ (Ephesians 6: 7 – 8, see also Colossians 3: 23
– 24) We should have to bear in mind that we should treat our fellow employees
with the same attitude that He has – a servant heart, not wanting to put our
own interests above those of others (Philippians 4: 8 – 9). In this way, we
will be gently showing our work colleagues that we interested in them as
people, reflecting the attitude of our heavenly Father.
However, we
should seek discernment as to what to say and when to say it, particularly if
we disagree with the viewpoint of another person regarding an equality area.
Jesus told us to ‘be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.’ (Matthew
10: 16)
We are reminded
by Paul that ‘If it is possible, as far
as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.’ (Romans 12: 18, my
italics)
Indeed, the
whole of the passage from Romans 12: 9 to verse 21 is the blueprint of how
Christians should act in a diverse and equal workplace, working with those who
we do not always agree with but with God’s heart for our fellow employees.
We may not
agree with a person’s beliefs or lifestyle; however, we have been placed by God
in our various work environments to live out His kingdom principles which
includes encouraging others to do their best., regardless of which equality category
or categories they might fall into. It is important to affirm those in low
status roles, reflecting Jesus’ attitude toward those who were socially
excluded.
We are to
proactively acknowledge that all people are created by God in His likeness
(Genesis 1: 27) including His creativity in making us diverse, which we should
celebrate. As the Apostle Paul stated in his advice to workers: ‘Whatever you
do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men’
(Colossians 3: 23) – the outcome of Christians inspiring their colleagues to be
fully engaged with their employees, when their age, disability, race, sex, etc.
will be observed as contributing to the organisation and not as disadvantage.
It may be that
we feel that we cannot support the causes of all equality and diversity areas,
but we can show a positive attitude towards those who are promoting the ones we
can endorse, such as B & Q in employing older persons in their workforce.
There is the temptation to hide behind the words ‘political correctness’
whereas we should be making an affirmative contribution to our work environment
in supporting those of different ethnicities or racial origins, people with
disabilities, people of all ages and women in the workplace.
It may be a
surprise to agree with the words of Trevor Phillips, the Chair of the Equality
and Human Rights Commission, but his are sentiments that every Christian should
echo: ‘Equality and diversity aren’t things that get in the way of business.
People who say that aren’t in the day-to-day business of helping to get this
economy back on its feet.
‘It’s not whether
we want diversity, but how we make it real.’[xviii]
[i] ‘Reasonable
adjustments’ are processes or practices which enable people with disabilities
have the same access as non-disabled people, for example, to property (by ramps)
or information (e.g. using large print).
[ii] John Sentamu, ‘The
intolerance towards Christians in the public sector is an affront,’ Daily Mail, 13 February 2009
[iii] ‘Small firms regularly
hire people from disadvantaged groups,’ www.workplacelaw.net, 26 September 2012
[iv] ‘Promoting diversity
‘makes business sense,’ www.workplacelaw.net, 11 January 2012. See
also Business in the Community, 2012
Benchmarking Trends Analysis Report, December 2012 regarding BAME and gender
equality.
[v] Ben Thompson,
‘Diversity Matters to a 21st century workforce,’ Personnel Today, 6 June 2011
[vi] ‘’Work is ‘most
unhappy part of life’, finds ONS,’ People
Management, 1 December 2011
[vii] ‘Disabled, gay and
young workers ‘suffer most bullying’,’ People
Management, 23 February 2012; see also research by The Clear Company quoted
in ‘Disabled candidates reluctant to disclose disability,’ www.workplacelaw.net, 8 November 2011 and survey by Metlife quoted
in ‘Two out of five jobless 50 to 60-yer-olds blame disability,’ www.workplaclaw.net, 5 December 2012
[viii] John Ecclestone,
‘Tribunal figures show 15% fall in claims,’ Personnel
Today, 28 June 2012
[ix] ‘Risk that growth is
being hampered by teams that don’t reflect the diverse customer base of modern
business,’ CIPD Press Release, 6 December 2012; ‘CIPD says diversity and
inclusion plans need to be applied,’ www.workplacelaw.net, 7 December 2012; Michelle Stevens, ‘Diversity
and inclusion ‘rising up the agenda’,’ People
Management, 26 November 2012; ‘Are diversity and inclusion now firmly on
the agenda?’ www.workplacelaw.net, 27 November 2012; see
also the reports Diversity &
Inclusion – Fringe or Fundamental? (www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/survey-reports/diversity-inclusion-fringe-fundamental.aspx) and Game On! How to keep diversity on track
(www.cipd.co.uk/publicpolicy/policy-reports/diversity-progress-on-track.aspx)
[x] ‘European Court gives
verdict on UK discrimination,’ www.workplacelaw.net 15 January 2013; John Eccleston, ‘European
Court rules on long-running religion cases.’ Personnel Today, 15 January 2013
[xi] Adrian Smith v
Trafford Housing Trust, in Manchester District Registry, Case Number 1IR54453,
[2012] EWHC 3221 (CH)
[xii] ‘Three out of four
religious freedom cases lost at ECHR,’ www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=2714
[xiii]Unconscious Bias Inhibits Employee Productivity, Employers Network for
Equality and Inclusion, 28 September 2012,
http//:www.enei.org.uk/news.php/341/unconscious-bias-inhibits-employee-productivity
[xiv] Amanda Jones, ‘Testing
Christian Principles.’ People Management,
18 January 2013
[xv] Claire Churchard,
‘Eweida wins religious discrimination case against British Airways,’ People Management, 15 January 2013
[xvi] ‘Religious rights at
work must be balanced against rights of others, says European Court of Human
Rights,’ www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/17803, 15 January 2013;
‘British Airways Christian employee Nadia Eweida wins case,’ www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk=21025332
[xvii] Quoted by Robert
Jeffery, ‘Does faith make a better employee?’,
http//:blog.peoplemanagement.co.uk/2013/01/does-faith-make-a-better-employee,
29 January 2013
[xviii] Speaking at the launch
of the Employers Network for Equality and Inclusion (enei), reported by John
Eccleston, ‘Equality chief urges employers to focus on diversity,’ Personnel
Today, 19 October 2011
Comments