Measuring the effectiveness of EDI programmes

The survey garnered a mixed reception on the effectiveness of firms’ EDI programmes and strategies, with a significant portion of respondents citing reservations about the strength of organisations’ commitment to such initiatives.

The report suggested that a more comprehensive approach to the collection and analysis of EDI data is needed in order both to design and to assess the effectiveness of EDI programmes.

Sixty-nine percent of participants reported that their firm had an EDI statement or charter, while 18 percent didn’t know if one existed, and 13 percent said none existed.

Fifty-four percent said their firm had a strategic plan for delivering diversity and inclusion, with a further 40 percent reporting that initiatives had been effective.

Respondents expressed concern that firms are not engaging in meaningful initiatives, with many negatively evaluating EDI initiatives as “lip service” or “tick-box exercises”.

EDI data encompasses employees’ socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, age, marriage and civil partnership, disability, nationality, and religion or belief.

“The initiatives that are done tend to be as uncontroversial as possible, and nothing ever actually happens from them”

The report added that firms can collect this data during recruitment, and over the course of employment, to monitor patterns surrounding who applies for which roles; who succeeds in promotion; trends in retention or attrition; and whether people from all backgrounds have equal access to training and development opportunities.

However, the report added that collecting more data is not a catch-all solution. While positive discrimination is unlawful, positive action is lawful if based on reasonable belief, and is proportionate to the outcomes of reducing employees’ disadvantages in the workplace.

This also includes implementing a rigorous process in order to track progress in EDI and to measure the impact of initiatives to ensure they are garnering success.

Reporting mechanisms

One way of ensuring a company has an inclusive culture is determining the confidence in and satisfaction with internal reporting mechanisms.

Forty-five percent of respondents said they had experienced or identified behaviour inconsistent with their firm’s EDI values, while 72 percent said they would be comfortable reporting adverse behaviour.

However, only 14 percent of participants that had actually reported misconduct thought there had been a satisfactory outcome. The majority (47 percent) that had reported an incident were unclear of the outcome.

“I do not believe they drive concerted action – we just say nice things and partner with nice organisations”

Those that had filed a complaint reported a negative impact on career progression, including social inclusion.

The most significant barrier to reporting is the fear that complaints would not be taken seriously, either because of the high status of the perpetrator, or lack of confidence in the objectivity of HR.

In a written notice issued to Lloyd’s in 2019, the Prudential Regulation Authority said: “A well-run financial institution will seek to foster a culture that welcomes discussion and challenge. Employees should feel comfortable having an open dialogue in the workplace and should have appropriately confidential channels available to them should they wish to raise concerns.”

In addition, the Financial Conduct Authority’s new rules on whistleblowing state: “Individuals working for financial institutions may be reluctant to speak out about wrongdoing for fear of suffering personally as a consequence.

“Mechanisms within firms to encourage people to voice concerns – by, for example, offering confidentiality to those speaking up – can provide comfort to whistleblowers. It is, however, important that individuals also have the confidence to approach their employers.”

“Over the years I have reported issues concerning gender, race and age discrimination. Whilst some HR departments now have staff who understand these matters, firms are still very uncomfortable and ineffective in dealing with discrimination within the business”

Training alone may be “performative”

As mentioned above, while EDI data and metrics are important, it is also key for firms to change the narrative around EDI and foster an overall inclusive culture, regardless of company size.

Sixty percent of respondents advocated for unconscious bias training, while 59 percent called for EDI awareness and 57 percent for bystander training to challenge unacceptable behaviours.

On the other hand, several respondents reported feeling “cynical” about training, with the quality of training often not evaluated or taken seriously.

In response to concerns that awareness training could be perceived as performative, the report underlined that training is not a “one-off panacea” and needs to be integrated with other processes and procedures, such as more direct involvement and accountability for leaders.

The report concluded that there is an imperative for insurance firms to transform their culture towards embracing inclusivity, in order to help a greater proportion of diverse professionals aspire to a long-term career in the sector.

“Training is a key means of setting clear expectations about standards of behaviour required of all employees in an organisation. To be as effective as possible, training should be evaluated and revised based on employee feedback,” said the report.

“It is one part of a holistic approach to EDI and should be part of the network of wider cultural changes, discussed in this report, necessary to ensure that people who are currently underrepresented or marginalised in the UK insurance sector have fulfilling careers in the UK insurance sector.”