ILC’s Senior Communications and Engagement Manager, Emily Evans, takes a look at some of the evidence around diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies have been under the spotlight in recent weeks. Aside from the polarising arguments are unhelpful and risk undoing all the progress that has been made in making our societies more equal, it is right that the implementation process is questioned and evaluated. However, while scrutiny is necessary, it is important not to throw the good out with the bad. So, we thought we’d take a closer look at the evidence.

First, the “bad”. There is a danger that DEI policies can become superficial “tick-box” exercises if not implemented thoughtfully, and there is a perception that they may serve primarily to protect organisations from litigation rather than promote genuine inclusivity. We also recognise that most DEI policies do not mention age at all, and the impact of ageism is seldom, if ever, measured.

However, despite recent damning criticisms – including those from US President Donald Trump at the World Economic Forum, where he claimed that DEI “unfairly discriminates against other Americans” and “weakens the importance of merit” – extensive research and global data indicate otherwise.

Organisations that prioritise diversity benefit from a wider range of perspectives, leading to better decision-making and problem-solving. Successive McKinsey & Company reports in 2020 and 2023 found that companies in the top quartile for ethnic and gender diversity on executive teams were significantly more likely to outperform less diverse companies in terms of profitability.

The evidence suggests that diverse teams outperform homogeneous ones because they reduce groupthink, improve critical thinking, and better reflect the demographics of the customers and clients they serve. When properly implemented, DEI is not about unfair advantages but rather about ensuring equal opportunity in historically imbalanced systems.

Multiple studies have demonstrated that workplaces with strong DEI policies see greater employee engagement, innovation, and financial performance. A Deloitte report (2018) found that companies with inclusive cultures were eight times more likely to achieve better business outcomes. Additionally, the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) reported that businesses with above-average diversity in management generate 45% of total revenue from innovation, compared to 26% in companies with below-average diversity.

At a macroeconomic level, the evidence suggests that DEI policies contribute to national productivity. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) found that reducing workplace gender inequality could increase GDP per capita by up to 35% in some regions. Countries with progressive DEI policies tend to experience higher economic output, proving that diversity is not a hindrance but a driver of growth.

When analysing countries with strong DEI commitments, as measured by the Othering and Belonging Institute’s (OBI) Inclusiveness Index, there is a clear correlation between inclusive policies and economic prosperity. These countries also tend to perform better on ILC’s Healthy Ageing and Prevention Index.

Countries like Sweden, Norway, and New Zealand have robust gender equality laws, generous parental leave policies, and workplace inclusion initiatives – and they perform well on the ILC’s six healthy ageing metrics, including income, as shown in the chart below. By contrast, countries that rank lowest on inclusion, such as Yemen and Iraq, do not score well on the ILC’s Index.

There’s a similar correlation when you compare the Inclusive Index against the happiness scores on the ILC’s Index.

As mentioned at the start, perhaps the biggest flaw in inclusion policies is the lack of attention given to ageism. The OBI Index, for example, evaluates countries on the inclusion of every other protected characteristic except age. The ILC team is very age-diverse, yet we have been acutely aware that, despite various recruitment approaches, we have not historically attracted a particularly diverse pool of applicants.

To address this, for the past few years, we have used a blind recruitment approach to remove unconscious bias and improve the candidate experience. We have found that the pros definitely outweigh the cons of such an approach, helping us attract a more diverse group of employees and encouraging older workers – who might otherwise assume their skills are outdated – to apply.

And it just so happens that this week we are looking to fill two exciting roles at the ILC. So, if you are interested, whatever your age or experience, please apply – your skills might be just what we’re looking for!

For the full job description and details of how to apply for this post, download the recruitment packs here. The application deadline for both roles is 9.00am on Tuesday 18 February 2025.