CREATING A DIVERSE, EQUITABLE AND INCLUSIVE WORKPLACE
When companies make diversity, equity and inclusion a priority,
everybody benefits. Having employees from varied backgrounds fosters
creativity and leads to better decision making. It also helps attract the
best talent.
What is "Diversity"?
Diversity is having a wide range of people with different life experiences
working alongside each other. It means valuing qualities like age,
ethnicity, gender, abilities, religions and more. Businesses should see
diversity as always evolving alongside cultural changes worldwide. Having
diverse teams opens our minds to new perspectives.
Defining "Equity"
Equity ensures fairness and equal access. It removes obstacles some face
in advancing their careers. With equity, people of all backgrounds see
similar chances for success. Companies must address any unfair biases
stopping some from reaching their full potential.
The Importance of "Inclusion"
Inclusion goes beyond diversity to create an atmosphere where
uniqueness is welcomed. It promotes accepting others and respecting
differences. With inclusion, employees feel comfortable bringing their full
selves to work without fear of judgement. Inclusive cultures allow diversity
to maximize its power.
Many leading firms make DEI a strategic priority. They know having
employees from varied backgrounds leads to better problem solving and
drives creativity. It also helps attract top talent seeking an accepting
environment. While challenges remain, companies that champion diversity
reap rewards through a more engaged and productive workforce. Overall,
prioritizing DEI advances workplaces worldwide into kinder, fairer spaces
benefiting people of all identities.
DEALING WITH ETHICAL DILEMMAS
Having a Framework Helps Guide Difficult Decisions
It can be really hard for managers working overseas when the cultural
beliefs are so different from home. They may face choices with no clear
right answer. Having a process to think through dilemmas can provide
some guidance.
For example, a US company boss questioned the low wages at Mexican
factories. Checking the "relative development" concept showed Mexico
was less industrialized, so pay gaps made sense given where they were
at. The "cultural tradition" point also applied, as the business wouldn't
survive if constantly fighting local norms, as long as workers basic rights
were still respected. "Utilitarian" and "justice" perspectives could also
defend prevailing Mexican pay levels at that time. However, looking
through a "rights" lens may have led them to raise wages to improve
living standards.
Formalizing Guidance through Company Codes
Ideas from different ethics theories form the foundation for principles
guiding proper workplace behavior. Company codes of ethics take these
theories and make them more practical guidelines that everyone can
follow more easily. Codes lay out clear expectations for how employees
should interact with each other, suppliers, customers, and others. They
also provide something to refer to when facing tough choices.
Potential Barriers to Ethical Conduct
Codes Aren't Enough on Their Own
While codes set the minimum standards, they can't guarantee good
behavior by themselves. Leadership sets the tone through their own
actions too. Mixed messages undermine sincerity. Incentives solely
focused on achievement open doors for wrongdoing. Demanding profits
no matter what risks principles.
The Role of Compliance Teams
Compliance departments now help ensure ethics are practiced as
operations expand rapidly into new markets and cultures. Codes
combined with exemplary conduct and balanced goal-setting form the
strongest foundation for a fair workplace wherever business is done.
DEBATING GLOBALIZATION
It's no surprise globalization has good and bad impacts on people,
businesses, and countries. Healthy discussion of its pros and cons can
help harness the benefits and reduce the costs.
But the two sides often use biased studies to support their views. A
group's goals can affect which data, time period, and nations they
examine. Still, we'll look at arguments about globalization's effects on
jobs, wages, inequality, culture, sovereignty, and the environment.
Globalization Hurts Jobs and Wages
Some say globalization eliminates factory jobs in developed countries as
firms move production to lower-wage developing nations. Buying cheaper
imports is little comfort for displaced workers. The U.S. may have lost 6
million of 17 million manufacturing jobs from 2000-2010.
Critics also argue globalization slowly lowers wages through job loss. New
jobs may pay less, hurting loyalty, morale and security. Powerful retailers
supposedly force suppliers to accept lower profits and wages. Critics point
to flat U.S. blue-collar wages since the 1970s.
Critics say globalization exploits developing nation workers through
outsourced call centers. Employees must use fake Western accents and
work nights. They argue labor power decreases as firms move to nations
with fewer protections and lower costs. Firms achieve huge savings
outsourcing IT work to emerging markets. Outsourcing remains popular
given economic differences.
Globalization Improves Jobs and Wages
Supporters counter that globalization increases efficiency and incomes in
developed and developing nations. Removing trade barriers would
significantly increase incomes and help developing countries.
Supporters believe globalization creates flexible labor markets in
developed nations. "Churning" lets workers gain experience before finding
a better job match.
Supporters argue globalization and outsourcing advance developing
nations' economies and living standards. Jobs like software and call
centers raise incomes for young workers in India and the Philippines.
Jobs and Wages Debate
Theory says trade raises living standards but doesn't guarantee all sectors
benefit. So far, globalization has rewarded skilled workers in higher value
jobs with rising pay but harmed lower value workers through stagnant
wages and job losses.
The key difference seems to be whether overall gains outweigh individual
livelihoods lost. Supporters say gains outweigh losses while critics
disagree. Consensus is that winners should share gains more with less-
benefiting workers.
