Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion as the Future Workplace Ethics: Theoretical Review

Introduction

In the fast-changing workplace, stakeholders have growing concerns about how to recognise and accommodate diversity, equity, and inclusion. The absence of DEI in labour markets in different parts of the world has denied segments of the workforce basic rights, social justice, respect, and dignity as human beings (Forst, 2010; Divan et al., 2016; Hocking, 2017). Accommodation and integration of diverse people would create a sense of solidarity and camaraderie at work among workforce members (Hodson, 2001). The discussion of DEI was popularized in the United States by social movement and civil rights activists in the 1960s using the powers of mainstream media, courts, protests, and other non-violent means (Bell & Hartmann, 2007). Having succeeded in the large society, DEI practices were promoted for adoption in workplaces as diversity policy in response to agitations by the affected people.

At the international level, the DEI became a front-burner issue because of several catalysts: (a) globalisation & information communication technologies (interconnectedness), (b) international competitiveness among multinational companies (MNCs)/transnational companies (TNCs), (c) new trends in workplaces that accommodate a wide array of heterogeneous communities and diverse groups, (d) rising agitations and demands for increased representations by diverse interest groups, and (e) of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and other regional and national legislations against discrimination and glass ceiling based on race, marital status, ethnicity, socioeconomic characteristics, gender, sexual orientation, and disability (World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalisation, 2004; Vohra et al., 2015; Roberson, 2019; Liukkunen, 2021).

The three components of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) are often lumped together and used interchangeably; hence, clarity is needed to separate the wheat from chaff. The term diversity may be viewed as a workplace policy recognising, understanding, and accepting personality differences of employees based on their race, gender, age, class, ethnicity, physical ability, race, sexual orientation, spiritual practice, and other social and psychological orientations (Friday & Friday, 2003; Dike, 2013). Leveraging the explanation of the Harvard Business Review (2017), “diversity is being invited to the party, while inclusion is being asked to dance.” The HBR further explicated that diversity alone does not drive inclusion. Without inclusion, an organisation would witness diversity backlash. This is where the equity notion comes in as a third component. The link in the DEI tripod is that allowing diversity (D) without inclusion (I) presupposes a lack of equity (E) in the workplace.

Consequently, workplaces without equity create a breeding ground for three hydra monsters: stereotype, prejudice, and discrimination (Bonazzo & Wong, 2007; Ruggs & Hebl, 2012). The term stereotype is a negative mental picture about members of other groups, such as black (Entman & Rojecki, 2010). However, prejudice is a preconceived judgment, irrational attitude of hostility, and opinion held by group members against others because of gender, race, and other diversity characteristics (Ford, 2013). However, discrimination refers to a situation where individuals and groups are treated negatively because of diversity characteristics such as race, gender, or sexual orientation rather than their ability to perform their jobs (McCarthy, Heraty & Bamberg, 2019).