Symmetra

By Kali Goldstone & Errol Price.

The proposed Anti-discrimination and Human Rights Bill 2012 has “Human Rights” emblazoned in the title. This is an interesting move, as it sets a certain tone and emphasises the inextricable link between human rights and the attempt to eliminate discrimination in public affairs.

The changes will consolidate five acts into one: Racial Discrimination Act 1975; Sex Discrimination Act 1984; Disability Discrimination Act 1992; Age Discrimination Act   2004; and the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.

Critics of the Bill have noted that anti-discrimination laws operate predominantly in the area of employment and that the balance is now tilted in favour of the employee.

The Bill does not include some of the most far reaching proposals, which some have argued are necessary to give ‘teeth’ to anti-discrimination law in Australia. For example, there are no provisions entitling the Human Rights Commission or any other body to investigate or bring proceedings based on large scale systemic discrimination.

The new Bill redefines discrimination as “unfavourable treatment.”   This removes the requirement traditionally relied on in anti-discrimination law in Australia – “the comparator.” The applicant could prove that there was discrimination if they could show how the alleged discriminator may have or would have treated someone else, (the comparator), in the same circumstances.

However, the comparator provisions were unduly technical and tended to lengthen the duration of trials. The simplified definition of discrimination will benefit both employers and employees.

The grounds of discrimination have been expanded to include sexual orientation and gender to the grounds previously covered, including:

• race (including colour, descent and national or ethnic origin)
• that a person is or has been an immigrant
• sex
• marital status
• pregnancy or potential pregnancy
• breastfeeding
•  family responsibilities
• disability (including carers and associates)
• age

The most significant amendment lies in the shift in the burden of proof.  The proposal is to share that burden between the person who is complaining (applicant) and the person whose conduct is being complained about (respondent).

The applicant merely needs to produce prima facie evidence of being disadvantaged, and that the reason or purpose of that disadvantage was related to a protected attribute (such as sex, race, disability), with the onus then shifting to the respondent to disprove the case.

The court will presume that the impugned conduct is taken for an unlawful reason, unless the respondent is able to prove the contrary.  It is an approach long used in Australian labour law.

The rationale behind this change is that a respondent will be in a better position to be able to prove the real reason why he/she engaged in such behaviour and to demonstrate that it is reasonable in the circumstances.

Few overseas jurisdictions follow the current Australian approach of imposing the full burden of proof on the applicant. In the United Kingdom, European Union and Canada, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent once the applicant has established a prima facie case of discrimination. In the United States, case law has also established a framework of shifting burdens of proof. So the proposed change is in line with international standards.

The respondent will have access to one broad, all-encompassing defence – justification. This means that discrimination is not unlawful when it is done for a legitimate aim and proportionate to that aim.

However, the Bill does not ignore the need of employers who wish to take genuine pro-active steps to reduce discrimination and to be able to raise a defence to any claim that they have taken such steps.

The Bill provides that any person or body may develop and implement an ‘action plan’ to assist officers and employees to avoid engaging in unlawful conduct. This action plan may then be used as part of a defence if the person or organisation is sued.

Furthermore, the Human Rights Commission does have the ability to dismiss unmeritorious complaints. This will reduce the likelihood that businesses are swamped with frivolous or baseless claims.

Since the Bill is likely to become law in 2013, we encourage organisations to register codes of conduct with the Australian Human Rights Commission that can provide a full defence to subsequent discrimination claims.

We also recommend that employers review and consolidate their compliance mechanisms and have regular and appropriate training to ensure that the right policies and procedures are in place.

It is in all our interests to create a culture that seeks to prevent discrimination from transpiring in the first place, as the best way to guarantee business integrity and avoid paying expensive legal fees, is through prevention.

The leadership role of women continues to strengthen in the family, at work and in the broader society. The enduring global economic hardship has solidified, not weakened, the role of women in the workplace.

“Gender is a business issue, not a woman’s issue!” states Benja Stig Fagerland the inventor of “Womenomics.” Women constitute half of the world’s human capital and have a huge potential as an engine for economic growth.

As women are becoming more educated, career focused, wealthier and notably, they have an increasingly influential role in guiding family purchase decisions.

Women represent an economic powerhouse, making over 85 per cent of the consumer purchases and control $12 trillion of the overall $18.4 trillion global spend.

Women also purchase 50 per cent or more in traditional “male” categories like automobiles, consumer electronics, and PCs. Simply put, today’s woman sets the agenda – for herself, her family, and by extension, the State and the economy as a whole.

Women’s consumer priorities are different to men’s; they are more prone to buy goods and services that enhance the family’s welfare. Therefore, as women acquire increasingly more decision-making power domestic expenditure patterns are likely to change.

Areas likely to benefit from women’s increasing buying power include food, healthcare, education, childcare, apparel, consumer durables and financial services.  This effect is even more prominent in developing nations.

The influence of women is growing within the workplace as well. In Australia, women comprise 56 per cent of all new university graduates and constitute 46 per cent of the workforce. By 2016, the number of women in the labour force will increase to 4.9 million – which is twice the growth rate of men.

Furthermore, in Australia women are exiting the corporate world and setting up their own businesses at twice the rate of male owned enterprises – 44 per cent vs. 22 per cent.

Thus, there is a major opportunity for any business to improve its ability to utilise, and profit from female human capital. Women comprise an increasingly large proportion not just of your consumers, but also your leaders, employees, suppliers, investors and community stakeholders.  It makes complete business sense to ensure that women are an integral part of your business leadership and strategic decision-making forums.

“Gender equity on boards and senior management teams is not a women’s issue,” says Benja. “It is a human talent issue.  Women are the most underutilised resource in business, both in their market potential as consumers and in their productive potential as employees.”

Global research supports this, as companies with more women in leadership consistently outperform those with the fewest. Furthermore, organisations that invest in identifying and understanding what motivates and drives women in the global labour market and commercial marketplace have a lot to gain.

For example, when companies facilitate and encourage flexible work arrangements, women are better able to balance their work and private lives, without having to sacrifice one or the other. Pioneers like Capitol One literally run their companies without any mandatory office time. About 85% per cent of Capital One’s knowledge workers have flexible arrangements through their Future of Work Program, which has been credited not just with balancing employees’ lives, but also with improving productivity.

Despite these changes, women still face significant obstacles. Conscious or unconscious gender bias means that many women are employed in roles in which their productivity is not maximised. If the gender productivity gap was eliminated, by putting women into more senior roles where they can realise their full productive potential, the level of economic activity in Australia could be boosted by an estimated 20%.

There are substantial differences in the financing available to, and utilised by, women owned as opposed to men owned businesses. Women start with less capital and are less likely to take on additional debt to expand their business. There is evidence that women are less likely to take on debt than men by choice, but there is also a perception that it is harder for women to access and secure venture or loan capital.

Thus, Womenomics is about redefining success and building satisfying careers that don’t require an all or nothing approach to employment or business.

As British Prime Minister David Cameron asserted: “If we fail to unlock the potential of women, we’re not only failing those individuals we’re failing our whole economy.”

Spending driven by women will support the development of human capital, which will fuel future economic growth. Similarly, economic growth will hopefully continue to strengthen gender equality.

In June 2012, NZX, the operator of New Zealand’s capital markets, introduced a Diversity Listing Rule that must be applied to annual reports for all NZX Main Board listed issuers on or after 31 December 2012.

We are all aware of the evidence that gender diversity at both Board and senior management level contributes to improved performance. So NZX’s primary concern was to make sure that listed issuers provide all relevant information to the market, so investors can develop an informed view of the current and potential future value of a company’s securities.

The new Diversity Rule will require listed issuers to:

• Disclose in its annual report the gender composition of its Board, senior management team and any Subsidiary board; and
• Give an evaluation of their performance, if they have a formal diversity policy, with respect to that policy.

The statistics coming out of New Zealand are quite troubling in relation to gender diversity. Currently, women hold only 9 per cent of private sector directorships[1] and less than one-tenth of directors on New Zealand’s top 100 listed companies are women. [2]  The majority of NZX 100 companies have no female directors, while women account for 21 per cent of management positions reporting directly to chief executives.[3]

These numbers contradict the fact that women registered in tertiary education in New Zealand outnumber men by a factor of 21 per cent and the significant majority of all graduates are women – 59 per cent in 2010.[4] As of June 2010, women now constitute 47 per cent of the NZ labour force.[5]

Yet, women are essentially underrepresented in leadership positions in virtually all sectors in New Zealand. Women make up only 20 per cent of senior managers and 9 per cent of board members on the NZSX Top 100 companies where there has been no increase since 2008.[6]

Even more discouraging is the fact that at least 30 per cent of the NZSX Top 100 have no women in their senior management teams at all.[7]

NZX plans to work with the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and agencies such as the 25 per cent Group and Global Women, who are supporting companies to develop and implement their own gender diversity policies. The 25 Percent Group, led by Goldman Sachs New Zealand chief executive Andrew Barclay, supports the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, to publish research and advice on how to improve gender diversity around the board table. It is aiming for 25 per cent female participation on private sector New Zealand boards by 2015.[8]

However, the Diversity Rule has caused much controversy amongst Women’s groups, which have slammed the upcoming requirement, suggesting that it has been watered-down and doesn’t go far enough. Heavy-hitters like the Institute of Directors and the 25 Percent Group, have also been arguing for a mandatory policy with measurable objectives.

Chair of the Global Women organisation and former Prime Minister Dame Jenny Shipley welcomed the rule, but described it as a missed opportunity to match the progress Australia has achieved in gender diversity through making formal diversity policies mandatory.[9]

To Australia’s credit, by introducing diversity reporting two years ago, a third of all new board appointments to ASX200 in the past year were women, up from just five per cent in 2009.[10]

Unlike the NZX Diversity Rule, ASX requires you to have a policy on diversity and if not, you need to explain why. The NZX is basically just saying if you have a diversity policy, tell us about it.

Council of Women of New Zealand president Elizabeth Bang called the NZX rule a half-step because it didn’t make having a diversity policy mandatory:[11] ‘’It should quickly become clear whether or not businesses are willing to take the necessary action to boost the number of women on boards.’’

In response to such claims, NZX has spoken about the need to balance the provision of information to investors with the ongoing compliance costs to issuers. NZX CEO Tim Bennett noted that “the responses on quantifying gender composition at governance and senior management level indicated that this is an issue of importance to our markets. Therefore we elected to incorporate this into our Rules.”[12]

“However, it’s important that we give our listed companies the flexibility to make their own decisions about whether a formal diversity policy is a priority for them at this stage. Obviously, over time, we’d like to see more listed companies taking the opportunity to report on diversity as a contributor to investing decisions made by shareholders,”[13] said Bennett.

As this has been an effective call to action in Australia, NZX’s decision not to require listed equity issuers to adopt gender diversity policies is disappointing. There will be pressure on NZX to move to a compulsory model if its current approach is not effective.

Symmetra Connect is a new value add initiative we are launching for our key clients. It will include a series of small, intimate sessions on a range of Diversity and Inclusion issues. Symmetra will connect corporates who are leading the way on such issues, with thought leaders in positions of power and influence.

Our inaugural event  was Lunchtime Yarns with Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Human Rights Commissioner – Mr Mick Gooda.

In this intimate lunchtime setting, Mick Gooda modelled an effective interaction with an Aboriginal statesman.  We listened – to seek understanding.  With Mick’s depth and breadth of experience, he was able to pre-empt many of our questions and deliver important new insights.  He covered key challenges and critical steps for gaining traction with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander initiatives – such as creating culturally safe and secure environments, employment supply and retention, and developmental pathways. Mick’s personal way of story-telling kept us enthralled.

A cross-section of Executives from various business and industry sectors participated.

• From Sport – AFL NSW/ACT and Cricket Australia;
• Finance & Banking – Commonwealth Bank, Westpac, and Suncorp;
• And everything in between – WESCEF, Kmart, Woolworths, Coca Cola Amatil, Auspost, Railcorp, Leighton Holdings and Lendlease.

We all sensed Mick’s generosity of spirit and came away feeling honoured to have shared the time together.

Please watch out for other upcoming Symmetra Connect events

The 21^st century has changed the ‘face’ of the world, and some will suggest that the  inter-connecting characteristic of globalisation has been at the heart of this change: The evidence is everywhere to see in the cultural diversity that characterises many of our world cities: London with a population of 7.7 million, New York, 8 million, and Sydney 4.5 million, – cities located across the different corners of the world in which approximately 150 – 300 languages are spoken – and growing! The fruits of globalisation are quite clear to see.

I am British, and have recently joined the trend of ‘whingeing poms’ that have left the UK to live in the sunny shores of Australia. I arrived Sydney, approximately 2 months ago, having been here 2 years ago for a short visiting stint. As a Diversity Consultant, I had some clear initial pre-conceptions of Australia prior to my arrival. Essentially, I thought it would be a culturally ‘un-diverse’ society. But how wrong I was! In Sydney alone, there are over 200 languages spoken, and a very great visible mix of cultures stemming from a wide selection of countries from across the globe – which is fantastic to see. I immediately found my pre-conceptions of this as a distinctly homogenous society disintegrating…

However, intertwined into this ‘visible’ cultural richness, was something deeper that I later noticed: That the cultures do not really inter-mix. Though there is visible rich cultural diversity, there is little real integration of these cultures. I noticed that people tend to stay within the ‘safe’ cultural ‘enclave’ of friends and family, with minimal effort to really ‘branch’ out. This appears to have created a subconscious suspicion and fear of ‘others’, with particular cultures ‘singled’ out as ones to avoid: “…I don’t tend to hang out in western Sydney, the people there are a bit dodgy…”, I once overhead in a lift conversation. Incidentally, I was just about to get on a train to western Sydney – where I live!

Since arriving here, one thing has been made distinctly clearer in my professional mind – there is a big difference between ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’, and concomitant with that, a big difference between ‘cultural diversity’ and ‘cultural integration’.  Indeed, not understanding the differences between both, presuming that diversity exists because one sees diversity visibly, leads to what in philosophy is called the ‘appearance/reality’ dichotomy – the idea that things are not in reality what they might appear to be. Coming from the UK, and more specifically from London, also a very diverse city, but one where cultural integration to a great degree is observed and indeed felt in the fabric of social and workplace behaviours and attitudes, I found that though the cultural diversity within Sydney appears similar to London in many visible respects, a ‘gap’ exists in terms of the internalisation of the behaviours and attitudes that will shift Sydney society from cultural diversity to cultural integration.

But a very important point needs to be made here: for a country that was only colonised in 1788 – just 200 years ago – Australia’s emerging diversity is in fact a fantastic opportunity for making its mark in the ‘diversity space’. And there is plenty evidence of that emerging in the workplace, where a great many organisations are not only keen to leverage the competitive edge of their diverse workforce, but are indeed even more keen to ensure that the results are monitored, measured – and communicated! I think this may well be a degree of commitment that organisations in the UK ought to take worthy note of. Indeed, testimony to this is the most recent achievement of Commonwealth Bank of Australia, who have been awarded the internationally renowned global Catalyst Award 2012 for Gender Inclusion.

The world is a very diverse place, and therefore suggests by implication, that the  experience of diversity will in and of themselves be very diverse in nature. Globalisation is a great thing, but it does not guarantee actual cultural integration – as some may be inclined to think. It simply acts as a positive catalyst for ensuring that our diverse cultures have the opportunity to meet each other.

Our world cities have a lot to learn from each other, ensuring we maximise the opportunity that globalisation provides, to shift from cultural diversity to cultural integration, where the appearance is in fact translated into reality – where each person’s diversity is leveraged to positively impact on society and the workplace.

There is so much good stuff going on at the moment within ‘the world’ of D&I and business in Australia, and indeed globally, that at times it is hard just to keep up!! But this is where we’ve always wanted to be, and the results are clear for all to see: greater focus on workplace inclusion and cultural awareness leading to visible results in increased gender representation, diversity audited people processes leading to the rise of Diversity Councils across multi-sector organisations, and the subsequent diversity of thought impacting levels of creativity and innovation within teams, which positively impacts the bottom-line.

These visible results being experienced by organisations in Australia, and globally, is what the Catalyst Awards symbolises, and what the recent conference held on March 28^th and 29^th this year aimed to visibly celebrate.  Given these positive events, I thought it great for our readers, to interview Heather Price, CEO of Symmetra Diversity Consulting, the aim being to gain a first-hand picture of this year’s Catalyst Awards, and importantly, to understand what business people are feeling and saying about D&I from a global perspective.

The following is a summation of the interview I held with Heather in this regard:

Jude-Martin: “Heather, you’ve just returned from New York where you were invited as a special guest to attend the 2012 Catalyst Awards and Conference. First for a brief context, what are the Catalyst awards, and how are the winners chosen?”

Heather: “Catalyst is the leading gender research and advisory body worldwide, which was established 50 years ago. Once a year, they identify organisations who they think are deserving of an award for their great achievements in advancing women in the workplace.  The assessment process which they use to identify the Global Leader is extremely rigorous and has been linked in jest to ‘conducting a tax audit’ of an organisation. Organisations that win the Catalyst Award, feel extremely honoured for their achievements world-wide, and rightly so! In a nutshell, the Catalyst award is like the red carpet award in the diversity field, it’s like the Oscars of Diversity!” (Chuckling)

Jude-Martin: “From your perspective, how important are the Catalyst awards to the ‘World of Business’?”

Heather: “I think that’s a very interesting question. The awards are considered very important to the ‘World of business”, particularly to those organisations that are aiming to position themselves as an ‘Employer of Choice’ globally, wishing to attract and retain the world’s best talent.  I think the importance of the award to the ‘World of business’, was fundamentally underlined for me when I saw approximately 100 CEO’s, from some of the world’s biggest businesses, fly in and attend the awards event on the 29^th of March. We had the CEO of Ernst & Young, Shell, Campbell’s Soup, Sodexo, Cocoa Cola, etc present – all big business names – which clearly says that D&I is now at the epicentre of the ‘World business’ space”.

Jude-Martin: “Symmetra’s client, The Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), was a winner this year, what role did Symmetra play in assisting them in this big achievement?”

Heather: “Well, CBA had been embarking on a journey to embed gender equity and effect a culture change program since 2004 when they called us in 2010, asking us to provide a solution that would give traction to this process.  They had already, for many years, been conducting D&I training, introduced accelerated development programs for women, set up mentoring opportunities, women’s networks, etc – yet they simply weren’t getting the traction that they desired. At the point at which we were engaged to intervene, they had announced public targets to achieve 35% female representation by the year 2014, and they had heightened Leadership accountabilities by setting up a Diversity Council, which was chaired by the CEO and the Executive Leadership Team. However they realised that they needed to do something to change the hearts and minds of those in Leadership positions. 

After piloting our Unconscious Bias intervention with a group of 40 Leaders, the decision was made by the CEO, Ralph Norris and his Diversity Council, that participation in the UB program would become mandatory for their top 405 Leaders.  In the last 18 months, since

the inception of the program, CBA’s female representation has rapidly accelerated and they are racing towards achieving their target. The new CEO, Ian Narev, has been essential in all this, personally driving the culture change program forward”.

Jude-Martin: “What were the highlights of attending the awards ceremony and conference for you?”

Heather: “The highlight for me was the opportunity to meet and interact with such a large number of Global Heads of D&I from across the world, and learning about the commonality and different challenges that each faced.  I met people from Moscow, China, Sweden – literally from across the world. I even ended up speaking in Afrikaans with a Dutch person!” (Smiling).

“Another highlight for me was the tremendous sense of pride I felt for Australia, when the CBA, one of Australia’s biggest businesses, was recognised as a global leader in the pack for workplace gender equity. It is clear there is Thought Leadership emerging from Australia…and of course, I felt personal pride as we had contributed to CBA’s achievements in a very measurable way!” (Smiling)

Jude-Martin: “The Catalyst award attracts Executives and Heads of Diversity from some of the world’s largest and most progressive companies, who come to discuss the latest trends and topics in Diversity & Inclusion. What do you think the next few years holds for this industry?”

Heather: “Diversity has been elevated as a strategic item on the corporate agenda in the last few years after languishing in the corridors as a second class citizen for such a long time.  I believe that Diversity and Inclusion will become regarded, increasingly, as a business imperative, placed front and centre in the strategy of many organisations”. 

“I also believe that there is going to be an increasing shift away from a singular focus on previously disadvantaged groups, and more of a focus on ‘Diversity of Thought’ because of the clear links that have been established between ‘Diversity of Thought’ and innovation and higher performing organisations. But it is also very important to mention, that it is not enough to be very diverse without being inclusive. Diversity, now, and going forward, particularly in Australia, will continue to be about penetrating cultures, through challenging the minds and deep-seated attitudes and beliefs of different people actually living in our diverse cities”

Across major corporates globally, there is now a widely recognised effort to ensure that the competitive advantage that diversity brings is leveraged effectively. In Australia, New Zealand, and many countries across Europe for example, organisations have either set themselves individual targets, or are tasked by their respective governments to report on actions they are proactively taking to improve gender, as well as the other ‘protected characteristics’, at senior and general organisational levels.

The Global Diversity and Inclusion Benchmark Tool was designed and developed by a panel of leading researchers from across the world with the specific aim of helping organisations to determine their strategy and measure progress in managing diversity and fostering inclusive workplace environments.

As part of ensuring that all organisations in Australia position themselves as leaders in diversity best practices in order to benefit from the competitive advantage that diversity brings, Symmetra Diversity Consulting and Ernst & Young jointly hosted an event  on the 27^th of February, 2012, attended by 120 stakeholders from 60-70 representative organisations from across the public and private sectors. Exploring approximately 9 out of the13 categories that the tool uses to benchmark organisational best practices globally, attendees ranked themselves according to how well they thought their organisations were performing.

The attached report which has been compiled by Symmetra analyses the data collected from the participants and gives an insight into the current diversity status quo in Australia.  It highlights key findings and challenges by category as well as by sector, and provides some commentary and insight as to where concerted effort is needed for Australian organisations to continue on their journey toward becoming Employers of Choice.

The report will be of interest not just to organisations and stakeholders in Australia, but importantly, to all interested in developing a competitive edge. In addition, below is a link to download the free Global Diversity & Inclusion Benchmark Standards booklet.

Click here to view the report

Click here to download the Global Diversity & Inclusion Benchmark Standards

In addition, many attendees had suggested they would like to ask further questions of the speakers. Please submit your questions in the comments section below, and the appropriate speakers will respond here on the blog.

List of Speakers:

Heather Price – Symmetra

Lynn Kraus – Ernst & Young

Helen Jackson – Ernst & Young

Jacqui Abbot – Allens Arthur Robinson

Megan Dalla-Camina – IBM

Steve McGregor – Commonwealth Bank

Estelle Olstein – Woolworths Limited

Nehemiah Richardson – NAB

Larke Riemer – Westpac