Loading...
August 25, 2022 | Report
In the year following the murder of George Floyd and the protests that broke out across the country and globally, it’s estimated that US companies dedicated $200 billion toward advancing racial equality. Since then, companies have been focused on the challenge of not only effectively investing those resources and measuring the impact of their commitments, but doing so against the backdrop of political polarization, a global economic slowdown, and both rising and conflicting expectations of their role in addressing social issues.
While many of the announcements regarding racism in the summer of 2020 referred to the company’s global commitment to addressing racial inequality, our conversations with Members of The Conference Board and our own research have revealed that many corporate initiatives were US-centric in nature and that companies were often finding it difficult to translate the statements by their US-based CEOs into action outside the US. Moreover, while multinational companies had policies in place to address diversity, equity & inclusion (DEI) within their own organization around the globe, there was little guidance to be found on ways that corporate citizenship functions could address racism externally where they had operations around the globe.
To provide guidance on how global corporations could address racism, in November 2021, The Conference Board ESG Center convened a roundtable that brought together 56 leaders from the corporate, governmental, and nonprofit arenas to discuss the role of corporate citizenship in addressing racism on a global scale. In the months that followed, we also conducted 10 in-depth interviews with corporate executives and heads of international nonprofit and human rights organizations representing six of the seven continents.
This is the first of three briefs that will address the role of corporate citizenship in addressing racism on a global basis. It examines the underlying complexities and the inherent challenges in addressing racism globally. The second brief will discuss the role of corporations and citizenship functions in addressing racism. The third will provide a set of guiding principles for corporations to consider as they transform their commitments into not just action but impact.
Companies need to be clear about what they mean by the term “racism” when discussing the subject internationally. While racism can be used as a catch-all term for all manner of discrimination, it is part of a complex set of multiple biases. It also packs an emotional punch. But it is one of several interrelated strains of bias. Racism involves viewing others as inferior based on observable biological characteristics; ethnic prejudice involves discrimination based on culture, such as language and ancestry; xenophobia encompasses forms of discrimination based on national identity; religious discrimination relates to beliefs and practices; and classism involves prejudice or discrimination based on socioeconomic status.
This report uses racism as shorthand to embrace the full range of cultural biases. But outside the US, terms such as race, racism, and ethnicity are complicated concepts that differ widely in definition and understanding by region, context, culture, linguistics, and history. When companies discuss the subject with external constituencies, they need to be sensitive to their audience’s perceptions of the term. In a similar vein, while terms like “LGBTQ+,” “woke,” and “allyship” are becoming more commonplace in the US, they may not be familiar to employees globally and often don’t translate easily.
Poornima Luthra, author and Associate Professor at the Copenhagen Business School, suggests that when using these terms outside of the US, intentionally define them using local vocabulary and examples to prevent them from being dismissed as simply “American,” as these concepts and behaviors exist in all contexts.
While bias, discrimination, and inequality exist everywhere, their expression is contextual. As Brief 2 and Brief 3 of this series will discuss in greater depth, a one-size-fits-all approach to addressing racial equality will restrict global progress. To move the needle further and faster, leaders need to address the issue with a diversified lens and include narratives, discussions, and solutions that are representative of local contexts.
Around the world, there is a wide disparity of views as to whether racism is a problem—and companies need to recognize that reality. We see a divergence of views in the US on the extent to which racism is a problem. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in July 2021 found that 75 percent of Black adults said the heightened public attention to racism is good for society. At the same time, fewer than half (46 percent) of White adults said the increased attention to racism is a good thing.
And this is a global phenomenon. For example:
Companies need to be especially mindful that the notion that long-standing institutions have perpetuated systemic racism can be highly polarizing—and that attempts to reform institutions need to avoid undermining their legitimacy. Around the globe, the legacy of racism is reflected in the workplace, in education, in the media, in health care, and in the courts. It affects how majority populations see and treat minorities, immigrants, and asylum seekers. It is often present in the stereotypes minority groups hold of majorities as well.
But companies need to be sensitive to the fact that some view racism as a matter of individual prejudice against groups, while others view it as involving both individual and institutional bias. The US dictionary Merriam-Webster recently revised its definition of racism to take into account aspects of both individual and institutional bias:
Commenting on the revision, Alex Chambers, an editor at the dictionary said: “The usage of racism to specifically describe the intersection of race-based prejudice with social and institutional oppression is becoming more and more common among English users…while our focus will always be on faithfully reflecting the real-world usage of a word, not on promoting any particular viewpoint, we have concluded that omitting any mention of the systemic aspects of racism promotes a certain viewpoint in itself. It also does a disservice to readers of all races.”[1]
By comparison, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), while recognizing the interplay between individual and institutional racism, takes a narrower definition of the word:
The fact that institutions may have been influenced by or even reinforced racism, however, should not be used as a basis to attack the institutions themselves. Schools, courts, law enforcement, and the media—among others—play a vital role in maintaining civil society around the world. Companies can be respectful of the role of these institutions, even as they may seek to reform them.
US executives need to think beyond national boundaries. In trying to understand and address racism, US executives also need to think beyond even the model of “majority/minority” groups to recognize that the reality on the ground is far more complex and shaped by the historic interaction among different overlapping groups. US-headquartered companies typically look at markets, and structure their operations, based on region or nation. They have often have pan-regional designations, including EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and Africa) and Asia-Pacific (which includes not only all of Asia, but also Australia, New Zealand, and other island nations). But to address racism, companies need to think differently.
First, they need to think more granularly. For example, Asia is often viewed as an aggregate region and its people collectively called “Asian.” But the reality is that the region comprises myriad and diverse cultures, sub-subcultures, and ethnicities. Second, it’s important to keep in mind that the dynamics among groups are shaped by history, not just demographic labels. For example, the history of Southeast Asia has been influenced to a great extent by China and Chinese populations. It makes more sense to group Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Cambodia if you are trying to understand the forces that affect societal cohesion or create racism.
One approach is offered by Minority Rights Group International, a nongovernmental organization focusing on securing the rights of ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples worldwide and promoting cooperation and understanding between communities.
Minority Rights Group International’s 17 Regions of the World
Source: Minority Rights Group International
As shown in the map above, it has divided the world into 17 regions based on shared history, including commonalities in interaction, migration, and dynamics in political and social tensions. The map looks beyond nationality or homogeneity. It provides a framework for understanding demographics, diversity, and discrimination as they exist on the ground—which of course then varies even further within each region. For example, it breaks “EMEA” up into 10 color-coded regions.
Prior research from The Conference Board found that companies are taking a thoughtful and long-term approach to addressing racism in the US through their corporate citizenship activities. This includes taking a close look at their own practices and efforts to address racism, engaging in a groundbreaking dialogue with internal and external stakeholders, and bringing in outside experts to work with in-house leaders in crafting long-term solutions.
The challenge outside the US is, in many ways, even greater. It requires developing a common terminology to address the subject, understanding the cultural resistance to acknowledging the fact and scope of racism, and appreciating the historical underpinnings of the relationships between different demographic groups. For companies that have committed to addressing racism globally, a great deal of hard work—and immense opportunities for progress—lies ahead.
Brief 2 of this series will focus on the role of corporations and citizenship functions in addressing racism. Brief 3, to be published this fall, will offer a set of guiding principles for corporations to consider as they work to address racism and transform their commitments to equality into meaningful action and impact.
[1] Previously, the dictionary’s entry contained three sections. The first defined racism as “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” The second called it a “doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles” and “a political or social system founded on racism.” The third section referred to “racial prejudice or discrimination.”
