![]() First, IB research has long considered culture to be the primary focus of diversity, with much less consideration for other sources of diversity, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, indigeneity, religion, class and physical abilities (Barnard & Mamabolo, 2021 Fitzsimmons, Baggs, & Brannen, 2020 Jonsen, Maznevski & Schneider, 2011) and for other EDI actors such as algorithmic systems and biodiversity. However, it has failed to keep pace with the environmental power shift toward inclusion of underrepresented groups for two reasons. International business (IB) has traditionally addressed the value of cultural or national diversity within organizations (Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez & Gibson, 2005 2011). Fair treatment of all individuals is a grand challenge for the future of international business and requires engaging multiple stakeholder groups across levels and disciplines (Buckley, Doh & Benischke, 2017 Nkomo, Bell, Roberts, Joshi & Thatcher, 2019). For example, knowledge flows are affected by MNEs' gendered reproductions of power and politics (Koveshnikov, Tienari & Piekkari, 2019). The inclusion of underrepresented and historically disadvantaged groups is especially relevant for international organizations that compete based on knowledge flow (Doz, Santos & Williamson, 2001 Al Ariss, Cascio & Paauwe, 2014), or operate in countries with colonial histories (Jack, 2015). In particular, countries where regulatory measures are weak or ceremonial and the EDI discourses are poorly developed, international organizations may be unwittingly internalizing local biases and discriminatory practices (Kusku, Aracı & Özbilgin, 2021). Uneven EDI interventions expose international organizations to social, economic, environmental and political risk. ![]() The uneven nature of diversity practices of international organizations extend across their global value chains, where they must engage with multiple stakeholders in different regulatory and institutional systems. In this complex setting, international organizations need to navigate rising global pressures for equality and social justice, regional demands and local dynamics of EDI. Thus, both cultural and institutional differences add to the challenges of implementing consistent EDI practices internationally. While diversity management in Britain draws on the historical discourse of multiculturalism, republican ideals of equality are fundamental in France, and instrumental discourse of integration is common in Germany (Tatli, Vassilopoulou, Ariss & Özbilgin, 2012). There are marked differences in how diversity is interpreted, even among culturally and geographically close countries such as Britain, France and Germany. For example, an international organization's attempt to offer global support to LGBTQ+ employees risks inadvertently 'outing' them in countries where homosexuality is still criminalized, such as Cameroon, Singapore and Nigeria (Stonewall, 2021). However, international organizations face the additional challenge that societal contexts and expectations for the inclusion of underrepresented groups manifest differently across countries. In addition, the unique characteristics of international organizations may provide opportunities to lead in creating environments around the globe that work for everyone.Ĭhallenges and relevance of EDI for international organizationsĭomestically, firms may be able to tailor EDI programs to national contexts. International organizations must respond to increasing pressures to support equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) consistently across countries, while also respecting local norms and institutional differences. ![]() In some instances, these demands have been accompanied by calls for decolonizing the practices and powers of international organizations to influence the economies and social well-being of host nations (e.g.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |