April 4, 2024 | FEATURES | By Kole Petersen
This is the second of a three-part series discussing the problems associated with and caused by the Disability Equality Index. Part Two critiques the limitations of the questionnaire introduced in Part One and discusses the frightening issue of high-scoring companies having less-than-desirable working conditions and disability inclusion policies in practice.
The relationship between disabled Americans and gaining employment has historically been a rocky one. With unemployment rates for disabled people being twice as high as those without disabilities and a history of centuries of marginalization, it is nearly impossible for disabled people to land full-time jobs and earn as much as their able-bodied counterparts. It stands to reason that there needs to be a way to classify companies based on their openness to and acceptance of disabled people, which would encourage American companies to allocate more resources and time to make the workplace more accessible for those with disabilities.
Disability:IN’s Disability Equality Index, while advertised as an unbiased, third-party resource that benchmarks American companies based on their disability inclusion policies and programs, falls flat in its efforts to accomplish this task. As stated in Part One of this series, the only methodology used by the Index to rate the disability inclusion of participating companies is a questionnaire with just five weighted sections, which is an incredibly narrow method of data collection. Rather than considering a multifaceted collection of issues and properties that make up the umbrella of inclusion, the Index only measures ambiguous categories that are nearly impossible to fully comprehend through the reductive data of a survey.
What is even more worrisome, instead of collecting data from multiple internal and external sources such as employee interviews, face-to-face conversations with company leaders, and external reviews, the questionnaire issued by the Disability Equality Index is meant to be filled out by the companies themselves; introducing an alarming property bringing up the first major issue of the Index I want to discuss.
Although self-reporting is an easy, inexpensive, and fast way to obtain data, collecting information through self-reporting has many more limitations than benefits. People are often biased when reporting on their own experiences, thus subjects are likely to be unable to assess themselves accurately and with impartiality. It has been well-documented in the field of psychology that respondents are more likely to submit the more socially acceptable answer rather than being truthful to appear more prosocial to an interviewer or organization, a phenomenon that even rings true in self-administered modes of responding, such as web surveys. Importantly, experts in psychological research suggest that self-reported data should not be used alone due to the high prevalence of biases, especially social desirability bias, instead recommending a multi-modal assessment to paint a more accurate picture of the subject being researched.
Critically, the Disability Equality Index has not taken this advice, instead choosing to rely solely on self-reported information by means of a digital survey. While this is already a dangerous practice when collecting data from individuals, it is neglectful to employ this method when collecting data on the inner machinations of powerful companies. Trust among Americans in large corporations is at a historically low rate, and an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that companies prioritize shareholders and profits over customers and employees. Thus, it should be an essential practice that reports and indices focusing on the operations of corporations should consist of perspectives and responses outside of those of company figureheads. However, the Index seems to prioritize maintaining the well-being of the participating companies rather than striving for transparency and accuracy with its results.
Allowing corporations to answer questions regarding their inclusion policies without any regulation or oversight by the data collector makes it incredibly easy for the companies to manipulate the truth or even falsify answers to make themselves look better. If the recent Boeing controversies have taught us anything, it is that large corporations tend to prioritize production, profit, and shareholder value over the safety and well-being of consumers. Further, almost every corporation in the United States uses a wide variety of tactics to mislead, exaggerate, and flat-out lie to its consumers to lure in new sales and appear more trustworthy than they really are. The Disability Equality Index, rather than being a trustworthy resource to vet the claims of companies regarding disability inclusion, is merely another tool for those companies to deceive consumers and potential employees.
If the Index’s practice of self-reporting isn’t bad enough, the way questions are asked within the questionnaire makes it even easier for participating companies to be dishonest ––intentionally, or otherwise. The vagueness of how questions are asked makes it so that respondents can abide by the wording of a question without abiding by preconceived expectations as to the reality of what is being asked.
For example, in the Culture and Leadership section of the questionnaire, one of the questions asked is, “Does your business have an officially recognized disability-focused Employee Resource Group (ERG) or Affinity Group?” Although appearing to be a question used to determine whether companies provide resources to support their disabled workers, the lack of true documentation and proof required to receive full credit makes this question incomplete and easy to lie on. The only things that companies need to ‘prove’ for this question are whether the group exists and the name of the group. Although subsequent sub-questions ask if there is a senior executive sponsor and the length of time the group has existed, these questions are not weighted when calculating the overall score, thus companies can simply exaggerate the legacy or even make up the existence of a group and game the system.
Examining the Leadership section of the questionnaire, we see another concerning example of this theme of incompleteness. In the introduction of this section, it is stated that businesses must answer “yes” to at least two of the four weighted question sets and provide information in the affirmative for the ‘sub-questions’ within the question sets to receive the maximum score of 10 points for the section. This set of requirements is not unique to this subcategory, as every section of the questionnaire asks businesses to answer “yes” to no more than two-thirds of the questions to receive a perfect score. This is an incredibly flawed way of defining what “perfect” means, as the average person views a score of 100 as a sign of excellence, not a sign of mediocrity as allowed by the Index. Although Disability:IN does remark that a score of 100 “does not mean to convey perfection,” when over half of responding companies have that score of apparent greatness, it is clear to see that more scrutiny should be demonstrated in the scoring criteria of the Index.
As previously mentioned, the structure of the Disability Equality Index makes it incredibly difficult to discern companies that care about disability inclusion from those who merely ticked the right boxes. For instance, Southwest Airlines runs a Summer Campus Reach Neurodiversity Internship program, an amazing program designed for autistic college students seeking experience in their Technology Department. Southwest Airlines has earned a top score in the Disability Equality Index all the last four years.
Nestlé, although appearing to prioritize the accessibility of deaf workers in Brazil, has been the subject of many controversies violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, causing health risks for infants through its marketing of baby formula, and violations of workers’ rights. Despite all these glaring problems, Nestlé also received a score of 100 on the 2023 Disability Equality Index.
Amazon has been notorious for its horrific warehouse conditions, yet over the last few years, allegations regarding its treatment of disabled workers finally sparked outrage, reaching the public. Despite marketing efforts inspiring confidence among disabled hires that they would receive the accommodations they need, Amazon has denied disabled workers reasonable accommodations and forced them to take unpaid leaves of absence rather than granting them the ability to work with accommodations. Despite glaringly ignoring the Americans with Disabilities Act, Amazon was also named a “Best Place to Work for Disability Inclusion” in 2023.
These three companies have no business being categorized as having equally inclusive policies regarding disability. Yet, due to the incomplete nature of the questionnaire used to decide this categorization, a company infamous for child labor and a company known for its unsafe working conditions sit alongside a company that is genuinely involved in improving accessibility and inclusion among its staff. Thus, the Disability Equality Index and its methods of deciding scores make it even more difficult for disabled people to determine if a company cares about disability inclusion or the label that mentioning “inclusion” brings.
Please come back to read Part Three, where I will discuss how the Disability Equality Index further erodes trust within the disabled community towards the corporate world. I will also reiterate the lack of authenticity of the Index by highlighting businesses that are not featured on the Index but are actively making positive contributions to the disabled community.
2 Comments