AUG 29, 2024 | FEATURES | By Kole Petersen
On July 15, Disability:IN released the 10th annual Disability Equality Index report. Throughout the 24-page document, they repeatedly emphasize the internationalization of their benchmark and the level of progress that they have made toward corporate disability inclusion. They heavily pride themselves on adding Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Japan, the Philippines and the United Kingdom to their markets, a move said to enhance disability inclusion in global markets.
Participation in the Disability Equality Index has grown from 80 companies in its inaugural year to now 542, an increase claimed to emphasize the growth of not only the organization of Disability:IN, but also the movement toward corporate disability inclusion as a whole.
However, if you read the three-part series I wrote about last year’s index, you would know I am hard-pressed to believe these assertions.
The primary problems about the Index, as I discussed in my previous writing, included the questionnaire relying only on self-reporting from the companies themselves, the resulting inability to distinguish truthful accounting from intentionally fudged information, the uselessness of the perfect score of 100, and the lack of information and benefits for disabled workers. Unfortunately, these issues continue to permeate into this year’s so-called milestone Index, and the harmful trends that I noticed last year somehow proceed to be even more disappointing and alarming this time around.
While I will not go as in-depth as last time, it is important to highlight the hypocritical nature of the Index’s results and the motives of Disability:IN. The proportion of countries receiving the highest possible score on the Index is just as alarming as in previous years. Of the 753 submissions from the eight different markets, 441 of them received a perfect score of 100. That means that out of every company who filled out the questionnaire, 58.5% of them were judged to be a shining example of disability inclusion in the corporate world. In a world in which the rights of the disabled worker continue to be threatened, the statistics of high distinction, the number of “perfect” scores that are handed out, are incredibly suspicious.
However, when we investigate the questionnaire that Disability:IN uses to grade responding companies, it becomes incredibly clear how easy it is to game your way into receiving a high score on the Index. As I exposed last year, the questionnaire consists of just five weighted sections on incredibly broad topics, including the nebulous “Culture and Leadership” and the vague “Community Engagement.” While the imprecise definitions of the categories being tested are bad enough, the vague wording of the questions — and the fact that respondents need to pass no more than 2/3 of the questions per section to earn full credit — incompleteness permeates the Index’s recording methods. Sadly, there have been no changes to the 2024 questionnaire compared to last year, despite a visible increase in outcry from the disabled community over the past few months.
According to Disability:IN, their index was created to drive change in how businesses view disability inclusion and to serve as a “key dimension of organizational sustainability” designed to create long-term value for both employees and shareholders. In reality, though, rather than encouraging corporations to be fully transparent about their inclusion policies, the structuring of the Disability Equality Index has further inhibited the spread of information to disabled employees and values the reputation of businesses over the lives of disabled people.
While researching for this piece, I got the chance to chat with Debra Ruh, a former board member of Disability:IN who served for six years. She was on the board when the Disability Equality Index was first created, and she explained to me how she believes its original intentions went off the rails.
In 2014, when the Index was first conceptualized, it was intended to enhance the business-to-business relationship between Disability:IN and various employers. The original idea of the Index was to communicate the desires of disabled employees and underscore the importance of disability inclusion by creating a visible incentive to practice inclusion. Rather than allowing a continued culture of exclusion, the rating system and honors of the Index were designed to highlight the importance of disabled employees’ voices and prove that prioritizing disability inclusion would only benefit the operations and profitability of businesses.
However, the conversations between Disability:IN and their business partners were increasingly dominated by the selfish interests of the corporations, which led to a measure of inclusion being exploited used to further exclude.
Looking back on the early years of the Index, Debra said, “When we had the idea of a [business-to-business] to help employers include us… we never realized how tricky our role would be.” The fine line that they needed to traverse to ensure that disabled voices were not drowned out was not clear to them, and thus the conversations on corporate inclusion are being dominated by the corporations themselves instead of the disabled community. While other business-to-business groups continue to walk across this tightrope, “most are failing to make things work,” Debra explained.
After spending months studying the Index, talking with leading figures in the disability advocacy world, and hearing the perspectives of current and former leaders of Disability:IN, here is what I have gathered. Although the business-to-business strategy was originally intended to create a positive relationship between disabled voices and the corporate world, this relationship was quickly dominated by the interests of greedy corporations.
Instead of prioritizing improving the status of disabled workers in the corporate world, Disability:IN has instead chosen to provide benefits to its corporate partners, giving praise for falsified progress and rewarding them for responding to a questionnaire that is laughably easy to game and manipulate. Therefore, the annual report and the high number of distinguished scores serve no greater purpose than to satisfy shareholders and perform the disability inclusion equivalent of rainbow washing. When nearly every company that reports information to Disability:IN is named one of the “Best Places to Work for Disability Inclusion,” that distinction makes it impossible to discern genuine advocacy from deceitful marketing.
Ultimately, I believe that the approach the disabled community should take to make their voices heard needs to fundamentally change. For too long, disabled voices have not been brought to the spotlight because of how fragmented our efforts can be. Instead of tackling the issue of corporate greed as divided groups, we need to come together to better share our perspectives. As the current executive chair of Billion Strong, a nonprofit organization designed to bring the voices of over one billion disabled people together, Debra believes in this strategy of collective action. I agree with her sentiment: “We must convene but not just in [the] US but globally to be really heard.” I wholeheartedly support her mission of empowering disabled journalists and bringing them together.
Just last year, I had no confidence that my reporting would amount to any sort of change. Now, through the unprecedented support I have received, I have appeared on a podcast hosted by Disability Solutions, been interviewed by the popular newsletter HR Brew, and had the opportunity to talk to many leading figures in the disability advocacy community. Although not much has changed about the inner workings of Disability:IN, I am confident that if we shed light on disabled journalists, bring everyone together, and raise our voices together — change is possible in the world of corporate inclusion. I know that I will certainly keep talking for us, keep reporting for us, and keep advocating for us.
Amazing Article !!!! Author – Kole Petersen