“Regardless of the moral imperative, corporate leaders are recognizing the potential investment, regulatory, and legal risks of doing nothing when it comes to addressing issues like climate change, diversity and inclusion, or corporate transparency.”
“Leaders must now mitigate and manage a broader set of risks while no longer being judged merely by their bottom-line performance or on the quality and price of their products. They must also meet a higher standard of conduct, in their environmental and social impact; their corporate governance; and in their diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.”
There’s no question that investors are increasingly examining companies through the lens of non-financial factors. It stands to reason that businesses without ESG concern do nothing to attract employees wanting to make a positive difference in the world through their work.
Tomorrow’s DEI leaders understand that cross-functional change has to come with cross-functional benefits.
Increasing your data quality requires a commitment to both accuracy and validity in how you measure it. We see lots of emphasis on accuracy and transparency when it comes to diversity data, but this is a moot point unless your tools actually measure what they are supposed to. Human capital is not the same as financial data– do you know how to account for this?
Whether you call it Human Capital, Social Capital, or Workforce Demographics, your diversity data– and how you report it– must be part of a larger conversation on stakeholder noise and conflicting priorities.
The cross-functional nature of DEI poses a unique challenge to reporting ESG information, as different stakeholders will inevitably have conflicting ideas on both where the data should live and its importance. PwC’s study shows that there is still progress to be made when it comes to integrating DEI functions into both internal and external reporting standards.