4.5.2 Analysis of the findings of the Nyenrode Study II

In order to explore which diversity aspects are part of a company’s diversity policy, a question was included in the survey asking whether the following aspects were part of the company’s diversity policy: gender, age, nationality, expertise, independence and experience. For every diversity aspect, the respondents could indicate whether the specific diversity aspect was part of the company’s diversity policy. The results of this question are represented in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 shows that all respondents conveyed that expertise is part of their company’s diversity policy (100 percent). A large majority of the respondents also stated that the topics of independence and experience are included in their company’s policy (respectively; 88 percent and 97 percent). Nationality and age were subjects that were mentioned less often: only less than half of the respondents have included these aspects in their diversity policies (respectively: 49 percent and 46 percent). With regard to gender, almost 70 percent of respondents answered that gender is part of their diversity policy. These results could imply that it is more obvious for companies to focus on expertise, independence and experience rather than focusing on gender, age and nationality.3

As the Committee concluded in its Committee Report I that companies have to interpret diversity in a broader sense than only gender diversity, the Committee was interested to find out which diversity measures companies had taken to enhance diversity. In order to address the second research question, the following question was included in the survey: which measures has the company taken in the last two years, to enhance the diversity in the top level of the company? The companies could provide multiple answers, with a maximum of three measures. The responses varied from no measures up to three measures per company. In total, 171 measures were mentioned by 72 respondents. We categorized the answers into eight categories of measures, reflected in Table 4.6.

Out of these 171 measures, 110 measures (171 minus 61 vague responses/no answers) reflected interesting measures that were taken to enhance the diversity within a company. The measures that were mentioned most often were measures falling in category 4, i.e., ‘certain diversity aspects have been made part of the policy of the company by integrating these diversity aspects in the policy agenda, diversity goals, codes of conduct and/or diversity programs’. These answers provide a valuable insight into the specific measures taken by Dutch listed companies to enhance diversity within the company, whereby some measures can be considered more concrete than others.4

In order to assess the third research question, i.e., were the measures for the achievement of the diversity policy effective, we included three topical questions in the survey. The first question that was posed was: to which results have the measures for the achievement of the diversity policy led? In total, 78 results were mentioned by 66 respondents. We categorized the answers into five categories of measures, reflected in Table 4.7.

Clearly, the responses in category 2 were not formulated in such a way that conclusions could be drawn. In regard to the responses in the categories 1, 3 or 4, it can be concluded that these companies indicated that they were able to improve diversity in the top level of the company.

As a follow-up to this question, respondents were asked what the most effective measure was for the company. This question was answered by 62 respondents. The 62 respondents mentioned in total 79 measures as their most effective measure. The answers to this question are summarized in Table 4.8.5

The answers to this question did not differ much from the answers to the question of which measures companies have taken during the last two years to improve diversity in the top level of their company (Table 4.6). Some answers are worth highlighting; they reveal best corporate practices in that they create a structural change within the company in stimulating more diversity. Among them are: ‘creating a talent pool’, ‘offer coaches to talents’, ‘a concrete diversity plan’, ‘the introduction of talent programs’ and ‘talent reviews’. These measures are categorized in category 4: ‘Specific policy and goals on diversity’.

Figure 4.2 combines measures applied by Dutch listed companies during the last two years and their perceived effectiveness, i.e., according to the respondents. We conclude that adopting a specific policy and goals aimed at increasing the diversity of the top of the company was perceived by the respondents as the most effective measure. Specific searches and new appointments came in second and third place respectively. The 30 percent statutory provision was not perceived to be very effective (6 percent).

Referring to the previous question, i.e., what is, for your company, the most effective measure that can (help to) improve the diversity of the top level of the company, the respondents were asked to explain their answers to this question. We asked respondents why they considered such a measure to be the most effective for achieving the diversity policy. This question was answered by 60 respondents, who mentioned in total 69 arguments (see Table 4.9).

The large variation in the responses made it hard to categorize them. Some respondents considered role models as the most effective measure, because they considered that diversity at the top level of the company opens up the path to diversity in the organization (category 1). The effectiveness of the statutory 30 percent rule was also mentioned several times as the most effective measure, as well as the Code, because legislation is perceived to provide for ‘hard standards and obligations’ (category 4). Others emphasized the importance of diversity as a subject on the management agenda (category 2). Several respondents pointed out that actually recruiting and appointing women at top levels gives a clear signal to the whole organization that women indeed get the opportunity to develop themselves and can reach the top of this company (category 3). Other respondents explained that they look for the best person for the job instead of looking only along the lines of diversity criteria.6

With regard to the respondents’ compliance in the financial year of 2014, the Committee followed the findings of the Nyenrode researchers and reiterated in its Committee’s Report II - in a similar way as in the Committee Report I - that diversity should be interpreted broadly: not only in terms of gender, but also other diversity aspects should be taken into account, such as age, nationality, expertise, independence and earlier experience. The Committee concluded that companies consider expertise, experience and independence as the leading aspects of their diversity policies. Another aspect that has been taken into account is gender, but nationality and age were mentioned less often.7 The Committee concluded that companies have become conscious of the importance of diversity, but noted that companies are to ensure that measures taken lead to concrete results.8