Selective Inclusion

Illustration credit: Image by pikisuperstar on Freepik

I finally watched Chris Rock’s Netflix live special, Selective Outrage and although I was as intrigued as most of us by how he would tackle the whole slap incident involving  Will Smith, I was more interested in the reasoning behind his choice of title.
Rock describes selective outrage “as a sort of cognitive dissonance people engage in to mask the hypocrisy and superficiality of their stances on what’s acceptable and what’s not.” Simply put, selective outrage is an inconsistent response to consistent (similar) behavior.
We witness selective outrage in every aspect of life, the tendency to pick and choose what we are outraged by. Selective outrage isn't just what you get mad about but also what you decide not to be mad about, because it doesn't benefit you. 

With the advent of social media, people everywhere choose to share content that reflects their identities and defines their personal brand. In some cases, their selective outrage isn't based on their core beliefs but rather on the need to be part of a group of people who share that belief, thus sacrificing moral complexity in their thinking for the sake of social belonging.
Helen De Cruz wrote in an article entitled "What explains moral outrage on social media”: “Expression of outrage is not only a form of virtue-signaling, but first and foremost a way of reliably signaling in-group membership.

This happens not only on an individual level but also on a corporate level, where companies tend to incorporate moral values that attract a segment of the population within their target audience. Take for instance the number of companies who in recent years have added the word sustainability in their marketing campaigns. Truth is, if we dig deeper, a good chunk of these companies are making eco-conscious promises that don’t align with their business model. Such companies are accused of greenwashing*. Such examples include companies that market products as non-toxic, safe and planet friendly when they contain ingredients that are harmful to people and the environment. Or tuna can brands that advertise tuna as dolphin safe when the company uses fishing methods that seriously injure and kill dolphins and other marine life. 
When expanding hotel chains ask their customers to reuse their towel to help save the environment but continue ripping up ground to build new hotels with energy consuming lighting and inefficient water flow systems, there is misalignment.

But customers are not ignorant and such false pretenses could harm the bottom line rather than benefit it. As Chris mentioned, corporate rhetoric today about being moral citizens is more or less nonsense from entities that aim to maximize their profits/exist for a bottom line. 

I have read so many company ethos claiming to be inclusive, but most of them are only selectively inclusive. Inclusion is, simply put, non-omission, but most self-proclaimed inclusive corporations fail to acknowledge people with disabilities within their Diversity & Inclusion (D&I)  strategy. A report from the Return on Disability Group, highlights that although 90% of companies claim to prioritize diversity, only 4% consider disability in their workplace policies. And only a small subset truly serves customers with disabilities.  

People with disabilities represent 15% of the global population today. Companies can no longer afford to pick and choose which minority groups to include in their D&I strategy, conveniently ignoring the largest minority group in their plans. If your company claims to be inclusive, then it should welcome all kinds of minorities, including people with disabilities. But as Caroline Casey, Founder of The Valuable 500, said it best: most often than not, “D&I is treated like an ‘a la carte’ where protecting the vulnerable in our society becomes a choice or competition between different groups, rather than a set menu of addressing each equally”.

Surely we can do better!

I am not suggesting that companies do it all or nothing at all, but perhaps, as an initial step in the right direction, to refrain from claiming false or incomplete inclusion. Instead, firms should perhaps mention selective inclusion as part of their strategy, thus taking full accountability for omitting a group of people from their D&I strategy. 

Unfortunately, instead of acknowledging the problem, some companies go as far as using coded descriptions such as generic physical requirements (the likes of lifting, typing, driving, etc…) for jobs that do not necessarily demand them, to simply weed out anyone with a disability from the get-go. What these companies fail to understand is that people with disabilities and their families account for over $8 trillion in disposable income  (Return on Disability Group). Having employees with disabilities within a company not only adds to the talent pool but helps organizations make better decisions and innovations that would ultimately benefit society as a whole as much as their bottom line. A 2020 Accenture study found that businesses that focus on disability inclusion grow their sales 2.9 times faster, and their profits 4.1 times faster than other companies.  

It’s time corporations take genuine stances for values and principles they truly believe in, rather than simply add values as a way of ticking off a marketing objective from their list. Selective inclusion is a more honest way to show a company’s commitment to a D&I strategy that favors a minority group over another. After all, companies find it easier to address certain inclusion topics over others they might deem more complicated or costly to address. These tactics might help a brand’s image and attract a minority group to their businesses but an honest D&I strategy should, in my opinion, be a phased commitment companies can make to truly shift the status quo.


*Greenwashing: a used and abused marketing and advertising tactic that deceptively portrays a company as one that follows sustainable steps to help the planet for the sole benefit of gaining more customers or boosting its own brand image.