Proposed new equality framework triggers mixed reaction

The final report of a major government-commissioned review proposes extensive reform of the UK’s approach to promoting equality. The new approach focuses on the capabilities of individuals rather than on traditional approaches to equality and will have considerable implications for equality at the workplace. This proposed framework has received a mixed response from the social partners.

The final report of the Equalities Review, Fairness and freedom (1.3Mb PDF), published in February 2007, is the culmination of a ‘root and branch review’ commissioned by the government to investigate the causes of persistent discrimination and inequality in British society. It recommends a new framework for equality based more on individual than group needs.

Need for new approach

The review argues that traditional approaches to equality, based on equality of outcome, opportunities, process and respect, have either:

• resulted in a focus on income or wealth, rather than on all the aspects of life that are important to individuals; or
• taken insufficient account of the economic, political, legal, social and physical conditions that constrain people’s achievements and opportunities.

The review contends that this has resulted in a lack of consistent and clear understanding of the causes of inequality and how to address the issue.

Capabilities framework

The review proposes a new framework, based on the capabilities approach developed by Professor Amartya Sen, for defining, measuring and achieving equality, including in employment. It claims that this overcomes the limitations of traditional approaches by recognising the equal worth of every individual, as reflected in human rights principles.

The new framework sets out 10 central capabilities relating to individuals:

1. to be alive;
2. to live in physical security;
3. to be healthy;
4. to be knowledgeable, to understand and reason, and to have the skills to participate in society;
5. to enjoy a comfortable standard of living, with independence and security;
6. to engage in productive and valued activities;
7. to enjoy individual, family and social life;
8. to participate in decision-making, have a voice and influence;
9. being and expressing yourself, and having self-respect;
10. knowing one will be protected and treated fairly by law.

Reactions of the social partners

Prior to the publication of the Equality Review’s final report, interested parties, including key social partner organisations, responded to an interim report.

In their response (156Kb PDF) to the interim report, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) approved of the weight that the capabilities framework appeared to give to individual choice in determining life chances. However, it was also felt that CBI members found the new concept difficult to understand.

The trade union Amicus, now part of Unite (UK0706039I), was more critical in its review (101Kb PDF) of the interim report. The union stated that the proposed new approach is too individualistic and ‘ignores completely the impact of class, poverty, discrimination, occupational segregation and roles of people at home, which impact greatly on what they are able to do in their lives’. Amicus believes that the focus needs to be on the more traditional concepts of equality of access and outcome, which the union says cannot be ignored if the UK is to work towards being a more equal society. The submission (126Kb MS Word doc) by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) also took the view that the value of equality of outcome was understated.

Implications for workplace equality

The proposed new framework also outlines 10 steps to greater equality, most of which have implications for equality at the workplace. Significantly, step 2 – building a consensus on equality – proposes a role for the social partners, including trade unions. However, the overall emphasis is on the role of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR), and trade unions are mentioned only seven times in the 174-page report, possibly an indication of their limited influence on the new framework and its implementation.

Despite the ostensible focus of the new framework on individuals rather than on groups, the detailed recommendations contained within the 10 steps tend to emphasise group-based equality measures to be implemented by employers and other organisations. These include:

• CEHR support for employers in planning targeted action on the most persistent inequalities (step 5);
• establishing a single Equality Act with a stronger public sector duty to promote equality in employment covering all ‘equality groups’ (on the basis of gender, race and ethnicity, age, disability, sexual orientation, religion and belief, and transgender) (step 6);
• encouraging employers to be more accountable for delivering equality outcomes (step 7), particularly by promoting the business benefits of more systematically understanding and tackling prejudice and disadvantage;
• CEHR guidance and advice for employers on their responsibilities under equality law and on measures of good practice (step 9);
• the recommended repeal of existing legislation limiting positive action (for example, in recruitment and progression at the workplace) (step 10).

Gill Kirton, Queen Mary, University of London