Making the case for disability inclusion

Introduction

There are many reasons to promote disability inclusion in your organisation. If you’re reading this, you probably don’t need to be persuaded. However, you may be wondering how to convince others in your organisation why it matters.

This resource provides guidance on making the case strategically, by presenting the business case, the legal case, or the fairness case for disability inclusion.

Why make the case for disability inclusion?

Businesses undertaking DEI initiatives often need to convince key audiences of the rationale. For example, internal stakeholders such as senior managers and business leaders may want justification for allocation of resources, and managers who will implement new policies need to be motivated to back new initiatives for them to succeed.

Equally, your disabled employees need to feel valued and respected at work, which can be achieved by being vocal about your commitment to case for disability inclusion.

The three cases for disability inclusion

We generally talk about three broad cases you can make in favour of disability inclusion:

• The business case – Inclusive businesses are more productive, innovative and profitable.
• The legal case – Failing to be inclusive can lead to legal liability.
• The fairness case – Disability inclusion is fair and the right thing to do.

Each one proposes becoming more disability inclusive, but from different perspectives. Different audiences will have different reactions depending on which one you make, so it is important to be strategic when making the case for disability inclusion.

Tailor your messaging to your audience

The appropriate case for disability inclusion depends on your audience:

• The business case – More likely to resonate with senior leaders, budget holders, investors and shareholders.
• The legal case – More likely to resonate with legal teams and others concerned with compliance and/or reputation.
• The fairness case – More likely to resonate with employees.

These are generalisations – many senior leaders will be persuaded by the fairness case, and equally, many employees will value the business case. Take into account what you already know about the individuals in question.

Making the business case for disability inclusion

When to make the business case

The business case focuses on the financial and organisational benefits, such as:

• Increased profits
• Greater innovation
• More productivity
• Improved employee retention.

This is more likely to be the right approach when making a bid for funding or resources to support a disability inclusion initiative.

However, there are also many senior managers and business leaders who are likely to be convinced by the fairness case. You can make both cases side-by-side without undercutting your message.

Our resource, ‘Why disability matters: The business or commercial case’ has more detail about the benefits of disability inclusion.

When to avoid making the business case

Research by Catalyst has found that, in relation to DEI broadly, employees in general have a preference:

• 48 per cent of employees surveyed said they wanted both cases to be made equally
• 37 per cent said they preferred just the fairness case
• 15 per cent said they preferred just the business case.

However, employees from marginalised groups (such as women, LGBTQ+ employees, non-white employees, and disabled people) are more likely to react negatively to the business case.

Employees from marginalised groups are more likely to feel on guard and less likely to feel a sense of belonging in organisations that make the business case alone. This is likely because:

• Employees do not want to feel valued solely for their perceived difference
• Employees are concerned that if they stop being seen as profitable, they will be let go.

Making the legal case for disability inclusion

When to make the legal case

The legal case is most likely to appeal to people who are responsible for legal or regulatory compliance and liability. This may include:

• Legal teams
• HR
• Senior leaders
• Budget holders (where liability can lead to financial penalties).

For example, the legal case may help overcome opposition from budget holders to implementing an improved workplace adjustments system – if they can be persuaded that the costs of breaching the law are greater than the costs of implementing a compliant system.

Colleagues who are concerned with brand and reputation (such as Comms and PR teams) may also be more receptive to the legal case. Legal breaches can lead to negative coverage and harm an organisation’s reputation, so they may be more open to persuasion on the legal case.

When to avoid making the legal case

A limitation of making the legal case is that the legal minimum often does not reflect best practice. An argument for disability inclusion that relies only on the legal case may result in an outcome that is no more ambitious that the legal minimum.

The legal case can also alienate disabled employees and colleagues who are passionate about inclusion. It can give the impression that their employer only acts on disability inclusion under the threat of legal action – rather than out of recognition of disabled employees’ value and importance.

We don’t recommend making the legal case to employees or customers. Disabled employees in these audiences may feel devalued by public messaging on the legal case.

Making the fairness case for disability inclusion

When to make the fairness case

The fairness case is most effective when made to large audiences – such as employees and customers. It can boost brand loyalty and employee morale by reminding your audiences – disabled and non-disabled – that they are valued as individuals.

It can also be effective among any of the other audiences you may be seeking to convince. Many of us have lived experience of disability (either directly or through a loved one) and may be most convinced by an appeal to the fairness case.

Finally, the fairness case can bolster either of the other cases for disability inclusion – the business and legal cases. So you can layer it into your messaging for any audience without undercutting the other arguments you make for disability inclusion. It is likely to make your case more persuasive.

When the fairness case might backfire

Making the fairness case by highlighting your organisation’s commitment to disability inclusion might backfire if it does not match the experiences of disabled people.

For example, disabled employees who do not feel valued might perceive an attempt to make the fairness case as cynical or hypocritical. Similarly, disabled customers who do not feel welcomed could feel lied to in an attempt to signal virtue for profit, rather than seeing it as a genuine commitment to disability inclusion.

It is important to recognise that differences in the way you talk about disability and the experiences of your disabled employees and customers can affect the effectiveness of any case you make for disability inclusion.

When making the fairness case, it’s important to ensure that your messaging is consistent with tangible actions on disability inclusion that materially improve disabled people’s experiences.

Conclusion – Know your audience

It is important to understand what motivates your audience when deciding how to make the case for disability inclusion. Everyone is an individual with specific experiences, and these will influence how they react to your arguments for inclusion. However, our broad recommendations are:

• The legal case – when dealing with projects or areas of work that could involve compliance and liability.
• The business case – when asking for resources to undertake a disability inclusion initiative.
• The fairness case – when addressing larger groups, such as employees and customers. You can also include this while making either of the above two cases.

The factors for success will depend on the individuals, the organisation, the sector and nature of work, the local culture – and many more. We recommend getting to know your audience and tailoring your messaging to their wants and needs.