The adage is well known in the business world: what cannot be measured does not exist. Therefore, in order to advance professional equality, it is essential to identify by figures what the strategic axes of a policy are.

But are we really collecting the right data ? And according to what methods ? Do these figures allow us to develop effective policies? We put the issue at the table.

Never have gender equality issues been so measured

Studies, surveys, perception surveys, audits, indexes, barometers, rankings, comparative situation reports... All methods of producing numerical data are now used to objectify the facts in terms of gender equality.

Not a single dimension of the theme seems to escape it: wage gaps, share of women among managers ; proportion of women and men by sector of activity and by trade ; perception of gender stereotypes; differences in health conditions , housing, access to credit;    inequalities in terms of reconciling life conditions, training and mobility ; differences in behavior in the moments when we need to value each other, when we have to negotiate, when we have to decide, where we have to cooperate, etc. Not to mention the now numerous publications on the mixity/performance correlation!

If, about twenty years ago, we could regret the weak interest of accounting professionals in the subject, it is clear that today we are rather confronted with the abundance of data... But then, why is the progress of real equality not in tune with this proliferation of indicators ?

Are we interested in the right items ?

Abundance does not necessarily mean exhaustiveness : we can be overwhelmed by data, but we can miss social facts that have remained in the blind spot of the objectification movement. Thus, we already noted in our 2015 EVE & Donzel report that while the condition of the least well-off women and that of the best-off women is fairly well documented by studies, there is only a few quantified studies on the situation of the middle classes through the prism of gender.

We can also question the choice of method for developing the figures : for example, pay equity generally takes the salary as a basis, but this means missing out on all other forms of income from the employer (bonuses and profit-sharing, dividends, etc.) or from other sources (financial and property income, tax credits, etc.), as well as the issues of wealth inequality in the self-employed population (liberal professions, business managers, informal economy, etc.).

In addition, it can be seen that while the status of women is the subject of sustained attention by the structures that produce psychosocial data, the condition of men is much less observed, with the exception of justice and health issues. However, many issues relating to masculinity deserve to be addressed in order to achieve equality that can only be the business of women : from the reasons for men's self-censorship to the perceptions of societal changes reshuffling the cards of the gender order, including the effects of stereotypes on the two genders...

How can we objectify the dynamics ?

The criticism of the quantification of equality also concerns the inadequacy of indicators devoted to dynamics. Indeed, the figures tend to photograph the state of affairs at a time t, which leaves only the longitudinal comparison to approach the set in motion... Without necessarily giving information on what the changes are from.

In response to this issue, Pete Stone & Patrick Scharnitzky, authors of the book  Towards an inclusive organization: measuring to progress published in 2021 by the AFMD, proposes a methodology for a barometer measuring the effectiveness of actions in favor of respect for the identity of each person in the full participation of the collective.

Starting from the 5 pillars of inclusion that they highlighted in a previous book, the two consultants propose to rate the company's actions but also the impacts of these actions, particularly in terms of perception by the social body. In this way, we can begin to identify the effects of a policy on the population it is aimed at.

The Stone & Scharnitzky/AFMD model allows you to reach an even finer level of detail by successively examining the actions of governance, HR, management and communication for the 5 pillars.

Such a Barometer should make it possible to identify what, in the arsenal of inclusion measures, works and resonates best in a given environment. A valuable management tool to adjust policies as closely as possible to the needs of each organization, in line with the changes in its environment and society as a whole.