According to a study by BCG published in 2019, start-ups set up by women are on average 30% less likely to be supported by investors, thus revealing the maintenance of a glass ceiling. However, since the 2000s, studies and companies have taken up the subject by advocating the benefits of gender diversity in the workplace. How can we evaluate this argument today, 25 years later?

From correlation to interpretation: when diversity is good

Researcher Michel Ferrary and McKinsey  were among the first to establish a link between gender diversity and significant improvement in company performance. Their studies show that the most mixed teams are also the most committed and productive: those made up of 40 to 60% women or men show a significant increase in productivity and commitment, resulting in higher gross margins (+23% (Michel Ferrary, 2010). According to their analyses, gender diversity also impacts employee engagement, company brand image and customer satisfaction.

Has the principle of equality been diluted in the spirit of diversity?

Despite the many studies extolling the benefits of gender diversity on company performance, professional inequalities remain. In 2019,  revealed that only 12 professional families account for nearly half of the women in employment. In 2021, only 40 women were at the helm of Fortune 500 companies, and only one Black woman was listed.

These figures question the effectiveness and risks of the performance argument as a driver of real equality. The utilitarian rhetoric that associates gender diversity with economic benefits could backfire on women: highlighting so-called "feminine" qualities, such as prudence or a spirit of cooperation, can reinforce positive stereotypes and fuel benevolent sexism. This discourse, which values difference, risks locking women and "people from diverse backgrounds" into a position of "outsiders" and preventing them from being trivialized in roles of responsibility. By focusing on "female talents", we implicitly reinforce the masculine norm and create a form of conditional inclusion, linked to performance criteria.

And what would happen if gender diversity were to be perceived as less "profitable" than hoped? This instrumental vision weakens the principle of equality, which should not depend on its economic contribution. Linking gender diversity to performance risks minimizing systemic discrimination and failing to meet the needs for a profound change in norms. [IC1]

What actions for companies?

The proclamation of diversity, as beneficial as it may be, is therefore not enough to ensure inclusion and real equality. The Research, Engineering and Training Council therefore recommends that companies take these issues to the highest strategic level, by engaging general management in a structured and ambitious approach. This implies a global approach to gender equality, which questions all processes: recruitment, training, promotion and production. A clear company agreement, with precise indicators and rigorous monitoring, is an essential lever for transforming intentions into actions. Finally, it is crucial not to compartmentalize these issues, but to develop a transversal approach that takes into account all the dimensions of the organization.

Real equality will only be achieved if it becomes a central driver, capable of profoundly redefining our models of work and success. This requires the deconstruction of implicit norms, rather than the adaptation of "diverse" profiles to a dominant model, for inclusion that is beneficial to all.