Recently Forbes Insights released the results of its latest survey on corporate social responsibility. According to the report, “Corporate Philanthropy – The New Paradigm: Volunteerism. Competence. Results.” companies are relying to corporate responsibility more and more to position themselves for success in new markets and to build the competencies of high performing employees.

For example, the report details MasterCard’s recent partnership with the Grameen Foundation in Colombia, which involved an 8-month leadership program for a select group of talented employees.

Patricia Devereux, group head of Corporate Philanthropy & Citizenship at MasterCard Worldwide, explained, “Corporate social responsibility isn’t just about writing checks anymore; it’s making important ties with what is going on in your community.”

She continued, “The commitment from senior management is strong, our employees worldwide are increasing their volunteer hours, and all of us can see firsthand the impact we are having in our communities.”

Devereaux also discussed another trend revealed in the report – tracking progress and making changes based on that data to achieve results. “Those are long-term metrics, of course, but that’s what we are interested in – long-term, sustainable improvements,” she said.

Survey Findings

The report is based on interviews with 311 executives at large companies – two thirds of whom worked for companies bringing in $5 billion or more annually. According to Forbes, “More than half of the respondents (54%) had C-level titles or were board members. Another 31% had titles of director or above. In terms of function, 37% were involved in corporate management, 29% were in finance, 14% were in HR or talent management, and 14% were involved in community relations or philanthropy.”

About half were located in the Americas, a third in Asia-Pacific, and the rest were in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

About half of the respondents said that their company’s CSR commitments had increased over the past year, which Forbes noted is interesting given the global financial situation.

The report noted that volunteering is increasingly seen as a way to train employees and develop ties to underserved or new markets, and most companies plan to increase volunteer programs. It explains:

“Companies also anticipate that volunteer hours will increase over the next year, highlighting the crucial part manpower plays in CSR. In fact, 72% say that they primarily make donations to causes that will allow their employees to volunteer. In general, companies are finding creative ways to enable this, from allowing employees to donate their work time to causes, to paying for travel, to sponsoring a corporate service corp.”

Companies are tying CSR donations to causes that enable their employees to participate as well. This grassroots involvement may be seen as a way to improve employee engagement within the corporation and their community.

Employee Engagement

In fact, employee motivation was the top reason given for corporate responsibility, according to Forbes, with 64% of respondents naming this as a goal of philanthropy and community involvement.

Additionally, companies are using corporate responsibility initiatives to attract Gen Y employees. “While Gen Y’ers still compose a minority of corporate employees, as the first wave of Baby Boomers retires, competition for young Gen Y talent to be groomed for corporate middle management is skyrocketing,” the report notes.

It continues:

“A study by AMP Agency, a brand management firm, found that 61% of Gen Y’ers feel person- ally responsible for making a difference in the world, and over half of them say that they wouldn’t work for an irresponsible corporation. Companies are responding to that ethos. Case in point: 72% of respondents say volunteerism and philanthropy are critical for recruiting younger qualified employees.”

But motivation isn’t the only goal behind corporate responsibility and volunteering efforts. The study continues:

“Companies use CSR not only to motivate their employees, but also to train them and build skill sets. Fifty-nine percent of survey respondents say they want to increase their employees’ skills and leadership through corporate philanthropy. That’s another incentive for companies—47% say learning more about potential markets and opportunities is a motivator for CSR.”

CSR activities are increasingly seen as an opportunity for high potential employees to develop skills and prove themselves, while better understanding new communities’ needs. This type of work serves as a training ground for developing and retaining talent.

In a ForbesWoman article earlier this month, Sylvia Ann Hewlett, founding president of the Center for Talent Innovation (formerly Center for Work-Life Policy), wrote that while there are 144 boards with no women in the Fortune 1000 and women make up only 15 percent of all Fortune 1000 directors, there is also some good news when it comes to the effort to achieve board parity.

The good news, Hewlett says, is that over 1,100 directors on Fortune 1000 boards are over 70 years old.

If we only wait just a bit longer, she suggests, soon qualified women can rush into the seats vacated by retiring males. She concludes:

“The time may finally be arriving for women to fulfill B.C. Forbes’ predication. As more women pry open the boardroom door and assume a seat at the table, they can not only serve as a powerful voice for change within each company but can proactively broaden the pipeline of female candidates to ensure that even more women advance.”

Hewlett’s message about being rigorously prepared to assume board service when elected is valuable. But her suggestion that women simply wait their turn to be chosen for board service when the old guys are out of the way is disappointing. Women have been waiting for decades to get to the top, and – as Catalyst data on the percentage of women making it into the boardroom shows – playing the waiting game isn’t getting women anywhere fast.

Need to Pry?

Equally disappointing is the notion that women will still have to “pry” the boardroom door open when all of these seats are presumably up for grabs. If a board is so stubbornly ignoring the value of gender diverse viewpoints that women have to force their way onto it, that seat is not likely to be a pleasant one to occupy.

As Former Xerox CEO and Chairman Anne Mulcahy commented at Fortune’s Most Powerful Women Summit last year, if a board has never had a female member, there are likely other problems within its culture or system of operating. In fact, she advised women not to join boards that don’t have other women. She said, “It’s a bad sign. Boards without women – blacklist those suckers. It’s 2011. They’ve had the time – it’s significant that they don’t have women.”

While encouraging women to empower themselves and prepare for board service in a systematic way is obviously important, it’s only part of the gender parity puzzle.

All of this preparation is going to amount to nothing if boards do not fully appreciate the need to hire women or other minority individuals. And judging by the numbers – and Hewlett’s notion that doors will have to be pried open – many boardrooms do not foster a culture that recognizes the value of diverse viewpoints. The real question we should be asking ourselves is how to emphasize the business case in a way that compels meaningful, thought- and action-provoking change in these arenas.

As Elissa Ellis Sangster, Executive Director of the Forte Foundation recently told the Wall Street Journal:

“[Based on research,] the organizations that have a higher representation of women in their leadership make better decisions, they have better corporate governance, they have better risk management, they have better returns. Having that diversity in an organization, whether it’s gender or ethnicity or background skills, those are all important things.”

The willingness of a board to consider the business value of gender diversity also signifies the willingness to consider and rethink long-held and potentially outmoded ways of leading a company. At a time of global uncertainty and upheaval in the corporate and financial space, a board that is willing to rethink tired ideas is one that is positioned for success.

Last week, Mercer presented its findings [PDF] on its most recent global talent mobility study at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland. The report focused on the need for collaborating amongst various stakeholders to ensure that global talent is being developed and mobilized effectively.

According to Laszlo Andor, the EU’s Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, who wrote the forward to the report, the word will soon be facing a talent crisis – in some areas are suffering from high unemployment, while others face a shortage of skilled employees. He wrote:

“It is in this context that qualified people represent a strategic resource; one that needs to be paid far greater attention to than ever before. The ability to encourage development and attainment of new knowledge and skills while at the same time promoting innovation and geographical mobility will greatly influence the overall capacity of the European Union and its member states to sustain economic growth and social progress.”

The report, discussing global talent issues – not just those of the EU – goes on to suggest that broader collaborative partnerships between companies, non-profit organizations, and governments can address the challenges that exist when it comes to talent mobility.

The Need for Collaboration

The report, “Talent Mobility Good Practices: Collaboration at the Core of Driving Economic Growth,” contains case studies and advice on how companies can work with other stakeholders to meet goals of finding skilled talent in the years to come.

First of all, the report encourages companies to move individuals into new roles in new geographic locations than they have in the past. The ones that are doing it right, it explains, are benefiting from the experience that employees gain from working abroad. It explains:

“Not only are they physically moving talent internationally within their organizations – they are also moving people across business units and job families; across organizations; within specific industries and regions; and across occupations and skills sets. Some stakeholders are using talent mobility practices to move people from unemployment to employment or to move jobs to people.”

But, Mercer advises, the larger scale benefits of talent mobility come from partnering with other stakeholders. It explained, “Whether on the organizational level, within an industry or region, or across multiple stakeholders worldwide, collaboration enabled stakeholders to grapple effectively with talent market challenges to significantly enhance growth.

The report was created based on the answers and suggestions it received via a questionnaire sent to 4,000 global participants. According to the survey, over the past 20 years, worker mobiltiy has stagnated. Even though companies and markets have become significantly more global in the past 20 years, workforce mobility has not increased.

In fact, the report continued, companies haven’t been happy with the success of the mobility programs they have utilized – and most are taking advanatage of mobility as a means for professional development of those on the executive track. It says, “Fewer than half of companies surveyed said they selected international assignees well; 62% said poor candidate selection was the second most important cause of assignment failure.”

According to the study, companies can gain more rewards by working to broaden worker mobility programs. They should also consider the potential for collaboration as a means to draw workers to jobs or build their skill sets in areas where there are labor shortages.

Practical Advice

The report’s advice for companies, based on the good practices it collected, include employing a ‘business case’ approach to building potential collaboration proposals and utilizing modern measurement tools to assess their effectiveness. It also suggested working with governments on cross-boarder initiatives, and collaborating with potential competitors when it makes sense.

One successful initiative highlighted by the report is the Toronto Financial Services Alliance. While, as the report indicated, “All five of the major Canadian banks are based in Toronto, as are 80% of the foreign banks that operate in the country,” the industry faces a significant talent shortage in the region. By and large, highly educated individuals in the area haven’t been interested in a career in the field, and banks were struggling to fill open jobs – all drawing from the same small pool of talent.

As a result, the TFSA was formed as a “high profile public-private partnership” including “three levels of government, major financial services firms, and educational institutions, professional services associations and business services providers.

So far the group has been successful in educating local highly educated individuals about the benefits of a career in the financial services industry, and in marketing Toronto to potential employees outside the region. By collaborating with competitors, government, and other stakeholders, the pool of employees companies can draw from is growing and becoming more skilled.

According to a recent study by researchers from the University of Minnesota and the University of Delaware, institutionalized flexible work environments can help employees reduce stress, sleep more, and stay healthier.

The research, performed in 2010, followed almost 700 white collar Best Buy employees at the company’s corporate headquarters. About half of the employees participated in a ROWE (Results Oriented Work Environment) and the other half did not.

The study, “Changing Work, Changing Health: Can Real Work-Time Flexibility Promote Health Behaviors and Well-Being?” showed that ROWE employees were healthier and happier. The researchers write:

“To summarize, ROWE facilitates employees’ health-related behaviors (more sleep, more exercise, greater likelihood of going to the doctor when sick, and less likelihood of working when sick). These direct effects of ROWE are, as theorized, mediated by changes in schedule control and negative work-home spillover. On the other hand, ROWE does not directly influence employees’ subjective measures of well-being, although it indirectly influences these outcomes by increasing employees’ sense of schedule control and their ability to manage work and home life, changes that do improve well-being measures.”

By empowering employees to work when and where they needed, the company improved its employees’ health, work-life integration, and well-being.

Results Oriented Work Environments

The researchers, Phyllis Moen, Erin L. Kelly, Eric Tranby, and Qinlei Huang, believe much workplace dissatisfaction is a result of arbitrary time constraints that leave employees feeling powerless, which can negatively influence health. They explain:

“Corporate policies and practices offering employees greater schedule control, that is, the ability to decide when and where they do their jobs, may be especially important for the health behavior and well-being of contemporary employees, given the increasing time pressures, time speedups, and time conflicts most are experiencing.”

Additionally, they suggest that traditional work structures also force employees to forgo sleep and exercise time, both of which influence health. Stress caused by work-life conflict can also negatively impact health. By enabling individuals to better fit sleep and exercise into their schedules, as well as manage work-life demands more appropriately, ROWE workplaces keep employees healthier.

This effect is stronger for women, they say, which illustrates the gender imbalanced nature of housework and child care – even for dual career couples, with our without children. They write, “However, the suggestive evidence is that women (with and without children at home) participating in ROWE experience greater changes in sleep and exercise than do fathers (see Table S-5; Maume et al. 2009).”

Women tend to have more to manage outside the office, and having more power over work schedules and locations can help them manage these additional responsibilities.

Effects of Control and Self Empowerment

The researchers believe that a key component of the ROWE structure is that it gives employees freedom to set their own schedules without having to ask permission first, as they would with a traditional flex arrangement. Providing flexibility is considered a “perk” or “favor” to the employee, and utilizing the perk makes the employee feel that they are disadvantaged in negotiating workplace structures.

They explain:

“A major contribution of studying a corporate innovation is that it points to the potential power of organizational change as a way of promoting employee wellness, particularly in terms of prevention behaviors. Many flexibility policies are offered to help individuals on a selective basis with ‘their’ problems (Kelly and Moen 2007).”

They continue:

“What our evidence underscores is the importance of organizational-level changes promoting real flexibility in terms of employees’ control over the time and timing of their work, not individual adaptations and accommodations that leave existing work-time arrangements intact (Heaney 2003). This is a key point. ROWE differs from more common flexible work arrangements in that flexibility becomes the standard way of working, not an exception granted by a supervisor.”

When ROWE is the standard, employees feel empowered to make their own choices, and as a result, are healthier and happier.

This month DiversityBusiness.com released its list of the top fifty companies for multicultural business opportunities. The Div50 tracks supply chain diversity – which is an important measure of how inclusive a company really is, says Kenton Clarke, CEO of DiversityBusiness.com.

“In a marketplace that is increasingly as sensitive to diversity as it is to revenues, awarding the top buyers of multicultural products and services is becoming a natural part of the new socioeconomic food chain. Organizations that consistently buy the most products and services from diversity businesses, and that sustain the most mutually beneficial business relationships with their multicultural suppliers, should be recognized not only by the business community but also by the general public. That is what we have accomplished in creating The Div50.”

The top company on the list providing business opportunities to multicultural businesses was AT&T. Wal-Mart, Dell, Office Depot, and Northrop Grumman rounded out the top five.

Winning Programs

AT&T’s supplier diversity program was implemented in 1968, and according to the company, it spent $6.9 billion with minority, women and disabled veteran owned businesses in 2009.

“It is extremely important to us to work with minority, women, and disabled-veteran enterprises, so it is an honor to be recognized on this prestigious list,” said Marianne Strobel, executive director, AT&T Global Supplier Diversity. “Diverse businesses continue to provide AT&T with innovative products that enable us to deliver the best solutions for our customers.”

Northrop Grumman, another top five company, was included due in part to efforts by its socio-economic business programs division. According to the company, SEBP seeks opportunities to work with “small disadvantaged, women-owned, historically underutilized business zones, veteran, service-disabled veteran-owned, historically black colleges, universities, and minority institutions.”

Last year, the company spent $3.4 billion with small businesses, which amounted to 37% of its total subcontract spending.

Gloria Pualani, corporate director, SEBP, said, “It is great to be ranked in the top five. Northrop Grumman has made a long-lasting commitment to diversity and inclusion in the supply chain, particularly with our small business partners.”

Economic Inclusion

Clarke said, “The diversity practices of the Div50 has changed the course of economic inclusion and thereby the world as we know it.”

He continued, “The great diversity and vision of our country and our people have made this possible. DiversityBusiness.com is proud to have been a force in the business world for such positive change and opportunity. The initiative that we have led has been instrumental in equalizing the playing field and for that we are very honored indeed.”

DiversityBusiness is made up of 250,000 member companies, which provide goods and services to the Fortune 1000, government agencies, and colleges.

Companies that utilize services provided by small and multicultural businesses are likely to benefit big in the long term. Recent work by the UK’s Business in the Community illustrates the business case for supply chain diversity.

Jo Daniels, Marketplace Director, BITC, commented, “Since BITC began working with businesses on responsible supply chain management, we’ve seen companies gradually shift from managing risk to proactively seeking opportunities to enhance their positive impacts. Supply chain diversity provides a tangible way for businesses to forge stronger links with communities, whilst at the same time creating business benefits.”

Romeo Effs, group supply chain manager at MITIE, a facilities and property management company, explained, “Diverse suppliers are often smaller, and more agile, and so provide better flexibility in service levels helping to mitigate supply chain risk and volatility.”

Sandra Kerr OBE, National Director, Race for Opportunity campaign, BITC, added, “Strengthening our diverse communities will ultimately contribute to overall economic growth.”

Not only does supplier diversity build communities and win over consumers, but supporting minority communities can also help companies build rapport and support from internal affinity groups, ultimately improving employee engagement, as Texas Diversity Magazine reported.

According to the latest global Corporate Responsibility Best Practices survey, the number of global companies with a lead role overseeing CR increased to 62% last year, compared to 42% in 2010. The survey also revealed that 77% of companies plan to grow their corporate responsibility programs in the next three years.

The report, released by Corporate Responsibility Magazine, the Corporate Responsibility Officer Association and NYSE Euronext, is based on a poll of companies on NYSE Euronex Indices, plus other companies within the magazine’s database, reported Environmental Leader.

The study showed that companies are expanding CR programming and recognizing that it does have an impact on their market competitiveness and employee engagement levels. In fact, the study showed, even corporate leadership is working to drive the CR conversation within their companies.

Leadership and Employee Engagement

The study showed that 72% of the companies polled have a formal corporate responsibility program, which has increased from 62% in 2010. Additionally, the survey showed, those companies that do not have a formal program, most frequently said they “believe CR is integrated into other functions or part of the culture.”

In fact, the majority of survey respondents felt that their companies’ leadership and employees were dedicated to corporate responsibility. Almost 80% of respondents said they felt their CEO understands the importance of CR and how it “integrates with operations.” Additionally, the survey said, “82% of CEOs meet with their CR leaders at least once annually, most often monthly or quarterly.”

And CEOs are doing more than just showing tacit report, the survey said. Sixty-six percent of respondents said their CEO had personally driven a CR campaign in the past year.

Additionally, respondents said, one of the top benefits of CR programs is the ability to attract and retain talent. Respondents said that while customers or clients are the “top audience for CR communications,” the organization’s workforce was the second most impacted audience by these activities.

Board engagement when it comes to CR is also increasing. According to the survey, 47% of respondents said their companies had a director responsible for CR-related topics. That percentage has increased from 41% in 2010. Eighty-four percent said “The full Board/ Board committees are briefed on CR-related issues within the company.”

Corporate Responsibility

The amount of commitment companies are showing toward corporate responsibility is surprising, wrote CROA Executive Director Richard J. Crespin, especially given the current economic environment. He explained:

“While a single-minded focus on shareholder value does no one a real service, when it comes to tackling some of our most pressing challenges, companies are often best positioned to make the biggest dent. This year’s CR Best Practices Study bears witness to corporations’ continued investment in corporate responsibility, even in the worst economic times:

• More respondents are committed to CR than last year
• More CEOs and boards support CR than last year
• Growing numbers of large and small companies continue to implement CR programs”

But, he pointed out, while companies may desire to engage in corporate responsibility initiatives and their ability to put them into practice. “A gap persists between companies’ desire and implementation abilities.”

In fact, only 60 of the organizations surveyed had budgets dedicated to corporate responsibility. Additionally, the survey said, while the percentage of companies with formal, budgeted CR programs has grown, there is still a 20% gap between those with a formal program and no budget. And CR spending isn’t large – more than half of the CR budgets reported were less than $500,000 per year.

Finally, the report showed an interesting curve – the companies most likely to say that CR has a positive impact on competitive positioning  were the largest companies and the smallest by revenue. Those in the mid-range were most likely to say they don’t have the ability to measure the impact of CR on their competitiveness in the marketplace.

Similarly, the largest and smallest companies were also the ones to say that CR had a positive impact on profitability, while companies in the mid-range said they did not have the ability to measure it.

According to a new US Labor Department proposal, companies with federal contracts will have to have 7% of their workforces made up of people with disabilities. With roughly 200,000 federal contractors, the Associated Press reported, that means a quarter of the nation’s companies would be affected by the rule – federal contractors take in about $700 billion annually.

Patricia Shiu, Director of the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, said, “This is probably the greatest proposal for real substantive change since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act” of 1990.

She continued, “For nearly 40 years, the rules have said that contractors simply need to make a `good faith’ effort to recruit and hire people with disabilities. Clearly, that’s not working.” The unemployment rate for federal workers is 13%, while the rate for all workers is about 8%, according to recent numbers.

And according to recent Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers, 79% of working-age people with disabilities are outside the labor force. Only 30.5% of people without disabilities are outside the labor force. This rule would increase the diversity of the workforce significantly.

Barbara Otto, Executive Director of the Chicago-based organization Health & Disability Advocates, said, “This is a huge step toward transparency and accountability. It’s great that, given that one fifth of Americans now has a disability, now we’re going to try to bring in hiring incentives to bring them into the labor force.”

She added, “This will have a positive impact on the economy and on a population that has been traditionally underemployed.”

Increasing Diversity

Otto believes that employers ultimately stand to gain by seeking more workers with disabilities. “Because this is such a heterogeneous population, they’ll be enhancing the diversity of their workforce by other measures as well,” she explained, for instance, gender or ethnicity.

She continued, “The proposed rule also gives employers an opportunity to discuss things some employees may not have been willing to talk about before. It could give employers the chance to make an assessment of where they already are with the percentage of employees who have disabilities. It could improve things for those already employed.”

And, it could improve life for the workforce at large. “Universal design usually benefits everyone in the workplace – for example if you make it easier for a person with a disability to get into the building, you’re making it easier for everyone to get into the building.”

When it comes to paying for special accommodations, Otto said, often employers only need to pay $500 or less, and this is frequently offset by state and federal incentives.

Countering Opposition

But opposition to the rule is there – mainly it would increase paperwork and administrative costs to federal contractors.

Michael Eastman, executive director for labor law policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, was cautious. He commented to the AP, “The agency issued a number of regulations that have dramatically expanded paperwork and record-keeping requirements with real costs to contractors.”

BusinessInsurnace’s Judy Greenwald said employers are also worried about the prospects of locating enough workers with disabilities for their needs.

Otto had a solution for that, as well. Her organization’s campaign, Think Beyond the Label, has launched a new website for employers to locate skilled workers with disabilities. “We just launched a job portal for job seekers with disabilities. We’re really looking at growing the pipeline of qualified, skilled individuals who can meet employers’ needs.”

Think Beyond the Label’s Hire Gauge also provides information on state and federal resources and tax incentives available to employers that hire people with disabilities. It also provides information on where employers can get help with administrative tasks to manage the new rule.

She explained, “We are encouraging people to think beyond the disability label, and think about who is the best candidate for the job.”

She added, “I have a colleague who is an individual with a disability. He asked, ‘if you want to hire someone who thinks outside the box, why not hire somebody who lives outside the box?’”

The Office of Federal Contact Compliance Programs is accepting comments on the proposed rule until February 7.

The Financial Times recently reported that the number of female executive directors on FTSE 350 boards has slipped in the past year – all this after significant work to raise awareness of the benefits of board diversity in the UK following the release of the Lord Davies Report.

In fact, wrote Elizabeth Rigsby, the FT’s Chief Political Correspondent, “89 per cent of FTSE 350 companies have no female executives on their boards.”

Prospective female directors in the US are faring better – but not by much. According to Catalyst research released late last year, women occupy only 16.1 percent of Fortune 500 board directorships. That means over four out of five board seats belong to men. And, the report said, about one in ten Fortune 500 companies had no women on their boards.

Why is it that, despite all the research pointing to the business value of boardroom diversity, companies still stubbornly refuse to open the boardroom door to diverse candidates? Here are three convenient non-excuses that boards make for their lack of business-building diversity – and to counter them.

1. “There just aren’t enough women with C-suite skills.”

In a recent FT article, Rebecca Knight writes that the lack of women on boards is frequently related to the lack of women in the C-suite, as many companies view C-suite experience as a critical qualification for board directorship.

“But that is just an excuse,” she says. She quotes Lucy P. Marcus, professor of leadership and governance at IE Business School in Madrid on why only pursuing candidates who’ve been in the C-suite can create a shallow, homogeneous board. Marcus says:

“There are countless talented women who can and do serve very ably on boards, and they can even bring a bonus of adding much-needed diversity of other kinds as well, be it entrepreneurial, international, functional, or cross-sector experience. The important thing is not to be wed to a cookie-cutter image of what makes a strong board candidate.”

By looking beyond C-suite experience as a prerequisite for board service, companies can gain diverse and qualified director candidates who have skills and experience that better serve the reality that today’s complex, global corporations face on the ground.

2. “Women don’t stay in the game long enough to get to the boardroom.”

At a time when women surpass men in almost every field of education at almost every level, it’s worth pointing out that if companies are really having that much trouble finding qualified women to serve in their boardrooms, and if they really are dedicated to the long term success of their companies, then they should allocate more time and resources toward retaining women at the mid-level, since that’s when the pool of female talent often begins to thin out.

By keeping women in the management pipeline to the top, companies would benefit from the kind of diversity that makes companies stronger and more profitable. As Busniessweek’s Kevin Crowly reported last fall, according to the Association of British Insurers, “promoting women to the higher echelons of management will improve firms’ risk management, encourage debate around strategy and help them focus on longer term objectives.”

This will take some rethinking of the corporate ladder. Women leave the workforce more often than men and face challenges getting back in at the same level – which often keeps them from returning – but companies with a keen understanding of the value of diversity are working to fix this structural imbalance. For example, Goldman Sachs’ Returnship program works to inject women back into the workforce who have taken time out, and Deloitte’s lattice initiative acknowledges the many offshoots and sidesteps people take modern career.

Any company that uses this excuse for its lack of women in the boardroom should be working hard to retain talented women – or else they’re just grasping at straws.

3. “We hire from our directors’ personal networks and they didn’t know any women.”

Unfortunately this boneheaded response to the lack of women on boards still persists – and this excuse should be frightening. If a board director has no skilled women in his pool of contacts, that should be a red flag. Knight quotes Marcus again:

“It is easy to go with who you know, who’s in your club and who you went to school with. Intuitively, we all feel comfortable with people who are like us. But we need to look at new ways to find different people… When I see an organisation with a board that has a preponderance of people with similar – if not identical – profiles, it makes me wonder about the business as a whole.”

The marketplace is changing – for example, note the recent HSN report that reveals women do more technology purchasing than men – and so are workforces. Purchasing power and top performers are becoming more diverse than ever before. How can companies with boards composed almost entirely of white men expect to compete with companies led by the individuals who reflect today’s diverse reality?

A recent Angus Reid Public Opinion survey of almost 1000 employed lesbian, gay, and bisexual Canadians revealed that “one third of gays (34%) and two-in-five lesbians (40%) have experienced some form of discrimination throughout the course of their professional lives.” But the survey showed that those polled felt the situation was improving, and that workplaces were becoming more tolerant.

Seventy-two percent of respondents said that attitudes toward LGBT people have improved in the past five years. In fact, the survey continued, “only two per cent of respondents who are ‘out’ at work say that their colleagues had a negative attitude towards that aspect of their lives.”

Angus Reid Public Opinion Vice President Jaideep Mukerji told the Toronto Sun, “The survey shows that the average Canadian workplace has become kinder for LGBT people, with most employers and co-workers being regarded as tolerant towards the LGBT community.”

Nevertheless, the study revealed, a sizeable portion of survey respondents still reported a level of fear around coming out and being out in the workplace.

Discrimination and Bullying

The study showed that 34% of gays and 40% of lesbians said they had faced discrimination professionally. The study said, “Social exclusion (43%) and ridicule (42%) are the most likely forms of discrimination.”

Individuals experiencing this kind of discrimination mainly do not respond to these issues – 69% of people who had experienced social exclusion said they did nothing in response, and 43% of those who had faced ridicule said the same.

This could be a reason that so many individuals said they were not out to their peers. Only 59% said they were out to peer employees and half (50%) were out to their immediate supervisor.  About the same percentage (48%) were out to management. Even fewer were out to human resources (44%) and their subordinates (43%)

Of those who were not out to their department, 44% of gays, 54% of lesbians, and 11% of bisexuals felt their coworkers assumed they were LGBT.

Additionally, of those who were not out to their department or group at work, the most common reason given (61%) was “my private life is private.” Similarly 50% said they simply did not feel the need to come out.

Twenty-eight percent said they were concerned about negative consequences of coming out.

Social Exclusion

They asked respondents who were not out to describe what the consequences of coming out might be. The most common response (47%) was “probably nothing.” But the next most common response (29%) was “social exclusion.” In fact, gay men were significantly more concerned about social exclusion than lesbians (31% and 23% respectively.

Social exclusion can damage one’s career because of the importance of informal networks in career advancement. Lowell L. Bryan, Eric Matson, and Leigh M. Weiss wrote in the McKinsey Quarterly:

“Most large corporations have dozens if not hundreds of informal networks, which go by the name of peer groups, communities of practice, or functional councils—or have no title at all. These networks organize and reorganize themselves and extend their reach via cell phones, Blackberries, community Web sites, and other accessories of the digital age. As networks widen and deepen, they can mobilize talent and knowledge across the enterprise.”

These networks are the channels through which individuals build trust and rapport with colleagues and get noticed for sponsorship and advancement by senior management. Being excluded from them can harm ones career prospects without being officially discriminated against within the corporate structure.

The exclusion of employees from these informal networks also shows a level of cultural discomfort with LGBT individuals that is deep and difficult to quantify or track. Bryan, Matson, and Weiss point out, “Valuable as they are, these ad hoc communities clearly have shortcomings: they can increase complexity and confusion, and since they typically fly under management’s radar, they elude control.”

It’s difficult for corporate policy on LGBT inclusiveness to seep into informal networks because they are informal and outside corporate policy. This is why LGBT inclusiveness is so important for companies to work to weave into the fabric of their corporate cultures.

The Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility has released its 2011 Corporate Inclusion Index. The CII measures Hispanic inclusion on behalf of companies by measuring the attraction, retention, and promotion of Hispanic employees, procurement practices, community outreach, and governance.

The 16 board directors of the HACR praised the steps corporations have taken over the past few years toward the inclusion of Hispanic individuals. They wrote, “The last three years have seen an increase in participation, better reporting, and overall a clearer, more transparent sense of what corporations are doing in terms of diversity best practices.”

But, they continued, companies have significant work to do. “Hispanics are the largest minority group in the U.S. and we have the largest buying power of any minority group. Yet, Hispanics are the most underrepresented group in Corporate America.”

Corporations that are ignoring a group whose buying power is projected to reach 1$.5 trillion by 2015 are doing their stakeholders a disservice, they suggested. Carlos F. Ota, President and CEO of the HACR pointed out that the Hispanic market is 50 million consumers strong. He added, “market reciprocity dictates that we should be represented across all levels of a corporation, from internships all the way to the corporate boardrooms. But we are not, and that needs to change.”

Hispanic representation on corporate boards by participating companies increased from 6.46% in 2010 to 8.33% in 2011. But the percentage of C-Suite Hispanics decreased from 8% in 2010 to 7% in 2011. Ota noted that participating companies generally improved their ratings, as well as improved the quality of reporting. But, he said, “the results still pointed out the gap between our goals for diversity and inclusion and what is really taking place inside Corporate America.”

CII Survey Findings

According to the survey, 72 percent of CII participants had an internship program to recruit Hispanic employees. On average, 11 percent of new hires by survey participants were Hispanic individuals. Finally, every survey participant reported that their Hispanic employee resource group had an executive champion.

And executive participation is important, the HACR said.

“Having an executive champion is key for every corporation that is serious about taking positive steps to change their own employment practices. Having this type of supporter within executive management allows the company to create effective retention strategies, employee engagement and a positive environment.”

The HACR was critical of the procurement efforts of participating companies. Hispanics in represent 44 percent of small business growth in the US, the study said. Yet only have of the respondents had goals above 2.6 percent of the total procurement dollars to allocate to Hispanic-run businesses.

The survey said, “There is a missed opportunity to leveraging a positive return on investment (ROI) with Hispanic-owned businesses. There should be a concerted effort to engage and do business with Hispanic suppliers thus, diversifying the overall pool of suppliers. The potential ROI is not something that corporations who seek to grow can afford to ignore.”

According to the study 70% of participants had philanthropic outreach initiatives focused on the Hispanic community. Regarding governance, 98% of participants had a full-time executive responsible for diversity. Half of the participants had at least one Hispanic board member. The report said, “Although more and more companies are making a concerted effort to create change, the data shows that bolder initiatives and more action need to happen to have real impact in the boardroom and the C-Suite.”

Top Companies for Hispanics

The two top companies on the Index were AT&T and Citigroup. Both companies scored 95 out of 100 possible points.

AT&T was praised for its commitment to diversity policy – as a result, 12 percent of its total workforce is made up of Hispanic employees. The company was also praised for its supplier diversity program, which, according to the company, has set a goal to spend 21.5 percent of procurement dollars with diverse suppliers.

“We are honored by HACR’s recognition of our holistic approach to diversity and inclusion,” said Debbie Storey, AT&T senior vice president of Talent Development and chief diversity officer. “At AT&T, diversity and inclusion are woven into all our business strategies and are key in achieving our business goals.”

Citi also dedicates significant resources toward Hispanic inclusion, for example by supporting its Hispanic Heritage employee resource group.