Introduction to the Handbook - a review of 23 diversity and inclusion indices

Recently, there has been a call for greater use of national indices – developed by various supranational, non-governmental/non-profit, professional, and media organizations – to facilitate comparative research to advance equality and diversity around the world (Klarsfeld et al., 2016; Ng & Klarsfeld, 2018). These indices encompass various measures, such as economic data and perceptual measures, and rely on various methodologies from national statistics (e.g., UN Human Development Index) to organizational surveys of managers (e.g., SHRM Global Diversity Readiness Index). Collectively, they cover a broad range of dimensions including human development, gender equality, migration and integration, multiculturalism, ethnic diversity, and societal attitudes towards minorities. The indices are developed to rank countries on a number of economic, social, and inequality indicators, and to assist with public policy setting aimed at eliminating inequality and improving the welfare of socially disadvantaged groups (Cherchye, Moesen, & Puyenbroeck, 2004; Heung, 2006). National indices (e.g., UN Gender Development Index) are also related to organizational support for work–life balance (Lyness & Kropf, 2005). However, the large number of indices provides an unwieldy picture of a country’s performance on equality and diversity. These indices also do not provide information on how well the data is collected or how well the surveys are completed. Researchers have criticized that existing indices are susceptible to political influences, cultural biases, and institutional agendas (e.g., Bardhan & Klasen, 1999; Hirway & Mahadevia, 1996; Klugman, Rodríguez, & Choi, 2011; Tayar, 2017) rendering these indices misleading and unhelpful. Existing indices suffer from several disadvantages and shortcomings (Bowen & Moesen, 2007; Mayer, 2008). Most criticisms centre on an index’s oversimplification, self-imposed constraints, choice of indicators (or items), and methodology (Klugman et al., 2011). Some indices are collected for a singular purpose but are adapted for another use. As an example, the UN Gender Development Index is derived from the UN Human Development Index, modified for gender, which is an inadequate indicator for gender inequality1 (Klasen, 2006; Schüler, 2006). Furthermore, cross-national research experience suggests that it has been challenging to consistently compare countries across a set of agreed upon dimensions to be useful (Cherchye et al., 2004). Most indices were developed based on their relevance and availability of data. However, for indices to be useful, they should also be conceptually clear in definition, stimulate action, feasible, and reliable (Plantenga et al., 2009). This compendium of diversity and equity indices seeks to cast light on some of the popular and frequently cited indices in efforts to benchmark and measure progress towards diversity and equity. The goal is to help us better understand the construction of these indices, their strengths and weaknesses, intended applications, and how they might contribute to research and progress towards diversity and equity goals. The compendium includes a detailed review of 23 indices ranging from broader, more general indices such as the UN Human Development