Report

The Inclusive Top 50 UK Employers 2017 Statistics

December 07th, 2017


Introduction:

Research shows that more diverse organisations perform better and they are also better places to work. However, until now it has been difficult to identify which organisations put true inclusivity at the heart of their business.

The following report has been developed from surveys completed for The Inclusive Top 50 UK Employers List; a definitive list focusing on representation at management, senior, executive and board level.

Complied by a dedicated panel of judges the list was collated based on each organisations performance across a range of areas within the diversity arena. Organisations featured provided sufficient evidence on an amalgamation of topics including recruitment procedures, training and a host of diversity related initiatives.

The following report looks as different statistics and trends based on organisations who submitted evidence for BAME, disability, gender and LGBT employees in senior, executive and board level roles. The report will also look at similarities and differences to last year’s submissions as well organisations catering to their workforce through internal diversity networks.


Sectors

The private sector dominated the majority of completed surveys with housing being the least represented on the list. The percentage of surveys completed by each sector is as follows:

Housing: 2.78%

Education: 5.56%

Charity: 22.22%

Public: 25.00%

Private: 44.44%

Company size:

A variation of different sized organisations participated in the Inclusive Top 50 UK Employers Survey with the majority employing over 5000+ people, and the least coming from companies with 51-149 employees.

0 – 50: 8.33%

51 – 149: 2.78%

150 – 250: 8.33%

251 – 500: 13.89%

501 – 1000: 5.56%

1001 – 2000: 11.11%

2001 – 5000: 11.11%

5000+: 38.89%


Internal Diversity Networks

Statistics:

25.00% of participants had age related networks

25.00% of participants had religion related networks

27.78% of participants had faith related networks

58.33% of participants had race related networks

58.33% of participants had disability related networks

63.89% of participants had gender related networks

72.22 % of participants had LGBT related networks

Summary

Of the surveys completed, LGBT focused networks remained the highest percentage with 72.22% of all submissions running an internal LGBT network (up 3.39%), closely followed by gender related networks with 63.89%, increasing from last year’s 51.94%. Race related networks were last year’s second most common diversity related network, but came jointly third with disability in this year’s submissions.

However, the amount of participants occupying race related networks has increased from 54.54% in 2016 to 58.33% in 2017. Age and religion remained the least common with only 25.00%, followed by faith at 27.78% in comparison to last year’s 25.97% for faith/religion based networks.


Diversity at Senior, Executive & Board Level

Last year’s survey collected information on diversity representation at senior, executive and board level collectively. This year’s survey asked participants to provide statistics for each level of employment separately, allowing us to provide a more clear and focused report.

The results are as follows:

BAME (Black, Asian and minority ethnic) representation

Board Level statistics:

13.89% of all submissions didn’t declare BAME representation at board level

27.78% of all submissions had 0% of BAME representation at board level

8.33% of participants had between 1-5% of BAME representation at board level

19.44% of participants had between 6-10% of BAME representation at board level

0% of participants had between 11-15% of BAME representation at board level

13.89% of participants had between 16-20% of BAME representation at board level

5.56% of participants had between 21-30% of BAME representation at board level

2.78% of participants had between 31-40% of BAME representation at board level

2.78% of participants had between 41-49% of BAME representation at board level

5.56% of participants had 50%+ of BAME representation at board level

Senior/Executive Level statistics:

11.43% of all submissions didn’t declare BAME representation at senior/exec level

11.43% of all submissions had 0% of BAME representation at senior/exec level

22.86% of participants had between 1-5% of BAME representation at senior/exec level

14.29% of participants had between 6-10% of BAME representation at senior/exec level

8.57% of participants had between 11-15% of BAME representation at senior/exec level

8.57% of participants had between 16-20% of BAME representation at senior/exec level

11.43% of participants had between 21-30% of BAME representation at senior/exec level

5.71% of participants had between 31-40% of BAME representation at senior/exec level

2.86% of participants had between 41-49% of BAME representation at senior/exec level

2.86% of participants had 50%+ of BAME representation at senior/exec level

Overall workforce statistics:

5.71% of all submissions didn’t declare BAME representation for their overall workforce

0% of all submissions had 0% of BAME representation for their overall workforce

14.29% of participants had between 1-5% of BAME representation for their overall workforce

17.14% of participants had between 6-10% of BAME representation for their overall workforce

22.86% of participants had between 11-15% of BAME representation for their overall workforce

8.57% of participants had between 16-20% of BAME representation for their overall workforce

17.14% of participants had between 21-30% of BAME representation for their overall workforce

5.71% of participants had between 31-40% of BAME representation for their overall workforce

5.71% of participants had between 41-49% of BAME representation for their overall workforce

2.86% of participants had 50%+ of BAME representation for their overall workforce


Gender representation

Board level statistics:

8.33% of all submissions didn’t declare female representation at board level

5.56% of all submissions had 0% of female representation at board level

2.78% of participants had between 1-5% of female representation at board level

0% of participants had between 6-10% of female representation at board level

0% of participants had between 11-15% of female representation at board level

5.56% of participants had between 16-20% of female representation at board level

16.67% of participants had between 21-30% of female representation at board level

22.22% of participants had between 31-40% of female representation at board level

5.56% of participants had between 41-49% of female representation at board level

33.33% of participants had 50%+ of female representation at board level

Senior/Executive Level statistics:

0% of all submissions didn’t declare female representation at senior/exec level

0% of all submissions had 0% of female representation at senior/exec level

0% of participants had between 1-5% of female representation at senior/exec level

3.03% of participants had between 6-10% of female representation at senior/exec level

6.06% of participants had between 11-15% of female representation at senior/exec level

3.03% of participants had between 16-20% of female representation at senior/exec level

24.24% of participants had between 21-30% of female representation at senior/exec level

12.12% of participants had between 31-40% of female representation at senior/exec level

9.09% of participants had between 41-49% of female representation at senior/exec level

42.42% of participants had 50%+ of female representation at senior/exec level

Overall workforce statistics:

0% of all submissions didn’t declare female representation for their overall workforce

0% of all submissions had 0% of female representation for their overall workforce

0% of participants had between 1-5% of female representation for their overall workforce

0% of participants had between 6-10% of female representation for their overall workforce

0% of participants had between 11-15% of female representation for their overall workforce

5.71% of participants had between 16-20% of female representation for their overall workforce

5.71% of participants had between 21-30% of female representation for their overall workforce

5.71% of participants had between 31-40% of female representation for their overall workforce

31.43% of participants had between 41-49% of female representation for their overall workforce

51.43% of participants had 50%+ of female representation for their overall workforce


Disability Representation

Board level statistics:

22.22% of all submissions didn’t declare disability representation at board level

50.00% of all submissions had 0% of disability representation at board level

11.11% of participants had between 1-5% of disability representation at board level

2.78% of participants had between 6-10% of disability representation at board level

5.56% of participants had between 11-15% of disability representation at board level

2.78% of participants had between 16-20% of disability representation at board level

2.78% of participants had between 21-30% of disability representation at board level

0% of participants had between 31-40% of disability representation at board level

0% of participants had between 41-49% of disability representation at board level

2.78% of participants had 50%+ of disability representation at board level

Senior/Executive Level statistics:

16.67% of all submissions didn’t declare disability representation at senior/exec level

27.78% of all submissions had 0% of disability representation at senior/exec level

36.11% of participants had between 1-5% of disability representation at senior/exec level

5.56% of participants had between 6-10% of disability representation at senior/exec level

5.56% of participants had between 11-15% of disability representation at senior/exec level

5.56% of participants had between 16-20% of disability representation at senior/exec level

0% of participants had between 21-30% of disability representation at senior/exec level

2.78% of participants had between 31-40% of disability representation at senior/exec level

0% of participants had between 41-49% of disability representation at senior/exec level

0% of participants had 50%+ of disability representation at senior/exec level

Overall workforce statistics:

14.71% of all submissions didn’t declare disability representation for their overall workforce

8.82% of all submissions had 0% of disability representation for their overall workforce

50% of participants had between 1-5% of disability representation for their overall workforce

14.71% of participants had between 6-10% of disability representation for their overall workforce

5.88% of participants had between 11-15% of disability representation for their overall workforce

5.88% of participants had between 16-20% of disability representation for their overall workforce

0% of participants had between 21-30% of disability representation for their overall workforce

0% of participants had between 31-40% of disability representation for their overall workforce

0% of participants had between 41-49% of disability representation for their overall workforce

0% of participants had 50%+ of disability representation for their overall workforce


LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Representation

Board level statistics:

27.78% of all submissions didn’t declare LGBT representation at board level

50.00% of all submissions had 0% of LGBT representation at board level

8.33% of participants had between 1-5% of LGBT representation at board level

8.33% of participants had between 6-10% of LGBT representation at board level

0% of participants had between 11-15% of LGBT representation at board level

2.78% of participants had between 16-20% of LGBT representation at board level

0% of participants had between 21-30% of LGBT representation at board level

0% of participants had between 31-40% of LGBT representation at board level

0% of participants had between 41-49% of LGBT representation at board level

2.78% of participants had 50%+ of LGBT representation at board level

Senior/Executive Level statistics:

25.00 % of all submissions didn’t declare LGBT representation at senior/exec level

25.00% of all submissions had 0% of LGBT representation at senior/exec level

38.89% of participants had between 1-5% of LGBT representation at senior/exec level

2.78% of participants had between 6-10% of LGBT representation at senior/exec level

0% of participants had between 11-15% of LGBT representation at senior/exec level

2.78 % of participants had between 16-20% of LGBT representation at senior/exec level

2.78% of participants had between 21-30% of LGBT representation at senior/exec level

20% of participants had between 31-40% of LGBT representation at senior/exec level

0% of participants had between 41-49% of LGBT representation at senior/exec level

2.78% of participants had 50%+ of LGBT representation at senior/exec level

Overall workforce statistics:

23.53% of all submissions didn’t declare LGBT representation for their overall workforce

0% of all submissions had 0% of LGBT representation for their overall workforce

58.82% of participants had between 1-5% of LGBT representation for their overall workforce

5.88% of participants had between 6-10% of LGBT representation for their overall workforce

5.88% of participants had between 11-15% of LGBT representation for their overall workforce

0% of participants had between 16-20% of LGBT representation for their overall workforce

2.94% of participants had between 21-30% of LGBT representation for their overall workforce

0% of participants had between 31-40% of LGBT representation for their overall workforce

0% of participants had between 41-49% of LGBT representation for their overall workforce

2.94% of participants had 50%+ of LGBT representation for their overall workforce


Summary

The least reported data on average at board level was LGBT, with 27.78% of employees not holding this information, followed by disability with 22.22%. The highest reported was gender with 91.77% of participants providing stats. The same trend appears for statistics at senior/executive level, with LGBT being the least reported (25.0%) followed by disability (16.67%) and BAME (11.43%). 23.53% of companies provided no data at all for LGBT representation of their overall workforce, being the least reported protected characteristic followed by disability (14.71%). Therefore LGBT representation was the least reported data on all three survey requirements for board level, senior/executive and overall workforce employment.

Of participants that provided statistics, disability and LGBT were the least represented at board level, with 50% of all participants having 0%. 27.78% of companies had no BAME representation on the board followed by 5.56% having no female representation.

11.43% of participants had 0% of BAME representation at senior/exec level, with 11.43% not providing data at all, and 22.86% having between 1-5% of BAME employees in senior roles. 27.78% of survey responses revealed they had 0% of disability representation at senior/exec level with 16.67% of all survey responses not providing data at all, and 36.11% having between 1-5% of disabled employees in senior roles. 42.42% of companies had 50%+ of female employees in senior/exec positions with 13.01% having fewer than 20% of female employees in senior/exec roles. 25% of companies provided no data at all on LGBT representations at senior/exec level and 25% had 0% of LGBT employees in senior/exec roles, with 38.89% of participants employing between 1-5% of LGBT employees in senior/exec roles. Of those that provided statistics, disability was the least represented protected characteristics at senior and executive level; however, LGBT was the least reported.

31.33% of survey submissions revealed they had fewer than 10% of BAME employees in their overall workforce, with 14.29% employing between 1-5%. 14.71% of participants had no data at all on disability representation in their overall workforce with 8.82% of companies employing no disabled people. 48.57% had under 50% female representation in their overall workforce and 58.82% had between 1-5% of LGBT representation across their overall workforce. Of those that provided statistics, disability was the least represented protected characteristic across an overall workforce; however, LGBT was the least reported (23.53%)

From the results we can see that LGBT and Disability statistics are still largely undeclared, so the results are not necessarily a true reflection of an organisations workforce diversity. However, LGBT Networks are the most common internal diversity networks, suggesting that their statistics at senior, executive and board level are in fact higher than those reported.