Hoque and Noon Article

Work, Employment &
Society http://wes.sagepub.com/
Equal Opportunities Policy and Practice in Britain: : Evaluating the 'Empty

Shell' Hypothesis
Kim Hoque and Mike Noon
Work Employment Society 2004 18: 481
DOI: 10.1177/0950017004045547
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://wes.sagepub.com/content/18/3/481
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
British Sociological Association
Additional services and information for Work, Employment & Society can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://wes.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://wes.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://wes.sagepub.com/content/18/3/481.refs.html
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

045547 Hoque & Noon 18/8/04 9:07 am Page 481
Work, employment and society

Copyright © 2004
BSA Publications Ltd®
Volume 18(3): 481–506
[DOI: 10.1177/0950017004045547]
SAGE Publications
London,Thousand Oaks,
New Delhi
Equal opportunities policy and practice in

Britain: evaluating the ‘empty shell’ hypothesis
■ Kim Hoque
Nottingham University Business School, UK
■ Mike Noon
De Montfort University, UK
A B S T R AC T
This article evaluates the nature and incidence of equal opportunities (EO) poli-
cies in the UK using data from the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey
(WERS 98). The article identifies the types of workplaces that are more likely to
adopt formal gender, ethnicity, disability and age policies. It then assesses whether
the policies are ‘substantive’ or merely ‘empty shells’: first, by evaluating the extent
to which workplaces that have adopted EO policies have also adopted support-
ing EO practices; and second, by evaluating the proportion of employees who have
access to EO practices in workplaces where they have been adopted. On balance,
the ‘empty shell’ argument is more convincing. Smaller workplaces, private sector
workplaces and workplaces without an HR or personnel specialist are identified
as being more likely to have an ‘empty shell’ policy.While unionized workplaces are
more likely to have a formal policy, those policies are no less likely to constitute
‘empty shells’. Finally, the policy, economic and legal implications of the findings are
discussed.
K E Y WO R D S
age / disability / equal opportunities / ethnicity / gender
Introduction
A
charge sometimes levelled at formal equal opportunities policies is that
they are not worth the paper they are written on. Such cynicism has, on
occasion, been substantiated by high profile cases, such as those at Ford
481
482 Work, employment and society Volume 18 ■ Number 3 ■ September 2004
(UK), Coca Cola and Microsoft, where company practice fell far short of
espoused values of equal opportunity enshrined in company policies. This cyn-
icism is further compounded by statistical data demonstrating that an increas-
ing proportion of organizations claim to have implemented formal equal
opportunity (EO) policies. This, in turn, has led to the suspicion that such poli-
cies are exercises in image management and that, in practice, inequality persists
within the organization. Moreover, critics argue that EO policies can be a
façade behind which unfair practices, prejudice and inequality thrive (see for
example Hoque and Noon, 1999; Liff and Dale, 1994; Young, 1987). The
argument, in short, is that many EO policies are ‘empty shells’: they contain
nothing of substance or value to the victims of discrimination.
The converse argument is that the growth of formal policies and various
equality initiatives signifies that equality of opportunity has become a main-
stream issue for private sector businesses in recent years, and not simply the
concern of public sector organizations (Jewson and Mason, 1994). Not only are
senior managers in organizations in the UK more willing to adopt EO policies,
but they are also willing to demonstrate their organization’s commitment to
equality by signing up to initiatives such as ‘Opportunity Now’ (formerly
‘Opportunity 2000’), ‘Race for Opportunity’, and ‘Positive about Disabled
People’ (Dickens, 2000). From this perspective, the growth of EO policies sym-
bolizes progress, because it suggests that equality issues are being taken more
seriously. The policies are indeed shells, but they are not empty – within them,
equality initiatives and practices are being developed.
The aim of this article is to assess which of these interpretations stands up
to scrutiny by providing an evaluation of the nature and incidence of formal
written EO policies in Britain. The data used are drawn from the 1998
Workplace Employee Relations Survey (Department of Trade and Industry,
1999). The article is structured as follows. The next section briefly reviews
recent research that has focused on EO policies, and then defines the objectives
of the article. The ensuing sections outline the data, the method of analysis
and the results achieved. A discussion of the implications of the results in the
light of the ‘empty shell’ and ‘substance’ interpretations is presented in the final
section.
Equal opportunities policy and practice in Britain
As noted above, there has been a growth in the number of organizations imple-
menting formal written EO practices. For instance, in 1991 52 percent of com-
panies had a statement of equal opportunities in their annual reports, yet by
1996 this figure had increased to 83 percent (Industrial Relations Review and
Report, 1991; Industrial Relations Services, 1996). Similarly, 64 percent of
workplaces within the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey claimed to
have a formal written policy on equal opportunities or managing diversity
(Cully et al., 1999).

Equal opportunities policy and practice Hoque & Noon 483
Adopting a policy does not, of course, ensure the enactment of that policy
in the form of action plans or enhanced opportunities for minority groups. For
example, Industrial Relations Services (2001) found that while nearly three-
quarters of the 208 companies surveyed had a disability policy, only 40 percent
monitored job applications by disability, only 25 percent had arrangements in
place to consult disabled employees and only 53 percent would allow time off
for rehabilitation and treatment. Similarly, a survey of employers in Scotland
(Commission for Racial Equality, 2000) concluded that while over 90 percent
of private sector employers had a written equal opportunities policy covering
race, sex and disability, fewer than half were able to demonstrate that they had
taken practical steps to put these policies into practice.
Case study analysis has also demonstrated the problems involved in trans-
lating EO policies into practice (see, for example, Collinson et al., 1990; Coyle,
1989; McGauran, 2001; Solomos, 1989). Such analysis shows three particu-
larly common obstacles: members of the organization pay only lip service to the
policy; few clear procedures are developed from the policy; and managers are
able to subvert the procedures that are developed (Liff and Dale, 1994).
Furthermore, as Dickens (2000: 157) points out, the adoption of an EO policy
often becomes an end in itself rather than a first step towards equality:
‘Adopting a policy, therefore, does not necessarily indicate an intention to
change the status quo. It can be seen, rather, as a declaration or symbolic rati-
fication of current practice.’
Whether an EO policy is likely to have substance depends largely on the
reasons for its introduction. Jewson et al. (1990, 1992, 1995) argue that orga-
nizations adopt formal EO policies for four reasons, none of which are mutu-
ally exclusive. First, they can constitute a type of ‘insurance policy’ against
future potential problems, frequently taking the form of a statement of legal
minimum requirements to guide management behaviour. Second, they can be
adopted in order to demonstrate that the organization is a responsible employer
because it pursues the spirit of equality as well as the letter of the law. Third,
they can be a direct response to a particular problem within the organization,
identified either internally or as a result of external pressure – from community
groups, the Commission for Racial Equality or the media, for example. Fourth,
they can be adopted for the purpose of commercial advantage – to tap into a
wider talent pool or to expand the customer/client base, for example.
As such, the motives behind the adoption of EO policies can be broadly
categorized as ‘good for business’ or ‘bad for business’ (Dickens, 1999, 2000).
The former category suggests firms adopt policies because of perceived bene-
fits, such as their competitive position in the labour market, better employee
relations and a positive company image. The latter category suggests firms
defensively accept policies to avoid penalties such as tribunal costs, adverse
publicity or investigations by the Equal Opportunities Commission or the
Commission for Racial Equality. The leitmotif of the discussions by Jewson et
al. and Dickens is that where the aim is to enhance either the external or inter-
nal image of the organization, there is a greater likelihood that the EO policy

will constitute little more than an ‘empty shell’. On the other hand, where the
aim is to address a particular concern, for example, a skills shortage or the pro-
file of customer-facing staff, the policy is more likely to be backed up with sub-
stance.
An additional concern, however, is that even in instances where EO poli-
cies are more than just paper exercises, they are often designed to have only a
selective effect. For instance, the ‘Opportunity Now’ initiative has been criti-
cized for failing to have any positive impact on women in non-managerial posi-
tions (Richards, 2001). Dickens (2000: 153) provides the example of how
enhanced maternity provision and career breaks targeted at women who are
‘high-flyers’ help the organization retain valuable, scarce skills, but do not help
those women whose skills can be more easily replaced. As such, the initiatives
become targeted on a sub-set of women in a manner that reflects the needs of
employers rather than the needs of the social group in general. A further cause
for concern relates to the scope for line managers to exercise discretion in terms
of the operationalization of EO practices. This could be particularly problem-
atic for family-friendly arrangements; for example some line managers may be
more willing than others to make the necessary arrangements for employees to
job share or take parental leave. An employee’s access to these practices might
therefore come to depend on the attitudes of their individual line manager
(Bond et al., 2002; Industrial Relations Services, 2000a).
To summarize, the research evidence in Britain suggests that EO policies are
being adopted but this reveals little about their content – some may well be
robust, effective policies of ‘substance’, others may be ‘empty shells’. In addition,
even where policies have the practices to back them up, it is possible that not all
employees from minority or disadvantaged groups will have access to them. This
article adds to the debate by evaluating the nature and content of EO policies
using data from WERS 98. The analysis has three specific objectives:
1 To assess the incidence of formal, written EO policies in Britain.

2 To evaluate whether such EO policies are ‘empty shells’ or whether they
have substance by examining (a) the EO practices that support the policies
and (b) the extent of employee access to those practices.
3 To identify the types of workplaces within which ‘empty shell’ EO policies
prevail.
The data
The data to be used – drawn from WERS 98 – have two distinct benefits. First,
the WERS 98 data are representative of workplaces in Britain with 10 or more
employees, so they provide an ideal opportunity to conduct reliable tests relat-
ing to the overall incidence and substance of EO policies. Second, given that the
WERS 98 data include a survey of employees as well as a survey of managers,

it is possible to evaluate employee reports of access to EO practices within their

workplaces. The full WERS 98 survey of managers comprises 2191 workplaces,
constituting a response rate of 80 percent. The data are designed to be nation-
ally representative of workplaces with 10 or more employees within Standard
Industrial Classification major groups D to O (agriculture, hunting, forestry
and fishing and mining and quarrying are excluded), when probability weighted
to take into account the over-sampling of larger workplaces. In total, 2098
observations are used, once observations with missing data are omitted.
The WERS 98 survey of employees comprises 28,240 observations, consti-
tuting a response rate of 64 percent. Once weighted, these data are designed to
be representative by industry, with survey questionnaires having been sent to a
random selection of 25 workers employed in 1880 of the workplaces within the
main WERS 98 management survey (or to all employees if the workplace had
25 employees or less). The employee data have the additional advantage that
they can be linked with data from the main management survey, thus it is pos-
sible to evaluate employee access to EO practices in workplaces where the man-
agement respondent states the practice has been introduced. In total, 26,530
observations from the WERS 98 survey of employees are used here, once obser-
vations with missing data are omitted.
Method of analysis
The aim of the analysis is to assess the nature and incidence of EO policies within
British workplaces, using the following four statistical tests. The first test is
designed to evaluate the types of workplaces that have adopted EO policies with
regard to gender, ethnicity, disability and age. Fifty-eight percent of the work-
places within the sample have a formal written policy on equal opportunities or
managing diversity that specifically addresses equality of treatment or discrimi-
nation on the grounds of gender (hereon referred to as a ‘gender policy’), 58 per-
cent have such a policy regarding ethnicity (an ‘ethnicity policy’), 56 percent
regarding disability (a ‘disability policy’), and 41 percent regarding age (an ‘age
policy’). These frequencies are of interest in their own right. Given that there is
currently no UK law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, the lower
proportion of organizations with age policies is perhaps to be expected. Indeed,
it may be viewed as surprising that as many as 40 percent have such policies.
Maybe more surprising is that less than 60 percent of organizations have gender,
ethnicity and disability policies, given the legal obligation to ensure equality in
relation to these issues. It is worth highlighting, however, that the proportion of
employees in workplaces with EO policies is higher than the proportion of work-
places that have such policies. Seventy-four percent of employees are in
workplaces with a gender policy, 74 percent are in workplaces with an ethnicity
policy and 71 percent are in workplaces with a disability policy. This suggests
that such policies are more likely to be found in larger workplaces, a finding
supported by later multivariate analysis (see Table 1).

The analysis concerning the types of workplaces that are more likely to
have adopted a gender, ethnicity, disability and age policy is conducted by cre-
ating dichotomous dependent variables for each of the four policy types. By
regressing these dependent variables onto a range of independent variables
relating to workplace characteristics, it will be possible to identify the types of
workplaces that are more/less likely to have adopted them.1 Table 1 contains a
full listing of the independent variables used.
The second test is designed to investigate the extent to which there is sub-
stance behind formal written EO policies. This involves evaluating the propor-
tion of workplaces with such policies that also have the expected EO practices
in place. Table 2 contains a full listing of the practices relating to gender, eth-
nicity, age and disability asked about within WERS 98 that are used to evalu-
ate this issue. This analysis of the gaps between espoused policy and actual
practice is a key test of the ‘empty shell’ hypothesis. If a considerable propor-
tion of workplaces have adopted formal written EO policies, yet have not intro-
duced the types of practices that would be expected of an equal opportunities
employer, the implication will be that, within these workplaces, EO policies rep-
resent little more than an ‘empty shell’.
The third test – based on the WERS 98 survey of employees – is designed
to evaluate employee reports of access to EO practices. The focus here is on the
proportion of employees in workplaces with EO practices that have access to
those practices. The WERS 98 survey of employees allows for an evaluation of
employee access to job sharing, parental leave and workplace nurseries/help
with the cost of childcare. This stage of the analysis provides a test of whether
the practices are targeted at specific employees or whether they are made more
widely available – although specific EO practices have been adopted, a signifi-
cant proportion of employees may not have access to them.
The fourth test evaluates the types of workplaces that have EO policies fit-
ting the ‘empty shell’ definition. This evaluation is conducted by creating four
dichotomous dependent variables (one each for workplaces that have an EO
policy with regard to gender, ethnicity, age and disability, but have introduced
none of the expected practices), and regressing these dependent variables onto
a range of independent workplace characteristic variables.2
Results
The incidence of formal written equal opportunities policies

Table 1 examines the relationships between workplace characteristics and the
probability of having an EO policy. As the analysis in this section is based on
non-linear maximum likelihood analysis within which the interpretation of the
coefficients is difficult, the results are reported in the form of predicted proba-
bilities and marginal effects. These are calculated from the coefficients reported
in Appendix table A. The probability that a ‘benchmark’ workplace has

Table 1 Presence of gender, ethnicity, age and disability policies by workplace characteristics: marginal effect
(percentage change) given followed by predicted probability
Dependent variable: Gender policy Ethnicity policy Age policy Disability policy
Benchmark workplace:1 – 0.652 – 0.666 – 0.368 – 0.578

Change to benchmark
workplace characteristics:
10–24 employees –34 0.428** –34 0.440** –21 0.290 –24 0.440
25–49 employees –32 0.441** –32 0.450** –24 0.278 –26 0.427*
50–99 employees –25 0.489** –25 0.502* –19 0.299 –27 0.423*
100–199 employees –5 0.619 –9 0.607 –9 0.336 –11 0.515
500–999 employees +10 0.718 +6 0.709 +20 0.442 0 0.576
1000+ employees +34 0.873* +36 0.907* –18 0.302 +28 0.742
SIC major group E +45 0.946** +45 0.964** +30 0.480 +40 0.810
SIC major group F +33 0.870* +29 0.856* +21 0.445 +38 0.799*
SIC major group G +22 0.795 +24 0.826* +67 0.616** +39 0.806**
SIC major group H +38 0.897** +40 0.930** +73 0.637** +57 0.910**
SIC major group I +37 0.892* +38 0.917** +70 0.624* +54 0.888**
SIC major group J +26 0.822 +25 0.832 +30 0.477 +36 0.787
SIC major group K +39 0.904** +38 0.916** +71 0.631** +55 0.897**
SIC major group L +51 0.982** +48 0.988** +116 0.796** +68 0.970**
SIC major group M +49 0.969** +45 0.967** +86 0.686** +62 0.939**
SIC major group N +48 0.966** +47 0.979** +128 0.839** +66 0.960**
SIC major group O +22 0.793 +25 0.834 +20 0.441 +37 0.792*
North American +15 0.747 +20 0.799 –2 0.360 +30 0.754
European Union +6 0.693 +3 0.684 –21 0.292 –4 0.555
Rest-of-World –3 0.631 –12 0.587 +27 0.467 0 0.579
5–9 years old +13 0.739 +10 0.732 +10 0.406 +9 0.628
10–19 years old +6 0.691 +6 0.704 +8 0.396 +9 0.628
20+ years old –5 0.621 –10 0.602 –2 0.359 –12 0.508
Non-trading sector 0 0.653 –4 0.637 +2 0.376 +3 0.597
Local market +9 0.710 +6 0.703 +16 0.426 +11 0.641
National market +1 0.660 –6 0.628 +5 0.387 –11 0.513
International market –7 0.606 –14 0.572 +13 0.416 –11 0.515
HR specialist +34 0.873** +31 0.873** +34 0.493 +43 0.826**
Personnel specialist +20 0.781* +27 0.845** +8 0.398 +33 0.767**
Public sector +16 0.756 +10 0.732 +16 0.426 +3 0.594
Non-union –30 0.456** –28 0.477** –39 0.226** –41 0.342**
Single independent workplace –70 0.196** –72 0.186** –68 0.119** –76 0.137**
ù75% workforce female +35 0.877
ù10% workforce ethnic +41 0.940*
ù25% workforce over 51 –10 0.333**
Any disabled employees +52 0.876
Notes:
Predicted probabilities and significance levels calculated from coefficient estimates in Appendix Table A.
** significant at 1 percent * significant at 5 percent.
SIC categories: E = electricity, gas and water supply; F = construction; G = wholesale and retail trade; H = hotels and
restaurants; I = transport, storage and communication; J = financial intermediation; K = real estate, renting; L = public adminis-
tration, defence, social security; M = education; N = health and social work; O = other community, social, personal
1 Benchmark workplace characteristics: 200–499 employees; manufacturing; UK owned; 0–4 years old; regional market; private
sector; union recognition; part of larger organization; no HR/personnel specialist. Benchmark workforce characteristics column
1: <75% workforce female; column 2: <10% workforce ethnic; column 3: <25% workforce over 51; column 4: no disabled
employees.

adopted an EO policy is calculated first. In order to evaluate the impact of dif-

ferent workplace characteristics on the likelihood of having an EO policy, the
probabilities are then recalculated, with each of the workplace characteristics
being changed, one at a time. By way of example, the probability of the bench-
mark workplace in the first column of table 1 having a gender policy is 0.652.
When the predicted probability is recalculated based on workplaces with 10–24
employees as opposed to workplaces with 200–499 employees, but with all
other workplaces characteristics remaining the same, the predicted probability
falls to 0.428 (a decrease of 34%).
The results achieved within the analysis are as follows. Turning firstly to
industry sector, EO policies are least likely to have been adopted within manu-
facturing (the reference category – SIC major group D), followed by the finan-
cial intermediation sector (SIC major group J) and the ‘other community, social
and personal’ sector (SIC major group O), and they are most likely to have been
adopted within the public administration sector (SIC major group L). Indeed,
within this sector, the probability of having a gender policy increases by 51 per-
cent, an ethnicity policy by 48 percent, an age policy by more than double and
a disability policy by 68 percent. Second, EO policies are more likely to have
been adopted in workplaces with a recognized union. Where non-union work-
places are concerned, the probability of having a gender policy falls by 30 per-
cent, an ethnicity policy by 28 percent, an age policy by 39 percent and a
disability policy by 41 percent. Third, EO policies are less likely to have been
adopted within single independent workplaces than in workplaces that are part
of a larger organization. Indeed, where single independent workplaces are con-
cerned, the probability of having a gender policy falls by 70 percent, an ethnic-
ity policy by 72 percent, an age policy by 68 percent and a disability policy by
76 percent. Fourth, EO policies are more likely to have been adopted in work-
places with either an HR or a personnel specialist, with the probability of hav-
ing a gender policy increasing by 34 and 20 percent respectively, an ethnicity
policy by 31 and 27 percent respectively, and a disability policy by 43 and 33
percent respectively.
It might be expected that workplaces with a high proportion of female
employees would be more likely to have a gender policy, either because there is
pressure to have a policy (due to the gender profile of the workforce) or because
the existence of a policy has influenced the gender profile. However, the data do
not show such an association. The same counter-intuitive finding also holds
where disability policies are concerned. It might also be expected that work-
places with a high proportion of older workers would have an age policy.
However, the opposite is true – the third column of Table 1 shows that work-
places having 25 percent or more of the workforce over 50 years old are less
likely to have an age policy than workplaces with fewer than 25 percent of the
workforce aged over 50. Of course this might be because there is no perceived
need to have a policy given the age profile of the workforce and the absence of
any legal requirements. It is only where ethnicity is concerned that the charac-
teristics of the workforce predict the incidence of a policy in the manner

expected: workplaces within which 10 percent or more of the workforce is from

an ethnic minority are more likely to have an ethnicity policy than are work-
places within which fewer than 10 percent of the workforce is from an ethnic
minority.
There is no evidence to suggest that the incidence of EO policies is related
to national ownership, workplace age, the market within which the workplace
is operating, or surprisingly, whether the workplace is in the public or private
sector.
EO practices in workplaces with EO policies

Table 2 evaluates the first dimension of the ‘empty shell’ hypothesis – the gap
between espoused policy and actual practice – by showing the proportion of
workplaces with gender, ethnicity, age and disability policies that have also
adopted the expected corresponding EO practices (listed down the left-hand
side of the table).
First, while the adoption of gender-related EO practices is higher among
workplaces with a gender policy than among the sample as a whole, it is by no
means comprehensive. In particular, column 2 of Table 2 demonstrates that 37
percent of workplaces with a gender policy collect statistics on posts held by
men and women. In terms of offering family-friendly practices to non-manage-
ment staff, 46 percent offer parental leave, 60 percent offer the option to switch
from full-time to part-time employment, 43 percent offer job sharing, 5 percent
have a workplace nursery and 6 percent offer assistance with childcare costs.
Paternity leave is offered in 50 percent of workplaces, and 15 percent have spe-
cial recruitment procedures to encourage female returnees. These figures are
higher than the figures for the whole sample (column 1, Table 2), suggesting a
positive relationship between the existence of a gender policy and the adoption
of the expected EO and family-friendly practices. However, it is of particular
note that 16 percent of workplaces with a gender policy have adopted none of
the eight gender-related EO practices asked about. By implication, in these
workplaces – within which practice does not reflect espoused policy whatsoever
– the gender policy in place represents nothing more than an ‘empty shell’. It is
also of note that only one percent of workplaces with a gender policy have
adopted all eight of the practices asked about.
Where workplaces with an ethnicity policy are concerned, column 3 of
Table 2 demonstrates that 42 percent of workplaces with such a policy keep
records with ethnic origin specified, and 17 percent have special recruitment
procedures to encourage applications from ethnic minorities. While these fig-
ures are higher than the figures for the whole sample, it is nevertheless the case
that 50 percent of workplaces with an ethnicity policy have adopted neither of
these practices, while only 10 percent of workplaces with an ethnicity policy
have adopted both. Where workplaces with an age policy are concerned, as
demonstrated by column 4 of Table 2, only 8 percent of workplaces with such
a policy have special recruitment procedures in place to encourage applications

Table 2 Percentage of all workplaces and workplaces with formal written policies adopting EO
practices
Workplaces Workplaces Workplaces Workplaces

All with gender with ethnicity with age with disability
workplaces policy policy policy policy
Equal opportunities
practices:
Statistics collected 25 37
on posts held by
men and women
Records kept with ethnic 30 42
origin specified
Adjustments made to 26 37
accommodate
disabled
Family-friendly
practices:
Parental leave* 35 46
Switching from 46 60
full-time to part-time*
Job sharing* 29 43
Nursery* 3 5
Financial help 4 6
with child care*
Paternity leave 34 50
Recruitment practices
– special procedures
to encourage:
Female returnees 12 15
Ethnic minorities 11 17
Older workers 6 8
Disabled 13 21
None of the above 16 50 92 56
practices adopted
All of the above
practices adopted 1 10 14
Notes:
Percentages given are probability weighted by the inverse of each workplace’s probability of selection into the
sample in order to account for the oversampling of larger workplaces within WERS 98.
Base: all workplaces. Observations dropped as a result of missing data within the equations reported in Table 1
are also dropped here.
*WERS 98 asked about the access of non-managerial employees to these benefits. It may be the case therefore
that these figures understate the true proportion of workplaces that offer these benefits as there may be
instances in which they are offered to managerial staff but not non-managerial staff.

from older workers. Finally, as demonstrated by column 5 of Table 2, 37 per-

cent of workplaces with a disability policy have made adjustments to the work-
place, and 21 percent have special recruitment procedures to encourage
applications from people with disabilities. While these figures are higher than
for the whole sample, it is nevertheless the case that 56 percent of workplaces
with a disability policy have adopted neither of these two practices, while only
14 percent of workplaces with a disability policy have adopted both.
Employee access to EO practices

The previous section suggests that a significant proportion of workplaces with
EO policies have not introduced the types of practices that might be expected
from a good equal opportunities employer. However, the ‘empty shell’ hypoth-
esis might extend beyond these workplaces to include instances where the
expected practices have been introduced, but only a few employees have access
to them. This is investigated by focusing on the practices where there is: first,
information within the WERS 98 main management survey as to whether the
practice is in place; and second, information within the survey of employees as
to whether employees have access to it. This allows for an evaluation of
employee access to job sharing, parental leave and to a workplace nursery or
help with childcare costs.
As demonstrated by the first section of Table 3, in workplaces that have a
gender policy and also have the EO practice in question, 29 percent of employ-
ees have access to job sharing, 36 percent have access to parental leave and 22
percent have access to a workplace nursery or help with childcare costs. These
figures are higher for professional/associate professional employees, higher still
for managers/senior administrators, but lower for non-management employees.
Access to these practices would therefore seem to be dependent upon one’s posi-
tion within the occupational hierarchy. For example, in workplaces that offer a
nursery or help with childcare costs, 34 percent of managers/senior administra-
tors have access to these benefits, in comparison with only 17 percent of non-
management employees. The figures in the first section of Table 3 could also be
interpreted as indicative of the limited access of all employees to the practices
on offer; even where managers and senior administrators are concerned, only
39 percent have access to job sharing, 53 percent have access to parental leave
and 34 percent have access to a workplace nursery or help with the cost of
childcare.
One objection, however, might be that this is a biased test because childless
respondents or respondents whose children are no longer dependent on them
might state that they do not have access to these benefits as they have no need
for them. A fairer test would be to focus on employees for whom access to such
practices could actually be of benefit. This is investigated in the second section
of Table 3, which (making the assumption that it is women who shoulder the
main responsibility for childcare) focuses on women under 40 years old with at
least one dependent child. As before, the sample is restricted to workplaces with

Table 3 Percentage of employees with access to EO practices
Managers/senior Professionals/
All employees Administrators associate profs. Non-management
Workplaces with gender policy, and where the management respondent states the
practice asked about is in operation
Job sharing 29 39 34 25
Parental leave 36 53 39 34
Workplace nursery or 22 34 24 17
help with cost of
childcare
Women less than 40 years old with at least one dependent child, in workplaces with
gender policy, and where the management respondent states the practice asked about
is in operation
help with cost of
childcare
Full sample
help with cost of
childcare
Women less than 40 years old with at least one dependent child
help with cost of
childcare
Notes:
Percentages given are probability weighted by the inverse of each workplace’s probability of selection into the
sample in order to account for the oversampling of larger workplaces within WERS 98.
Employees in workplaces dropped as a result of missing data in the analysis conducted in Tables 1 and 2 are
dropped from the analysis conducted here.
a gender policy where the management respondent states the practice asked
about is in operation. Even among this sub-sample, however, access to the prac-
tices on offer is limited. For example, 38 percent have access to job sharing, 41

percent have access to parental leave and 33 percent have access to a workplace
nursery or help with the cost of childcare. Thus, there is considerable evidence
to suggest that even those employees that would benefit the most – women
under the age of 40 with at least one dependent child – have limited access to
the practices on offer. Again, there is variation by occupational hierarchy, with
both professional/associate professional employees and non-management
employees having poorer access than managers/senior administrators.
While employee access to practices is limited even in workplaces that have
the respective practice in place, it is nevertheless more widespread than among
the wider workforce. The last two sections of Table 3 demonstrate the extent to
which employees have access to family-friendly practices across the whole sam-
ple. The results suggest that, overall, 16 percent of employees have access to job
sharing, 27 percent have access to parental leave and only 4 percent have access
to a workplace nursery or help with the cost of childcare. Again, access to these
benefits is dependent upon occupational status, with managers and senior
administrators and professionals/associate professionals having greater access
than non-management employees. Focusing on women under the age of 40 with
at least one dependent child, 27 percent have access to job sharing, 36 percent
have access to parental leave and only 7 percent have access to a workplace
nursery or help with the cost of childcare. These figures highlight the extremely
limited access to EO practices across UK workplaces as a whole.
‘Empty shell’ EO policies by workplace characteristics

The analysis now turns to the type of workplaces that are likely to have adopted
EO policies, but have not introduced any of the expected practices to back them
up. As such, this section evaluates the characteristics of workplaces within
which ‘empty shell’ EO policies are more likely to prevail. Table 4 reports the
effect of workplace characteristics on the probability of having an ‘empty shell’
EO policy (calculated from the coefficients in Appendix Table B). The results
suggest the following. Where workplace size is concerned, the probability of
having an ‘empty shell’ gender, ethnicity and disability policy is higher in
smaller workplaces, though perhaps not by as much as might be expected. For
example, the probability of having an ‘empty shell’ policy for workplaces in the
10–24 employees size category doubles where gender policies are concerned,
increases by 29 percent where ethnicity policies are concerned and increases by
26 percent where disability policies are concerned.
In terms of variation by industry, the probability of having an ‘empty shell’
policy decreases by 83 percent for gender policies and by 45 percent for eth-
nicity policies where the hotels and catering sector (SIC major group H) is con-
cerned. The probability of having an ‘empty shell’ age policy increases,
however. The probability of workplaces in the financial intermediation sector
(SIC major group J) having an ‘empty shell’ disability policy decreases by 55
percent. In the electricity, gas and water supply sector (SIC major group E), the
probability of having an ‘empty shell’ ethnicity policy decreases by 57 percent.

Table 4 ‘Empty shell’ EO policies by workplace characteristics: marginal effect (percentage change) given
followed by predicted probability
Dependent variable:Workplaces with EO policy, but none of the expected EO practices, addressing:
Gender Ethnicity Age Disability
Benchmark workplace1:
– 0.130 – 0.677 – 0.941 – 0.636
Change to benchmark
workplace characteristics:
10–24 employees +125 0.293* +29 0.873** +2 0.956 +26 0.804*

25–49 employees +55 0.201 +23 0.833** 0 0.944 +33 0.844**
50–99 employees +36 0.177 +16 0.784* 0 0.945 +11 0.704
100–199 employees +42 0.185 +19 0.805** +1 0.947 +19 0.759*
500–999 employees –94 0.005** +5 0.711 –3 0.916 +2 0.649
1000+ employees –51 0.064 –7 0.627 –2 0.924 +12 0.710
SIC major group E –83 0.022 –57 0.293* +6 0.995*2 –13 0.555
SIC major group F +75 0.227 +5 0.714 +6 0.995 +3 0.657
SIC major group G –70 0.039 –26 0.501 +6 0.998** –13 0.554
SIC major group H –83 0.022* –45 0.369* +6 0.999** –20 0.506
SIC major group I 0 0.130 –18 0.554 +4 0.976 –4 0.610
SIC major group J –32 0.089 –19 0.546 –55 0.287*
SIC major group K –11 0.116 –28 0.487 +5 0.987 –16 0.534
SIC major group L –32 0.088 +7 0.724 +6 0.999** –2 0.621
SIC major group M –8 0.120 +1 0.684 +6 0.999** –1 0.631
SIC major group N –72 0.037 –11 0.603 +6 0.999 –26 0.470
SIC major group O –40 0.078 –12 0.598 +6 0.999** –28 0.456
North American +236 0.437** +12 0.760 +28 0.813

European Union –5 0.124 +35 0.912** +29 0.821
Rest-of-World +7 0.139 +46 0.987** +53 0.975**
Foreign owned +2 0.956
5–9 years old –8 0.119 –6 0.638 –1 0.934 +14 0.724

10–19 years old +85 0.240 –38 0.423** –9 0.856 –1 0.628
20+ years old +152 0.328** –13 0.588 +2 0.960 0 0.639
Non-trading sector –29 0.092 –2 0.662 –15 0.799* +3 0.655

Local market –3 0.126 –23 0.523 –21 0.741** +3 0.658
National market +14 0.148 +2 0.693 –5 0.896 –18 0.520
International market –33 0.087 –20 0.541 –26 0.699* –16 0.534
Public sector –82 0.024** –38 0.420** –23 0.724** –54 0.295**
Non-union +62 0.210 +13 0.768 0 0.938 +18 0.753
Single independent workplace +64 0.213 +24 0.840** –5 0.891 –7 0.594
HR specialist –81 0.025** –28 0.487* +4 0.978 –69 0.200**

Personnel specialist –70 0.039** –30 0.477** –3 0.913 –22 0.496*

Table 4 Continued
Dependent variable:Workplaces with EO policy, but none of the expected EO practices, addressing:
>75% w/force female –93 0.009*

>10% w/force ethnic –57 0.293**
>25% w/force over 51 +5 0.985
Any disabled employees –86 0.092**
Notes:
Predicted probabilities and significance levels calculated from coefficient estimates in Appendix Table B.
1 Benchmark workplace characteristics: 200–499 employees, manufacturing; UK owned; 0–4 years old; regional market; private
sector; union recognition; part of larger organization; no HR/personnel specialist. Benchmark workforce characteristics: column
1: <75% workforce female; column 2: <10% workforce ethnic; column 3: <25% workforce over 51; column 4: no disabled
employees. Benchmark workplace is SIC major group J (financial intermediation) in column 3.
2 SIC major groups D and E combined (column 3) as all workplaces in major group E (electricity, gas and water supply) fall into
the ‘empty shell’ category.
Foreign owned category used (column 3) as all of the rest-of-world owned workplaces fall into the ‘empty shell’ category.
For full description of SIC categories, see notes section of Table 1.
However, all of the age policies in this sector fall into the ‘empty shell’ cate-
gory. There is also consistent evidence that EO policies in the public sector are
less likely to constitute an ‘empty shell’ than are policies in the private sector.
Where public sector workplaces are concerned, the probability of having an
‘empty shell’ policy falls by 82 percent for gender policies, by 38 percent for
ethnicity policies, by 23 percent for age policies and by 54 percent for disabil-
ity policies.
In relation to national ownership, the probability of having an ‘empty
shell’ gender policy increases more than three-fold where North American
workplaces are concerned. Ethnicity and disability policies in Rest-of-World
owned workplaces are more likely to fall into the ‘empty shell’ category, along
with all of the age policies. European Union-owned workplaces are more likely
to have ‘empty shell’ ethnicity policies. In workplaces with an HR or person-
nel specialist, gender, ethnicity and disability policies are less likely to consti-
tute an ‘empty shell’. Indeed, the probabilities of having an ‘empty shell’ policy
fall by 81 and 70 percent with regard to gender, by 28 and 30 percent with
regard to ethnicity and by 69 and 22 percent with regard to disability, for
workplaces with an HR or personnel specialist respectively. Unsurprisingly,
gender policies are less likely to constitute an ‘empty shell’ in workplaces with
a high proportion of female employees. The same holds with regard to ethnic-
ity and disability policies in workplaces that have a high proportion of ethnic
minority employees and any disabled employees respectively. Finally, there is
no relationship between the likelihood of EO policies constituting an ‘empty
shell’ and union recognition, or the market within which the workplace is
operating.

Discussion and conclusions
This article set out to assess the nature and incidence of formal written EO poli-
cies in Britain, by evaluating: first, the extent to which such policies exist; sec-
ond, whether such EO policies have substance; and third, the types of
workplace within which ‘empty shell’ policies prevail. In the event, while the
evidence suggests a reasonably widespread uptake of formal, written EO poli-
cies in Britain, there is also considerable evidence that many of those policies
lack substance as they are not supported by the expected EO practices. While
EO practices are more likely to be found in workplaces that have a formal pol-
icy, it remains the case that for 11 of the 13 EO practices analysed in Table 2,
less than half the workplaces with the relevant EO policy had adopted the cor-
responding supporting practice. Furthermore, the majority of workplaces with
ethnicity, age and disability policies had not adopted any of the relevant EO
practices asked about. Even in relation to gender policies, where eight different
EO and family-friendly practices were asked about, 16 percent of the work-
places with a gender policy had adopted none of these practices. So, while there
is a higher probability of EO practices being in place within workplaces that
have an EO policy, there remains a large proportion of workplaces that have a
policy, but have not introduced the expected supporting practices. In addition,
in workplaces that have adopted practices to support their policies, only 1 per-
cent had adopted all eight of the gender practices, only 10 percent had adopted
both of the ethnicity practices and only 14 percent had adopted both of the dis-
ability practices. This provides clear support for the argument that in many
workplaces, EO policies constitute nothing more than an ‘empty shell’.
As argued earlier, the ‘empty shell’ phenomenon may incorporate not only
those workplaces that have an EO policy and no supporting practices, but also
workplaces within which EO practices are in place, but only a minority of
employees have access to them. The results demonstrate that in workplaces pro-
viding job-sharing, parental leave and nursery places, this provision was avail-
able only to a minority. What is more, access to these practices appeared to be
conditional on one’s position in the occupational hierarchy. This supports the
point raised earlier that equality initiatives often take the form of targeted prac-
tices that benefit only a minority – in the case of women this usually means
female managers and professionals (Cockburn, 1989, 1991; Richards, 2001). It
also supports the argument that while the existence of these practices could sug-
gest substance behind EO policies, the privileged access to them means that, for
the majority of particularly non-managerial employees, they might as well be
‘empty shells’.
An additional consideration is that some employees might state that they
do not have access to EO practices because they are unaware that they are enti-
tled to them. In a case-based study of family-friendly policies in 17 companies,
Bond et al. (2002) found low levels of awareness among employees concerning
the family-friendly practices to which they were entitled, thus limiting their
impact. If the same pattern is occurring within the WERS 98 employee ques-

tionnaire, then the respondents might be understating the extent of access to

these practices. Even so, the outcome is the same: practices that are ineffectively
communicated to employees might as well be ‘empty shells’.
Therefore, the evidence presented within this article suggests that while
substantive EO policies may be in place within some British workplaces, the
‘empty shell’ hypothesis is, on balance, more convincing. There would appear
to be enclaves of supporting EO practices, but these are fewer than might be
expected. If the message that equality is ‘good for business’ has penetrated UK
workplaces, it would seem to have done so largely at the level of policy.
Substantive EO practices have not followed in the same magnitude.
In terms of evaluating the types of workplaces associated with ‘empty shell’
policies, it is helpful to consider the findings reported in Tables 1 and 4 simul-
taneously. In terms of both the incidence and the substance of EO policies, it
seems that workplace size matters. Not only are smaller workplaces less likely
to have gender and ethnicity policies (see Table 1), but where they do have such
policies, they are more likely to be ‘empty shells’ category (Table 4). The posi-
tive association between ‘empty shell’ policies and smaller workplaces is also a
concern given that the WERS 98 survey does not incorporate workplaces with
fewer than 10 employees. Were it to do so, it is highly probable that an even
larger proportion of workplaces would be ‘empty shells’ category. In relation to
sectoral differences, the most consistent result concerns the difference between
public and private sector workplaces. Although there is no greater likelihood of
public sector workplaces having EO policies (Table 1), where they do so, they
are less likely to be ‘empty shells’ category (Table 4). Where personnel and HR
specialists are concerned, the results suggest that they play an important role as
guardians of equal opportunities. Workplaces with such specialists are more
likely to have adopted EO policies (Table 1), and those policies are less likely to
be ‘empty shells’ category (Table 4).
It might also be expected that trade unions would play a similar guardian
role, but this is not supported by the data. Table 1 suggests that EO policies are
more likely to be found in workplaces with a recognized union, but Table 4 sug-
gests that policies in unionized workplaces are just as likely to be ‘empty shells’
as are the policies in non-union workplaces. While equality issues may increas-
ingly have become part of the union agenda during the 1990s (Colling and
Dickens, 1998; Monks, 1998; Storey and Bacon, 1994), it would seem that
trade unions have not been particularly successful in ensuring the introduction
of EO policies of substance. The results achieved here therefore offer greater
support for the counter-argument that ‘unions historically do not have a good
record in tackling discrimination’ (Dickens, 1994: 272) and have typically been
race-blind in much of their policy making (Grint, 1991: 266–70; Virdee and
Grint, 1994; Wrench, 1987).
It seems, therefore, that certain types of workplaces are leading the way
with ‘substantive’ rather than ‘empty shell’ policies, these being larger work-
places, public sector workplaces, and workplaces with HR or personnel

specialists. These characteristics have traditionally been associated with effec-

tive EO policies, so it could be argued that nothing much has changed. The EO
policies introduced elsewhere are likely to have been implemented on a far more
superficial level. This, in turn, raises the question of whether, within these work-
places, there exists either the ability or the will to introduce substantive prac-
tices that would transform the ‘empty shell’ policies currently in place.
The analysis, however, leaves open to question whether having a substan-
tive EO policy is actually important in terms of improving outcomes for disad-
vantaged groups. Even where a substantive policy exists, if it fails to achieve
greater equality of outcomes for the disadvantaged group then it is no better
than an ‘empty shell’ policy. Earlier analysis of the WERS 98 data has, however,
highlighted the importance of policies of substance. Research examining the
impact of EO policies on the equal treatment of ethnic minorities demonstrated
that ethnic minority men and women received equal treatment relative to their
white counterparts in workplaces with an EO policy, but not in workplaces
without such a policy (Noon and Hoque, 2001). Within the analysis, a strict
criterion was used to determine whether workplaces had an EO policy. This
implies that policies of substance matter in terms of ensuring equal treatment.
It would also be reasonable to argue that EO policies and practices are
unlikely to secure equal treatment on their own unless employers also develop
an environment and culture that enables equality of opportunity to flourish.
However, an important precursor to the development of such an environment –
or indeed an important indicator that such an environment exists – is that a for-
mal written EO policy, backed up by substance, is in place. An environment
within which equality of opportunity is genuinely promoted is unlikely to
emerge without the fundamental procedural and institutional support of a sub-
stantive EO policy. The results within this article suggest that many UK work-
places do not have a substantive policy. Hence, by implication, they also do not
have the type of environment that such policies are designed to support.
The findings presented in the analysis conducted here also have policy, eco-
nomic and legal implications. From a policy perspective, they have implications
for the Government’s national childcare strategy, the aim of which is to create
a million new childcare places. While the mobilization of employer provision
and subsidies is only one part of the strategy (much of the emphasis is on pri-
vate nurseries and schools), the results here would suggest that in 1998 – the
year the strategy was introduced – employer contribution to childcare was min-
imal. Even among the largest best practice organizations, the evidence suggests
that childcare provision is limited. For example, a survey conducted by
Industrial Relations Services (2000b) of 83 large public and private sector
employers, including organizations such as the BBC, Ernst and Young, Royal
and Sun Alliance and several large local authorities, found that only 1 in 15
provided nursery vouchers and only 20 percent offered a crèche or other child-
care facility. As such, with the exception of situations where parents are eligible
for tax breaks through the Working Families Tax Credit, childcare costs remain
the responsibility of the parent. This is particularly worrying given that the cost

of a full-time nursery place has been calculated to be £6200 per year (Industrial
Relations Services, 2002). Given the costs involved, it is perhaps unsurprising
that 63 percent of non-working mothers and 78 percent of lone non-working
mothers say they would work or study if they had access to the childcare of
their choice.3 Yet despite the high cost of childcare in Britain, it remains the case
that there is a dire shortage of childcare provision, with seven children com-
peting for every nursery space (Higginbottom, 2002). This further suggests that
perhaps employers should be expected to take greater responsibility in terms of
the provision of childcare places.
The results also have important performance implications. By reducing
casual sick leave, improving recruitment and retention and raising morale, it is
argued that family-friendly practices have the potential to impact positively on
company performance (Industrial Relations Services, 2000a). Likewise, analy-
sis of WERS 98 by Dex and Smith (2002) revealed that around nine out of ten
workplaces with aspects of practices that might be deemed family-friendly
found them to be cost-effective, and that performance improvements in terms
of finance, labour productivity, quality, sales value and labour turnover were
associated with such arrangements. However, the Trades Union Congress has
argued that UK productivity levels are suffering because employees are unable
to balance their work and personal lives (TUC, 2001). This is driven in part by
the UK’s long-hours culture, but also by the fact that so few employees have
access to the types of family-friendly practices under investigation here. As
argued by social commentator Will Hutton, ‘the irony is that this inflexible
approach to work–life balance decreases employee motivation and results.’
(Financial Times, 22 August 2001). The TUC report suggests that several FTSE
100 companies, including BP, J. Sainsbury, British Telecommunications and
Lloyds TSB, have begun offering staff more flexible work regimes. The findings
presented here, however, suggest that the arguments in favour of such an
approach have not been taken on board in the majority of workplaces.
The results also have legal implications. First, the European Union’s
Parental Leave directive, which came into force as part of the Employment
Relations Act on 15 December 1999, gives parents at work the right to up to
13 weeks’ unpaid parental leave for urgent family reasons. The analysis con-
ducted here demonstrates that in the year prior to the law being introduced, this
benefit was not being offered in almost two-thirds of workplaces. The extent to
which this situation has now been remedied remains to be seen.
Second, the European Union Directive on equal treatment, proposed under
Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, shifts the burden of proof in discrimi-
nation cases. Under the terms of the Directive, the employer has to prove that
‘in all probability’ they have not unfairly discriminated, rather than the
employee having to prove that discrimination has occurred. This has already
been implemented for gender cases via the Sex Discrimination (Indirect
Discrimination and Burden of Proof) Regulations 2001, and for race cases via
the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003. Similar changes
will ultimately be introduced where disability cases are concerned. One likely

consequence of these changes is that employment tribunals will look even more
closely at whether the employer has an up-to-date EO policy, and at the sub-
stance enshrined within that policy (The Guardian, 15 September 2001). The
results presented here would suggest that at present, many British workplaces
are currently ill-equipped from the point of view of their EO policies and prac-
tices to be able to cope effectively with these changes.
Appendix
Appendix Table A Presence of gender, ethnicity, age and disability policies by workplace characteristics
Dependent variables:
Gender policy Ethnicity policy Age policy Disability policy
Reference category:
200–499 employees
10–24 employees –0.571 (0.171)** –0.579 (0.178)** –0.216 (0.153) –0.349 (0.182)
25–49 employees –0.539 (0.171)** –0.554 (0.174)** –0.254 (0.149) –0.383 (0.175)*
50–99 employees –0.418 (0.163)** –0.423 (0.171)* –0.191 (0.137) –0.392 (0.163)*
100–199 employees –0.088 (0.158) –0.157 (0.166) –0.088 (0.130) –0.160 (0.158)
500–999 employees 0.187 (0.215) 0.122 (0.226) 0.189 (0.160) 0.007 (0.207)
1000+ employees 0.748 (0.317)* 0.895 (0.388)* –0.183 (0.219) 0.451 (0.422)
Reference category:
Major group D (manufacturing)
SIC major group E 1.217 (0.366)** 1.366 (0.418)** 0.286 (0.298) 0.678 (0.395)
SIC major group F 0.734 (0.342)* 0.633 (0.306)* 0.197 (0.313) 0.641 (0.312)*
SIC major group G 0.433 (0.226) 0.511 (0.224)* 0.633 (0.22)** 0.664 (0.229)**
SIC major group H 0.875 (0.249)** 1.049 (0.246)** 0.688 (0.256)** 1.142 (0.248)**
SIC major group I 0.848 (0.352)* 0.959 (0.360)** 0.653 (0.316)* 1.020 (0.358)**
SIC major group J 0.533 (0.336) 0.533 (0.325) 0.280 (0.296) 0.597 (0.332)
SIC major group K 0.913 (0.235)** 0.949 (0.233)** 0.671 (0.225)** 1.068 (0.240)**
SIC major group L 1.704 (0.369)** 1.838 (0.378)** 1.163 (0.291)** 1.682 (0.345)**
SIC major group M 1.344 (0.279)** 1.410 (0.279)** 0.820 (0.279)** 1.348 (0.283)**
SIC major group N 1.429 (0.291)** 1.604 (0.274)** 1.328 (0.256)** 1.548 (0.274)**
SIC major group O 0.425 (0.286) 0.544 (0.292) 0.188 (0.262) 0.615 (0.295)*
Reference category:
UK owned
North American 0.274 (0.362) 0.409 (0.377) –0.023 (0.257) 0.491 (0.356)
European Union 0.113 (0.359) 0.050 (0.368) –0.211 (0.280) –0.060 (0.399)
Rest-of-World –0.056 (0.524) –0.207 (0.472) 0.254 (0.514) 0.002 (0.494)
Reference category:
0–4 years
5–9 years 0.249 (0.199) 0.190 (0.193) 0.099 (0.185) 0.128 (0.189)
10–19 years 0.106 (0.199) 0.107 (0.192) 0.073 (0.181) 0.129 (0.187)
20+ years –0.084 (0.167) –0.168 (0.159) –0.025 (0.155) –0.177 (0.154)

Appendix Table A Continued
Dependent variables:
Gender policy Ethnicity policy Age policy Disability policy
Reference category:
Regional market
Non-trading sector 0.003 (0.22) –0.079 (0.221) 0.020 (0.217) 0.048 (0.217)
Local market 0.164 (0.225) 0.104 (0.227) 0.149 (0.213) 0.164 (0.220)
National market 0.023 (0.232) –0.100 (0.232) 0.050 (0.231) –0.166 (0.231)
International market –0.121 (0.273) –0.246 (0.273) 0.126 (0.258) –0.160 (0.266)
Reference category:
No HR/personnel specialist
HR specialist 0.748 (0.229)** 0.713 (0.223)** 0.318 (0.196) 0.741 (0.214)**
Personnel specialist 0.386 (0.184)* 0.588 (0.185)** 0.077 (0.149) 0.532 (0.171)**
Public sector 0.302 (0.205) 0.191 (0.207) 0.149 (0.202) 0.039 (0.198)
Non-union –0.501 (0.149)** –0.485 (0.148)** –0.415 (0.144)** –0.604 (0.147)**
Single indep. w/place. –1.247 (0.149)** –1.321 (0.149)** –0.842 (0.146)** –1.290 (0.146)**
>75% w/force female 0.020 (0.146)

>10% w/force ethnic 0.412 (0.196)*
>25% w/force over 51 –0.415 (0.142)**
Any disabled employees 0.217 (0.139)
n 2098 2049 2072 2053

F 11.71 11.98 7.34 11.14
Prob > F 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Notes:
Survey probit analysis. Coefficients given. Standard errors in parentheses.
SIC categories: E = electricity, gas and water supply; F = construction; G = wholesale and retail trade; H = hotels and
restaurants; I = transport, storage and communication; J = financial intermediation; K = real estate, renting; L = public
administration, defence, social security; M = education; N = health and social work; O = other community, social, personal.
Appendix Table B ‘Empty shell’ EO policies by workplace characteristics
Dependent variables:Workplaces with EO policy, but none of the expected EO practices, addressing:
Reference category:
200–499 employees
10–24 employees 0.584 (0.233)* 0.681 (0.188)** 0.145 (0.260) 0.506 (0.200)*
25–49 employees 0.290 (0.212) 0.506 (0.174)** 0.028 (0.254) 0.664 (0.182)**
50–99 employees 0.201 (0.215) 0.327 (0.163)* 0.042 (0.271) 0.187 (0.168)
100–199 employees 0.230 (0.201) 0.401 (0.144)** 0.058 (0.259) 0.354 (0.154)*
500–999 employees –1.474 (0.461)** 0.097 (0.186) –0.182 (0.303) 0.035 (0.211)
1000+ employees –0.397 (0.393) –0.135 (0.233) –0.125 (0.418) 0.206 (0.232)

Appendix Table B Continued
Reference category:
SIC major group D
SIC major group E –0.878 (0.468) –1.004 (0.396)* 1.048 (0.478)* –0.210 (0.389)
SIC major group F 0.378 (0.375) 0.105 (0.331) 0.987 (0.629) 0.057 (0.363)
SIC major group G –0.635 (0.337) –0.456 (0.315) 1.322 (0.446)** –0.212 (0.312)
SIC major group H –0.894 (0.435)* –0.807 (0.375)* 1.600 (0.501)** –0.334 (0.383)
SIC major group I 0.086 (0.438) –0.325 (0.374) 0.415 (0.504) –0.068 (0.332)
SIC major group J 0.001 (0.415) –0.343 (0.335) –0.909 (0.378)*
SIC major group K –0.068 (0.346) –0.491 (0.313) 0.668 (0.497) –0.262 (0.298)
SIC major group L –0.224 (0.568) 0.135 (0.379) 1.719 (0.558)** –0.039 (0.462)
SIC major group M 0.047 (0.428) 0.018 (0.355) 1.537 (0.507)** –0.015 (0.389)
SIC major group N –0.661 (0.415) –0.198 (0.338) 0.855 (0.489) –0.423 (0.331)
SIC major group O –0.289 (0.428) –0.212 (0.390) 1.697 (0.576)** –0.459 (0.370)
Reference category:
UK owned
North American 0.968 (0.336)** 0.246 (0.348) 0.541 (0.413)
European Union –0.027 (0.583) 0.895 (0.329)** 0.571 (0.351)
Rest-of-World 0.044 (0.566) 1.758 (0.592)** 1.614 (0.626)**
Foreign owned 0.156 (0.354)
Reference category:
0–4 years
5–9 yrs –0.051 (0.281) –0.105 (0.225) –0.056 (0.318) 0.247 (0.235)
10–19 yrs 0.420 (0.268) –0.655 (0.218)** –0.498 (0.280) –0.020 (0.256)
20+ yrs 0.682 (0.250)** –0.236 (0.197) 0.188 (0.253) 0.009 (0.218)
Reference category:
Regional market
Non-trading sector –0.203 (0.320) –0.043 (0.264) –0.722 (0.345)* 0.050 (0.242)
Local market –0.020 (0.284) –0.401 (0.245) –0.913 (0.334)** 0.059 (0.235)
National market 0.084 (0.327) 0.044 (0.302) –0.300 (0.390) –0.298 (0.298)
International market -0.235 (0.341) –0.355 (0.344) –1.039 (0.441)* –0.263 (0.323)
Public sector –0.857 (0.316)** –0.662 (0.229)** –0.965 (0.300)** –0.886 (0.275)**
Non-union 0.321 (0.197) 0.273 (0.168) –0.026 (0.211) 0.336 (0.175)
Single indep. w/place 0.332 (0.229) 0.536 (0.207)** –0.328 (0.314) 0.109 (0.223)
Reference category:
No HR/personnel specialist
HR specialist –0.829 (0.255)** –0.493 (0.240)* 0.459 (0.311) –1.189 (0.229)**
Personnel specialist –0.641 (0.174)** –0.511 (0.163)** –0.202 (0.217) –0.357 (0.165)*

Appendix Table B Continued
>75% w/force female –0.389 (0.187)*

>10% w/force ethnic –0.511 (0.163)**
>25% w/force over 51 0.140 (0.315)
Any disabled employees –0.489 (0.125)**
n 1529 1524 1036 1461

F 4.16 5.33 3.45 6.19
Prob > F 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Notes:
Survey probit analysis. Coefficients given. Standard errors in parentheses.
Foreign owned category used (column 3) as all of the rest-of-world owned workplaces fall into the ‘empty shell’ category.
SIC major groups D and E combined (column 3) as all workplaces in major group E (electricity, gas and water supply) fall into
the ‘empty shell’ category. Major group J (financial intermediation) used as reference category in column 3. For full description
of SIC categories, see notes section of Appendix Table A.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Department of Trade and Industry, the Economic and
Social Research Council, the Advisory, Conciliatory and Arbitration Service and the
Policy Studies Institute as the originators of the 1998 Workplace Employee
Relations Survey data, and the Data Archive at the University of Essex as the dis-
tributor of the data. None of these organizations bears any responsibility for our
analysis and interpretation of the data. We would also like to thank the three anony-
mous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions.
Notes
1 All the dependent variables to be analysed here are dichotomous, so the appro-
priate technique to use is survey probit maximum likelihood, which allows for
necessary weighting and also takes into account the sample design when calcu-
lating standard errors. Survey probit analysis allows for the data to be proba-
bility weighted by the inverse of the probability of each workplace’s selection
into the sample. This is conducted within STATA by treating the variable
EST_WT as a probability weight. This is essential if unbiased population esti-
mates are to be obtained as large workplaces are over-represented within the
WERS 98 sample design. In addition, the stratification featured in the design of
the WERS 98 workplace samples can be taken into account by instructing
STATA to take into account the strata identified in the variable IDBRSTR2,
when calculating standard errors. For a fuller explanation, see Airey et al.
(1999) and Forth and Kirby (2000).

2 Survey probit is used here, and probability sampling and stratification are taken
into account in the same manner as described in note 1.
3 See: www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1430.asp
References
Airey, C., Hales, J., Hamilton, R., Korovessis, C., McKernan, A. and Purdon, S.
(1999) The Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS) 1997–8 Technical
Report (Cross Section and Panel Survey). London: National Centre for Social
Research.
Bond, S., Hyman, J., Summers, J. and Wise, S. (2002) Family-Friendly Working?
Putting Policy into Practice. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation/The Policy
Press.
Cockburn, C. (1989) ‘Equal Opportunities: the Short and Long Agenda’, Industrial
Relations Journal 20(3): 213–25.
Cockburn, C. (1991) In the Way of Women. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Colling, T. and Dickens, L. (1998) ‘Selling the Case for Gender Equality:
Deregulation and Equality Bargaining in Britain’, British Journal of Industrial
Relations 36(3): 389–413.
Collinson, D., Knights, D. and Collinson, M. (1990) Managing to Discriminate.
London: Routledge.
Commission for Racial Equality (2000) Equal Opportunities and Private Sector
Employment in Scotland. Edinburgh: CRE.
Coyle, A. (1989) ‘The Limits of Change: Local Government and Equal
Opportunities for Women’, Public Administration 67(1): 39–50.
Cully, M., Woodland, S., O’Reilly, A. and Dix, G. (1999) Britain at Work. London:
Routledge.
Department of Trade and Industry (1999) Workplace Employee Relations Survey:
Cross-Section, 1998 [computer file]. 4th ed. Colchester: The Data Archive [dis-
tributor], 22 December 1999, SN: 3955.
Dex, S. and Smith, C. (2002) The Nature and Pattern of Family-Friendly
Employment Policies in Britain. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation/The Policy
Press.
Dickens, L. (1994) ‘Wasted Resources? Equal Opportunities in Employment’, in K.
Sisson (ed.) Personnel Management (2nd edition), pp. 253–98. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Dickens, L. (1999) ‘Beyond the Business Case: a Three-pronged Approach to
Equality Action’, Human Resource Management Journal 9(1): 9–19.
Dickens, L. (2000) ‘Still Wasting Resources? Equality in Employment’, in S. Bach
and K. Sisson (eds) Personnel Management (3rd edition), pp. 137–69. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Financial Times (2001) ‘Employers Urged to Be Flexible Friends’, 22 August.
Forth, J. and Kirby, S. (2000) Guide to the Analysis of the Workplace Employee
Relations Survey. WERS 98 Data Dissemination Service, National Institute for
Economic and Social Research.
Grint, K. (1991) The Sociology of Work. Cambridge: Polity.
The Guardian (2001) ‘Discrimination: Tilting the Scales to Give Women Justice’. 15
September.

Higginbottom, K. (2002) ‘A Supporting Role’, People Management, 13 June:

12–13.
Hoque, K. and Noon, M. (1999) ‘Racial Discrimination in Speculative Applications:
New Optimism Six Years On?’, Human Resource Management Journal 9(3):
71–82.
Industrial Relations Review and Report (1991) ‘How Companies Represent
Employment Policies: a Survey of 100 Annual Reports’, IRS Employment
Trends 481: 6–11.
Industrial Relations Services (1996) ‘What About the Workers? Employment Policy
Statements in 100 Top Annual Reports’, IRS Employment Trends 619: 6–12.
Industrial Relations Services (2000a) ‘Who Cares?’, IRS Employment Review 697:
2–3.
Industrial Relations Services (2000b) ‘Work-life: Win-win’, IRS Employment
Review 697: 4–13.
Industrial Relations Services (2001) ‘Managing Disability at Work’, IRS
Employment Review 738: 6–14.
Industrial Relations Services (2002) ‘All work and no play?’, IRS Employment
Review 747: 7–13.
Jewson, N. and Mason, D. (1994) ‘Race, Employment and Equal Opportunities:
Towards a Political Economy and an Agenda for the 1990s’, Sociological
Review 42(4): 591–617.
Jewson, N., Mason, D., Drewett, A. and Rossiter, W. (1995) Formal Equal
Opportunities Policies and Employment Best Practice. Employment
Department Research Series No. 69. Sheffield: Employment Department.
Jewson, N., Mason, D., Lambkin, C. and Taylor, F. (1992) Ethnic Monitoring Policy
and Practice: A Study of Employers’ Experiences. Research Paper No.89.
London: Department of Employment.
Jewson, N., Waters, S. and Harvey, J. (1990) Ethnic Minorities and Employment
Practice: A Study of Six Employers. Research Paper No. 76. Sheffield:
Employment Department.
Liff, S. and Dale, K. (1994) ‘Formal Opportunity, Informal Barriers: Black Women
Managers within a Local Authority’, Work, Employment and Society 8(2):
177–98.
McGauran, A.-M. (2001) ‘Masculine, Feminine or Neutral? In-company Equal
Opportunities Policies in Irish and French MNC Retailing’, International
Journal of Human Resource Management 12(5): 754–71.
Monks, J. (1998) ‘Trade unions, enterprise and the future’, in P. Sparrow and M.
Marchington (eds) Human Resource Management: The New Agenda, pp.
171–9. London: FT/Pitman.
Noon, M. and Hoque, K. (2001) ‘Ethnic Minorities and Equal Treatment: The
Impact of Gender, Equal Opportunities Policies and Trade Union’, National
Institute Economic Review 76: 105–116.
Richards, W. (2001) ‘Evaluating Equal Opportunity Initiatives: the Case for a
“Transformative” Agenda’, in M. Noon and E. Ogbonna (eds) Equality,
Diversity and Disadvantage in Employment, pp. 15–31. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Solomos, J. (1989) ‘Equal Opportunities Policies and Racial Inequality’, Public
Administration 67(1): 79–93.

Storey, J, and Bacon, N. (1994) ‘The New Agenda and Human Resource
Management: A Roundtable Discussion with John Edmonds’, Human
Resource Management Journal, 4(1): 63–70.
Trades Union Congress (2001) Changing Times. August. London: TUC.
Virdee, S. and Grint, K. (1994) ‘Black Self-organization in Trade Unions’,
Sociological Review, 42(2): 202–26.
Wrench, J. (1987) ‘Unequal comrades: trade unions, equal opportunities and
racism’, in R. Jenkins and J. Solomos (eds) Racism and Equal Opportunity
Policies in the 1980s, pp. 183–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Young, K. (1987) ‘The space between words’, in R. Jenkins and J. Solomos (eds)
Racism and Equal Opportunity Policies in the 1980s, pp. 93–109. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kim Hoque
Kim Hoque is a senior lecturer in Human Resource Management at Nottingham

University Business School. His current research interests include gender and race dis-
advantage, training, HRM in small and medium-sized enterprises and the nature and
development of the personnel/HR function.
Address: Nottingham University Business School, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road,
Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK.
E-mail: kim.hoque@nottingham.ac.uk
Mike Noon
Mike Noon is Professor of Human Resource Management and Head of the

Department of HRM at Leicester Business School, De Montfort University. He has pre-
viously researched and taught at Imperial College, Cardiff University and Lancaster
University. His current research interests include: the effects of work transformation on
employees, equality and discrimination, and contemporary developments in HRM.
Address: Leicester Business School, De Montfort University,The Gateway,
Leicester, LE1 9BH, UK.
E-mail: mnoon@dmu.ac.uk
Date submitted March 2002

Date accepted November 2003

Hoque and Noon Article

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hoque and Noon Article

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Work, Employment &

Equal Opportunities Policy and Practice in Britain: : Evaluating the 'Empty

The online version of this article can be found at:

British Sociological Association

Email Alerts: http://wes.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

Work, employment and society

Equal opportunities policy and practice in

482 Work, employment and society Volume 18 ■ Number 3 ■ September 2004

Equal opportunities policy and practice in Britain

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

Equal opportunities policy and practice Hoque & Noon 483

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

484 Work, employment and society Volume 18 ■ Number 3 ■ September 2004

1 To assess the incidence of formal, written EO policies in Britain.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

Equal opportunities policy and practice Hoque & Noon 485

it is possible to evaluate employee reports of access to EO practices within their

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

486 Work, employment and society Volume 18 ■ Number 3 ■ September 2004

The incidence of formal written equal opportunities policies

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

Equal opportunities policy and practice Hoque & Noon 487

Benchmark workplace:1 – 0.652 – 0.666 – 0.368 – 0.578

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

488 Work, employment and society Volume 18 ■ Number 3 ■ September 2004

adopted an EO policy is calculated first. In order to evaluate the impact of dif-

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

Equal opportunities policy and practice Hoque & Noon 489

expected: workplaces within which 10 percent or more of the workforce is from

EO practices in workplaces with EO policies

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

490 Work, employment and society Volume 18 ■ Number 3 ■ September 2004

Workplaces Workplaces Workplaces Workplaces

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

Equal opportunities policy and practice Hoque & Noon 491

from older workers. Finally, as demonstrated by column 5 of Table 2, 37 per-

Employee access to EO practices

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

492 Work, employment and society Volume 18 ■ Number 3 ■ September 2004

Table 3 Percentage of employees with access to EO practices

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

Equal opportunities policy and practice Hoque & Noon 493

‘Empty shell’ EO policies by workplace characteristics

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

494 Work, employment and society Volume 18 ■ Number 3 ■ September 2004

Gender Ethnicity Age Disability

– 0.130 – 0.677 – 0.941 – 0.636

10–24 employees +125 0.293* +29 0.873** +2 0.956 +26 0.804*

North American +236 0.437** +12 0.760 +28 0.813

Foreign owned +2 0.956

5–9 years old –8 0.119 –6 0.638 –1 0.934 +14 0.724

Non-trading sector –29 0.092 –2 0.662 –15 0.799* +3 0.655

HR specialist –81 0.025** –28 0.487* +4 0.978 –69 0.200**

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

Equal opportunities policy and practice Hoque & Noon 495

Gender Ethnicity Age Disability

>75% w/force female –93 0.009*

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

496 Work, employment and society Volume 18 ■ Number 3 ■ September 2004

Discussion and conclusions

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on January 17, 2011

Equal opportunities policy and practice Hoque & Noon 497