S T A N D A R D FORSIDE
TIL
EKSAMENSOPGAVER
Udfyldes af den/de studerende
Prøvens form (sæt kryds):
Projekt
X
Synopsis
Portfolio
Speciale
Skriftlig
hjemmeopgave
Uddannelsens navn
Culture, Communication & Globalization - Org. Lead. stream
Semester
7. semester
Prøvens navn (i studieordningen)
Global Processes
Navn(e) og fødselsdato(er)
Navn
Karen-Louise Skovhus
Fødselsdato
110887
Helene Tornbjerg Andersen
210987
Afleveringsdato
Projekttitel/Synopsistitel/Specialetitel
19.12.11
I henhold til studieordningen må
opgaven i alt maks. fylde antal tegn
Den afleverede opgave fylder (antal
tegn med mellemrum i den afleverede
opgave) (indholdfortegnelse,
litteraturliste og bilag medregnes ikke)*
50 sider/120.000 tegn
Vejleder (projekt/synopsis/speciale)
Heidrun Knorr
The Communication of Diversity Management
- A comparative study of the communication of Diversity Management on
American and Danish global enterprises’ websites and its connection to
context
48,7 sider/ 116.717 tegn
Jeg/vi bekræfter hermed, at dette er mit/vores originale arbejde, og at jeg/vi alene er ansvarlig(e) for indholdet. Alle
anvendte referencer er tydeligt anført. Jeg/Vi er informeret om, at plagiering ikke er lovligt og medfører sanktioner.
Regler om disciplinære foranstaltninger over for studerende ved Aalborg Universitet (plagiatregler):
http://plagiat.aau.dk/GetAsset.action?contentId=4117331&assetId=4117338
Dato og underskrift

Vær opmærksom på, at opgaven ikke er afleveringsberettiget, hvis den overskrider det maksimale antal tegn, som
er angivet i studieordningens prøvebeskrivelse. Du/I har dermed brugt et eksamensforsøg.
1
Table of Contents
Introduction (Karen-Louise & Helene) .............................................................................................................. 3
Diversity Management Theory in an American context (Helene) ..................................................................... 6
History of the concept in the United States .................................................................................................. 7
The American Context ................................................................................................................................... 9
The 3 perspectives ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Diversity Management Theory in a Danish Context (Karen-Louise) ............................................................... 16
History of Diversity Management in Denmark ............................................................................................ 17
The Danish Context ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Sum up ......................................................................................................................................................... 24
Comparison of the American and Danish theory on Diversity Management (Karen-Louise) ......................... 25
Critique of theory on Diversity Management (Helene) ................................................................................... 27
Methodology (Karen-Louise & Helene) ........................................................................................................... 30
Introduction to cases (Karen-Louise) .............................................................................................................. 33
Introduction to Analyses (Karen-Louise & Helene) ......................................................................................... 35
Analysis of Diversity Management in an American context (Helene) ............................................................. 36
Analysis of Walmart (Appendix 3) ............................................................................................................... 37
Analysis of Cisco (Appendix 4) ..................................................................................................................... 41
Analysis of Colgate (Appendix 5) ................................................................................................................. 44
Analysis of Kellogg’s (Appendix 6) ............................................................................................................... 47
Sum-up of this chapter ................................................................................................................................ 49
Analysis of Diversity Management in a Danish Context (Karen-Louise) ......................................................... 50
Analysis of Novo Nordisk (Appendix 7) ....................................................................................................... 51
Analysis of Vestas (Appendix 8)................................................................................................................... 54
Analysis of Rambøll (Appendix 9) ................................................................................................................ 57
Analysis of Mærsk (Appendix 10) ................................................................................................................ 60
Sum up of this chapter ................................................................................................................................ 62
Discussion (Karen-Louise & Helene) ................................................................................................................ 65
Conclusion (Karen-Louise & Helene) ............................................................................................................... 69
List of Appendixes............................................................................................................................................ 71
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................................... 74
2
Introduction
Our motivation for writing this project is our general curiosity towards Diversity Management in a
global context and whether differences between Diversity Management theories according to
national context exist. Practically, we look into the communication of Diversity Management on
American versus Danish global enterprises’ websites. We find it interesting to look into, whether
there, in fact, as the theory suggests (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003), are national-dependent
differences in the communication of Diversity Management on large global enterprises’ websites
with origin in either Denmark or the United States.
The aim with this project is to investigate the theories and views of different scholars on the
subject, focusing especially on the American context by means of the work by Ely and Thomas and
the Danish context by means of the work by Hagedorn and Kamp. Furthermore, we look at
websites of global enterprises – 4 with national origin in the United States and 4 with national
origin in Denmark – to analyze what some of the main differences in the communication of
Diversity Management policies are, if any such differences exist. We find this to be interesting
since it is suggested that, organizations are no longer just part of a local context, but now to a
greater extent also part of a global context (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 64). We find this to be
especially useful, since “it is suggested that diversity can provide an organization with a valuable
resource in competing both globally and locally” (Gold 2007: 225).
Hagedorn and Kamp argue that Danish and American contexts differ in various areas (Hagedorn &
Kamp 2003: 53). This suggests that the area of Diversity Management differ according to national
context, which will be our hypothesis throughout this project. This hypothesis is supported by the
fact that diversity is argued to be “differently interpreted across national cultures” (Özbilgin 2008:
10). Keeping this hypothesis in mind, we do speculate though if global enterprises’ communication
3
on Diversity Management is national dependent; this speculation is based upon the international
context of global enterprises.
We find this study useful for global enterprises, in order for these to determine the type of
website communication on Diversity Management to implement. We foresee that this study can
provide enterprises with some knowledge of national dependent theories on Diversity
Management.
Based upon these assumptions, we present the following Research Question; how do national
specific theories on the concept of Diversity Management relate to the communication of the
concept on Danish versus American global enterprises’ websites?
Even though the concept of Diversity Management is American, it has reached international
recognition in the later years (Özbilgin 2008: 1). It is, however, more widespread in the United
States in the sense that statistics suggest that the market for consultancy of Diversity
Management policies annually reach between 400 and 600 million dollars (Djøfbladet 2011). Many
companies currently advertise and acknowledge the concept on their websites, American as well
as Danish. Extensive research has been done in this area, but it has been somewhat focused on
the issues of the single-nation settings, and is lacking the attention of the international context of
global enterprises (Özbilgin 2008: 2). The global enterprises face a challenge that the single-nation
enterprises do not, namely, the challenge of having to understand cultures, and differences in
leadership styles in various parts of the world. As formulated by Özbilgin; “can diversity
management, as an expressly US-based concept, be easily transferred and grafted onto the
management systems of other countries?” (Özbilgin 2008: 2). Taking departure in Danish versus
American theories on Diversity Management, we aim to investigate if Danish versus American
global enterprises apply these national dependent tools or if a universal set of Diversity
Management tools exists.
4
This Introduction is followed by theory sections on the American and Danish context, a
comparison between and critique of these. Hereafter, we include a chapter on Methodology
followed by a short introduction to the chosen cases. This leads to the analyses of Diversity
Management in an American and Danish context, respectively. Hereafter, we move to our
Discussion, which subsequently leads to our Conclusion, where we sum up the project and offer an
answer to our Research Question.
5
Diversity Management Theory in an American context
In this section, we look into Diversity Management in an American context. We are mainly working
with the theoretical works of Ely and Thomas, but the section includes other views on this concept
too, such as historical data based upon Hagedorn and Kamp (2003) and Özbilgin (2008).
Diversity Management is a United States-based concept (Özbilgin 2008: 1), and since we have
chosen to analyze the connection between Denmark and the United States in regard to Diversity
Management, this section on theory is natural to include.
The section starts out with the history of the concept, and moves on to describing the theory of
the concept in the American context.
6
History of the concept in the United States
The first legislation in the United States concerning anti-discrimination was the Equal Employment
Opportunity Act of 1972 (EEOC 1). It was put into practice, to ensure equality for all, but did not
take into account the exclusion of certain groups in society.
The increasing discontent among minority groups in the United States, such as African-Americans,
in the 1960’s, let to the movement of Affirmative Action. It was a regulation based on the notion
of equality, and can be defined as; “any measure, beyond simple termination of a discriminatory
practice, adopted to correct or prevent discrimination from recurring in the future” (HagedornRasmussen & Kamp 2003: 36). Affirmative Action does not, however, mean that more gentle
demands were put on minorities, but rather that the various institutions, such as educational and
organizational, had to do more to attract and retain these persons.
In the beginning of the period of legislation on Affirmative Action, not many changes actually
happened. And in the 1970’s, the focus was moreover from the Federal Government on reports
and plans of action related to the subject. During the Reagan presidency, the legislation of
Affirmative Action was toned down, and budgets for it were cut (Hagedorn-Rasmussen & Kamp
2003: 37). This was due to the emerging Neo-Liberalist outlook under Reagan, which among other
things promoted the notion of “small government”, and tax cuts (Monthly Review 1).
But then in the 1980’s, specialists began speculating in the monetary gains of equality, instead of
solely preaching on equality and moral. This was the beginning of Diversity Management; “initially
offered as an alternative to equal opportunities” (Özbilgin 2008: 6), but reformulated from both
Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Actions, to an “approach to the work on equality
of opportunity that characterized the initiative seeking to eradicate discrimination and inequalities
in the second half of the 20th century” (Özbilgin 2008: 6).
All through the 1990’s the ideas and thoughts on Diversity Management evolved and changed; the
business and monetary focus became apparent, but the whole take on equality changed too. It
changed from the earlier stages, where it was appropriate to argue that everyone are the same,
7
and should be treated equally, to the notion we are more familiar with today, namely of people
being different, and thereby having different competencies and resources. This was all in
connection with the organization, which was said to have to evolve with this notion, to gain full
potential (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 38).
This all leads up, to the type of Diversity Management applied in the United States today, which
we will cover in the following section
8
The American Context
The American scholars David A. Thomas and Robin J. Ely, associated with universities like Harvard
Business School and Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, have
conducted several studies and articles on the issue of reaping the real and full potential of
including diversities at the workplace.
They support the notion, that the earlier focus in the United States of rights and equality in
Diversity Management has made a shift onto the monetary and bottom-line gains now, along with
effectiveness and innovativeness of employees (Thomas & Ely 1996: 1). It should be noted though,
that there has never been actual evidence that the so-called business case for Diversity
Management exists (Wharton, Univ. of Pennsylvania).
It is argued to be a problem that “corporate America” often takes one of two paths towards
Diversity Management,
in the name of equality and fairness, they encourage (and expect) women and people of color to
blend in or they set them apart in jobs that relate specifically to their backgrounds, assigning them, for
example, to areas that require them to interface with clients or customers of the same identity group.
(Thomas & Ely 1996: 3)
This is argued to limit the capacities of the organization, as members of specific groups are seen as
having only knowledge of their “own people” (Thomas & Ely 1996: 3). They argue that “diversity
should be understood as the varied perspectives and approaches to work that members of
different identity groups bring” (Thomas & Ely 1996: 3). Also it is suggested, that this more holistic
line of thinking is often neglected and missing in the American approach to Diversity Management
(Thomas & Ely 1996: 4)
What is important to note, is the reality of the United States as a profound “salad-bowl” of all
kinds of different races, identity groups and contexts – Hispanics, Asian Americans, African
Americans, Native Americans, etc (Thomas & Ely 1996: 3). This makes for a unique setting in
reference to diversity and the management of it. In other words, the demographics of a context,
9
and the way it is understood, is likely to have a great influence of the outcome of work group
effectiveness (Thomas & Ely 2001: 232).
10
The 3 perspectives
The 3 perspectives of Diversity Management were offered by Thomas and Ely, in their study of
culturally diverse work forces in the United States (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 65). They set out to
investigate the functions of Diversity Management in order to reach a better understanding of
how companies can enhance or detract from working with a culturally diverse work force.
From their research, they identified 3 different perspectives on Diversity Management; causing
different implications for the groups’ benefit of the diversity present (Thomas & Ely 2001: 229).
We argue Thomas and Ely to be fairly Constructivist in their reasoning and thinking about the
cultural society that surrounds their investigation; “cultural identity, as we understand it, is socially
constructed, complex, and dynamic” (Thomas & Ely 2001: 231), and this knowledge does shape
the understanding of the perspectives that they have set up. It tells us, that the perspectives are
ever-changing, evolving, and influencing each other, and thereby also overlapping each other. The
thought of Constructivism put forward, indicates that the perspectives they introduced, have a lot
to do with the understanding of employees in different settings and environments.
The Discrimination-and-Fairness Perspective
This perspective, Thomas and Ely argue, might be the most dominant in the American business
context of today. The focus on fairness, equality and anti-racism is supported by the quote stating
that “leaders who look at diversity through this lens usually focus on equal opportunity, fair
treatment, and compliance with federal Equal Employment Opportunity requirements” (Thomas &
Ely 1996: 4), which relates to the traditional thinking of Affirmative Action, that preceded Diversity
Management1. This perspective goes further than Affirmative Action though, in the sense that this
perspective “does go beyond a simple concern of numbers” (Thomas & Ely 1996: 4).
The progress by the company in this perspective, is measured in how well the company,
1
See “History of the concept in the United States”
11
(…) achieves its recruitment and retention goals rather than by the degree to which conditions in the
company allow employees to draw on their personal assets and perspectives to do their work more
effectively. (Thomas & Ely 1996: 4)
Thomas and Ely argue that this perspective supports the conception of the work force being
diversified, and not the work in itself. This is also seen in the quote above, in that the focus is
rather on the goals of the company, and not so much on the individual assets each employee
brings.
Organizations using this perspective are argued to often have fairness deeply rooted in the
organizational culture, and the codes of conduct are clear and unambiguous (Thomas & Ely 1996:
5).
This perspective tends to increase demographic diversity in the work force, and fair treatment is
successfully communicated to the public. The significant limitation though, is that an enterprise in
this perspective, operates as if everyone were the same – color-blind, and gender-blind, etc. It is
therefore unlikely, that the company will benefit fully from the potential of diversity, as the
diversity is simply not entirely recognized.
To sum this perspective up, it is supposedly rather dominant in the American context of Diversity
Management sphere. It relates to Affirmative Action, in that it is very goal oriented – it does go
further than Affirmative Action though, as it is not solely focused on “numbers”. This perspective
has the limitation that it focuses on the workforce being diversified, and not the work itself.
Therefore, companies implementing this perspective will not reap the full potential of the diversity
present.
12
The Access-and Legitimacy Perspective
This perspective “was predicated on the acceptance and celebration of differences” (Thomas & Ely
1996: 7). This is different from the previous perspective in that it not only recognizes, but also
“celebrates” diversity. Thomas and Ely argue, that since the United States is increasingly a
multicultural country, enterprises need a demographically more diverse work force, in order to
understand and adapt to the increasingly differentiated segments (Thomas & Ely 1996: 8). It could
definitely be argued that the perceived multicultural shift that happened in the 1990’s, when this
article was conducted, is still undergoing; the ever-increasing globalization, causes ever-changing
demographical settings and contexts. Therefore, employees with multilingual skills etc., are highly
valued, and as the authors put it: “diversity isn’t just fair. It makes business sense” (Thomas & Ely
1996: 8).
The enterprises working with this perspective, “(…) almost always operate in a business
environment in which there is increased diversity among customers, clients, or the labor pool (…)”
(Thomas & Ely 1996: 8), and therefore experience an apparent gain by implementing Diversity
Management policies, or an impending threat to the enterprise is experienced by not
understanding and serving the needs of the present segment.
The obvious strengths are the business advantages, one gain by adapting to the desired
segment/market, by means of employees with insights and knowledge of specific areas. It is
argued that the limitations are significant too though, in that the companies often fail to take
advantage of the full potential of their diversity employees, and only use them for their apparent
knowledge of this one area. The enterprises often fail to analyze these differences in order “(…) to
see how they actually affect the work that is done” (Thomas & Ely 1996: 8). The company only
uses the margins of the potential of the diversified workforce (Thomas & Ely 2001: 243).
13
This perspective is focused on the recognition, celebration and acceptance of differences. It takes
advantage of the employee’s insight, knowledge of markets and segments, and uses these for the
advantage of the business to further understand and serve the segment present. The limitation is,
that the enterprises often fail to analyze, and thereby fully understand and reap the potential of a
diverse workforce.
Integration-and-Learning Perspective
This perspective was the last of the 3 that Thomas and Ely phrased. It “(…) links diversity to work
processes – the way people do and experience the work – in a manner that makes diversity a
resource for learning and adaptive change”(Thomas & Ely 2001: 240). The focus of this, is that the
skills, values and experiences that a diverse workforce brings to the table, are “(…) potentially
valuable resources that the work group can use to rethink its primary tasks and redefine its
markets, products, strategies and business practices in a way that will advance its mission”
(Thomas & Ely 2001: 240). This definition can seem mixed up with the perspective of Access-and
Legitimacy, but it is important to realize the difference: the Access-and-Legitimacy Perspective
only uses the margins of the potential of differences in employees’ identity to understand and
better serve a market; the Integration-and-Learning Perspective uses diversity both for the
purpose of serving a segment more effectively, but also for the sake of core strategies within the
company (Thomas & Ely 2001: 240).
This perspective is obviously the one that Thomas and Ely are the most positive towards; saying,
that it links diversity to work processes, and it uses the full potential of the diversified workforce.
Furthermore, it is the latest identified, and the authors do suggest that this is an emergent
perspective, evolving from enterprises implementing one of the two other perspectives, and “have
come to believe that they are not making the most of their own pluralism” (Thomas & Ely 1996:
10).
14
Sum-up
These 3 perspectives are at the same time very different from each other, and obviously leaning
on each other; both for comparison and for differentiation.
Where the value of cultural identity is high in the Integration-and-Learning perspective, because it
is a resource for learning and renewal, and is used for integrating cultural differences in work
processes – it is only moderate in the Access-and-Legitimacy Perspective, as it is a resource for
market and segment understanding, and even lower in the Discrimination-and-Fairness
Perspective; here, it is the basis for equality and fair treatment within the enterprise (Thomas &
Ely 2001: 248).
In other words, the rational for diversifying the workforce is quite different among the 3
approaches; in the Discrimination-and-Learning Perspective, it is about ensuring justice and
eliminate discrimination, in the Access-and-Legitimacy Perspective it is about gaining and
maintaining access to diverse markets and clients, and finally in the Integration-and-Learning
Perspective it is about enhancing the core work and the work processes within the enterprise.
This section serves as an overview and introduction to the 3 perspectives in an American context
of Diversity Management. This theory is used to analyze and better understand the
implementation and communication of Diversity Management on several American Global
enterprises’ websites in the following Analysis.
15
Diversity Management Theory in a Danish Context
This section explores the field of research on Diversity Management in a Danish context. The main
focus is on the work of Peter Hagedorn-Rasmussen and Annette Kamp (2002, 2003 & 2004), but
additional sources are included, where we find it to be relevant. We find the chosen literature to
be applicable for this project, since it introduces the concept of Diversity Management in a Danish
context. The theory, as presented by Hagedorn and Kamp, takes its stand in the American theory
on Diversity Management2 and we find that the interpretation of this, in a Danish context, is
applicable for this project. This section briefly touches upon the history of Diversity Management
in Denmark along with an examination of the extent of the concept in Denmark. Thereafter, we
move towards defining the concept of Diversity Management in a Danish context.
2
As thoroughly explained in “Diversity Management in an American Context”
16
History of Diversity Management in Denmark
Diversity Management was introduced in a Danish context during the 1990’s (Hansen 2010: 5).
Studies show, that Denmark was the last of the Nordic countries to include Diversity Management
in the leadership styles of enterprises (Hagedorn & Kamp 2002: 56). A recent study by Dansk
Industri points to the fact that, the concept has grown to be widespread in Danish enterprises, as
84% state that Diversity Management is important for their business and 51% of the enterprises
believe that a diverse workforce leads to innovation (Allerslev 2011). This study is supported by an
investigation conducted by Dansk Erhverv stating that, in 2009, every third Danish enterprise
worked towards enhancing diversity in the workforce (Ministeriet 2010: 7). The Danish
enterprises are, however, still in a start-up phase, which means that the efforts are somewhat
vague (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 25). One reason for the Danish focus on Diversity Management is
argued to be because of the future need of labor force (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 20), which relates
to the often explained motive for introducing the concept in an enterprise, namely due to the
demographic development and societal changes, especially because of Globalization (Hagedorn &
Kamp 2003: 14) and the internationalization of enterprises (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 41). Diversity
Management is presented as one way to deal with and embrace these challenges (Hagedorn &
Kamp 2003: 41). When implementing Diversity Management policies due to a demographic
development in the shape of future need for workforce, it is argued that Danish enterprises mainly
focuses on the integration of ethnic minorities at the labor market (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 8),
whereas the American context focuses on several variations of diversities3.
During the 1990’s, the businesslike focus enhanced (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 38) in the sense that
the focus became upon resources instead of simply moral and justice (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003:
39). However, Danish enterprises differentiate themselves in some way, since Diversity
Management in a Danish context often is attached to “Social Responsibility” (Hagedorn & Kamp
2003: 21) rather than being attached to a pure economic factor. This focus does, however, not
3
As thoroughly explained in ”Diversity Management Theory in an American Context”
17
mean that one factor is left out; Hagedorn and Kamp argue that Diversity Management is a
strategy of equality while being a business strategy at the same time (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 54),
which we interpret as uniting both the societal and businesslike aspect of the concept. One might
speculate, if enterprises in fact use the American model of Diversity Management adapted to fit
the Danish context. We look into the Danish model of Diversity Management, as it is defined by
Hagedorn and Kamp, in the following section.
18
The Danish Context
The understanding of Diversity Management varies (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 8) and this section
looks into the Danish interpretation of the concept. Özbilgin argues that “due to fundamental
differences between the economic, social and political business environments of US and European
firms, diversity initiatives may (…) not be directly transferred from the US (…)” (Özbilgin 2008: 26).
Thereby, it is suggested that an enterprise must adopt its policies according to “the legal, social
and economic conditions of countries”, which then lead to “a culturally and nationally specific
understanding of diversity management” (Özbilgin 2008: 27). Hagedorn and Kamp support this by
saying that a Danish enterprise cannot embrace the American version of Diversity Management in
the concrete shape, since the contexts differ (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 70) and the policies thereby
have to be adapted according to these.
Many factors influence how Diversity Management is introduced in specific context. This section
briefly look into some of the important factors that helped shape the Danish interpretation of
Diversity Management. Denmark introduced the concept of Diversity Management fairly late,
especially compared to the United States. One explanation to this late introduction is that
Denmark’s history differs from the one of the United States in many areas. One area is the lack of
focus on discrimination and laws in this area; not until 1996, did the National Parliament of
Denmark enact an “Injunction Prohibiting Discriminatory Treatment” (Hagedorn & Kamp 2002:
15), which is a law clearly describing that it is to be the qualifications of a person that makes them
obtain a job (Hagedorn & Kamp 2002: 13-14). An explanation to the late Danish enactment of a
law in the area of discrimination could be because of the late immigration (Hagedorn & Kamp
2003: 26); we speculate if Danish enterprises only have been focusing on the Gender aspect of
discrimination, whereas the immigration might have forced the Parliament and enterprises to act
according to the specific demographic changes. Furthermore, the long history of Unions in
Denmark could be another explanation to the late Danish introduction of Diversity Management in
that the presence of these might have forced the enterprises into following the unwritten rules
19
within antidiscrimination; this is mere speculation, but we aim to look into this throughout the
project.
Hagedorn and Kamp define Diversity Management as a management device that encourages
enterprises to view the diversity of people as a potential and as an instrument that will enable
enterprises to employ these diversities in a positive manner (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 14).
However, no universal definition of Diversity Management exists, since the concept is argued to be
understood and practiced differently according to societal contexts (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 54).
In other words, Diversity Management is a flexible concept that is shaped by the societal and
organizational context it is employed in (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 70). In the Scandinavian context,
Diversity Management is argued to be a concept that emphasizes relations of cooperation and the
inclusion of employees (Hagedorn & Kamp 2002: 58).
In a Danish context, Hagedorn and Kamp define 4 variations of Diversity Management, which is
based upon the 3 perspectives by Ely and Thomas4, which is found to be only partially employed in
a Danish context (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 14-15). The 4 variations of Diversity Management in a
Danish context are presented as “Social Responsibility of the Enterprise”, “the Fight for Talents”,
“Access and Legitimacy” and “Synergy and Learning” (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 15)5. Appendix 1
illustrates a figure explaining the Danish variations of Diversity Management in greater detail than
we are able to present in the following sections.
“Social Responsibility of the Enterprise” revolves around the view that diversity is a strength and
many of the interviewed Danish enterprises in the study state that, the reason for implementing
Diversity Management policies, is because of expectations from the society (Hagedorn & Kamp
2004: 15). In a Danish context, the focus on social responsibility is often concerned with the
integration of refugees and immigrants (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 16). This creates the focus of
4
As they are explained in ”Diversity Management Theory in an American Context”
The 4 variations have been translated from Danish, so some details of the variations might have been lost due to
this.
5
20
minorities as being vague and policies revolve around their deficiencies (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004:
16) instead of the potential in including a diverse workforce.
“The Fight for Talents” argues that by taking advantage of human resources, a sustainable
development can be secured (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 16). Diversity Management is introduced
through policies and profiling (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 16). The focus is not upon discrimination
as such, but rather the variation focuses upon the recruitment process and reaching a broader
spectrum of possible future employment and not upon the potential in current employees’
diversity (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 17). This variation expects newcomers, of another background
than the one being employed in the enterprise, to adapt whereby it, to a great extent, includes a
demand for assimilation (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 17).
The two variations, “Social Responsibility for the Enterprise” and “The Fight for Talents” are argued
to be the most applied tools in Diversity Management in a Danish context. These variations
emphasize the alikeness rather than the difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’ (Hagedorn & Kamp
2004: 19).
“Access and Legitimacy” is argued not to be widespread in Danish enterprises (Hagedorn & Kamp
2004: 17). This variation relates to recruiting specific cultural competencies, for instance a person
with a different mother tongue than the language of the enterprise, and thereby an enterprise
directs policies of Diversity Management at accessing specific segments of people or markets
(Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 17). However, it is argued that being acknowledged for national traits, in
the shape of language or culture, might prove to hinder future advancement in an enterprise
(Hagedorn & Kamp 2994: 17).
The variation “Synergy and Learning” is concerned with a mutual integration (Hagedorn & Kamp
2004: 18) of both the enterprise and its employees, which are stakes that are very time consuming
meanwhile demanding a motivation for risking conflicts and failure during the phase of
implementation (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 20). This variation is argued to view diversities aside
from the traditional views of, for example, ethnicity and gender, but critics argue that by viewing
21
diversity as an individual feature, it is impossible to be aware of discrimination based upon
traditional categories of diversities (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 18). This variation is argued to be
acknowledged only to a very small extent in a Danish context (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 18).
The 2 variations, “Access and Legitimacy” and “Synergy and Learning”, are, as mentioned,
explained not to be widespread in a Danish context; we discuss, if this is the case after having
looked at concrete examples of Danish enterprises contra American enterprises.
The 4 variations, “Social Responsibility of the Enterprise”, “The Fight for Talents”, “Access and
Legitimacy” and “Synergy and Learning”, serve as the basis for the following analysis, where we
are looking into the communication of Diversity Management on Danish websites. However,
Hagedorn and Kamp argue that these variations often occur simultaneously and that variations of
Diversity Management often are linked with efforts within the area of corporate social
responsibility (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 19). Furthermore, it is argued that Diversity Management
in a Danish context often leads towards assimilation (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 19), which we
investigate later in our analysis of Danish global enterprises’ Diversity Management
communication on websites. In addition to this, it is also important to include the argument that
enterprises with employees that are highly educated are more likely to embrace Diversity
Management as opposed to enterprises with employees with lower educational background,
which often focus on homogeneity (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 21).
Concretely, Appendix 2 illustrates specific methods to enhance or use diversity in the workplace
and includes how to implement concrete policies within the leadership style of Diversity
Management. This model introduces specific tools and we include these suggestions in our later
analysis of Danish enterprises. There is an important difference in striving to enhance or use
diversity in that methods aiming at enhancing diversities in the workplace often aim at reducing
inequalities and fighting discrimination which relate to liberal ways of thinking about equal rights,
whereas other methods aim at taking advantage of the current diverse workforce (Hagedorn &
Kamp 2003: 49). Some of the tools might, however, pose a challenge in a Danish context; if an
22
enterprise is to enhance the diversity of employees, the model proposes an analysis of employees’
(Appendix 2). However, this is not legal in Denmark as laws prohibit enterprises in including
employee’s origin in registers (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 47). We include this model in our analysis
of Danish enterprises to find out if only one purpose is apparent when looking at the
communication of Diversity Management. We speculate whether it, as it is prior explained by
Hagedorn and Kamp in connection with the variations, is possible that these purposes occur
simultaneously. We envision that we are able to figure this out by analyzing the communication of
Diversity Management on the Danish enterprises’ websites.
As briefly touched upon6, Globalization and the internationalization of enterprises are argued to
be some of the main reasons for enterprises implementing Diversity Management policies. Due to
changes in society, enterprises need to adapt and employees with transnational competencies are
argued to be an advantage (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 43) when trying to adapt to a changing
society or various ways of conducting business. In order to attract and maintain these employees,
enterprises must incorporate the concept of Diversity Management in their management strategy.
As explained in this section of the project, a lot of contexts influence the concrete policy of
Diversity Management. This is supported by Klaus Ebbesen, who argues that in order to
implement a policy of Diversity Management, an enterprise has to undergo a concrete analysis of
the situation of the enterprise in question (Ebbesen 2008).
6
See ”History of Diversity Management in Denmark”
23
Sum up
This section on Diversity Management theory in a Danish context proved that the concept is fairly
widespread in Denmark, even though it has only recently been introduced. The Danish focus is, by
Hagedorn and Kamp, argued to be because of demographic development and societal changes.
Furthermore, they argue that, in a Danish context, Diversity Management is attached to Social
Responsibility. Concretely, Danish enterprises are argued to be focused on ethnicity and gender as
opposed to other minority groups. Özbilgin states that Diversity Management policies have to be
tailored to specific conditions of a country; legal, social and economic. The Danish laws in the area
of anti-discrimination were briefly introduced and we raise the question of whether the late
Danish focus upon anti-discrimination might be because of late immigration. Furthermore, we
speculate whether the strong history of unions has “forced” the Danish system to react and
incorporate policies within anti-discrimination and Diversity Management. Diversity Management
is defined as a flexible concept that is shaped by societal and organizational context – in Denmark,
the concept is argued to be one that emphasizes the relations of cooperation and inclusion.
Appendix 2 provides us with a model that concretely specifies how enterprises can manage
diversities and we will include this in our analysis. Hagedorn and Kamp define 4 Danish variations
of Diversity Management – these are based upon the work by Ely and Thomas. The first two,
“Social Responsibility of the Enterprise” and “The Fight for Talents” are argued to be the most
widespread in Denmark, whereas “Access and Legitimacy” and “Synergy and Learning” do not
often occur in a Danish context. It is, however, importantly noted that the variations often occur
simultaneously.
The theory as presented in this section serves the basis for our analysis of the communication of
Diversity Management on Danish enterprises’ websites.
24
Comparison of the American and Danish theory on Diversity Management
This section briefly looks into some of the main differences of Diversity Management in an
American and a Danish context. It is based upon the theoretical sections, as described prior in this
project. We find Hagedorn and Kamp (2002, 2004 & 2004) to be great sources in order for us to
provide some thoughts on the main differences, since these scholars have investigated both the
American Diversity Management style and the Danish Diversity Management style.
As mentioned, context is argued to be determining the way Diversity Management is applied in an
enterprise. Context may be national, occupational or personal dependent. As it was argued7,
demographic changes affect, among other things, management style, which we look into in this
section. In addition, it is also argued that societal changes can affect Diversity Management
(Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 14), which we would categorize as the major difference between the
American and the Danish type of Diversity Management in that it is two different societies. The
main focus of this section will be on pinpointing differences in the theoretical understanding of
Diversity Management in Denmark and in the United States combined with other context specific
differences.
One important thing that differs from the American and Danish context is the legal aspect. In the
United States, a long history of ethical considerations and laws following these exist8, whereas it,
in Denmark, only fairly recently have become apparent that laws of anti-discrimination were
needed9. Another important difference between the two nations is the view on ethnicity, which, in
the United States, is shaped by the history of slaves (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 18) and in Denmark
by recent immigration10. Furthermore, the cultural heterogeneity11 is larger in the United States,
than it is in Denmark; it is argued that groups develop an identity of their own based upon cultural
and ethnic affiliation and this development of a multicultural crowd is legit in the American
7
In “Diversity Management Theory in a Danish Context”
As it was thoroughly explained in “Diversity Management Theory in an American Context”
9
As it was thoroughly explained in “Diversity Management Theory in a Danish Context”
10
As it was thoroughly explained in Diversity Management Theory in a Danish Context
11
Heterogeneity means that something, like a society, is “different in kind” or, “unlike” (Dictionary.com 1)
8
25
context (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 18). Denmark is, on the contrary, used to a more homogeneous
society12 (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 18), which we speculate might mean that people are not used
to these differences and therefore not ready to fully take advantage of the potential in employing
a diverse workforce.
As it has been thoroughly explained in our Theoretical Sections, the Danish theory takes its
departure in the American literature by Ely and Thomas. However, some changes were made in
order for the theory to fit the Danish context. One major change was the alteration of the
variations; in order for the perspectives to fit the Danish context, Hagedorn and Kamp had to
change the original as presented by Ely and Thomas13. Hagedorn and Kamp argue that, it is
necessary for theories to adapt to specific contexts, as concepts spread globally and translate in
the process that they are institutionalized and this is argued to be the way that context specific
variations arise (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 13).
Homogeneous means that something, like a society, is “composed of parts or elements that are all of the same kind;
not heterogeneous: a homogeneous population” (Dictionary.com 2)
13
As it was thoroughly explained in our sections on theory
12
26
Critique of theory on Diversity Management
Having now offered some deliberations on aspects of theory on Diversity Management, in the
American and Danish context respectively, we find it important to include this section, to present
the critique on the theory in this field.
This section is meant as a tool for better understanding, and having a more critical approach to
these theories, as to obtain a more varied understanding of the subject.
Presented in this chapter, are the critical theories of John Wrench, Professor at University of
Southern Denmark, and researcher within the field of discrimination and racism (Wrench 2005:
83), and Anna Lorbiecki and Gavin Jack, both from Management Departments of universities in
England (Lorbiecki & Jack 2000: 17),
John Wrench sets forth the argument, that the term of Diversity Management is a cover-up, for
rather important issues such as discrimination, anti-discrimination, and equality, to name a few.
He argues, that it is so-called “window-dressing”, and thereby only used to make a company look
good in the eye of the public, and therefore make up a competitive advantage (Wrench 2005: 74).
Wrench highlights the fears of the equal opportunities activist, saying, that a problem can arise, if
Diversity Management “(…) might be used to prioritize “soft” rather than “hard” equal
opportunities practices.” (Wrench 2005: 75). Thereby some minority groups will be less
represented under Diversity Management than they were under the Affirmative Action wave
before the 1980’s. The fear amounts to the thought of the softer values, such as “recognition of
cultural differences at work” (Wrench 2005: 75) replacing the harder values, such as “the setting
of targets and the use of positive action at the “harder” end.”(Wrench 2005: 75).
Wrench argues the most fundamental criticism of Diversity Management to be “(…) that diversity
management has moved equal opportunities away from a moral and ethical issue and turned it
into a business strategy” (Wrench 2005: 77). This issue could be interpreted as anti-discrimination
and inclusion only being important and worth-while, if there is an economic and strategic
27
advantage to gain. Also, as Wrench argues, the fair society that might be formed by the
implementation of Diversity Management is rather a side effect as a result of the measures taken
by the company – but that there is no guarantee of this (Wrench 2005: 79).
It is furthermore argued that, the benefit of Diversity Management is overstated, as it is often
referred to as an instant gain for a company. Diversity is often presented as a natural fact and
managing this “fact” is then rendered desirable “(…) through the argument that it will lead to
more conducive work environments (…)” (Lorbiecki & Jack 2000: 19), but really, the emphasis is
put on strategic leadership for the company, when implementing Diversity Management (Lorbiecki
& Jack: 2000: 19). It is said that, most research on the advantage are conducted in classrooms, and
therefore has nothing to do with reality (Wrench 2005: 78).
These points are applicable for both the United States and Denmark. In the following section, we
highlight the different concerns of criticism in Denmark and the United States, respectively.
One other major concern “is that diversity management dilutes policies against racism and ethnic
discrimination by mixing them with policies relating to other groups” (Wrench 2005: 76); for other
scholars, of those advocating Diversity Management, this is a gain in the sense that it includes
other minority groups. Wrench argues though, that some groups, such as women and AfricanAmericans, have historically suffered and been marginalized more than other groups, and
therefore need more attention. It is wondered; “how can African Americans and other minorities
benefit (…) when the same human resource chief who handled just two programmes now
administers twenty-six?” (Wrench 2005: 76) - the field is simply getting too broad!
Lorbiecki and Jack furthermore puts forward the argument, that when we are all argued to be
different, and should be treated differently to benefit most from the present diversity, as argued
by advocates of Diversity Management, it “has the ironic effect of dissolving the basis of
disadvantage (…) as attention is placed on broader” (Lorbiecki & Jack 2000: 24) differences,
instead of on the minority groups of e.g. African-Americans, as touched upon earlier.
28
A major concern in Europe and Scandinavia, and thereby Denmark, should be, according to
Wrench, that the newcomers in these countries, immigrants etc., do not always wish to be
categorized as any different from the natives and that this is actually putting pressure on them,
when being emphasized this way. Wrench quotes a Swedish academic, who argues, that the
differences between the native Swedes and the immigrants coming to Sweden, even the second
and third generation immigrants, “(…) thus becomes an axiom which required no verification”
(Wrench 2005: 77).
For the critics, Diversity Management is therefore too simple a term, to cover all areas, it is given
to cover over the last decades. In the United States it has shifted from covering the most
marginalized groups, such as women and African-American, to a much broader spectrum, and in
the Scandinavian context, the immigrants have difficulties coping with being seen as any different
from the native born Swedes, Norwegians and Danes.
The concerns presented in this section, are, as mentioned, meant to draw a broader picture of the
term of Diversity Management. These implications are kept in mind during the analyses of our
chosen cases, to ensure a more extensive perspective on the subject.
29
Methodology
Having now accounted for our theoretical framework and the offered criticism of this, the
following offers methodological deliberations in relation to the use of this theory in the
subsequent analyses. We find the previously explained theories useful to our project, because
they each represent a national dependent form of theory on the subject of Diversity Management.
We find Thomas & Ely and Hagedorn & Kamp to be great representatives of the American versus
Danish theory in this area, as these scholars are recognized in the area of Diversity Management
theory14.
We argue the chosen theories in this project to be epistemologically placed within Interpretivism.
Our reason for stating this, is that, by viewing culture as a social construction, diversities are
managed, meanwhile they can influence the management style, which is one of the key elements
within Constructivism (Bryman 2008: 19). We agree with the notion that, the interpretation of
differences and homogeneity are dividing lines, that are constructed and reproduced in an
organizational context and that these are imbedded in the organization’s structures, norms and
guidelines. (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 97). We take a Qualitative Approach in this project. With
basis in the theory applied, we aim to analyze the chosen data and by conducting this research, we
aim to provide the reader with additional findings in the area of Diversity Management in national
contexts. This way of conducting research is argued to be a mix of deductive and inductive theory
(Bryman 2008: 9) in that the theory provides us with a pre-understanding of Diversity
Management, which allows us to look for certain keywords while analyzing, which relates to the
deductive approach. We also wish to apply the inductive approach in that we aim to find
additional communication on the websites disagreeing with the theory and this enables us to
present the reader with other ways of viewing the concept of Diversity Management
communication in national contexts. This relates to the Hermeneutic Circle in that we aim at
reaching another understanding based on existent knowledge (Bryman 2008: 532).
14
This is based upon literature in the area that cites these scholars.
30
In this project, we chose to focus on global enterprises, as also mentioned earlier. The definition,
we have found applicable on the term of global enterprises, is that, it is an enterprise with the
base in one country, here; either Denmark or the United States. The global aspect relates to the
enterprise conducting business around the world, and having websites with an international
aspect. Regarding the definition of Diversity Management, we lean on the definition provided by
Bratton and Gold, stating that it is “an approach to managing people that recognizes differences
between people and the value of difference as a source of productive potential within an
organization” (Bratton & Gold 2007: 580).
The theories we have chosen to use, are respectively the Danish and American outlook upon the
theories of Diversity Management. As the American outlook, we have included the work by
Thomas and Ely, as they were the first to formulate concrete guidelines for managing diversities.
As the Danish outlook, we included the work of Hagedorn and Kamp, as they base their theory on
the findings and work of Thomas and Ely, but differentiate the theories according to the Danish
context that they find themselves in. We apply the theories to the chosen cases in order to find an
answer to our Research Question. We find the theories’ different outlook to be a great foundation
for conducting our research.
The empirical data serves as the basis of our analyses and the data consists of texts from websites.
The websites are of global enterprises with Danish or American origin. This section of our project
does not feature an introduction and mentioning of deliberations in choosing the websites, as this
is thoroughly explained later15. It is, however, important to note that we are aware that, the
websites contain official documents, which might represent the version of practices an enterprise
wish the public to be aware of (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 15). We find the data useful, even with
this in mind, as we wish to analyze, if national dependent differences exist in the communication
of Diversity Management on the chosen websites. The limited resources of this project did not
allow us to investigate into unofficial publications. Gaining access to unofficial data from various
15
See “Introduction to Cases”
31
enterprises of different national origin would mean investigating for a longer period of time and
more extensively than the project frame allows. Another interesting aspect to keep in mind, as
briefly mentioned earlier, is that, the websites probably feature a version of their policies in the
area of Diversity Management that they wish the public and also future employees to be made
aware of. It is argued that enterprises have to promote themselves as individuals increasingly
identify through their work place (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 44).
This project is of a cross-sectional design, as we look at more than one case (website) in order to
agree or disagree with our hypothesis. Our research strategy is qualitative, as we investigate
official documents of the chosen enterprises. Concretely, our analyses, as before mentioned,
consist of a study of websites, and will therefore be conducted as a critical case (Bryman 2008).
Through analyzing the efforts within the area of Diversity Management presented on the websites
of the enterprises, we aim to conduct a theoretical discussion, which we envision will allow us to
generate additional theory in this area.
Our analyses are based on the aforementioned websites, where we apply the chosen theories in
order to investigate, which strategies are used by the enterprises. We apply the theories to the
empirical data, the websites, in an investigating approach and thereby seek to answer our
Research Question. As mentioned prior, the websites are thoroughly presented later in this
project.
Subsequently, the findings of our analyses provide the basis of a Discussion leading to our
Conclusion, where we aim to provide an answer to our Research Question.
32
Introduction to cases
As mentioned previously, we have chosen to include material from websites as our data. We
decided to include 4 Danish and 4 American based global enterprises and use the public accessible
data written on the enterprises’ websites as the set of data to be used in our analyses. The
enterprises had to be of a certain size and they had to be internationally recognized. Our method
for choosing these, was to choose enterprises that are acknowledged worldwide – one way for us
to know that, was to look for websites with a global aspect; concretely, this can be seen by an
enterprise having divisions worldwide. Furthermore, an important criterion for the websites was
for them to have public accessible information on policies made in the area of Diversity
Management.
This led us to choose 4 American based and 4 Danish based enterprises’ websites and collect data
from these websites. The following briefly introduces the enterprises;
Appendix 3 features the data compiled on the American based enterprise, Kelloggs. The enterprise
began in Michigan in 1906 and today it manufactures in 18 countries and sells its products in more
than 180 countries around the world (Kelloggs 1).
Appendix 4 features the data compiled on the American based enterprise, Cisco. The enterprise is
based in California and operates in more than 165 countries worldwide (Cisco 1).
Appendix 5 features the data compiled on the American based enterprise, Colgate. The enterprise
had its origin in New York in 1806 (Colgate 1) and it currently has its products sold in more than
200 countries and territories worldwide (Colgate 2).
Appendix 6 features the data compiled on the American based enterprise, Walmart. The
enterprise was founded in Arkansas in 1962. Today, it operates in 28 countries (Walmart 1).
Appendix 7 features the data compiled on the Danish based enterprise, Novo Nordisk. The
enterprise is based in Denmark, but employs in 74 countries and markets its products in 179
countries (Novo Nordisk 1).
33
Appendix 8 features the data compiled on the Danish based enterprise, Vestas. The enterprise
began its operations in 1898 (Vestas 1). Its products are sold in 66 countries worldwide (Vestas 2).
Appendix 9 features the data compiled on the Danish based enterprise, Rambøll. The enterprise
was founded in 1945 and currently operates from 200 offices in 23 coutries worldwide (Rambøll
1).
Appendix 10 features the data compiled on the Danish based enterprise, Mærsk. The enterprise
was founded in 1877 (Mærsk 1) and it currently operates in more than 130 countries worldwide
(Mærsk 2).
This short introduction of the enterprises chosen as our cases in the following analyses, serves as
practical information on the enterprises in question and furthermore, this section have explained
our reason for choosing these. The Appendixes include various materials from the enterprises’
websites and can be found in order by page number.
34
Introduction to Analyses
In this section we seek to apply the aforementioned and described theories of Diversity
Management in Denmark and the United States respectively, to the chosen cases.
This section starts out with the analysis of 4 American enterprises according to the section on
“Diversity Management Theory in an American Context”. Hereafter, the analysis of 4 Danish
enterprises according to the section on “Diversity Management Theory in a Danish Context”
follows. In each section, the 4 cases are dealt with individually, whereby we individually for each
case analyzes the data, as it is described on the respective website.
In our analyses, it is important to keep in mind that enterprises often emphasize something and
not all (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 45) of the offered tools within Diversity Management and that
while focusing on some aspects, others are left out (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 58).
Together these two sections of analysis lead up to a Discussion of our findings, and in our
Conclusion hereafter, we seek to present an answer to our Research Question, as it is offered in
the Introduction.
35
Analysis of Diversity Management in an American context
This section features the analyses of the 4 chosen American enterprises and their communication
of Diversity Management on their website, as well as the use of the theory of Diversity
Management of Thomas and Ely. All theory mentioned in this section, is thoroughly explained in
the theory sections of Diversity Management Theory in an American Context. We seek to apply
the theory presented and described in the section on Diversity Management Theory in an
American Context, to put the theory into perspective through the study of the data these cases
provide. Where it is deemed useful, additional sources and literature is applied.
Each analysis in this section is summed up individually, and finally a sub-conclusion is offered at
the end, to investigate further whether or not the theory put forward in Diversity Management
Theory in an American context is apparent in the 4 cases chosen.
36
Analysis of Walmart (Appendix 3)
16
The website of Walmart features the site of Walmart Corporate. This site contains among other
sections, an elaborate section on Diversity and Inclusion, where the Diversity and Inclusion report
of the enterprise of 2010, is also found (Walmart 2). Many areas of Diversity and Inclusion issues
are processed on this site, and it is seems well organized and well thought-out.
On Walmart Corporate’s diversity site, what is mentioned more than anything else, is the
commitment to growing and learning from every individual in the enterprise, “(…)giving every
associate the opportunity to learn, grow and advance. We believe we are a stronger team when
we include different perspectives and ideas at every level and across all areas (…)” (Appendix 3, 1).
This focus is also emphasized even in one of their core values; “Inclusion Makes us Stronger.”
(Appendix 3, 2) This could suggest that the demographic diversity in the work force is increased, by
means of advocating that the enterprise is open to anyone for employment. Actually, the numbers
for minority managers and officials are increasing too, “over the past five years, the number of
minority officials and managers has increased from 13,109 to 16,237” (Appendix 3, 3), which
suggests that diversities are welcome at all levels of the enterprise. Furthermore, the fair
treatment of minorities are very clearly stated in the Diversity and Inclusion report (Appendix 3, 4),
as the percentile of women and minority workers are clearly stated – 35,33 % minority workers,
and 57,76 % women are employed. These could be considered merely numbers, but as it is stated
in the Diversity and Inclusion report of 2010 “during the same period of time17, the number of
female officials and managers has increased from 23,873 to 25,246.” (Appendix 3, 3) which
highlights, that it is not just a headcount of minorities, but that minority workers actually succeed
16
17
Walmart 1
The same period of time, being 5 years, as in the quote above
37
in working their way up in the company. Both of these facts indicate the theory of the
Discrimination-And-Fairness Perspective in the communication on the website, as these are issues
that this perspective is concerned with.
In Walmart’s Diversity and Inclusion Report of 2010 it says, “(…) by embracing differences, our
associates grow, our customers benefit and our communities advance” (Appendix 3, 5). This seems
to point toward, that the enterprise benefit overall by recognizing (embracing) the diversity, and
taking it into consideration. Furthermore, the mentioning of the communities that will also
advance from this inclusion, not only suggests that the enterprise has made considerations
towards Corporate Social Responsibilities – or, at least the gains from indicating this – but could
also leads us toward the use of the Access-And-Legitimacy Perspective in the communication.
These findings, additionally, indicate that, the enterprise is to be understood as an open system,
and not just an isolated island. The perspective of Access-and-Legitimacy is about gaining and
maintaining the access to diverse segments by taking advantage of the diversity within the
enterprise18. Sharon Orlopp, Global Chief Diversity Officer and Senior Vice President at Walmart,
argues that “when we are open to opinions and approaches that differ from our own, we open the
door to growth and excellence—for ourselves, for our associates and for our company” (Appendix
3, 6) and furthermore that,
everywhere we do business, we are focused on developing a diverse workforce where all ideas,
perspectives and cultures are included. Toward that end, we are integrating this important work into
all levels of our business (…) (Appendix 3, 6).
Even though these quotes are engaged with the area of diversity and inclusion, it is noteworthy,
that business, and thereby monetary gains although not mentioned directly, is at all times given as
the sole reason for why Walmart even “bothers” working with the issue of diversity in their
enterprise. This could point to, according to the theoretical understandings offered by Thomas and
Ely, a typical American approach. The monetary gains and the bottom-line benefit is increasingly
18
As thoroughly described in “Diversity Management Theory in an American Context”
38
important for American enterprises working with policies on Diversity Management19 – even
though, it should be noted, that the “business case” for Diversity Management, as it is sometimes
referred too, has never been concluded beneficial on the bottom-line (Wharton, Univ. of
Pennsylvania). Additionally, the effectiveness and innovation of the employees due to the
recognition of diversity, is an important area of focus for the American enterprises today (Thomas
& Ely 1996: 1). This is also indicated, by both Sharon Orlopp and Mike duke, President and CEO of
Walmart, stating several times in their respective introductory sections in the Diversity and
Inclusion report, how employees can learn from each other, grow, and develop, on the basis of
diversity (Appendix 3, 6 and Appendix 3, 7). This is suggesting that the effectiveness and
innovation is key to the leaders of Walmart for business purposes (Thomas & Ely 1996: 1).
In the quote above by Sharon Orlopp – “(…) we are integrating this important work into all levels
of our business (…)” (Appendix 3, 6) - we see the levels of the enterprise mentioned. This quote
agrees with the speculation offered earlier in this section of analysis of Walmart, namely that
minorities actually do work their way up to management positions in the company, and thereby
diversity influences all levels of the business.
Sub conclusion
The Discrimination-And-Fairness Perspective seems present in the communication, in that the
website and the report on Diversity and Inclusion, is very much concerned with the mentioning of
percentile numbers of minority groups employed in the enterprise. Also, the emphasis on
inclusion of all diversities in the work force, indicates the Discrimination-And-Fairness Perspective,
as this perspective is also evolving around anti-discrimination issues of Diversity Management.
This is seen by the frequent mentioning of openness and inclusion of all; there is no room for
discrimination, according to the website. The Access-And-Legitimacy Perspective is apparent by
the claimed use of a diverse workforce’ knowledge on diverse markets and segments.
19
As it was stated in “Diversity Management Theory in an American Context”
39
All in all, we argue that the website of Walmart indicates that, the communication of Diversity
Management to the public is well thought-out and well conducted.
The emphasis by both the President/CEO and the Senior Vice President/Global Chief Diversity
Officer is on the business gains, the effectiveness, and the innovation achieved by diversifying the
enterprise’s staff, suggests that this is a case of typical American communication and
understanding Diversity Management.
40
Analysis of Cisco (Appendix 4)
20
The website of Cisco does not feature a separate corporate site, but it does feature a separate site
all dedicated to Diversity and Inclusion (Cisco 2). This site suggests that, the appearance of the
company through the communication of Diversity Management on the website has been taken
into consideration – we will return to this in our Discussion later in the project.
On the site, the importance of the link to the different communities through diversity is
emphasized; “Cisco has offices worldwide that contribute to the daily lives of people in hundreds
of communities (…) these communities have a tremendous influence on who we are as a
company” (Appendix 4, 1) and this communication points toward the Access-and-Legitimacy
Perspective. This is seen by the claiming that, the enterprise is shaped by diversity – it can be seen
both as diversity changing the Organizational Culture, but also that the company uses the
knowledge of the diversified workforce, and takes advantage of it, to better understand the
different communities they are serving, as is one of the main points of the Access-and-Legitimacy
Perspective.
The composition of members of the Diversity and Inclusion Executives Board indicates diversity as
well, as the names of the members disclose a variety of heritages (Appendix 4, 2). This could
suggest that the option of working in upper management in Cisco is indeed an option for all
employees. This point has to be taken for the mere speculations it is though, as there are no
indication that these people in the board are actually diverse; it is merely relying on names. Also, it
is never mentioned anywhere, that diversity seeps through to all levels, as it was, for instance, at
the Walmart website.
20
Cisco 5
41
As also noted in the analysis of Walmart, the CEO of Cisco has a quote put on the website, pointing
towards a very American approach to Diversity Management, as he says that they, “(…)promote a
creative, innovative, and collaborative environment that helps drive our business strategy”
(Appendix 4, 1). This seems to comply with the notion of Thomas and Ely, as it seems rather
focused on the strategic business part of Diversity Management. This can be explained by the view
the public will likely attain of the company, when having knowledge like this; the softer values –
“creative, innovative, and collaborative environment” as seen in the quote above - can present a
business strategy in itself, to create a better picture of the enterprise to the public. As seen in
Diversity Management Theory in an American context, this focus on monetary and bottom-line
gains are typical for the American form of Diversity Management (Thomas & Ely 1996: 1).
It is rather interesting to note how the Annual Report of 2011 (Cisco 3), does not mention
diversity, or Diversity Management at all. This would seem like a good place to indicate if there
have been any improvements, and thereby promote themselves as a diversity conscious
enterprise. This could be seen as a clear disagreement with the Discrimination-and-Fairness
Perspective, as this perspective advocates that the anti-discrimination and fairness is deeply
rooted in the company, and clearly communicated (Thomas & Ely 1996: 5). It should be noted
though, that there are various channels of communication in a big enterprise like Cisco, and that
an Annual Report might be rather focused on the shareholders, and therefore might overlook
areas such as the diversity policies of the organization. However, we would argue, that not having
it mentioned at all is problematic, as Diversity Management, as mentioned above, can create value
for the enterprise, as the public recognition is likely to be positively marked - and further, we
argue, that this value should be interesting to the shareholders as well.
The subject of diversity and inclusion is, however, brought up in the educational material on the
website. Here, a brochure on “Inclusion and Diversity” is found (Cisco 4), which seems to be both
of educational information for the employees, but also for the public. It is interesting to note, that
this brochure, which is supposed to be educational, does not contain any actual statistical
42
information on how many member of minority groups are actually employed. One could argue
that, it is mostly conducted as to present the enterprise as a caring organization, without actually
stating any real facts on diversity. There are no numbers, no statistics, and all in all, it is merely a
recital of fixed phrases such as “together we are limitless”, “together we are at our best”,
“together we thrive”, as well as a recital of the different networks of minorities they include (Cisco
4). Taking a very critical stance, it could be said that the brochure is simply for “show”, and does
not actually contain any hard facts on Diversity Management in the enterprise.
Sub conclusion
This analysis of Cisco, has taken a very critical stance towards the communication of Diversity
Management on their website. It seems striking that the company never actually lets of any
numeral information on neither the minority workers, nor the measures taken towards these. As it
is seen in this section, the Annual Report (Cisco 3) contains no information on Diversity, and that
this is in clear disagreement with the notion of the Discrimination-and-Fairness Perspective - and
even though there is an educational brochure to be found on the website, it seems mostly for
“show”, with no hard facts.
The Access-and-Legitimacy Perspective does seem apparent though, through the emphasis of the
connection to the communities. Also, the American type of Diversity Management presented by
Thomas and Ely, focusing on the potential monetary gains of the company by diversifying the
enterprise, seems apparent to some degree.
43
Analysis of Colgate (Appendix 5)
21
Entering the website of Colgate, it is harder to locate the area of diversity and inclusion, than it has
been the case with the two previous analyzed American companies. Once found, it is, however
fairly organized and well working communication-wise. It features many different aspects on
diversity, and is supported by quotes of many different people.
Ian Cook, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer presents an essential quote;
These differences bring a depth and variety of ideas to our business that cannot come from any other
source. They are the keys to finding new solutions to business challenges and new opportunities from
unique insights. Creating an inclusive environment is absolutely critical to ensure that we can benefit
from these diverse viewpoints, diverse ideas and diverse perspectives (Appendix 5, 1)
Here, he mentions the “new solutions to business challenges”, which we have actually not seen
stated that clearly in any of the prior analyses in this section. It complies greatly with the notion
when talking about the newly – as it was new in the 90’s, when the research was done – emerging
perspective of Integration-and-Learning; here, the essentials are, that the enterprise uses the
diversity of the workforce as a resource for learning, adapting, and thereby optimizing work
processes (Thomas & Ely 2001: 240). Here, it is also apparent how this perspective of Integrationand-Learning is closely linked to the Access-and-Legitimacy Perspective; in the aforementioned,
diversity is used both for the sake of serving the segment, but also for the sake of the core
strategies within the company – as seen in the quote by Ian Cook, above. In the Access-andLegitimacy Perspective, diversity is merely a tool for better understanding the segment, and how
to take advantage of the knowledge of the individual worker, to work that specific segment better
21
Colgate 3
44
(Thomas & Ely 2001: 240). Actually, aspects of the Access-and-Legitimacy Perspective also seem
present in the quotes on this website; here, Eugene Kelly, Worldwide Director, Global Workplace
Initiatives, expresses thoughts on the subject of diversity within the enterprise;
(…) fostering an inclusive workplace that mirrors the diversity of the global marketplace. Such an
environment will provide all Colgate people with the opportunity to make unique contributions to our
overall business success (Appendix 5, 1)
In mentioning the global marketplace, and how all employees can contribute to the overall
business success, elements of the perspective of Access-and-Legitimacy seem present. In this
perspective, the element of reaping the benefits for business through diversity is the core value.
As argued, “diversity isn’t just fair. It makes business sense” (Thomas & Ely 1996: 8). Also, this
quote above seems to clearly indicate another important point made by the authors, as also seen
in the previous analyses in this section; namely, that the focus on effectiveness and bottom-line
gains through these measures taken towards Diversity Management, are predominant in
American Diversity Management (Thomas & Ely 1996: 1). The speculations on both the presence
of the Access-and-Legitimacy Perspective and American thinking on Diversity Management in the
communication of the website, is supported by the section of Career Opportunities on the site
(Appendix 5, 1) stating that “there are many career opportunities available for people with diverse
knowledge and backgrounds. The wide range of ideas and talents we share helps us grow our
business and sustain our success” (Appendix 5, 1). Here, it can be argued, that the enterprise is
specifically looking for diversity and context groups that will help the enterprise thrive, and grow,
business-wise.
On Colgate’s website it is also stated that, they have been awarded, within the “50 Best
Companies for Diversity”, by the American site, DiversityInc.com (DiversityInc 1) in 2001 and 20046 (Appendix 5, 2). On the site of DiversityInc it says that, hundreds of companies participate each
year, and that that number is only increasing (DiversityInc 2). Being, that this is an independent
source of information, we would argue that, it is safe to applaud the validity of the site. As Colgate
45
has been within the 50 Best Companies for Diversity 4 times, with the year 2001 being the first
year of this award, means that recognition of their work has expanded, and the core values are
clearly stated. This can be argued to indicate the Discrimination-and-Fairness Perspective, as this,
among other aspects, revolves around the codes of conduct being clear and unambiguous
(Thomas & Ely 1996: 5). Also, as this perspective is argued to be the most dominant in the
American business world (Thomas & Ely 1996: 4), it would surely comply with the other
speculations put forward in this section, of Colgate clearly using tools of Diversity Management as
typically seen in the United States.
Sub conclusion
In this section of analysis, we found that Colgate seems to comply with the Integration-andLearning Perspective, as it seems as though diversity is used both for the sake of a resource for
learning, and for optimization of the work processes. Also, it was stated that, Colgate seems to
comply with the Access-and-Legitimacy Perspective, as the Eugene Kelly quote showed; it seems
that Colgate uses diversity as a resource for adapting to and understanding the segment present,
as to serve this better. The focus on the business aspect of diversity found in this analysis could
also indicate that Colgate, furthermore, uses tools as known from the American type of Diversity
Management. Lastly, it was found to be indicated; that the Discrimination-and-Fairness
Perspective could also be argued to be present, as the measures taken by Colgate has been
recognized by a third party, DiversityInc (DiversityInc 1).
46
Analysis of Kellogg’s (Appendix 6)
22
On the Kellogg’s website, a rather large area is dedicated solely to the subject of diversity and
inclusion, including a “Diversity Strategy” site (Appendix 6, 1). In the very first lines of this site, it is
stated that “our diversity strategy reflects the goal of ensuring that diversity and inclusion are fully
integrated with all aspects of our organization and fully realized as a key business strategy for
success” (Appendix 6, 1); this quote could seemingly indicate, how diversity is used for the sake of
business, as the line “(…)key business strategy for success” (Appendix 6, 1) is used. By using this
line as the measure for arguing for the attention to diversity, it seems that the tools and
understandings of Thomas and Ely’s Integration-and-Learning Perspective might be in place here,
as this perspective “links diversity to work processes”, (Thomas & Ely 2001: 240). This is,
furthermore, indicated by the use of the term “Diversity Strategy”, as the strategic use of Diversity
Management is seen within the same perspective, namely Integration-and-Learning. If these
speculations are taken to be truthful, it is interesting to note how the Kellogg’s enterprise, seems
to be holistic in their understanding, thinking and communication of Diversity Management. This
holistic aspect has been notified as lacking in the American context of Diversity Management
(Thomas & Ely 1996: 4). Throughout the site, subjects such as mentoring, training, and employees
programs dedicated to recognizing and using diversity correctly, are mentioned. This is all put into
perspective, by acknowledging that these will “(…)help us achieve our diversity goals” (Appendix 6,
1) – these understandings further support the notion of a holistic approach towards Diversity
Management, as communicated by the enterprise.
The following quote from CEO and President of Kellogg’s, John Bryant, “to succeed in an
increasingly competitive global marketplace, it is essential that we attract the best talent and that
22
Kellogg’s 2
47
our employees reflect the diversity of our consumer base” (Appendix 6, 2), directly points out, that
for the sake of business and for the sake of keeping up with the ever-increasing competition on
the global market, it is of value that, the diversity of the company reflects the segment. This could
arguably be seen as the Access-and-Legitimacy Perspective, as this perspective sees that global
enterprises need an increasingly demographic diverse employee-group, to match the increasingly
differentiated segments they serve (Thomas & Ely 1996: 8). The following quote supports this
understanding, as it says “our commitment to diversity and inclusion is vital to our business”
(Appendix 6, 3). These understandings of the importance of Diversity Management for the overall
growth and expansion of business for the company, is, a sign of the notion that Thomas and Ely
puts forward, of the typical American Diversity Management being mostly focused on the business
gains of the diversity subject, rather than other gains that could potentially come from employing
the diversity policies.
Sub conclusion
In this section we saw how Kellogg’s website contains hints that indicate the tools and
understandings of Diversity Management of the Integration-and-Learning Perspective. This was
seen by the way the website concentrates mostly on how diversity has to be incorporated in all
areas of the company, and how it is also seen as a key issue for the strategy of the company.
Furthermore, it was investigated, how the holistic approach to Diversity Management, that
Thomas and Ely calls for in the American context, might be present in the Kellogg’s enterprise.
Additionally, it was indicated that the Access-and-Legitimacy Perspective might be present, as the
business aspect of Diversity Management is often mentioned on the website. With this, it was also
implied, that the typical American discourse towards Diversity Management could arguably be
seen within the communication of Diversity Management of this website.
48
Sum-up of this chapter
In this chapter, it was seen how the perspectives of Thomas and Ely apparently clash with each
other, mix with each other and sometimes points to the same understandings.
It is interesting to note, how the Discrimination-and-Fairness Perspective, as Thomas and Ely
advocated to be the most dominant of the 3 perspective, does not seem to be the most dominant
in these 4 enterprises - as it is only actually seen indicated in the analysis done on Walmart. One
might speculate if this is a sign of changes occurring in the American Diversity Management
context, since the research was conducted by the authors. This is further elaborated in the
Discussion.
All in all, the analysis of these 4 enterprises seem to offer the understanding that, the
communication of the issue of Diversity Management on their respective websites, seem to go
along the lines of the American context of Diversity Management, as suggested by Thomas and
Ely. The perspectives23 seem to be present in these analyses, and only in the case of Cisco, the
communication seem to be a bit off, context-wise.
23
As presented in “Diversity Management in an American Context”
49
Analysis of Diversity Management in a Danish Context
This chapter includes the analyses of the Danish enterprises’ communication of Diversity
Management. The analyses of the 4 Danish enterprises are based upon the theoretical literature
of Diversity Management in a Danish context, as it was thoroughly described prior in this project.
Where we find it to be relevant, we include articles and additional literature in order to investigate
Diversity Management Communication in a Danish context. The analyses of the 4 cases are
followed by a sub-conclusion, where we look into, if in fact a Danish ‘model’ of Diversity
Management exists.
50
Analysis of Novo Nordisk (Appendix 7)
24
Appendix 7 features the data on the communication of Diversity Management, as presented on
the website of Novo Nordisk. Here, some of the enterprise’ goals are presented and deadlines for
these are set. Furthermore, it is explained, how the enterprise works towards reaching the goals,
that are set. “We have had a diversity strategy since 2009, which includes the aspiration that
within five years all senior management teams must be diverse in terms of gender and nationality”
(Appendix 7: 1).
We argue, that this strategy relates to the variation “the Fight for Talents”, since it aims at
reaching a broader spectrum of employees rather than focusing on developing employees
(Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 17). We find it important to note that, the strategy only includes
minority groups within gender and nationality, which is argued to be typical within the Danish
context (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 8). Concretely, Novo Nordisk communicate that they “select the
best individual for a particular position while ensuring equal opportunities and non-discrimination
as part of our value-based framework” (Appendix 7: 1).
However, Novo Nordisk also focuses on the development of current employees, as the company
“puts great emphasis on enhancing opportunities for current (…) employees and creating an
inclusive environment where individual differences are valued and respected” (Appendix 7: 1).
Concretely, this is done by supporting “cultural awareness in the organization”, whereby “a
Culture e-learning tool was launched and made available to the global organization” (Appendix 7:
1). Novo Nordisk aims at developing its strategy so “Global Diversity Summit” is conveyed regularly
in order to “examine the progress on diversity” (Appendix 7: 1), which we argue to be a way of
changing behavior in that Novo Nordisk, by examining its progress, is able to change and adapt its
strategies on Diversity Management according to the needed context.
24
Novo Nordisk 2
51
Novo Nordisk’s focus upon gender can be argued to be context-specific for Danish enterprises. The
history of Denmark in the shape of the repression of women, might force enterprises to
incorporate this aspect in strategies on Diversity Management, whereas enterprises in other
contexts might place a larger focus on additional minority groups25. This focus upon gender,
especially women, is consistent throughout the communication on Novo Nordisk website;
initiatives as “Women in Novo Nordisk” aim “the Spectra Leadership Programme for Women” aim
at enhancing the percentage of women in management positions (Appendix 7: 1).
The variation “Access and Legitimacy” is also apparent in the communication of Diversity
Management on the website of Novo Nordisk. As it is communicated,
Diversity is important to Novo Nordisk; it allows us to better understand costumer needs, attract and
retain talented people, and operate more effectively in a global business environment. Diversity
fosters an international mindset that enhances innovation as well as our ability to work crossculturally and expand into new markets. It also gives us a better understanding of the societies in
which we operate (Appendix 7: 1).
This type of communication tells, us that Novo Nordisk aims at accessing specific segments by
having a diverse workforce (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 17), which is supported by the statement
that “it is our firm belief that a diverse organization produces better business results” (Appendix 7:
1) and in addition, the director of human resources in Novo Nordisk states that “we think having a
diverse work force is an important priority for our organization because it increases a broader
understanding of our diverse costumers” (Forsythe 2005), which relates to the variation “Access
and Legitimacy”.
As seen in this analysis, Novo Nordisk actively works with diversity in the management style. The
company, furthermore, has a diversity council, which is “a cross-functional team of employee
volunteers (…) dedicated to promoting diversity education and awareness” (Forsythe 2005) – we
briefly look into 4 goals that are set by this council. “The first of its four key goals (…) is broadening
the pool of diverse job candidates through a variety of diversity-recruiting efforts” (Forsythe 2005)
25
We look into this in our following discussion, where it, based on our analyses, is possible to look into the differences
in Diversity Management according to national context.
52
– we argue that this goal relates to the variation “The Fight for Talents” in that the goal is to
expand the diversity in the workforce by means of recruitment strategies (Hagedorn & Kamp
2004: 17) . The second goal is “to increase the company’s presence in various diverse
communities” (Forsythe 2005), which we argue might relate to the variation “Access and
Legitimacy” in that Novo Nordisk might recruit people based on specific cultural competencies so
that it is possible to reach communities by means of employee’s knowledge of the community in
question (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 17). “The third goal is to continue with an assessment and
benchmarking of Novo Nordisk’s culture” and the fourth goal is that Novo Nordisk keeps
“promoting diversity awareness and education by developing training modules on diversity”
(Forsythe 2005) – we speculate if these two goals in fact relate to the variation “Social
Responsibility of the Enterprise” in that these are not concrete goals, but rather a means of
‘showing the public’ which efforts are made by Novo Nordisk in the area of Diversity Management.
53
Analysis of Vestas (Appendix 8)
26
Appendix 8 features the data on the communication of Diversity Management, as presented on
the website of Vestas. Here, it is stated that, “as Vestas gradually grows bigger and bigger with
employees and business partners with widely different cultural backgrounds, religious beliefs and
political convictions, it is becoming more and more important to have a formal set of common
values” (Appendix 8, 1). We argue that this statement shows willingness towards employing a
diverse workforce and the understanding of the need to manage these in a certain way.
Practically, Vestas endeavor to ensure that there is “respect for the individual regardless of race,
colour, religion, political conviction, gender, age, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status,
disability or characteristics” (Appendix 8, 1). “Vestas’ standards and goals build on recognized
framework agreements established by international organizations (…)” (Appendix 8, 4), which we
argue is clearly shown in the discourse of minority groups in that we find these to be closely
related to the ones formulated by the United Nations (UN1). Vestas argue that the “culture is one
of inclusion and mutual trust (…) in which everyone who works for Vestas is treated equally with
dignity and respect (…)”. Furthermore it is noted that, “Vestas will not tolerate discriminatory
treatment of any kind” (Appendix 8, 8). We find this communication to be related to the variation
“Social Responsibility of the Enterprise”, since it relates to expectations from the society (Hagedorn
& Kamp 2004: 15). The communication revolves around the minority groups being somewhat
vague (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004:16) and it proposes that, it is Vestas’ responsibility to include these
in order for the society to acknowledge the policies made in the area of Diversity Management. It
is, furthermore, noted that approximately 450 employees of a total of 7000 in the Danish based
enterprise, are foreigners (Ministeriet 2010: 17), which we argue to be another way of proving to
the public, which efforts are made within Diversity Management.
26
Vestas 3
54
The communication on Vestas’ website also states that, “the supreme governing body should
continuously access to what extent its composition and the competencies of its members,
individually and collectively, reflect the demands posed by the company’s situation and
circumstances” (Appendix 8, 6), which we find to relate to the variation “The Fight for Talents”,
since it aims at reaching a broader spectrum of future employees (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 17).
This is also seen in the statement by the Talent Attraction Director, saying that, in Vestas, it is
competencies that determine, who is suited for a job and that this is the reason why Vestas recruit
from the global talent pool and not just the Danish (Ministeriet 2010: 17), which is in accordance
with the Danish law “Injuction Prohibiting Discriminatory Treatment”27.
This is supported by the communication of how newly hired employees are introduced to the
enterprise; “Code of Conduct has been made accessible for all employees via e-learning,
information material in 18 languages” (Appendix 8, 1), which we argue to be one way of getting
newcomers to adapt (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 17) to Vestas’ current guidelines. This is supported
by information on the recruitment site stating that a future employee “must be able to think in
new ways and, together with your colleagues, maintain a strong culture based on openness,
respectfulness and the ability to learn” (Appendix 8, 3), which we argue to present an expectation
of the employees to adapt (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 17) to the organizational culture of Vestas.
This is reinforced by Vestas stating that they, as an enterprise, are “all united by a culture that
reflects a global outlook characterized by openness, dialogue, respect – and a unique drive to
succeed” (Appendix 8, 3).
“The Fight for Talents” is, furthermore, apparent, when Vestas are recruiting, since the company
“commits to: using merit as the sole basis for decisions about all aspects of employment, including
recruitment, development and promotion” (Appendix 8, 8).The variation is classified by the notion
that everybody is to be treated equally based upon their merits (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 18).
Furthermore, Vestas states that, the enterprise “should never give anyone an unconditional
27
Which was thoroughly explained in “Diversity Management Theory in a Danish Context”
55
advantage in the hiring process. Vestas’ policy is to grant everybody equal opportunity, regardless
of their nationality, race, color or language” (Appendix 8, 8), which again relates to the variation in
that everybody is to be treated equally and this is, furthermore, in accordance with Danish law in
the area of anti-discrimination28.
Additionally, the Director of Talent Attraction states that, Vestas believes that diversity in
employees leads to far greater solutions – both business and cooperation wise (Ministeriet 2010:
17), which we argue to relate to the variation “Access and Legitimacy” in that, diversity is
considered to be a competitive advantage (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 17). This is supported by the
Director explaining that it is only, when the enterprise thinks globally that, it is possible to find
unique solutions that are creative, which lead towards the enterprise gaining a competitive
advantage (Ministeriet 2010: 17).
When analyzing the communication on Diversity Management on Vestas’ website, we also found
statements relating to the variation “Synergy and Learning”, which we find especially noteworthy,
since this variation is argued to be only slightly widespread in a Danish context (Hagedorn & Kamp
2004: 18). It is explained that “openness and mutual respect are prerequisites for a fruitful
interaction (…)” (Appendix 8, 5), which we define as being concerned with a mutual integration of
both employees and the enterprise (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 18). Furthermore, it is argued that
diversity in the workforce ensures a constant development in that the assignment work optimizes
continuously and it is stated that, nothing is ever, what it used to be (Ministeriet 2010: 17). The
diverse workforce is seen as contributing to the enterprise, not only with academic talent, but also
with various angles of approaches and methods, which leads to increasing the level of quality and
innovation at Vestas (Ministeriet 2010: 17). We find this to be relating to the variation in the sense
that, diversities are seen as a strength that can create individual and organizational development
and growth (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 18).
28
As presented in “Diversity Management Theory in a Danish Context”
56
Analysis of Rambøll (Appendix 9)
29
Appendix 9 features the data on the communication of Diversity Management, as presented on
the website of Rambøll. Here, Rambøll explains that they “create exciting opportunities and
develop professional and interpersonal skills in a dynamic working environment. Rambøll is an
equal opportunities employer” (Appendix 9, 2) and follows with the statement that they “are
committed to the ten principles of the UN Global Compact within human rights, employee rights,
the environment and anti-corruption as well as supporting global universal standards” (Appendix
9, 7). This set the standard, as the enterprise explains that, they obey international laws in the
area of employee rights and also in areas relating to Corporate Social Responsibilities (UN2).
Furthermore, Rambøll explains that they “like to see ourselves as a community partner, and as the
world around us is becoming increasingly global, we too must become a globally responsible
player (…)” (Appendix 9, 7), which we find to be relating to the variation of “Social Responsibility of
the Enterprise”; we argue that, since Rambøll defines themselves as a community partner, they
must feel expectations from the surrounding society (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 15). This is
supported by the statement “it is about treating other people and society right in a longtime
perspective” (Appendix 9, 1), which we find to relate to the variation in that, the enterprise feel
obliged to doing the right thing. The enterprise argues that, “the high ethical standards,
responsibility towards society and happy and content employees are still key elements in
Rambøll’s approach to business” (Appendix 9, 1), which we find to be one way of proving to the
public which, efforts are made in relation to doing business responsibly.
The communication on Rambøll’s website also relate to the variation “The Fight for Talents” in
that the enterprise argues that, “(…)we have followed up on the systematic procedure ensuring
that ability, competencies, skills, experience and performance always are the basis for recruitment
and promotion” (Appendix 9, 12). We find this to be compatible with the variation in that this
29
Rambøll 2
57
emphasizes the importance in equal treatment based on merits (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 18). The
enterprise aims
for a strong diversity among our employees in terms of cultural background, nationalities, gender, age,
religion and educational background. The diversification ensures that we are able to solve a broad range of
projects, and we firmly believe that cross-collaboration leads to producing creative and longstanding
solutions. We work together in a cross-disciplinary and project-based environment. Responsibility is
delegated to the individual employee, and roles and work tasks are varied (Appendix 9, 4).
This relates to “The Fight for Talents” in that a diverse workforce is seen as a competitive
advantage (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 18).
As mentioned prior, these two variations are the most applied ones in a Danish context (Hagedorn
& Kamp 2004: 19), but we also find some of the communication on the website to be relating to
the least applied variation in the Danish context, namely “Synergy and Learning” (Hagedorn &
Kamp 2004: 18). We see this in the quote stating that, “we empower the people within our
organization and believe in their inherent abilities, embrace their individual differences and enable
them to work in multitalented teams to produce inspired solutions” (Appendix 9, 2). Concretely,
this relates to the variation in the sense that, diversity is considered to be a potential for the
enterprise (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 18).
The focus on social responsibility makes Rambøll point attention to the training of their
employees: “as part of our Corporate Responsibility activities, we carry out a common training
course for all employees to increase awareness of why we have a Code of Conduct, how it
influences our daily work, and what we should do to maintain our ethical standards for business
behavior” (Appendix 9, 6). The enterprise furthermore provides “non-discrimination training of all
HR-employees” (Appendix 9, 8) in order to “secure awareness-raising of non-discrimination in
relation to recruitment and promotion” (Appendix 9, 12) and “(…) facilitating awareness-raising in
relation to disability” (Appendix 9, 12). We find that this shows that, the enterprise takes the area
seriously and provide training, in order to constantly develop and be able to adapt to arising
situations. The willingness to adapt is also apparent on the website; “an organized dialogue with
employee representatives on matters and questions related to the company’s development are
58
taking place (…)” (Appendix 9, 10), which proves to us, that Rambøll are willing to change
according to demands from its employees and the society, in general.
59
Analysis of Mærsk (Appendix 10)
30
Appendix 10 features the data on the communication of Diversity Management, as presented on
the website of Mærsk. Here, it is formulated that “as a trusted employer, equal standards based
on international conventions and principles must be in place, even if Mærsk employees carry out
their work in many diverse cultures and regulatory environments” (Appendix 10, 4), which set the
standards that Mærsk obey international regulatory in areas, they find to be relevant. Concretely,
“Mærsk will treat every employee with respect and dignity and will not tolerate discrimination or
harassment of any kind. Employment related decisions are made on a variety of relevant factors
such as qualifications, skills, performance and relevant experience” (Appendix 10, 5), which, in
Mærsk’s definition, ultimately will “(…) achieve (…) a company that is attractive to all kinds of
people, because it makes Mærsk more interesting as an employer, partner and service provider”
(Appendix 10, 7). We argue that this quote is in accordance with the Danish law on anti-
discrimination31 in that Mærsk aims to attract all kinds of people.
It is argued that, “Global Labor Principles will support our efforts to provide good and fair labor
conditions for our people, and can also serve as a competitive advantage to help us attract talent
and have a stable workforce” (Appendix 10, 4), which we find to be a sign that Mærsk have seen a
connection between doing the right thing and gaining a competitive advantage. We find this to
relate to the variation “Social Responsibility of the Enterprise”, since the enterprise is making
efforts to meet the expectations of the surrounding society (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 15). This is
supported by the statement; “in short, we have the ability and responsibility to do things right and
contribute to a more sustainable future for the planet and our stakeholders. We see this not as a
constraint but rather an opportunity for our business” (Appendix 10, 2).
Mærsk explains that “demographic changes will lead to shifts in consumption patterns and
workforce access” (Appendix 10, 2), which we find to be relating to the variation “The Fight for
30
31
Mærsk 3
As presented in “Diversity Management Theory in a Danish Context”
60
Talents” in that, the enterprise sees it as a necessity to employ a wide variety of people in order to
secure a sustainable development (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 16), which is supported by the
statement that “we need access to the largest possible talent pool to remain among the leading
companies in the industries in which we operate” (Appendix 10, 6). These statements are very
typical in a Danish context, since it is argued that, demographic changes “force” enterprises to
strategize according to these and employ a diverse workforce (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 14).
Mærsk argues that, talent is not dependent upon color, gender, age or ethnicity and the Director
of Group Talent Management has actively dealt with elitist talent development and placed
flexibility, networks and gender-neutral language on the agenda (Gunge 2010). As it is typical in a
Danish context (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004:8), Mærsk mainly focuses on one minority group; namely
women (Appendix 10, 6 & 7). In order to meet this focus, Mærsk has set up goals stating that, “in
the Danish headquarters of Mærsk, the target is to have female representation of 20% at general
manager level, 15% at director level and 10% at vice president level by the end of 2014” (Appendix
10, 7). This is being accomplished by concrete steps, namely by “recruitment, where tools to
create job adverts using gender neutral language were developed internally” and a removal of
fixed working hours in all contracts (Appendix 10, 7). Furthermore, “to ensure awareness and
increased capabilities in dealing with dilemmas involved in global labor relations, Mærsk will
launch and run a web-based training programme for relevant managers (…)” (Appendix 10, 4),
which proves to us that Mærsk is willing to meet changes and act according to these.
In addition to these findings, it is also interesting to note the type of communication, Mærsk
includes on its website. As seen in the quotes throughout this analysis, Mærsk uses a passive way
of writing, which might be interpreted as Mærsk setting goals and standards for itself, but not
concretely acting according to these.
61
Sum up of this chapter
Through these analyses, we looked into some of the efforts made by the chosen Danish
enterprises in the area of Diversity Management as it was communicated on the websites. The
variations are often linked (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 19), when looking into the strategy of an
enterprise and this proved to be the case in all 4 Danish enterprises.
We found that Novo Nordisk falls within the variations of “Social Responsibility of the Enterprise”
and “The Fight for Talents”. Additionally, we also found the variation “Access and Legitimacy”
applied.
Vestas’ communication on Diversity Management is compatible with all four variations.
In the analysis on Rambøll’s diversity communication, we found that, it relates to three of the
variations, namely “Social Responsibility of the Enterprise”, “the Fight for Talents” and “Synergy
and Learning”.
In Mærsk’s communication on Diversity Management, two variations was apparent, namely
“Social Responsibility of the Enterprise” and “the Fight for Talents”.
It is argued that “Social Responsibility of the Enterprise” and “The fight for Talents” is the most
applied ones in a Danish context (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 18). One might speculate, whether the
existence of the two variations not typical in a Danish context, could be a sign that Danish
enterprises are moving towards another aspect of Diversity Management. Maybe this is a sign of
the enterprises moving towards a joint Diversity Management style, which is not context-specific?
These are mere speculations and we look into these in our Discussion.
Having looked into the communication of Diversity Management, as presented on the chosen
websites, we find it important to note that Danish enterprises often introduce Diversity
Management in connection with a demand for assimilation (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 19).
Concretely, we argue that this is seen in various areas of the communication of Diversity
Management on the Danish enterprises’ websites;
62
Appendix 7 points to this in the third goal, that mentions “Novo Nordisk’s culture”. We find this to
be a sign that, there is a demand for assimilation in that the communication on the website does
not include a section explaining the importance of adaption by the employee as well as the
enterprise.
Appendix 8 points to this, when speaking of a set of common values and in addition that the
Vestas’ Code of Conduct is a way of getting newly hired to adapt to current guidelines. However, it
is remarkable that the communication at the same time speaks for a mutual integration in that
there is a focus on interaction and innovation.
Appendix 9 shows a demand for assimilation in that Rambøll’s Code of Conduct serves as a set of
guidelines and furthermore, that a common training course had to be conducted for newly hired
employees. It is, furthermore, noteworthy to mention that, Rambøll also focuses on dialogue as a
tool for organizational development.
Appendix 10 shows a demand for assimilation, which is seen by Mærsk providing training to
employees and managers, which will ensure that, everyone has the same starting point.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that, the communication does not mention willingness towards
mutually integrating.
Practically, it can be suggested that a mutual integration cannot take place in a global enterprise
because of the size, but we believe that an enterprise has to show willingness towards this, in
order to successfully incorporate Diversity Management.
Furthermore, we find it interesting to analyze, which specific methods are applied by the
enterprises, in their communication on Diversity Management. We include Appendix 232 to
analyze, whether the enterprises apply methods to use or enhance diversities.
Based upon this analysis, we argue that, Novo Nordisk mainly focuses on enhancing diversity
within the enterprise; this is, practically, executed by means of recruitment strategies and
32
Presented by Hagedorn and Kamp (2003, 48). This model has been thoroughly explained in ”Diversity Management
Theory in a Danish Context”
63
constituency groups. In the case of Novo Nordisk, this is done to offer support to the minority
group of women.
Having looked into the communication, as presented on the website, we argue that, Vestas mainly
focuses on enhancing diversity. This is seen by the focus on diminishing discrimination in the hiring
process, great focus on equal opportunities and the fact that, Vestas measures the composition of
employees.
The communication on Diversity Management points to the fact that, Rambøll works to use and
enhance diversity. The enhancement is seen through measurement of employees (Appendix 11 &
12), the large focus upon anti-discrimination and the introduction that newcomers receive.
Meanwhile, we also find that Rambøll uses diversity in that, the enterprise facilitates multitalented
teams in order to work creatively.
We argue that, Mærsk focuses on enhancing diversity. This is based upon efforts made in the area
of Diversity Management; a focus on anti-discrimination in recruitment, so that everyone is
treated according to the same standards (Appendix 10, 4), a focus on education in order for the
enterprise to develop and we also base this statement on the fact that, Mærsk measures the
composition of employees, namely the female representation in full-time employees (Appendix
10, 1).
Having now looked into the Danish cases, we might speculate, if there, in fact, exists a Danish
model of Diversity Management. Based upon the global aspect of the Danish enterprises, the
focus might not be local.
64
Discussion
Having looked into the official documents of the chosen cases, we find it important to note that
the efforts presented here are published in order for the enterprises to appear well in the public
eye, by what is communicated on the websites33. These actions towards Diversity Management
have another aspect in that efforts made, in order to boost diversity, can present issues of
structural discrimination and head count. Concretely, we speculate, if enterprises risk picking
employees in order to obtain a diverse workforce and in that way gain a competitive advantage.
As Wrench argues34, the focus is rather on the business side of the area, than on moral, which we
agree with, according to our findings in the Analyses sections.
Wrench argues that the field of diversities is getting too broad35, which seems apparent in the
American context, as we have seen that the focus is rather on diversities overall, as specific groups
of diversities are never mentioned. This is opposed to the Danish context, where the focus is fairly
concentrated on women, which we speculate might relate to the history of repression and the
existence of Unions36. We find the focus upon women to be relating to the notion of structural
discrimination, as goals set for women leaders will include discrimination of men applying for a
leader position. The notion of structural discrimination does not seem to be present in the
American context, as the history of minorities is not taken into consideration; which is the exact
problem, according to Wrench37.
In a Danish context, structural discrimination and head count can be seen by goals set by the
enterprises to obtain a workforce with a certain percentage of female employees, as it has been
explained in the analysis prior in this project. As we speculated prior, this focus on women might
be specific in a Danish context, as there is a long history of female repression and the existence of
Unions. Such goals of percentages were not found in the cases analyzed in the context of the
33
As presented in “Critique of theory on Diversity Management”
As presented in “Critique of theory on Diversity Management”
35
As presented in “Critique of theory on Diversity Management”
36
As explained in “Diversity Management Theory in a Danish Context”
37
As presented in “Critique of theory on Diversity Mangement”
34
65
United States, and we speculate this to be related to the legal framework38 present in the field in
the United States.
Our analyses point to the fact that, Danish and American contexts differ, since the theory
presented39 is compatible with the concrete efforts made in the area of Diversity Management, as
communicated on the chosen enterprises’ websites40. As it was seen in the analyses, the theory, as
explained by Thomas & Ely and Hagedorn & Kamp, was found to be present in the communication
of Diversity Management in the chosen cases. This is in accordance with the notion that a Danish
enterprise cannot embrace the American version of Diversity Management completely (Hagedorn
& Kamp 2003: 70). However, we would argue, based on the findings in both Analyses that this
might be changing. We interpret, that due to Globalization, Danish enterprises are currently
moving toward the American style communication of Diversity Management. This we see as a
possible sign of Americanization, as it seems that the variations in a Danish context are beginning
to adapt to the American perspectives – we find this to be an interesting field for additional
investigation. We support this by the change in focus on variations in a Danish context, as we will
look further into later.
It should be noted, that the perspective of Discrimination-and-Fairness, argued by Thomas and Ely
to be the most dominant in the American context, was not found to be so in our analysis of the
communication of Diversity Management on the American websites. It was only found present in
the analysis of Walmart – we put forward the speculation that, this perspective can be argued to
be outdated, since it is related to Affirmative Action, and that it is concerned with people being
diverse, not the work done41. This stands in comparison to the newer Integration-and-Learning
perspective, which is found in both the analysis of Colgate and Kellogg’s. Being the newest
perspective, it is interesting to see that, it talks about the need for adaptation and learning, as a
key to the business strategy within Diversity Management. The Access-and-Legitimacy Perspective
38
See “History of the Concept in the United States”
As seen in our Theoretical sections
40
As seen in our Analytical sections
41
As seen in “Diversity Management Theory in an American Context”
39
66
is found communicated in all 4 cases, and this could indicate that the American enterprises see the
advantage of adapting and further understanding the markets, they serve. All 4 cases implement
the understanding of Diversity Management in the United States that Thomas and Ely put forward,
namely, that it is rather business and strategy focused. As seen in our analysis, not all aspects of all
of the perspectives are found to be present, but we argue the findings to be valid in accordance
with the theory presented42 anyway, as many of the aspects are present. It is also curios to note,
how the aspects of the holistic view on Diversity Management, which Thomas and Ely argues to be
somewhat lacking in the American context, is actually found to be present in parts of our analyses.
This could further suggest that a change is occurring.
In a Danish context we found that, according to the argument presented by Hagedorn and Kamp
(Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 19), the 4 variations often occur simultaneously. This proved to be the
case in all 4 analyses. It is argued that “Social Responsibility of the Enterprise” and “The Fight for
Talents” is the most applied in a Danish context, which proved to be correct in our analyses, since
all 4 enterprises include these variations in their communication of Diversity Management. In
addition to these, 3 of the enterprises included other variations in their communication. This is
remarkable, since “Access and Legitimacy” and “Synergy and Learning” are argued to be only
slightly widespread in a Danish context (Hagedorn & Kamp 2004: 18). We see this focus on the two
least widespread variations to be a sign of the Danish context moving towards a more
Americanized view since these variations are closer to the American perspectives43, as touched
upon earlier in this section. However, the Danish context also differs from the American in that
efforts often are a mix of Corporate Social Responsibility and Diversity Management; we see this
by the Danish focus upon UN Global Compact initiatives. Furthermore, Hagedorn and Kamp argue
that, Diversity Management in a Danish context often is introduced with a demand for assimilation
(Hagedorn and Kamp 2004: 19); this proved to be apparent in the communication of all 4
enterprises. Additionally, it is, by means of Appendix 2, concluded that all 4 enterprises work
42
43
See ”Diversity Management Theory in an American Context”
As presented in ”Diversity Management Theory in an American Context”
67
towards enhancing diversity instead of using it, which points to the fact that the focus is upon
reducing inequalities and fighting discrimination44.
A practical difference between the American and Danish context noticed throughout this project,
is the way, the enterprises communicate on their websites. In an American context, the
enterprises often dedicate entire sections of the website to present its Diversity Management
communication. In a Danish context, the communication is often presented along with other
areas, often within Corporate Social Responsibility.
These speculations are elaborated in the following Conclusion.
44
As mentioned in ”Diversity Management Theory in a Danish Context”
68
Conclusion
Hagedorn and Kamp raises an interesting question relating to whether there in fact exists a
national or organizational method (Hagedorn & Kamp 2002: 59) or if the concept of Diversity
Management has to be adapted and interpreted to concrete contexts rather than general ones
(Hagedorn & Kamp 2002: 59). Through this project, we have found that it is important for an
enterprise to adapt its communication according to context. In addition, we found that contexts
are not steady and that there is no such thing as a national-dependent context in the analyses of
American and Danish enterprises. One reason for this can be argued to be because of the global
aspect of these enterprises; these enterprises are affected by Globalization, and in many cases by
Americanization. In this specific case, we found that Danish enterprises are moving towards an
American context – one explanation to this, can be because of the origin of Diversity
Management, stemming from the United States.
We argue that our hypothesis stated in the Introduction is partly supported by our findings in this
protect. On the one hand, many of the findings in the respective analyses when compared, seem
to indicate that, there are differences between the United States and Denmark towards Diversity
Management. On the other hand, as it has been argued in our Discussion, many of the aspects are
moving towards each other, suggesting an apparent Americanization of some aspects of the
Danish type of Diversity Management, and the communication of this.
We suggest, that the difference between American and Danish enterprises’ communication on
Diversity Management might not be based on national context, but instead on the challenges
faced, as put forward by Hagedorn and Kamp (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 64). Practically, we find
that the enterprises, being global, face some of the same challenges and that could be an
explanation to why the communication of Diversity Management is moving towards being the
same. However, the American and Danish contexts differ – a reason for this, is because of the
different historical contexts.
On the basis of our findings in this project, we argue, answering our Research Question, that
national specific theories on Diversity Management are apparent on American and Danish
69
enterprises’ communication on the subject, as found on their respective websites. Through our
analyses, it was, however, noted that, the theory within an American and Danish context is
apparent, but the chosen cases do not apply all aspects of the theories completely as described.
This makes us conclude that, enterprises pick and mix according to their specific context.
Based upon the analyses, we find that our Research Question and Hypothesis can be answered
according to context. By this we mean that, as Diversity Management is argued to be a socially
constructed term, people can interpret and communicate according to context, not necessary
relating to a national context. Hagedorn and Kamp put forward the idea that no general models
exist (Hagedorn & Kamp 2003: 53) and that enterprises most continually adapt its communication
according to context, which we find to be correct according to our results of this project.
70
List of Appendixes
Appendix 1: Hagedorn and Kamp 2004: 18
Appendix 2: Hagedorn and Kamp 2003: 48
Appendix 3: Walmart

Appendix 3, 1 http://walmartstores.com/Diversity/302.aspx (Accessed December 12 2011)

Appendix 3, 2: http://walmartstores.com/Diversity/299.aspx (Accessed December 12
2011)

Appendix 3, 3: Diversity and Inclusion Report 2010, page 6 (Accessed December 12 2011)

Appendix 3, 4: Diversity and Inclusion Report 2010, page 3 (Accessed December 12 2011)

Appendix 3, 5: Diversity and Inclusion Report 2010, cover page 3 (Accessed December 12
2011)

Appendix 3, 6: Diversity and Inclusion Report 2010, page 2 (Accessed December 12 2011)

Appendix 3, 7: Diversity and Inclusion Report 2010, page 1 (Accessed December 12 2010)
Appendix 4: Cisco

Appendix 4, 1: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac49/ac55/index.html (Accessed
December 12 2011)

Appendix 4, 2:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac49/ac55/diversity_inclusion_council.html (Accessed
December 12 2011)
Appendix 5: Colgate

Appendix 5, 1:
http://www.colgate.com/app/Colgate/US/Corp/LivingOurValues/Diversity/HomePage.cvsp
(Accessed December 12 2011)

Appendix 5, 2: http://www.colgate.com/app/Colgate/US/Corp/Awards.cvsp (Accessed
December 12 2011)
71
Appendix 6: Kellogg’s

Appendix 6, 1:
http://www.kelloggcompany.com/company.aspx?id=1468&terms=diversity (Accessed
December 12 2011)

Appendix 6, 2: http://www.kelloggcompany.com/company.aspx?id=5266 (Accessed
December 12 2011)

Appendix 6, 3: http://www.kelloggcompany.com/company.aspx?id=1457 (Accessed
December 12 2011)
Appendix 7: Novo Nordisk

Appendix 7, 1: http://annualreport2010.novonordisk.com/social/employees/diversity.aspx
(Accessed December 12 2011)
Appendix 8: Vestas

Appendix 8, 1: http://www.vestas.com/en/annual-report-2010/non-financial-issues/codeof-conduct.aspx (Accessed December 12 2011)

Appendix 8, 2: http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/sustainability/managementsystems.aspx (Accessed December 12 2011)

Appendix 8, 3: http://www.vestas.com/en/jobs/colleagues.aspx (Accessed December 12
2011)

Appendix 8, 4: http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/strategy/culture.aspx?action=3
(Accessed December 12 2011)

Appendix 8, 5: http://www.vestas.com/en/investor/corporate-governance/statutoryreport.aspx (Accessed December 12 2011)

Appendix 8, 6: http://www.vestas.com/en/investor/corporate-governance/statutoryreport.aspx (Accessed December 12 2011)
72

Appendix 8, 7:
http://nozebra.ipapercms.dk/Vestas/Communication/VestasCodeofConduct/CodeofCondu
ctUK/ (Accessed December 12 2011)

Appendix 8, 8:
http://nozebra.ipapercms.dk/Vestas/Communication/VestasCodeofConduct/CodeofCondu
ctUK/ (Accessed December 12 2011)
Appendix 9: Rambøll

Appendix 9, 1: http://www.ramboll.com/about-us/history (Accessed December 12 2011)

Appendix 9, 2: http://www.ramboll.com/careers/holistic%20approach (Accessed
December 12 2011)

Appendix 9, 3: http://www.ramboll.com/about-us/responsible-and-holistic (Accessed
December 12 2011)

Appendix 9, 4: http://www.ramboll.com/careers/working%20at%20ramboll (Accessed
December 12 2011)

Appendix 9, 5: http://www.ramboll.com/about-us/responsible-and-holistic/un-globalcompact (Accessed December 12 2011)

Appendix 9, 6: http://www.ramboll.com/about-us/responsible-and-holistic/businessintegrity (Accessed December 12 2011)

Appendix 9, 7-13: http://www.ramboll.com/about-us/responsible-andholistic/~/media/Files/RGR/Documents/Code_of_Conduct/CSR%20report_2011.ashx
(Accessed December 12 2011)
Appendix 10: Mærsk

Appendix 10, 1-7:
http://www.maersk.com/Sustainability/Documents/Maersk_Sustainability_Report_2010.p
df (Accessed December 12 2011)
73
Bibliography

Allerslev, Anna Mee (2011): Mangfoldighed giver vækst in Jyllandsposten
(http://woview.infomedia.dk.zorac.aub.aau.dk/?url=http://jp.dk/opinion/breve/article238
8924.ece&OpointData=e1c10e74b9112e5c4622b7c91ddaceddJmlkX3NpdGU9OTYzOCZpZF
9hcnRpY2xlPTE4MDI2MCZpZF91c2VyPTI4NDAmaWRfYXBwbGljYXRpb249MTAwMDM1OSZ
sYW5nPWVu, (Accessed November 12 2011)

Bratton, John & Jeff Gold (2007): Human Resource Management – Theory and Practice, 4th
edt., London: Palgrave MacMillan

Bryman, Alan (2008): Social Research Methods, 3rd edition, Source: Oxford University
Press

Ci sc o 1 :
http://newsroom.cisco.com/documents/10157/1204766/Public_Corporate_Overview_FY1
1_Q3.pdf (Accessed November 29 2011)

Cisco 2: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac49/ac55/index.html (Accessed December 5
2011)

Cisco 3: Annual Report of 2011
https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/17275R/20111010/AR_104291/HTML2/ciscoar2011_0007.htm (Accessed December 12 2011)

Ci sc o 4 :
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac49/ac55/I_D_Flyer_Final_2008_12_15_web.pdf)
(Accessed December 12 2010)

Ci sc o 5 :
http://images.google.com/imgres?q=cisco+logo&hl=en&biw=1680&bih=876&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=VCyx
mVlouvgHJM:&imgrefurl=http://www.remotetrackingsystems.com/partners.html&docid=T1uNtalxbUQH2M
&imgurl=http://www.remotetrackingsystems.com/images/cisco1.jpg&w=442&h=308&ei=1bvpTsTnJIeg4gTR
q9WhCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=197&vpy=514&dur=1607&hovh=187&hovw=269&tx=155&ty=95&sig=1081
41059894043259542&page=1&tbnh=156&tbnw=223&start=0&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:14,s:0 (Accessed
December 15 2011)
74

Colgate 1: http://www.colgate.com/app/Colgate/US/Corp/History/1806.cvsp (Accessed
November 29 2011)

Colgate 2: http://www.colgate.com/app/Colgate/US/Corp/History/1991.cvsp (Accessed
November 29 2011)

Colgate 3:
http://images.google.com/imgres?q=colgate+earth&hl=da&biw=1680&bih=955&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=ES
AnA7td27VXyM:&imgrefurl=http://www.frugalcouponliving.com/2010/09/06/colgate-coupons2/&docid=5EF8bhqZCEyL-M&imgurl=http://www.frugalcouponliving.com/wpcontent/uploads/2010/08/colgate-smile-earthlogo.gif&w=200&h=200&ei=d7rpTsPzMMiP4gTj3NCqCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=204&vpy=167&dur=4505&h
ovh=160&hovw=160&tx=121&ty=104&sig=110278796402858377481&page=1&tbnh=139&tbnw=134&start=
0&ndsp=38&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0 (Accessed December 15 2011)

Dictionary.com 1: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heterogeneous (Accessed
December 14 2011)

Dictionary.com 2: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homogeneous (Accessed
December 14 2011)

DiversityInc 1: http://diversityinc.com/ (Accessed December 8 2011)

DiversityInc 2: http://diversityinc.com/diversity-management/about-the-diversityinc-top50-companies-for-diversity-2 / (Accessed December 8 2011)

Ebbesen, Klaus (2008): Mangfoldighed giver vækst in Berlingske
(http://www.infomedia.dk.zorac.aub.aau.dk/ms/GetArticleFull.aspx?outputFormat=Full&D
uid=e0e8f21b (Accessed November 27 2011)

EEOC 1: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/eeo_1972.html, (Accessed
November 28 2011)

Forsythe, Jason (2005): Leading with Diversity in New York Times
(http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/jobmarket/diversity/index.html (Accessed December
1 2011)

Gold, Jeff (2007): Human ressource planning in Human resource management – theory and
practice. 4th edition, eds. Bratton and Gold. Source: Palgrave Macmillan
75

Hagedorn-Rasmussen, Peter & Kamp, Annette (2002): Mangfoldighedsledelse – et
litteraturstudie om koncept, teori og praksis
(http://www.sfi.dk/graphics/SFI/Pdf/Arbejdspapirer/Arbejdspapirer/2002_1.pdf (Accessed
November 12 2011)

Hagedorn-Rasmussen, Peter and Annette Kamp (2003): Mangfoldighedsledelse – mellem
vision og praksis. Source: Social Forsknings Instituttet

Hagedorn-Rasmussen, Peter & Kamp, Anette (2004): Mangfoldighed på danske
arbejdspladser – byrde eller styrke? In Tidsskrift for arbejdsliv (http://www.nyt-omarbejdsliv.dk/images/pdf/2004/nr2/ta04-2-8.pdf (Accessed November 12 2011)

Hansen, Andreas (2010): Mangfoldighedledelse i USA og Danmark
(http://studenttheses.cbs.dk/bitstream/handle/10417/1005/andreas_hansen.pdf?sequenc
e=1 (Accessed November 12 2011)

Kellogg’s 1: http://www.kelloggcompany.com/company.aspx?id=32 (Accessed November
29 2011)

Kellogg’s 2:
http://images.google.com/imgres?q=kelloggs+logo&hl=en&biw=1680&bih=876&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=_9J
wDykW_KRbbM:&imgrefurl=http://hunt4freebies.com/coupons/new-kellogg%25E2%2580%2599s-printablecoupons/&docid=mm0LpVuUYUeqGM&imgurl=http://hunt4freebies.com/coupons/wpcontent/uploads/2009/10/KelloggsLogo.jpg&w=1019&h=371&ei=DLzpTrmqPKjj4QTPgImnCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=621&vpy=196&dur=79&h
ovh=135&hovw=372&tx=211&ty=85&sig=108141059894043259542&page=1&tbnh=82&tbnw=225&start=0
&ndsp=35&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0 (Accessed December 15 2011)

Lorbiecki, Anna and Gavin Jack* (2000): Critical Turns in the Evolution of Diversity
Management. British Journal of Management, Vol. 11, pp.17-31. Source: Lancaster
University Management School and *University of Stirling

Ministeriet for Flytninge og Indvandrer og Integration (2010): Når Mangfoldighed Skaber
Værdi (http://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/867A5E94-CAE0-496E-AE17723C3D904D17/0/mangfoldighed_skaber_vaerdi_.pdf, accessed 12 November, 2011)

Monthly Review 1: http://monthlyreview.org/2001/04/01/neoliberalism-from-reagan-toclinton (Accessed November 21, 2011)
76

Mærsk 1: http://www.maersk.com/AboutMaersk/WhoWeAre/Pages/History.aspx
(Accessed November 29 2011)

Mærsk 2: http://www.maersk.com/AboutMaersk/WhoWeAre/Pages/WhoWeAre.aspx
(Accessed November 29 2011)

Mærsk 3: http://www.maersk.com/Pages/default.aspx (Accessed December 14 2011)

Novo Nordisk 1: http://novonordisk.com/about_us/about_novo_nordisk/introduction.asp
(accessed 29 November, 2011)

Novo Nordisk 2: http://novonordisk.com/ (Accessed December 14 2011)

Rambøll 1: http://www.ramboll.com/about-us (Accessed November 29 2011)

Rambøll 2: http://www.ramboll.com/ (Accessed December 14 2011)

Thomas, David A. and Robin J. Ely (1996): Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for
Managing Diversity. Source: Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74, pp.79-90.

Thomas, David A. and Robin J. Ely (2001): Cultural Diversity at Work: The Effects of
Diversity Perspectives on Work Group Processes and Outcomes. Source: Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp.229-273

UN1: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml (Accessed December 14 2011)

UN2: http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/index.html
(Accessed December 14 2011)

Vestas 1: http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/history.aspx (Accessed November 29
2011)

Vestas 2: http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/profile/vestas-brief-history.aspx
(Accessed November 29 2011)

Vestas 3: http://www.vestas.com// (Accessed December 14 2011)

Walmart 1: http://www.walmart.com/ (Accessed December 15 2011)

Walmart 2: http://walmartstores.com/ (Accessed December 12 2011)

Wharton, Univ. of Pennsylvania:
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1635 (Accessed December 5
2011)
77

Wrench, John (2005): Diversity management can be bad for you. Institute of Race
Relations, Vol. 46 (3), pp.7373-84. Source: Race and Class, Sage Publications, New Delhi,
Thousand Oaks, London

Özbilgin, M. F. (2008): Global Diversity Management in Smith, P.; Peterson, M.F. and
Thomas, D. C. (eds). The Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management Research, pp. 379-396,
London: Sage Press
78