The Business Disability Forum has released a new discussion paper and podcast addressing the concept of ‘purple washing’ in businesses.
- ‘Purple washing’ refers to businesses claiming commitment to disability inclusion without appropriate actions to support these claims.
- The podcast features discussions with experts on how businesses can improve their approach to disability inclusion.
- It highlights the phenomenon of ‘purple hushing,’ where positive disability actions are not publicised.
- Disability-inclusive organisations report significantly higher revenue, but the fear of inauthenticity remains.
The Business Disability Forum has brought forward a significant issue regarding businesses that publicly champion disability inclusion yet fail to follow through with tangible actions—a practice termed as ‘purple washing’. This topic is explored in their latest discussion paper and podcast, part of the ‘Disability Today’ series, released on 19 September. ‘Purple washing’ can mislead stakeholders into believing an organisation is more inclusive than it truly is, often masking poor underlying practices.
The podcast discussion features insights from Peter Torres Fremlin, author of ‘Disability Debrief’, and Birgit Neu, a DEI expert, both exploring the potential harm caused by ‘purple washing’. Fremlin points out that disability may be used superficially to enhance reputational appeal without genuine implementation of promises to improve conditions for disabled employees. Neu concurs, emphasising the need for policies and practices that are genuinely inclusive and reflect year-round commitments to disability inclusion, rather than perfunctory ticking of compliance boxes.
Diane Lightfoot, CEO of BDF, contributes by highlighting the importance of action over inaction, stressing, “focus on progress, not perfection”. She warns against complacency and advocates for continuous improvement in disability inclusion efforts. These viewpoints stress that businesses should not await a state of ideal perfection before announcing achievements but should transparently communicate progress while recognising the ongoing nature of improvement.
The discourse also introduces the concept of ‘purple hushing’, where companies may implement commendable practices but opt not to publicise them. This reticence can adversely impact both potential employees and consumers, leading to missed opportunities for engagement with diverse talent and markets. In fact, disability-inclusive organisations, as highlighted by the discussion paper, tend to achieve 28% higher revenues—a compelling incentive for businesses to genuinely embrace inclusive policies.
Ultimately, the Business Disability Forum’s paper suggests actionable steps for businesses aiming to present a genuine image of inclusivity. It advises beginning with substantive actions, such as employing disabled individuals across all sectors and enabling them to perform optimally through necessary adjustments. The emphasis is on authenticity and transparency, urging businesses to establish robust inclusion policies and practices before promoting them, thus avoiding any perception of hollow virtue signalling.
The Business Disability Forum underscores the need for genuine disability inclusion practices over superficial claims, pushing businesses towards transparent and authentic engagement.
