Bridging the gap: An exploration of the use and impact of positive action in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Despite laws in Britain permitting limited positive action initiatives to combat disadvantage faced by minority groups in employment since the mid-1970s, the subject has notoriously been a neglected and highly controversial area in the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding the potential provided by sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010, it still appears that organizations prefer to steer clear of this opportunity to address disadvantage suffered by protected groups. While there is a body of work considering the theoretical importance of positive action in the United Kingdom, there is a lack of empirical exploration of the practical implications of these provisions. This article will provide a brief overview of the theoretical context and current positive action legislative provisions within the United Kingdom. In light of this context, the early findings of a small-scale qualitative study carried out by the authors will be discussed looking at the experiences of a purposive sample of public and private employers in relation to the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010. Early research findings suggest that while there was a clear willingness and openness by employers to use of outreach measures in order to redress disadvantage, there was evident wariness regarding a move towards preferential treatment as expounded by section 159. While respondents appeared to appreciate the business case for and utility of the positive action measures under section 158, there was far less enthusiasm for more direct preferential treatment, with many respondents raising serious concerns regarding this. These concerns often reflected a highly sensitive risk-based approach towards any action that could expose their organization to the possibility of ‘reverse discrimination’.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.