Equal Opportunities Policy and Practice in Britain: Evaluating the ‘Empty Shell’ Hypothesis

Kim Hoque; Mike Noon

doi:10.1177/0950017004045547

Equal Opportunities Policy and Practice in Britain: Evaluating the ‘Empty Shell’ Hypothesis

Kim Hoque, Mike Noon

Human Resource Management

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

164 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article evaluates the nature and incidence of equal opportunities (EO) policies in the UK using data from the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS 98).The article identifies the types of workplaces that are more likely to adopt formal gender, ethnicity, disability and age policies. It then assesses whether the policies are ‘substantive’ or merely ‘empty shells’: first, by evaluating the extent to which workplaces that have adopted EO policies have also adopted supporting EO practices; and second, by evaluating the proportion of employees who have access to EO practices in workplaces where they have been adopted. On balance, the ‘empty shell’ argument is more convincing. Smaller workplaces, private sector workplaces and workplaces without an HR or personnel specialist are identified as being more likely to have an ‘empty shell’ policy.While unionized workplaces are more likely to have a formal policy, those policies are no less likely to constitute ‘empty shells’. Finally, the policy, economic and legal implications of the findings are discussed.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	481-506
Journal	Work, Employment and Society
Volume	18
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017004045547
Publication status	Published - 2004

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1177/0950017004045547

Cite this

@article{18b78ced9ec54df999aed7177954655d,

title = "Equal Opportunities Policy and Practice in Britain: Evaluating the {\textquoteleft}Empty Shell{\textquoteright} Hypothesis",

abstract = "This article evaluates the nature and incidence of equal opportunities (EO) policies in the UK using data from the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS 98).The article identifies the types of workplaces that are more likely to adopt formal gender, ethnicity, disability and age policies. It then assesses whether the policies are {\textquoteleft}substantive{\textquoteright} or merely {\textquoteleft}empty shells{\textquoteright}: first, by evaluating the extent to which workplaces that have adopted EO policies have also adopted supporting EO practices; and second, by evaluating the proportion of employees who have access to EO practices in workplaces where they have been adopted. On balance, the {\textquoteleft}empty shell{\textquoteright} argument is more convincing. Smaller workplaces, private sector workplaces and workplaces without an HR or personnel specialist are identified as being more likely to have an {\textquoteleft}empty shell{\textquoteright} policy.While unionized workplaces are more likely to have a formal policy, those policies are no less likely to constitute {\textquoteleft}empty shells{\textquoteright}. Finally, the policy, economic and legal implications of the findings are discussed.",

author = "Kim Hoque and Mike Noon",

year = "2004",

doi = "10.1177/0950017004045547",

language = "English",

volume = "18",

pages = "481--506",

journal = "Work, Employment and Society",

issn = "0950-0170",

publisher = "Sage Publications",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Equal Opportunities Policy and Practice in Britain: Evaluating the ‘Empty Shell’ Hypothesis

AU - Hoque, Kim

AU - Noon, Mike

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - This article evaluates the nature and incidence of equal opportunities (EO) policies in the UK using data from the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS 98).The article identifies the types of workplaces that are more likely to adopt formal gender, ethnicity, disability and age policies. It then assesses whether the policies are ‘substantive’ or merely ‘empty shells’: first, by evaluating the extent to which workplaces that have adopted EO policies have also adopted supporting EO practices; and second, by evaluating the proportion of employees who have access to EO practices in workplaces where they have been adopted. On balance, the ‘empty shell’ argument is more convincing. Smaller workplaces, private sector workplaces and workplaces without an HR or personnel specialist are identified as being more likely to have an ‘empty shell’ policy.While unionized workplaces are more likely to have a formal policy, those policies are no less likely to constitute ‘empty shells’. Finally, the policy, economic and legal implications of the findings are discussed.

AB - This article evaluates the nature and incidence of equal opportunities (EO) policies in the UK using data from the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS 98).The article identifies the types of workplaces that are more likely to adopt formal gender, ethnicity, disability and age policies. It then assesses whether the policies are ‘substantive’ or merely ‘empty shells’: first, by evaluating the extent to which workplaces that have adopted EO policies have also adopted supporting EO practices; and second, by evaluating the proportion of employees who have access to EO practices in workplaces where they have been adopted. On balance, the ‘empty shell’ argument is more convincing. Smaller workplaces, private sector workplaces and workplaces without an HR or personnel specialist are identified as being more likely to have an ‘empty shell’ policy.While unionized workplaces are more likely to have a formal policy, those policies are no less likely to constitute ‘empty shells’. Finally, the policy, economic and legal implications of the findings are discussed.

U2 - 10.1177/0950017004045547

DO - 10.1177/0950017004045547

M3 - Article

SN - 0950-0170

VL - 18

SP - 481

EP - 506

JO - Work, Employment and Society

JF - Work, Employment and Society

IS - 3

ER -

Equal Opportunities Policy and Practice in Britain: Evaluating the ‘Empty Shell’ Hypothesis

Abstract

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this