Diversity in the British NHS: the business versus the “moral” case

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to examine the business case for ethnic diversity in the British National Health Service (NHS). It seeks to contextualise issues around diversity within the current political environment, and identify the barriers to diversity in the NHS. The business case has been very strongly argued as justification for introducing both managing diversity and equal opportunity initiatives – here the paper examines the inconsistencies of using that argument, and maintains that the only justification worth presenting is that based on (deontological) moral arguments.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper is conceptual in nature exploring the respective cases for diversity using a broad range of the available literature brought together as part of a rapid evidence assessment. It does so in order to make some far‐reaching claims about the future justifications for active diversification of senior management in key public sector institutions.

Findings

The distinctions between the business and moral cases are false, in that both have ethical reference points. However, the business case is not only difficult to translate to public sector institutions; there are also evidential problems with its adoption. In light of this the conclusion here is that the moral (deontological) case is the only one that has any long term value for proponents of diversity.

Originality/value

The value of this paper is that it examines the confusion that surrounds different cases for advancing diversity as a policy aim and presents a clear delineation of them. It also draws out some of the – perhaps deliberate – blurring of the cases and underlines the huge problems with this all too common approach. Ultimately, it suggests that morality (deontological) arguments have most purchase in public sector organisations.

Citation

Johns, N., Green, A. and Powell, M. (2012), "Diversity in the British NHS: the business versus the “moral” case", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 768-783. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610151211277626