Читать книгу Supplier Diversity For Dummies - Kathey K. Porter - Страница 15

Every few years, this question pops up for debate as society (and a few detractors) try to move beyond the conversation of race- and gender-based initiatives and quotas and focus solely on qualifications, merit, and so on. The assumption is that the legislation, hours of training, and countless programs people have endured over the years have done their jobs. Now, everyone has equal access to anything they choose: jobs, housing, healthcare, business, you name it. This argument implies that the playing field is now equal and fair and assumes that humans no longer harbor implicit biases, prejudices, or favoritisms. If this description sounds like your organization, congratulations — you did it! If not, keep reading.

As Chapter 2 explains, the motives behind supplier diversity have shifted from complying with federal law (we have to) to doing the right thing (we want to) to creating a business case (we need to). Arguably, these shifts likely came because someone brought up the question of whether it was still necessary.

The United States has definitely come a long way since the affirmative action legislation of the 1960s, but any progress that’s been made validates that these types of initiatives work and that there’s really no such thing as “we’ve made it.” If anyone working in diversity will tell you one thing, it’s that supplier diversity isn’t a destination but rather a continual process that requires a long-term commitment to change.

One argument in favor of the ongoing need for supplier diversity is the continued economic disparity that exists between diverse business owners and non-diverse business owners, whether it’s lack of access to capital or networks, lack of resources, or any other number of issues that derail business growth.

Take, for example, the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on diverse businesses. Of course, entrepreneurs across the board took a tremendous beating, but COVID-19’s effect on minority-owned small businesses in the United States was much more dire and extreme, according to an article by McKinsey & Company. It noted that of all vulnerable small businesses, minority-owned businesses were the most at risk and that many were in financially precarious positions even before COVID-19 lockdowns began. The pandemic disproportionately impacted minority-owned small businesses for two critical reasons:

 These outfits tend to face underlying and systemic issues that make running and scaling successfully more difficult.

 They’re more likely to be concentrated in industries most immediately affected by the pandemic, making them more susceptible to disruption.

Their vulnerability was compounded because many minority-owned businesses lacked emergency funding. A large percentage of minority businesses weren’t able to take advantage of relief funds from the government because they didn’t have the commercial banking relationships that larger companies had. (Many banks focused on their larger, long-term clients with established credit relationships.) The Center for Responsible Lending, a nonprofit group that combats abusive lending practices, estimates that nearly 90 percent of minority-owned businesses had little chance of receiving a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan through a mainstream bank or credit union.

The Center for Responsible lending further broke down its estimates by demographic; here are the rough numbers:

 95 percent of Black-owned businesses

 91 percent of Latino-owned businesses

 91 percent of Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander-owned businesses

 75 percent of Asian-owned businesses