Work–Life Balance and Diversity Management: A New Approach to Old Problems

Abstract

This study aims to address the sociological and legal evolution of the work–life balance theme and the concept of the valorisation of differences through a diversity management approach in order to create a culture of gender equality and inclusion in the workplace. The analysis is conducted through a comparative methodology, as legislative sources are analysed in the supranational, European, and Italian contexts while identifying differences in diversity management in the US and Europe. Moreover, with a case-study methodology, innovative strategies put in place by an Italian and an American company are identified, demonstrating how diversity management can contribute to a better work–life balance and gender equity. The ultimate, innovative aim is to highlight that differences and an orientation toward diversity management can ensure that management practices recognise the transversality and complexity of individuals and provide equal opportunity to subjects in all categories.

1. Introduction

The choice between the availability of living and working time has always attracted considerable attention from scholars: from here, numerous reflections arise around the old question of work–life balance.

Initially, work–life balance was intended mainly to reconcile family and work responsibilities, to be burdened only by women. Moreover, there was no connection between the issue of reconciliation and every person’s right to self-determination (Tinti 2009). The development of different sociological models and legislative policies led to the birth of the concept of «shared conciliation», a notion that reflects the balance of family and work responsibilities, including those of men, in light of the principles of equality and solidarity (Lewis 2001).

This article has the following three general objectives:

-

First, it aims to analyse the changes to which the concept of work–life balance has been subjected. More specifically, it will analyse the shift between different interpretations of this phenomenon from a legislative and sociological point of view: from the initial model of «conciliation», understood as women’s duty to take care of their home and family (Saraceno and Keck 2011), to the latest innovative frontier of «harmonisation», understood as a fair division of opportunities and duties between men and women and considering the individual as a source of social and economic value (Rapoport et al. 2002) in order to create gender equity.

-

Secondly, this article has the general goal of analysing a particular approach through which we can deal with work–life balance: diversity management, which is focused on improving the lives of people, where differences in gender, ethnicity, religion, culture, etc., are considered an added value in creating an inclusive work environment. More specifically, this article aims to analyse the diversity management approach in Italy and the US, comparing the different interpretations and origins of diversity management in these two countries through the analysis of two companies and their strengths and weaknesses.

-

The ultimate aim is to promote the idea that this approach can ensure a management practice that recognises the complexity of each individual and provides equal opportunities for all, thus contributing to ensuring substantial equality and gender equity. Lastly, it explores an open question regarding the role of diversity management in ensuring work–life balance for individuals in the LGBTQIA+ community, trying to understand how their life and professional experience can be improved by this instrument.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Changes in the Concept of Work–Life Balance: A Review from a Legislative and Sociological Perspective

The use of the term «work–life balance» is recent. In fact, there have been significant changes, from a legislative and literal point of view, to arrive at it: it evolved from the word «reconciliation» to «shared reconciliation» to «work–family balance» and, finally, to «work–life balance».

The term «reconciliation» is characterised by a consistent range of meanings (Tinti 2009).

The doctrine has provided a conventional definition generally shared by authors, which is the «combined exercise of fundamental rights such as the protection of family life, the protection of working women and the guarantee of equal treatment between the sexes» (Calafà 2004). This concept has required the adoption of some rules that, on the one hand, have reduced the employer’s economic freedom but, on the other hand, have given workers the time to care for their personal well-being (M. V. Ballestrero 2009).

Work–life balance was conceived as a gender-neutral construct; in the beginning, it was perceived as the woman’s duty to balance working and family life, realising the so-called “double presence” (Balbo 1978).

After women entered the workforce, opinions on their fundamental role in care services were strengthened: women were called upon to work full-time in both their family and professional lives, whereas men always had to give precedence to their jobs.

Slowly and gradually, the notion of family/work reconciliation began to spread across the world with the affirmation of the principles of equal treatment and equality at international and European levels.

At the international level, the first legislative references are found in the ILO Convention C156/19881, «Workers with family responsibilities». It applies to workers with family responsibilities, i.e., both workers with children and those with any other family members who need care; it fixes the principle of non-discrimination in employment; and it contains a call to action to Member States to take measures to ensure that employees can exercise their right to choose their own work.

In Europe, however, the first references are in treaties and in the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, in which Article 16 lays down the principle of equality between men and women and encourages the adoption of some measures to reconcile.

The European Council Recommendation 92/241 on childcare is also very significant: reconciliation is no longer regarded as an exclusively female issue, and men are also called upon to enable women to participate in the labour market.

Gradually, there has been a re-evaluation of the responsibilities of men, who must consider themselves to have a dual role, too.

The new importance given to men is the premise from which the concept of «shared reconciliation» (Tinti 2009) was born and evolved through the development of different sociological models.

In the twentieth century, in fact, there were changes in women’s employment and in family organisation. Two movements began to develop: on the one hand, there were supporters of the so-called «universal breadwinner model», which claims that the fundamental role of the State is in strengthening policies for the accessibility and empowerment of women’s work; on the other hand, there were supporters of the so-called «caregiver parity model», whose primary goal is to recognise a new concept of citizenship that stresses the importance of care work, predominantly carried out by women.

First introduced by the American philosopher Nancy Fraser in the 1990s, the term «shared conciliation» has been the subject of different perspectives: in 1994, Fraser used the expression «universal caregiver model», while, in 1999, the English sociologist Rosemary Crompton coined the expression «dual earner/dual career», a notion that will be further discussed in more depth (Fraser 1994; Gaiaschi 2014).

In the analysis of gender relations, Crompton identified and developed four forms of «gender arrangement» (Crompton 2001).

The first one is the «male breadwinner/female caregiver» model, which is based on two simple assumptions: men are the primary earners who are employed full-time, while women have the fundamental role of looking after the home and family.

The second form is the «male breadwinner/female part-time earner», where the man is employed full-time, and the woman works part-time.

The third form is the “dual-earner” model, in which both members of the couple work full-time.

The latest model is «dual earner/dual career», where men and women work three-quarters of the day and are equally responsible for household tasks in the remaining time.

The four forms of «gender arrangement» correspond, according to the author, to four different models of welfare policies that the State can adopt.

The «male breadwinner/female career» model is based on the adoption of «paternalistic» welfare policies, mainly focused on working men.

The «male breadwinner/female part-time» model is based on the adoption of «maternalistic» policies that, considering the growth in women’s employment in the twentieth century, recognise the care services that they provide and offer measures to protect maternity at work.

In sum, there has been a gradual shift from the «male breadwinner/female caregiver» model to the «dual earner/dual career» model.

Although there are several critical profiles (Del Punta 2000), the «dual earner/dual career» model has been considered the basis of the notion of «work–family balance».

«Work–family balance» is a notion that reflects the equilibrium between work and family time for both parents and people with other care duties, and it has to be interpreted in light of the principles of equality and solidarity. These are contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in Article 33, paragraph 2, which provides an almost «constitutional» legislative basis for the principle of work–family balance (Bimbi and Toffanin 2017). First, it is accepted that some measures have to be taken to fill the under-represented gender gaps in some sectors. Second, a specific article is dedicated to work–family balance. Third, there is a direct call to men to assume equal familial responsibilities and take paternity or parental leave.

The Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the 29th of June 2000 on the balanced participation of women and men in professional activities and family life is also significant, because it paved the way for further policies. It refers to the so-called «gender social contract»: considering this “contract”, gender equality is established not only by providing incentives to make women enter the world of work but also by sharing family responsibilities. In addition, the Resolution contains a threefold call: the first one addresses the Member States, asking them to promote the balanced participation of women and men in professional activities and family life; the second one calls on European institutions to take positive actions, such as providing reports and promoting awareness campaigns; and lastly, the third one is a call to employers to promote the balanced participation of men and women in professional and family life, engaging in a dialogue with them.

In this scenario, it is therefore necessary to understand that work–family balance concerns not only women and families with young children but also individuals as such and their needs.

These are the bases for the definition of a new concept. In fact, there has been a shift to the notion of «work–life balance»: two apparently distinct and opposite spheres, personal life and work, are combined in order to understand the needs of the individual, considered as a whole in their social complexity (Trifiletti 2017).

In this new vision, the role of the State is fundamental: it must provide for the needs of the person, creating, on the one hand, a network of services (for example, care and children) accessible to all and, on the other hand, the conditions for a non-hostile working environment, providing incentives at the professional level (Donati and Prandini 2009).

The final goal is to put the person back at the centre of employment policies: as a consequence, a violation of an employee’s work–life balance needs is considered an infringement of the «primary rights of personality» (De Luca 2020).

With these considerations, there is a tendency oriented towards a new frontier in work–life balance, which takes a further step: being understood in terms of «harmonisation» (Rapoport et al. 2002).

Promoting this change in approach means not only emphasising the centrality of work at the individual and collective levels but also questioning gender roles.

The theory of «harmonisation» focuses on several principles, among which the principle of gender equity is fundamental: it is understood as a fair division of opportunities and duties between men and women so that everyone can be satisfied with their working and personal lives (Chinchilla and Moragas 2010).

The harmonisation of living and working time implies the need to address social, organisational, and cultural issues that manifest their impacts in the workforce and produce inequalities, hence the commitment made by companies to redesign the concept of working spaces.

The final goal is to create a link between equity and efficiency in order to rethink labour market policies and, at the same time, to enable the individual to be seen as a source of social and economic value.

2.2. Legislative Actions at European Level

The different philosophical shifts that have occurred in the matter of work–life balance can also be clearly seen in the legislative policy changes in the European Union.

Several directives on equal treatment, non-discrimination, and equal access to employment have been enacted, first concentrating more on women and childcare, later considering men, and finally, focusing on the individual, regardless of identity. Furthermore, employers are obliged to adopt different measures to implement an equal sharing of care work.

The first legislative sources, as mentioned before, were more focused on the role of women in work–life balance and adopted a protective approach towards them. Among them is Directive 92/85 EC, which is about the implementation of measures to promote improvements in work health and safety for pregnant women, women who have recently given birth, or women who are breastfeeding.

The directive considers the vulnerability of working mothers during these periods and introduces some obligations for employers. First, the employer is required to assess the risks of certain activities that may be detrimental to the worker’s health. Second, it is prohibited to assign women to certain jobs that could be dangerous in their conditions. Third, the employer needs to implement necessary measures for women’s health, such as changing working conditions or hours; the employer cannot dismiss a pregnant woman at the beginning of maternity or at the end of maternity leave; and the employer has to guarantee that her salary will be maintained for the entire period. The most innovative provision is the invitation to the Member States to grant maternity leave for 14 weeks (Viale and Zucaro 2016).

The growing emphasis on a more balanced equilibrium between men and women and the gradual shift to the notion of «shared reconciliation» and «work–family balance» has led to the approval of the Framework Agreement on Parental Leave, signed in 1995 and transposed and implemented by Directive n. 96/34/EC.

The general considerations of the preamble are particularly noteworthy, because it stresses that an effective equal opportunities policy must be based on a comprehensive, integrated strategy, a better organisation of working time, an easier return to work after a period of absence, and, most importantly, a greater role for men in family responsibilities, which should not be placed solely on women.

First, this framework made a preliminary distinction between maternity leave—which can only be taken by the mother—and parental leave—which can be taken by both the mother and the father. Second, it must be noted that parental leave is non-transferable and fixed at a minimum of 3 months to be enjoyed until the child reaches the age of eight.

Lastly, the Framework Agreement protects the worker from being dismissed during that period; it ensures the return to the same job previously occupied or to a similar one; and it ensures the maintenance of rights acquired during parental leave (Gottardi 2000).

The notion of work–life balance is thus extended to men at the legislative level as well and is reflected in Directive 2006/54 EC, divided into four titles. The first one defines direct and indirect discrimination, sexual harassment, and positive actions. The second one includes special provisions related to equality in matters of remuneration, occupation, security schemes, access to employment, vocational training, promotion, and working conditions. Furthermore, it also contains an explicit reference to policies for reconciling working and living time. The third one includes provisions concerning legal remedies and some norms regarding the dialogue between authorities deputed to reach equality, including non-governmental organisations. The fourth section contains final provisions regarding the obligation of the European Commission to monitor reports and the obligation of Member States to report certain data. The concept of work–life balance thus includes a dimension of dialogue between different parties who can contribute to the cause.

The last legislative source that reflects the notion of «work–life balance» and the consideration of the individual as such, not just those who have a family with children, is Directive 2019/1158 EU, signed by the European Parliament and the Council.

It is relevant for several reasons. Firstly, the most important novelty concerns the unprecedented provision of paternity leave in European law: the right of the father to leave work for a period of at least 10 working days under the same conditions as maternity leave. Another significant innovation is the introduction of leave for the «second equivalent parent», a gender-neutral expression that applies to same-sex couples (Oliveira et al. 2020).

Secondly, changes are also made in the use of parental leave: the directive provides for the non-transferability of a two-month quota from one parent to another.

Thirdly, the directive grants unpaid leave of at least five days a year for caregivers or workers who devote themselves to people who need care. This measure is extremely significant, since it implies the right to leave work not only for the sake of children but also for other family members, elderly people, or people in need/with disabilities.

Fourthly, the directive promotes the use of flexible working methods to adapt the organisation to the employee’s personal needs (Chieregato 2020).

Therefore, at the European level, three elements have to be borne in mind: the vision of the needs of the individual; the recognition of paternity leave; and a more general notion of care, including older people or people with disabilities. These features will be addressed by different Member States and will be important for the diversity management issue in Europe.

2.3. The Italian Legislative System

One of the Member States that transposed the European Directives is Italy. Italy will be analysed from this point of view because, in the European Work-Life Balance Index, created by Remote, it is ranked 27 out of 30 countries in the European Union, which speaks volumes about the situation, the perception, and the measures taken on this issue in the country.

On the Italian side, legislation on work–life balance dates back to the conception of work–life balance just as protection of motherhood, in accordance with Article 37 of the Constitutional Charter (Gottardi 2016) and with the principle of equality.

The first steps that were taken in the Italian legislative system, following European normative sources and prevalent sociological models, were more directed towards the protection of the working mother. Law 1204/1971, in fact, addresses their physical and economic protection, provision of maternity leave, strengthening of the stability of the workplace, and the possibility of leaving before and after the birth of the child. It neglects, however, to take into consideration the position of the working father, which is never mentioned (Menghini 1999).

An important step forward was Law 1903/1977: some provisions concerning the parental function were introduced, and it tried to effect major changes aimed at creating more favourable conditions for work–life balance. The principles of non-discrimination, equal pay, and equal access to work and employment were strengthened, but, above all, the father was also given the option of voluntary absences from work. Although innovative, this provision, due to the cultural resistance in Italy regarding men and family, was not really applied (Ballestrero 1979).

There was an actual change with Law 53/2000, which transposed EU Directive 96/34 CE and subsequently began innovation on the matter.

It introduced the assumption of the valorisation of the person and a different division of life and working time to ensure the principle of equality; it called for men to take on greater responsibility; and lastly, it provided everyone with the adequate tools to carry out care work, thus beginning a «social revolution» (Calafà 2005).

More specifically, with the legislative and cultural shifts to the valorisation of the individual as such and to the broader concept of work–life balance, the first element of novelty is the first paragraph of Article 1, where it is mentioned that the aim of the law is to promote a better balance between work, care, and social relations. The legislator, in fact, promotes the redistribution of family roles, which include care for children’s and women’s health and the enhancement of the father’s role. Secondly, some provisions for a fair redistribution of family burdens are introduced, which take into account the value of motherhood and the cultural evolution taking place. In this context, fathers can also enjoy certain rights traditionally reserved for mothers, such as the right to rest and leave for childcare, but paternity leave can be taken in the event of the death or serious illness of the mother or abandonment, as well as in the case of exclusive custody of the child by the father. This provision is quite important because, while it extends the concept of work–life balance, it also limits the right of the father to take this leave outside these cases (Donà 2009).

Thirdly, parents can also take parental leave for a total of ten months up to the first 8 years of the child’s life. Lastly, art. 9 explicitly contains a call to companies to promote measures of work–life balance. Despite the potentially innovative scope of this article, it has not been fully implemented by the social partners to which it refers, since relatively few projects have been funded, either because the social partners have not yet identified the problem of work–life balance or because companies do not want to reorganise themselves (Calafà 2004).

These legal rules have been strengthened in different laws, among which the most important is Legislative Decree n. 105/2022, which implemented EU Directive 2019/1158. The innovations introduced concern compulsory paternity leave, fixed at 10 working days; parental leave; permits granted for the assistance of people with disabilities; and provisions regarding remote and part-time work (Chieregato 2020).

After analysing the legislative actions that have been taken in Italy, it can be affirmed that some changes have occurred, mostly in the direction of the valorisation of the individual, but there are several critical issues. First, because of cultural resistance regarding the role of men and women in the family, there is still a widespread opinion that the care burden is on women. Secondly, the legislative system still tends to concentrate on women and adopt a protective approach towards them while completely neglecting the needs of single women or women who are not mothers. Thirdly, the State is almost entirely overlooked in the matter, because, apart from bonuses or vouchers regarding people with children, it has not yet considered the role of men and fathers and has not adopted appropriate measures to reduce the burden of care services.

2.4. Diversity Management

After analysing the different legislative and sociological changes in work–life balance at the supranational and national level, there is a need to examine one of the approaches through which the issue of work–life balance can be treated: so-called «diversity management» (DM henceforth).

This approach embraces different strategies that companies or public administrations voluntarily promote based on four axes: work organisation; payment; services; and culture. The ultimate goal is to change the work environment through, on the one hand, the adoption of measures that can reduce the contrast between work and private life and, on the other hand, the recruitment and inclusion of workers with different characteristics (Buemi et al. 2015).

Human capital, in fact, constitutes an intangible, unique, and irreplaceable heritage, and, as such, it needs to be preserved. For this reason, it is fundamental to recognise diversity, both visible and invisible, by realising the potential of the individual and taking into due consideration their aspirations and motivations (Zifaro 2020).

2.5. Diversity Management in the US Context

DM’s origins trace back to the United States, where, between 1950 and 1960, the Civil Rights Movement began to take root (Yadav and Lenka 2020).

The demand for equal rights was a cornerstone of the Civil Rights Movement and the result of different initiatives in the country, where numerous people gathered and where minorities, through collective action, tried to move on from a universalistic approach. This new movement rejected this approach because it led to the homologation of people, obedience to a white normative framework, and the institutionalisation of equality demands.

The diversity of human beings was at first shelved to prioritise equal access to social rights and citizenship for all people, including minorities. Later on, this idea changed: the reappropriation of diversity means valuing individuals’ peculiarities to develop an individual and collective consciousness (Hall 2006). From the legislative point of view, this concept is reflected, on the one hand, in the drafting of the Equal Pay Act, the Equal Opportunity Act, and the Civil Rights Act, which abolished formal legal wage disparities and racial segregation in schools and workplaces, and on the other hand, in the dissemination of Executive Orders containing the so-called «affirmative action» (Bacchi 1996).

These are positive policies that aimed to hire people regardless of their race, religion, and ethnic origin and created the path towards «gender quotas». These practices were highly contested because, on the one hand, they were believed to be in contrast with the principle of meritocracy and would lead to so-called «reverse discrimination»; on the other hand, they were seen as discriminatory on the basis of class, because they favoured Afro-American middle-class members over the European working class (Buemi et al. 2015).

These arguments were soon refuted by intersectionality studies, because they pointed out that the dimensions of gender, race, and class were strictly related, and the discrimination suffered by black working-class women was different from that suffered by white working middle-class women (Creenshaw 1993).

Through a 1974–1975 constitutional amendment, the Equal Rights Amendment, the US government encouraged companies to hire more women and minorities, establish some quotas, give them greater opportunities for personal growth, and vary the organisational composition.

After a few years, the effectiveness of this amendment began to be—and still is—questioned due to the particular ratification process of the Member States.

It was noted that these practices were often completely detached from the company’s activities and were adopted with the sole purpose of satisfying requirements. In terms of the workplace, researchers have pointed out that corporations have been legally forced to hire more people who are minorities in order to avoid litigation and comply with the legal framework, not because they really support the policy of gender equity and diversity inclusion (O’Connell and Russell 2005).

Although equal rights legislation and affirmative action policies have helped disadvantaged groups obtain access to a variety of jobs not previously open to them, they were still excluded from circles of influence, and it was their exclusion from these circles in work organisations that kept them from making a real contribution in the workplace. The beneficiaries of these practices did not progress within internal hierarchies and ended up being stigmatised as unskilled.

In the 1980s, however, the concept of DM changed, as it lost its universalistic matrix and the community pushed to promote diversity, since it was no longer considered a negative value but a value that is needed for the development of the identity and affirmation of an individual’s subjectivity and consciousness.

During the 1980s, there was a radical turning point.

The new US government aimed to implement equality policies, and the political and economic landscape changed radically: there were demographic changes in the labour force, white male backlash, a turn to social conservatism and globalisation, and the restructuring of work (Buemi et al. 2015).

DM policies also started to spread due to the rapid transformation and differentiation of global markets, with an increasing focus on African American, Hispanic, and Asian communities, whose purchases were estimated at about USD 750 billion.

Thus, human capital, as the body of knowledge possessed by an individual, was capitalised, leading companies to have a greater interest in valorising individual diversity (Triana 2017).

The new narrative of DM was conceived as inclusive, forward-looking, and business-oriented (Litvin 2006).

By then, with the change in the workforce, corporations had started hiring professional experts in accordance with affirmative action. These communities began to spread the idea that diversity was no longer a legal constraint but a value that could confer a strong competitive advantage.

From that moment on, many Northern American organisations and companies started to adopt Diversity Plans, which were based on the idea of raising different employment rates, including in the recruitment phase. With the market’s globalisation, the concept that a company must attract talent to develop, be competitive, and thus improve its reputation began to spread. In order to satisfy these requirements, it needed to address the issue of diversity with specific training programmes that aim to create an inclusive environment (Buemi et al. 2015).

There was, therefore, a proliferation of studies on the benefits of hiring people from different cultural backgrounds, such as the stimulation of creativity, improvements in the employee’s mental and physical well-being, and an increase in the overall productivity of the organisation (Di Stefano and Maznevski 2007).

Today, DM includes the rights of disabled people, religious minorities, and different sexual orientations, moving from a logic of respect to a logic of valorisation.

In summary, a couple of elements need further analysis.

First of all, the adoption of diversity management was more a function of corporate self-interest, not a government action. On the other hand, it could also be argued that anti-discrimination laws helped to promote this approach.

In fact, the implementation of diversity management started from a focus on white culture, especially white managers. After the demographic changes in the US, there were many reports regarding a company’s organisation with the inclusion of minority groups. White male bosses, afraid to become a minority themselves in the far future with the approval of affirmative action, in order to maintain their status in their enterprises, decided to cast their eyes at the segments of the population who were already targets of these actions, such as women and members of minority ethnic groups (Lorbiecki and Jack 2000). Another element is also important: the use of the term “diversity” could include anyone, regardless of their identity or status.

This argument had peculiar political consequences, because diversity started to be considered, especially by the right-wing party, a valid and more tolerable alternative to affirmative action. Therefore, corporate executives found diversity far easier to swallow than affirmative action and much easier to sell to a predominantly white workforce while also considering the demands of the black movement (Lorbiecki and Jack 2000).

In addition, the use of the term “diversity management” was far more accepted than “equal opportunities”. In some of the literature, in fact, the term “opportunity” was seen as perpetuating gender inequalities, albeit unintentionally. However, in the US, differences evoke fear, so the expression “diversity management” implies something to control, and to be controlled specifically by white people. The dimension of diversity management, in this sense, asks what the management of differences is and what difference—or even better, diversity—means. There are two possible answers: integration or inter-relation. The first one is usually associated with the dimension of inclusion but implies something that is excluded. I believe that the second one is way more significant. Inter-relation means creating the conditions through which minority groups, anti-discrimination laws, and diversity management can start a dialogue and find a compromise between the three parties involved.

The valorisation of differences has provided a valid alternative to Equal Employment opportunities and affirmative action, but it was indeed the long tradition of equal opportunities that made it possible to establish the cultural background on which diversity management is based.

A noteworthy element is the role of legal constraints in the transformation of diversity management. In fact, US employers have become more anxious about being taken to court by employees as a consequence of their failure to be compliant with the legal framework, and this has accelerated the adoption of affirmative action practices. Therefore, the imposition of legal obligations in order to achieve diversity management can have long-term effects via changes in organisational assets.

This is an important difference from the EU because, in Europe, there was not a movement with the same intensity as affirmative action, and consequently, there was no substantive tradition in human resource management policies aimed at training people who are specialised in dealing with differences within corporations (De Vita 2013).

Lastly, there is also a difference in the way in which DM intersects with work–life balance in the US. In fact, there has been a shift from a cultural point of view since 1970 on this issue: the dual-earner family was predominant, the economy was still centred on a male breadwinner model, and there was a change in direction towards the dual-earner, dual-career family. Legislative actions have been taken, such as the Family Support Act in 1988 and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, where the legislator provided assistance and leave to parents, but they proved to be insufficient for multiple reasons.

The first reason pertains to the prevalence of the conservative family unit and the composition of the families.

Different perceptions of households remain: even if, theoretically, most Americans reject the idea that women should have the traditional supermom role, some researchers have shown that the US population thinks that children are better off if the mother is at home and the father is working (Parker and Wang 2013).

Secondly, the difference between low- and middle-income families has to be taken into account to ensure effective work–life policies. Middle-class families, which are mainly composed of a woman and a man with a child, face problems because of a lack of State support, especially regarding the lack of paid parental leave and job security for mothers. Yet, these duties are still performed by mothers, influenced by the ideology of being a «supermom» (Hays 2003) and by conservative nuclear family values.

Low-income families, on the other hand, face different problems, because childbearing is delayed to an older age, and there are still many single mothers who have to pay more for services and play a dual role all the time (Wessels 2003).

Thirdly, omitted from the research are single-earner mothers and fathers, single and childless employees with extensive responsibility for older people, blended families with children from prior marriages, and families with shared custody of children. There are also few studies regarding the different ethnic composition of the population, which needs to be taken into account.

Ultimately, with advances in technology and the consequences of COVID-19, it has been found that people in the US are often «workaholics», and there are worrying signals of burnout experienced in the workplace.

Diversity management, in this regard, can help create new solutions to improve work–life balance policies in the US, considering the person and his or her needs.

2.6. Diversity Management in the EU Context

DM takes on different characteristics in Europe.

It was established at the beginning of the 1990s: here, the introduction of DM was related to the upcoming neo-liberalism, where the market is promoted as a means of regulation. DM was first adopted in the UK and the Netherlands, former colonial states with relatively large populations with ethnic minority backgrounds, and then started to spread across Europe.

At first, compared to the US, this concept encountered distinct difficulties, which were due, on the one hand, to different socio-cultural, institutional, and judicial contexts and, on the other hand, to a different debate regarding the issues of equality and diversity (Ozbilgin and Syed 2019). In Europe, the adoption of DM policies was born out of the need to reconcile two different instances, one related to the goal of equal opportunities and the other related to the productive needs of the company. Secondly, labour policies in Europe are linked to bargaining with trade unions, which initially resisted such policies because they tended to minimise equal opportunity policies. Thirdly, compared to the US context, the European business landscape is dotted with more small- and medium-sized enterprises (henceforth SMe), which have difficulties revising their business strategies for economic reasons (Ponzellini and Riva 2014).

The conditions that led to the progressive spread of DM policies in the EU can be traced back to three main factors: the existence of certain influence groups and their fight for measures to combat racial discrimination; the influence of the European Commission, which encouraged actions against discrimination, racism, and sexism in the labour market; and the resonance of DM within international companies, which had begun to implement strategies for promoting and managing diversity (Curtis and Dreachslin 2008).

In particular, empirical research on racial discrimination in the workplace began to be conducted in 1996, when the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions in Dublin issued a report that, based on the analysis of 16 States, highlighted the existence of direct discrimination in access to the labour market (e.g., the refusal to recruit workers on the basis of skin colour or ethnic origin, employment facilitation for workers already in the company). Another analysis conducted by the International Labour Organization was called “Combating discrimination against (im)migrant workers and ethnic minorities in the world of work”, which clearly demonstrated the mechanisms of racial discrimination. It also started to evaluate training and information courses aimed at identifying good practices to combat discrimination and illustrate the benefits to companies (Bieber and Bieber 2021).

These changes were reflected in the “Joint Declaration on the Prevention of Racial Discrimination and Xenophobia and Promotion of Equal Treatment at the Workplace”, a document that collects good practices in the field of racial discrimination in 15 European Union States.

From the legislative point of view, DM policies are enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights—which contains the principle of equality and the prohibition of discrimination based on origin or ethnic origin—which urges Member States to adopt appropriate legislation in the workplace, as well as in numerous directives (Directive 2000/45/EC, Directive 2000/78, Directive 2006/54/EC) that enrich the anti-discrimination legislation in the domains of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, age, and gender.

This legislative and social background led to the adoption of the Diversity Charters: documents signed on a voluntary basis by an individual European State with an organisation committed to promoting and enhancing diversity in the workplace (Ozbilgin 2023).

The Diversity Charters were collected within a European Platform of Diversity Charters, and, within them, ten actions useful for combating discrimination are identified; they also aim to manage human resources considering the skills and professional and non-professional potential of the individuals.

These Charters, however, although adopted in several European countries, present some critical issues.

The first one is related to financial support, as companies are funding their own initiatives, and there is no other direct funding available to support these policies. Secondly, the purely voluntary basis of Charter membership does not contribute to the spread of a culture that promotes diversity (De Vita 2013).

The Charters, however, have contributed to the proliferation of DM policies for the appreciation of the concept of diversity.

2.7. Diversity Management in Italy

In Italy, diversity management started to take root later than in other European countries.

This is due to several factors: the Italian production system, consisting mainly of small- and medium-sized enterprises; the late start of internationalisation and diversification; and the existence of specific Italian cultural characteristics (Gottardi 2002).

Small- and medium-sized enterprises, despite their initial reluctance, have shown a desire for dynamism and greater competition. It should be borne in mind that these companies, often run by families and anchored to a basic vision of patriarchal models, are still predominantly characterised by traditional cultural models and by a resistance to organisational practices that enhance diversity. In addition, diversity management policies are partly opposed by trade union representatives, who are concerned about the over-individualisation of practical bargaining, with a consequent risk of loss of the union and the employee (Riva 2013).

Thirdly, it must be borne in mind that some companies may consider diversity management a weak approach and, as such, susceptible to possible downsizing, depending on uncertainties in the workplace.

Although Italian production businesses have long been able to compete in the market, thanks to the effective division of labour and strategies to combat competition and recent and growing changes in the workplace, small- and medium-sized enterprises have decided to invest in the extension of human capital from which they pick their resources.

The Italian workplace warrants separate consideration.

First, it must be stressed that there is a great distinction between Northern and Southern Italy; Italy is increasingly experiencing an exodus of young people to Northern Italy, which has richer work opportunities (Murgia and Poggio 2014).

Secondly, the last ten years have seen a strong diversification of the labour force due to the presence of a growing foreign population with an educational level equivalent to that in Italy. Foreigners, in fact, ensure the survival of small- and medium-sized enterprises because they are employed for certain professional activities that would otherwise disappear. Thanks to the growing multi-ethnicity character of the Italian population, small- and medium-sized enterprises are more interested in DM policies to retain immigrant workers, not to mention the increasingly familiar stabilisation of generations of migrants (Reyneri 2017).

Thirdly, despite the growing presence of women in the workplace, Italy shows strong gender gaps: only two regions (Emilia and Trentino-Alto Adige) have reached a female employment rate of 60%, while the employment rate for women in Southern Italy is approximately 30%. This has occurred—and still occurs today—mainly because of the predominant female policies of work–life balance that we previously discussed and that also result in the perpetuation of gender stereotypes. In addition, the gender pay gap is very large: women’s skills are underestimated, or they are employed in traditionally female-dominated sectors; they have difficulty in gaining access to top positions and traditionally sign atypical contracts, such as part-time contracts (Murgia and Poggio 2014).

Many of the problems associated with women’s employment also involve discrimination against younger people, who are often employed for short periods without being re-engaged.

Lastly, there are also problems related to older people, who carry know-how that adds value to the company but is difficult to convey to younger people. In addition, they are also marginalised if they return to the labour market after long periods of absence or unemployment and are not properly reintegrated into the organisation.

Another element needs further analysis: organisations that claim to be diversity-oriented tend to do so to be formally compliant with legal rules or for their reputation and credibility, rather than being truly inspired by the revision of management and organisational models (Ponzellini 2006).

More specifically, in most cases, the predominant approach has been to “protect” a category considered “weaker” and “different from” a hegemonic model, rather than to recognise diversity in terms of the heterogeneity and variety of individuals. The consequence has been primarily the prevalence of initiatives to empower women, rather than a change in the prevailing roles and cultural patterns and a challenge to dominant organisational practices and models. Secondly, so-called “statistical inference” occurs, that is, the attribution of characteristics assumed to define a category to each member of that category. This distorted view, which tends to flatten people into one dimension and lose sight of the others, produces perverse effects in the assessment of individuals, who may not want to receive a specific treatment based on some characteristics that they would have preferred to keep private (Bombelli 2009).

The paradox of diversity management paradigms in Italy, therefore, is that they accentuate the same processes of exclusion in organisational life that they want to fight, thus consolidating a stereotypical view of certain still-persistent social dynamics.

2.8. DM’s Competitive Benefits and Problematic Issues

DM is a very complex phenomenon that cannot be considered on its own, as it depends on certain factors, such as the socio-cultural and economic context of the country, the variation in age, and the equal opportunity policies existing in each country.

There are also some beneficial aspects of DM policies, both for workers and for enterprises and organisations (Basaglia et al. 2022).

Numerous empirical and comparative studies show that the benefits of DM are primarily for people (Bombelli 2010). Research has shown that organising and participating in activities, each with its own diversity, increases the satisfaction and quality of life of employees, improves individual performance, generally improves autonomy and independence, and increases personal and professional growth.

Further benefits can be attributed to the associated group work: the DM approach, in fact, promotes dialogue and comparison between different perspectives, a greater propensity towards team building, and an increase in the creativity of individuals and groups.

Finally, the innovative DM approach makes enterprises and organisations more productive and competitive. Investing in diversity means a general reduction in costs, an advantage in recruitment policies, a greater reputation for the company’s internationalisation, and an increase in the “intangible resources” (i.e., human capital) of the organisation, which become tangible and strengthen the company’s legitimacy.

More generally, diversity management policies contribute to social cohesion, to the creation of shared well-being, to the development of human capital and sustainable economies, and to the fight against discrimination and stereotypes, thus spreading an inclusive model of social coexistence (Iacono Pezzillo et al. 2009).

DM has also been subject to numerous criticisms.

First, diversity is a challenge within the organisation. While the elements of diversity, such as demography, gender, and ethnicity, have been exalted as adding value to the company, they affect the work of the group, because people with similarities have a common and shared vision, while the opinions of diverse people could be seen as an obstacle to pursuing a specific goal (Webber and Donahue 2001). Thus, this diversity could be detrimental to the organisation.

Furthermore, there is also a social factor, because in the notion of diversity, sometimes, the individual prevails, and at other times, the logic of the group prevails. Therefore, depending on whether the individual or the group is predominant, the corporate strategy can change, and the actions can tend towards one or the other. More often, the tendency is to place the individual within the framework of individual diversity, which means that everyone is unique. On the other hand, this approach makes it difficult to understand the social basis of discrimination; moreover, if a person fails to reach a goal, he or she is the only one who will be blamed (Holvino and Kamp 2009).

Secondly, diversity management can be seen as «diversity washing», meaning that companies that adopt this kind of approach do not really believe in the moral and ethical dimension of diversity but tend to implement it just for visibility and legitimacy (Asif et al. 2023; Beauregard et al. 2020).

Thirdly, DM could be interpreted as the appropriation of social inclusion and discrimination themes in the sense that, rather than focusing on equity and resource allocation, it could be considered a model that normalises differences and hides inequalities.

Fourthly, DM would be inserted in the context of the universalisation of a particular form of knowledge that, in the process of dissemination, would become detached from its own history and reality and, as such, become a kind of «management of social policy concerns» whereby the concerns of some groups about civil rights were modified to legitimise companies. Consequently, diversity management would gradually replace the equal opportunity agenda (Basaglia et al. 2022). Some authors, in fact, believe that DM is a soft term that does not really focus on the political theme of civil rights, and, therefore, it has damaged the actions taken in the equal opportunity field (Wrench 2005).

Fifthly, some elements, such as gender and ethnicity, are perceived as natural categories that cannot vary. This operation helps the organisation to identify and monitor those characteristics, but from another perspective, monitoring them means finding a way to control and handle them in favour of the company (Lorbiecki and Jack 2000). This process contributes to the creation of a hierarchy between the people who can control the differences (the HR office, which is traditionally composed of white men) and the workforce, which is divided into different categories.

Lastly, according to some authors, DM would be a form of re-shaping the theme of equal opportunities in the form of new models that are apparently inclusive and relevant to a very small section of the population (privileged white men), thus disfavouring the genuine inclusion of all groups (McDougall 1996). It must be stressed that, although DM is closely linked to equal opportunity policies, it is quite distinct from them. While positive action and equal opportunities are based on human rights and social justice theories, diversity management is anchored on economic motives, which can, however, combine with ethical and social motivations (Zanfrini and Monaci 2021).

Furthermore, while the main purpose of equal opportunities laws has been to help disadvantaged social groups enter the labour market, DM focuses on the need to compensate for the disadvantages of those who are different.

Despite these differences, however, the relationship between equal opportunities and DM must be seen in terms of continuity and interdependence. While the effectiveness of institutional constraints is relatively low if there is no internal involvement in recognising such policies, the ethical and social justice considerations that permeate the logic of equal opportunities remain fundamental, because it is clear that people from certain groups continue to experience discriminatory treatment at work (Zanoni and Janssens 2004).

3. Materials and Methods

Having introduced the theoretical framework of diversity management and work–life balance, the author decided to select two case studies for comparison: more specifically, two large companies, ENEL and Progressive Corp. The aim was to analyse certain work–life balance practices in these companies to see how they match specific policies and the territorial contexts that have been examined.

This study employed a qualitative research methodology, encompassing descriptive and synthetic research methods. This approach involves a case-study methodology to gain rich insights into how diversity and inclusion management is currently understood and acted upon in Italy in comparison with the US.

The keywords that were used to search for them online were “top diversity management companies in US and EU”.

The reasons for their selection are manifold.

Firstly, these companies were chosen because they are similar in size. Furthermore, given that they deal with electricity and insurance, respectively, less attention to D&I issues would be expected, but the data are very different.

Secondly, they were selected in relation to their commitment to diversity in a specific timeframe (2024): ENEL Group was ranked 376 of 850 in European Diversity Leaders 2024 (and it is in first position when searching by country in the same ranking), while Progressive Corp. ranked first as America’s Best Employers For Diversity 2024.

The third reason is that they present a good gender balance: at ENEL, the percentage of women in top manager positions has grown, while Progressive is a female-dominated company. However, the race factor is less considered in both due to a lack of data.

Fourthly, having analysed the different sociological and legislative backgrounds, they are used as models to see whether some differences between the two countries emerge regarding the concept of work–life balance, intertwined with diversity management, and, if so, how they can be interpreted.

Lastly, some conclusions about the differences and similarities between the two companies will be drawn in terms of what can be improved and what open questions remain about diversity management in both of them. The comparison is further expounded upon in the Discussion Section.

4. Results

4.1. Best Practice in Italy

Work–life balance is a core value at ENEL.

ENEL is a major Italian multinational company operating in the electricity and gas sector, with 32,000 employees in Italy out of 62,080 worldwide, and represents an important example of diversity and inclusion management. ENEL’s vision in this regard is well summed up by the motto “Inclusion = value”, which is adopted by the company executives to implement concrete actions against discrimination and stereotypes and promote the inclusion and equality of all workers.

Following this logic, the Group has put this matter at the centre of its idea of conducting business, and it has been considered one of the requirements for sustainable development, along with other issues relating to corporate welfare and staff well-being.

This attention to the individual is also underlined by the words of Guido Stratta, responsible for the Human Resources Development and Senior Executives Business Partner, who said, “For years putting people at the centre, valuing different skills and personalities, is the only way to motivate everyone and get the best from each other. Only by working with passion, in fact, new solutions and ideas can be generated to open up the future for us”.

The actions undertaken by ENEL in favour of the proper management of diversity fall into four macro areas: non-discrimination, equal opportunities, the creation of an inclusive working environment, and respect for the balance between work and private life. The company also takes an interest in gender diversity and places great emphasis on the selection process to recruit professionally trained people who are able to convey a rejection of discrimination as a core value of the company.

All these objectives are consistent with those set by the UN’s 2030 Agenda, specifically SDG (Sustainable Development Goal) number 5, and confirm the great work and transparency that the company employs in terms of diversity management. It also received formal recognition from Bloomberg, which, in 2021, included it for the second time in its Gender Equality Index. Furthermore, ENEL was ranked 8th out of a total of 100 companies worldwide in the Gender Equality Global Report & Ranking (Alessandrini and Mallen 2020).

This commitment dates back to the establishment of an Equal Opportunities Committee in 1986, where representatives of employers and trade unions were involved in promoting joint initiatives and studies on gender issues. In 2013, ENEL Group became a member of the Global Works Council and established the Multilateral Committee on Equal Opportunities and Diversity; in the same year, it adopted an important act, and it was the first to do so among companies in Italy and at the international level: the “Human Rights Policy”, a solid framework from which the “Diversity and Inclusion Policy” of the company derives. The policy was launched in 2015 and has led to a transformational path to the development of projects aimed at valorising diversity of gender, age, nationality, and disability, with the aim of spreading the culture of inclusion through awareness and communication initiatives with the active participation of all workers.

Among the work–life balance initiatives implemented by ENEL, of particular importance is the establishment, in the Function “People and Organization”, of the specific People Care and Diversity Management Unit in 2016, which plays the role of guiding and supervising the adoption of the policy, which includes monitoring a specific set of indicators associated with different actions and dimensions.

Through this unit, different actions have been put into practice, but the most innovative one, according to sociological models, is the harmonisation of work and life: for ENEL, the concept of well-being goes beyond the private sphere to include the professional dimension and, in general, people’s lives. Work–life harmony and inclusion are a matter not only for the organisation but also for services and opportunities offered in practice.

Agile working with smart working, an experience already consolidated as early as 2016, is a key element: a great example of flexibility that allows the reconciliation of time between private and professional life. Furthermore, this tool is enhanced for colleagues who take care of people or live with people with disabilities, pregnant women, parents with children up to 3 years, and other special and temporary individual conditions.

ENEL Group is also innovative for their particular vision of parenting: they promote services that support the well-being of their workers in all stages of life, especially when there are children and when the parents are in a phase where they need to establish a new home and work balance. Through the Parental Program, they aim to enhance the parenting experience in the organisational context, encouraging the transfer of acquired skills to the workplace. The programme includes interviews with their People Partners and managers to address both work and organisational issues and to promote a culture of parenting in the company while sharing tools to facilitate the integration between private and professional life.

They also promote a shared vision of parenting that considers the concept of care valid for both parents, with the aim of eliminating socially pre-defined roles and consolidating their commitment to balance personal and professional life, along with policies to value diversity.

In January 2023, they signed a trade union agreement that extends the measures to support parenting already adopted by the Group. These include the extension of leave for fathers, with the recognition of 10 days of paid leave in addition to the statutory compulsory leave. Furthermore, they also have preferential conditions compared to those regulated by national bargaining, such as those related to maternity leave (payment of 100% in the first 5 months compared to 80% required by law), as well as parental leave (payment of 90% for the first month, 60% for the second and third months, and 45% for an additional three months to the parent who is entitled, compared with 30% under the law).

Consistent with a culture of inclusion, respect for diversity, and caring for children, since July 2021, the use of parental leave and permits has been extended to non-biological parents or LGBTQIA+ families, who today, by law, cannot benefit from these policies. In addition, for parents of children with specific learning disorders (SDA), attention deficit disorder (ADHD), motor disability, or sensory or neurodiversity (intellectual, autism spectrum), a dedicated support path has been established to improve their family and social well-being.

For pregnant mothers and parents of children up to three years old, the digital platform “CHILD” is also available, which helps to capitalise on their life experience in the work context through the learning method “Life Based Learning”. This methodology uses life and care experiences as a breeding ground for the development of soft skills that are fundamental to work effectiveness, such as organisational and relational abilities.

ENEL Group also cares about caregivers, people who are called to care for an elderly individual or a person who is not self-sufficient. For these employees, a series of meetings on the role of the caregiver was proposed to offer support for the development of greater awareness and serenity, integrating them in a more harmonious way with their professional lives.

4.2. Best Practice in the US

In the US, work–life balance initiatives are also implemented by Progressive Corp, ranked as America’s Best Employers For Diversity 2024.

It is an insurance holding company, which provides personal and commercial auto insurance, residential property insurance, and other specialty property–casualty insurance and related services. It operates through the following segments: Personal Lines, Commercial Lines, and Property. The Personal Lines segment includes agency and direct businesses.

The company was founded in 1937 and is headquartered in Mayfield Village, Ohio.

Its motto is very thoughtful: “We always strive to move forward”. From this quote, it can be clearly understood that every person matters, and if someone is being left behind, the company always tries to make the individual understand their value. As with ENEL, diversity is one of the core values of the company.

Progressive Corp. is also a perfect example of how diversity management is seen in the US, as previously described: encouraging diversity is not only a good way to conduct business but “the right thing to do”.

Furthermore, it also changed according to market needs: the more globalised the market became, the more the company created a multicultural environment. Additionally, giving a voice and work opportunities to different identities and nationalities means creating products that are not only desirable but also competitive in the market: diversity is what makes this company unique. This importance of transnationality and a multicultural environment is the focus of the Multicultural Leadership Development Program (MLDP), which has been offered since 2014 and is open to every eligible employee at Progressive across all demographics and business areas. Since the programme’s activation, participation has nearly tripled, and MLDP graduates are nearly twice as likely to advance in their careers versus their peers.

An important element of the company, which we do not directly see at ENEL, is that they make their reports available online, even though they are not obliged to send a report to the Equal Employment Commission: transparency is key to conveying the idea of diversity management. As we can see from these reports and data, their programmes led to growth in the participation of women and black people in senior positions—two demographics usually under-represented at work—who, at the beginning of their careers, did not have certain technical backgrounds but, thanks to programmes such as the Progressive Boot Camp, acquired them and were selected for specific roles.

Furthermore, the company takes initiatives to raise awareness about important issues, such as racism and transphobia, within their environment: in fact, they strive for collaboration and emphasise the value of speaking up within teams and with the Employer Resource Group (ERG). These units are really important and deal with some sensitive issues, working in focus groups and listening to each other’s stories.

Another important initiative is the Inclusion Quarterly℠, where the employer and employees of the company meet four times a year for a “share and show” of inclusive behaviours and ways to think differently: this event is quite meaningful because it reinforces how much diversity means to them.

Progressive Corp. also offers an example of the theory of harmonisation: as we can see from their website, “Diversity means far more to us than just race, ethnicity, and gender. It covers a whole host of visible and invisible traits, including work experience, communication style, physical ability, educational background, family status, and so much more”. This means that, in work–life balance measures, the person is seen in their entirety, taking into consideration various factors that are often subtle. Examples include the creation of holding spaces, a new initiative where Progressive brings in counsellors after traumatic events in the news to help people heal, and the creation of spaces where people want to work. The company, in fact, has fitness centres on campus, shops offering coffee and snacks, a full-service cafeteria, and even an art collection among its amenities.

An important element is that they adopt a top–down approach to implementing work–life balance measures: this means that they listen to the employer’s needs and try to find solutions that work best for them. In fact, an example is the Paid Time Off (PTO) programme, which is designed to let employees take time off to relax, recharge, or recuperate, which is different depending on the type of work and whether it is full-time or part-time. In addition, Progressive recognises seven holidays, which either result in holiday pay or additional PTO.

Regarding the specific issue of work–life balance for parents, Progressive creates employee resource groups that work on company initiatives, such as the one that focuses on employees who are parents. In addition, they offer 100% paid parental leave for up to four weeks for moms and dads, same-sex partners, adoptive parents, and foster parents (of children under 18 only) and a one-time reimbursement of family building expenses up to USD 10,000, financial advice, legal consultations, and resources for family needs. Being aware of the difficulties of coming back to work after a long period of absence, Progressive offers maternity support programmes for expectant and new mothers.

5. Discussion

This study investigated how diversity and inclusion management is evolving in Italian and American workplaces to match work–life balance policies.

From the analysis of the two case studies, some common elements stand out.

First of all, they both consider diversity and inclusion in work–life balance to be a core value of the company. While Progressive Corp. saw it as a value from the beginning, partly because of America’s cultural background, ENEL’s diversity management approach underwent a long period of development due to its late arrival in Europe, and the company committed to pursuing it through the adoption of an important institutional document, the Human Rights Policy. In doing so, ENEL institutionalised this commitment, which can be regarded as a guarantee to the worker against future discrimination or lacking measures in the diversity approach. On the other hand, Progressive Corp. uses this concept not only because it sees diversity as a strength but also for competitive reasons, for the reputation and credibility of the company, and for better products and results at work: it is a perfect example of a win–win situation.

ENEL takes a step forward in the work–life balance view beyond legislative requirements in Italy: in fact, while the legislative decree of 2022 focuses on families with children, ENEL considers people with all their needs, overcoming the protective view of women workers. Progressive Corp., on the other hand, reflects the American cultural background, considering each individual and not seeing these policies in light of affirmative action but rather in light of transformative equality, which means giving the same opportunities to all people.

One characteristic of each company has to be highlighted: on the one hand, ENEL pays particular attention to the work–life balance of caregivers. Given, in fact, the demographic problems in Italy, since it is becoming an increasingly older country, work–life balance is also seen as a matter that concerns workers—and especially women—who need to take care of older people: this is the reason for measures specifically dedicated to caregivers, as it is an emerging issue. This is also important given the Italian legislative framework: while it contains references to the care of older people in a gender-neutral way, ENEL is strengthening this policy, offering courses to all people in order to provoke the cultural change that the law is not always able to convey.

In terms of cultural and legislative change, ENEL is also a progressive company because it contributed to the cultural change needed in order to involve more men in the household. As mentioned before, it has provided 10 additional paternity leave days beyond the compulsory ones provided by European and Italian law.

As regards parental leave, ENEL has also provided additional payment if both parents decide to take it for children up to the age of 12; maternity leave is 100% paid, whereas the Italian framework requires only 80% of the payment. This measure is noteworthy because it considers not only mothers in a couple but also single mothers, thus implementing EU directives towards a different vision of the family.

Furthermore, ENEL does not only limit its vision of work–life balance strictly to families with children, but it considers different people’s needs. This is proved not only by the provision of remote working tools that, according to the legislative framework, are adopted to facilitate care services but also by a free counselling service, encouraged, in broader terms, by legislative sources.

On the other hand, Progressive Corp. dedicates its effort to the recognition and implementation of intersectionality: given the wide variety of origins in the US and the cultural background, it identifies the current needs of employees in different cultural contexts and takes actions to fill gaps and address discrimination that some workers with different characteristics can suffer (so-called “double discrimination”, because people can suffer various discriminations due to the overlaps of different discriminatory elements).

These elements offer an important thought on how diversity management is perceived in relation to work–life balance in both countries. In Italy, according to the European framework, DM also had to be institutionalised due to cultural resistance in the country: in other terms, Italy developed a culture of affirmative action later than the US, and there was not strong opposition as we saw in the US, nor a movement in that dimension. Therefore, the commitment to the Human Rights Policy, on the one hand, can be considered a guarantee for the worker, but on the other hand, it shows that the legal imposition of positive actions is sometimes the first step to take when there is cultural resistance in implementing diversity or work–life balance initiatives. In the US, the DM approach spread because it had to overcome the limitations of affirmative action, which was seen as conflicting with meritocratic principles, whereas the EU and Italy considered its relationship with the principle of equal opportunity, so DM policies were conceived as a strategy to make equal opportunities actions more concrete.

In addition, in the US, the emphasis on the valorisation of the diversity of all people offered a valid alternative to affirmative action, thus allowing the country to transform the concept of DM by considering demographic diversity: Progressive Corp. is a perfect example of this. In fact, it implemented policies that allowed the company to grow and provide opportunities to people from different cultural backgrounds. On the contrary, in Italy, there are some encouraging steps towards DM, but it is addressed in an entirely different way. In fact, as we can also see from the ENEL case study, DM and work–life balance policies are more focused on the concept of care, understood in a broader sense: not only women who care for children but also people who care for family members who cannot care for themselves.

Contrary to the Italian business performance (De Vita 2013), ENEL has also made great progress in terms of the education and training of its employers and employees to fully understand and integrate the concept of diversity management, especially regarding the gender dimension, age management, and the exchange of best practices. In fact, in order to create more networks, ENEL is one of the corporations that joined the Fondazione Sodalitas, which is the Italian delegation in the European Platform of Diversity Charters.

The ENEL Human Rights Policy, recently strengthened with the adoption of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging (DEIB), implemented the Diversity Charters in Europe: they both present and integrate the principles of equal treatment, dignity, and non-discrimination while identifying the stakeholders and bodies responsible for monitoring and implementing them. On the other hand, Progressive Corp. is composed of a large network of employee resource groups, which perfectly suits its DM policy, and values diversity as a fundamental element in the company.

A difference can be seen in the relationship aspect: ENEL, in fact, also cares about the creation of a good environment where everyone can talk and feel free to express their needs in a useful way and with the correct words; on the other hand, Progressive Corp. organises programmes such as the Dare to Disagree programmes and the DEI Speakers Bureau, where presenters and facilitators lead work teams in discussions around biases, stereotypes, and the development of inclusive behaviours.

As can be understood from the Italian legislative framework, one aspect it is lacking is attention dedicated to gender, gender identity, and LGBTQIA+ people. In this regard, ENEL is one of the pioneer corporations that fill the gap in the Italian legislative system, because it extended certain work–life balance provisions, such as parental leave or special permits, to same-sex partners or to caregivers, as provided by the European Directive of 2019. Progressive Corp. has also filled the legislative gap by adopting an Employment Non-Discrimination Policy, which includes sexual orientation and gender identity for all operations; it provides the same benefits to same-sex couples and has an LGBTQIA+-friendly environment, including training for workers.

This is a clear and concrete example of how the specific needs of diverse people are taken into account in this field, thus provoking a cultural change within the enterprise that allows them to feel more comfortable at work. As for the needs of parents and the vision of work–life balance strictly related to them, they both consider the needs of parents, offering remote work for everybody. In addition, they both offer programmes for coming back to work and filling any gaps after a long period of absence from work.

An important measure that can be seen at Progressive Corp. is their attention dedicated to equal pay because, for Progressive employees with similar performance, experience, and job responsibilities, women earn one dollar for every dollar earned by men, and people of colour earn one dollar for every dollar earned by their white co-workers, according to a regression model that considers the following components of compensation: annual salary, bonuses, and stock awards. Once more, in this company, there is growing attention to the transparency of data, which is beneficial for its credibility and reputation. This vision perfectly matches the principle of equality provided by American law and considers the different demographics of the population as different factors (gender, race, etc.) intersect.

Lastly, Progressive Corp. has established a good, albeit different, application of a concept that is called “Banche del tempo” (banks of time) in Italy and that is not really used in the country. The banks of time fall within local non-monetary exchange systems; they are used to increase both the benefits of bartering and the use of local currencies and are intended to use unused work capacity and meet the needs of the individual or collectivity (Coluccia 2002, 2003).

In Italy, these banks are part of the broad framework of Articles 2 (which contains the principle of solidarity) and 3 (which contains the principle of equality) of the Constitution. The banks of time, in fact, are noted because, on the one hand, they are inserted in the associations for social promotion and strengthening the meaning of solidarity within the community and, on the other hand, they help to create and spread new forms of mutual aid, with the activities to be exchanged measured using a universal unit identical for all: time.

The foundation of the above-mentioned institute is the equal exchange of time, understood as a form of non-monetary economy and an expression of democracy and equality. The mutual exchange of time consists of the offer of and demand for services in order to satisfy material and relational needs, promoting social relations between different subjects.

The members of the bank can open real current accounts, in which they record their hours when they provide services to third parties and the hours spent when they benefit from services offered by other members of the bank. Value is measured in units of time, regardless of the market price of the service, and the activities that are carried out can be multifarious.

Each individual is considered an individual with resources and needs to be satisfied at the same time. In this regard, he or she exchanges his or her time with other participants in the association on the basis of a mutual commitment based on the recognition of his or her own social dimension and those of others on an equal footing, creating a network of solidarity that links to conciliation as a need of the person considered within society and to the function of social solidarity according to Article 2 of the Constitution. Consequently, the exchange that takes place serves to increase the opportunities of individuals by putting them in a relationship through the making of mutual commitments with the aim of promoting greater cohesion and better social integration (Amorevole 1999).

Progressive Corp. offers an interesting programme, the Volunteer Time Off (VTO), which is an employee benefit celebrating volunteerism and community involvement. Full-time and part-time employees receive a bank of eight hours of time off with pay to volunteer with an eligible organisation of their choosing during the year. This initiative can be seen as a particular application of the banks of time in Italy. Although it is not adopted within the context of an association, the employees who decide to take part in it receive payment and, at the same time, are taking time not only for their own care but also for the care of others.

In this way, the individual can be seen in different dimensions, without one aspect being prevalent over another, and, first and foremost, can be considered a person and not only a worker.

The Future Challenges of Diversity Management

Lastly, an area that remains to be analysed is one in which both countries are still lacking: the management of diversity on the basis of sexual orientation and the fact that it appears to be only minimally institutionalised at a rhetorical–discursive level.

First, to characterise the position of LGBTQI+ people, we need to define the social and legal contexts, which, respectively, concern how free the individual is to act in his or her own sexuality/affectivity in society and how many civil and social rights of the LGBTQI+ community are recognised.

The analysis of the data shows that, at the social level, there is a general tendency in both Italy and the US to not accept people with a different sexual orientation, thus affecting work performance, because sexual orientation is a characteristic that can be made invisible by the individual.

LGBTQI+ people are more likely to be discriminated against in the workplace, both during recruitment and after they have been hired.

In the first phase, various studies have shown that the more negative the social environment towards homosexuality and the less protection the law offers, the higher the level of discrimination. Furthermore, the more companies adopt an organisational culture based on the stereotype of the heterosexual male, the more they will discriminate against candidates with a different sexual orientation (Patacchini et al. 2015).

It is therefore hoped that companies will use selection algorithms with caution to avoid replicating discrimination mechanisms in selection and pay attention to so-called “employer branding” policies of the company by using inclusive communication. Furthermore, if they hire external actors to recruit staff, it is important that they ensure that these actors act in an inclusive manner.

People in the LGBTQI+ community also face discrimination once they are hired, as they have to decide whether or not to disclose their sexual orientation. This choice depends on many factors, such as individual, organisational, and environmental variables. Some companies with a seemingly inclusive climate, in fact, accept a “normalised” version of homosexuality, or there is still a perception that the workplace is a de-sexualised space. Living a “hidden” life at work is an enormously stressful situation from an emotional point of view: the fear of being discovered and discriminated against can have a significant impact on the quality of work performance, and the unwillingness to share news and information about oneself can often be interpreted as an inability to build relationships and work in teams (Ragins et al. 2007).

This is why it is important to raise awareness in this regard and to share the best practices implemented by Parks Liberi e Uguali, a non-profit Italian association that has only employers among its members, created to help member companies understand and realise the full business potential of developing strategies and good practices that respect diversity, with a particular focus on managing diversity in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity, and ENEL is part of it. It organises training, events, and consultations for companies, helping them to create a working climate that is inclusive and respectful of differences.

Therefore, companies are encouraged to create a truly inclusive working environment by engaging with the LGBTQI+ world and taking their cues from it. This means building a place where everyone’s success is based solely on their talent, ability, and quality of work performance and has nothing to do with personal characteristics such as gender, skills, age, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

6. Conclusions

This paper aims to demonstrate how work–life balance is still a developing issue on which both legislators and companies must constantly reflect and to which they have to find solutions adapted to the times, balancing the needs of the individual with those of society.

While this issue has long been conceived as a reconciliation of family and work responsibilities only for women, it has gradually moved towards a new concept that involves men’s responsibilities, care for the elderly, and personal well-being, as demonstrated in this study.

Furthermore, a new approach to dealing with this issue has been investigated: diversity management. Its different development paths in Italy, the EU, and the USA have been examined, and its intersection with work–life balance has been proved by examining case studies. However, the case-study component was not conducted with interviews but just what can be seen on the companies’ websites and what can be discerned from online reviews of the two different companies.

After these considerations, many insights can be made.

First, it is an approach that aims to valorise the diversity of each person as a source of knowledge: for this reason, it requires close collaboration between the legislator, corporations, and civil society actors.

In the USA, diversity management moved towards focusing more on demographic variables, and from the legislative point of view, it still fails to be implemented: the resistance of Member States to the Equal Rights Amendment is a perfect example, together with stagnation in adapting laws in the field and in the work–life balance issue. Conversely, companies have focused more on integrating the dimension of diversity management and work–life balance into the workplace from both the cultural and policy point of view.

On the other hand, in Italy, diversity management is understood more as care for family members, and the legislation on work–life balance reflects this, as it is intertwined with the legislative equal opportunity framework. Companies have implemented more normative provisions regarding work–life balance and have integrated the cultural dimension of diversity management, as the ENEL case study showed, thus demonstrating that, slowly, different actors are trying to improve the situation, although there is some gender-stereotyping resistance.

Secondly, the case-study analysis in Italy and the US proved that the DM approach has been and still is a winning approach to dealing with the issue of work–life balance and achieving gender equity. In fact, examples of enlightened leadership, answers to commitments, concrete actions, and the valorisation of the people, in accordance with the theory of work–life harmonisation, have shown the importance of the choices of companies in building a diverse and enriching environment that can ensure not only gender equality but also gender equity. As ENEL showed, if people—especially men—are given the opportunity, for example, to take more days for paternity leave, they take advantage of this opportunity and contribute to a cultural change, whereas the law is not always able to achieve these results. As Progressive Corp. also showed, if workers from different backgrounds are given concrete possibilities to make real contributions to the company, all of society can benefit from it, not only from an economic point of view but also from a cultural point of view. More generally, it means that individuals who are in vulnerable conditions are placed in the same conditions as privileged ones. A future step forward is to not only place them in these conditions but, in accordance with the principle of substantial equality, ensure that they can reach the same goals or results as people who are in better conditions (Granaglia 2022).

Thirdly, the DM approach also leaves an open question regarding a newly emerging issue in work–life balance: given the legislative gaps in both countries, how can companies value diversity and increase the inclusion of the LGBTQIA+ community to make work–life balance a reality for them as well? Further steps surely need to be taken, not only through the creation of awareness campaigns but also through an internalisation process that, on the one hand, could make people comfortable at work and, on the other hand, could educate people on the value of the LGBTQIA+ community. Affirmative action policies, such as those adopted in the US, the EU, and Italy, could be an initial step, although some consequences and risks need to be taken into account; nevertheless, more concrete measures need to be taken.

In conclusion, it is hoped that companies and legislators will take more initiative in this direction so that everyone can have the same work opportunities and can equally work in a positive way: only by doing so can the full development of the human being be realised. Society can then become more pluralistic and open, putting into action what the philosopher Marta Nussbaum defined as «flourishing».