Rather than taking a “partisan” (Dick and Cassell, 2002, p. 953) approach in arguing either for regulation or for business case diversity and voluntarism, the International Handbook on Diversity Management at Work presents a compelling discussion of the interplay of both concepts through an analysis of the employment context in 14 nations. The book therefore responds to calls within diversity scholarship for a reconstructive approach towards the polarised debates (Jonsen et al., 2013; Tatli, 2011) which are perceived to characterise the field. Further, the handbook addresses a wide range of diversity issues, thereby addressing the critique that diversity scholarship pays insufficient attention to “newer” categories of difference (Tatli and Özbilgin, 2012, p. 185).
The book comprises an update on eight of the 16 nations included in the 2010 edition, specifically Austria, Canada, France, India, Italy, the Netherlands, South Africa and the UK, and adds to this chapters on Australia, Finland, Japan, New Zealand, Nigeria and Russia. As such, the book usefully avoids a heavily Anglophone or Euro-centric focus. There is a lower-case “critical” approach evident in that each chapter includes a critical overview of the political, demographic and societal influences that have shaped the employment outcomes and processes of systemic disadvantage of that nation. For this reason, the handbook would provide an excellent basis for scholarship with a particular focus on race, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation.
Chapters commence by considering the development of equality legislation for the nation in question, including an examination of positive action where this has been implemented. The discussion proceeds to critically consider the emergence of diversity as a distinct discourse and the outcomes of diversity in practice. The structure of the chapters therefore reinforces the notion of diversity discourses as an evolution of equal opportunities and positive action. An overview of this information is presented in a summary table for each chapter. All chapters cover considerable terrain in respect of content and are written in a consistently clear and engaging register. Many chapters include statistical information on, for example, the labour market position of women and ethnic groups and their representation in senior and professional roles. Indicative of the focus and availability of data in each national context, there is not a uniform presentation of these data sets across the chapters.
The book reflects Tatli and Özbilgin's (2012) call for an emic approach to diversity research which allows for characteristics considered salient in a given context to emerge rather than to presume salience at the outset: the discussion therefore focuses on those characteristics most pertinent in the employment context for that particular nation. What emerges is a particularly rich and nuanced discussion of ethnic diversity, particularly in how constructions of the ethnic “other” differ widely according to national context. Discussions of the gendered segregation of employment, the gender pay gap and the influence of the “male breadwinner” norm feature heavily. The handbook provides considerable discussion for academics and practitioners with an interest in disability, age and sexual orientation, and some discussion of religion and HIV status as salient diversity issues. In exploring outcomes for these “newer” equalities categories (Holgate et al., 2012; Colgan and Wright, 2011) which tend to receive less attention in the literature or are ignored altogether (Özbilgin et al., 2011, p. 190), the handbook arguably overcomes the critique that scholarship defines diversity “in a narrow way, mainly in terms of gender and race” (Zanoni and Janssens, 2003, p. 57). It is perhaps discussions of systems of privilege in nations outside the reader's usual frame of linguistic and geographic reference which provide the most captivating points of the handbook. For example, Haq's description in Chapter 6 of the hierarchical caste system in India and Mackie et al.'s discussion in Chapter 8 of the flagrant gender inequality evident in Japan's dual-track graduate employment system provide enlightening, stark moments in the text when viewed from a UK perspective.
Reflecting the reconstructive, non-partisan approach of the handbook, the individual chapters contribute to an overall picture which suggests that equality regulation is the necessary, but imperfect bedrock upon which diversity discourses can be seen to emerge over time. Evident in the discussion is that the improvements brought about by legislation can be frustratingly gradual, that there is recognisable gap between the stipulation of the law and enforcement and that positive action in particular is prone to “backlash”, often leading to its dismantlement. There is an observation common to many chapters that the take-up of diversity principles in the context of voluntarism is frequently weak or that the shift is discursive rather than indicative of practice.
Chapters in the main concentrate on single diversity categories, indicating the nascent status of intersectionality with regard to regulation and policy in even the most progressive nations. As indicated in the chapter on the Netherlands, more research into the intersectional nature of employment outcomes is required in order to examine whether existing legal protection is sufficient to address intersectional disadvantage. The wider tone of the handbook indicates that the development of policies that address intersectional employment outcomes are currently an aspirational unlikelihood: a particular note of caution is sounded in chapters on The Netherlands, South Africa and the UK that gains made in regulatory protection and progress towards societal equality under socially liberal governments are at risk of rolling back under current, less liberal regimes and associated rhetoric.
The speed at which political and related societal change can shift the employment outcomes of diverse workers in a particular nation contributes to the dynamism of the diversity field recognised by the editors in their introduction; it is this dynamic pace of change that constitutes both the arguable limitation of the handbook and the merit in further editions. Where changes in editions of HRM handbooks may sometimes err on the cosmetic side, the changes between the 2010 and 2014 editions of this handbook provide considerable new and updated content.
The format of the handbook is extremely clear, allowing the reader to navigate by nation or by indexed theme. Given the scope and depth of the content, the handbook represents good value for both practitioners and academics. It is an excellent resource for academics in the field of diversity management and in international and comparative HRM, and for HR practitioners working in multinationals in that it provides a comprehensive overview of the legal and cultural context for HRM operations in the nations represented. Additionally the content will be of relevance to policy makers, lobbying groups, and to identity scholars in terms of how the “other” is constructed in different, national contexts. In view of the accessibility of the content and the inclusion of qualitative and quantitative data, the handbook would make an excellent addition to reading lists for postgraduate and undergraduate courses on international and comparative HRM and diversity management. The cost is likely to be prohibitive in respect of students purchasing individual copies unless designated as the core text.
To conclude, through its analysis of regulation and diversity management, and of salient characteristics in 14 national contexts, the handbook sets a benchmark in terms of overcoming two key critiques which have preoccupied diversity scholarship. The accessibility and depth of the content entice reading beyond those chapters which one might at first consider most relevant and so the reader's usual frames of reference are challenged and broadened. Implicit in the handbook is a call to action for practitioners and academics to continue to develop arguments for diversity on the basis that there remains considerable inequality of outcome for diverse workers and that progress made to date is not infallible to revision.
