Overcoming barriers in companies to promote the inclusion of employees with disabilities

The strategic inclusion initiatives for people with a disability are prioritised fourth and sixth compared to the gender equality initiatives and the general non-discrimination initiatives. There is a decoupling between the existence of inclusion guidelines and their application. 42.1% of respondents agree or strongly agree that inclusion guidelines apply in their organisations. 47.7% agree that their organisation lacks knowledge about the abilities and potential of people with a disability. Similarly, more than 40% of respondents agree or strongly agree that there is a lack of knowledge about different types of disabilities, the legal framework, and external services. This lack of knowledge was perceived most keenly by directors, managers, and unaffected employees.

The most frequently selected prejudices include concerns about poor performance (36%) and the risk of a high incidence of illness (27%). Nevertheless, 39.7% agree or strongly agree that managers in their organisation treat all employees fairly, regardless of disability or poor health. Furthermore, 72.6% of respondents believe that their organisation is willing to invest time and resources in promoting the inclusion of people with disabilities.

In terms of HR management, the most significant hurdles were perceived in recruitment, workplace design, and HR development. Regarding recruitment, the primary measures include training to promote inclusive, barrier-free communication, training recruitment staff in barrier-free recruitment practices, and advertising job vacancies to individuals with disabilities.

With 49% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing, the most common legal hurdle is that many regulations are tied to economic reasonableness ("if proportionate"), meaning that there is no clear obligation to create accessibility in the workplace. The second most common legal hurdle (42.9% in agreement) is that existing buildings, parking facilities, and other infrastructure are often protected by planning law, and changes are only possible in special cases. 42.9% of respondents also perceive the fact that numerous support services (e.g., personal assistance) are not uniformly regulated at the federal level but are dependent on cantonal arrangements. In addition, 41.3% agree or strongly agree that the Disability Discrimination Act (BehiG) has a limited scope of application for federal tasks and services and does not (yet) fully take private companies into account. At the same time, only 30.2% of respondents have concerns that the Disability Discrimination Act (BehiG) does not stipulate an employment quota for people with disabilities. In social insurance, the complexity and rigid standardisation of procedures are perceived as among the most significant challenges.

Overall, the findings indicate that both internal and regulatory hurdles must be overcome. Indeed, the internal challenges suggest a lack of understanding about the potential of the employees concerned as well as the associated biases. Awareness-raising campaigns with role models and the sharing of good practices in collaboration with experienced inclusive companies and external organisations can help here. To ensure inclusion guidelines are applied, binding targets for management and HR are recommended.

In terms of regulatory measures, political measures are needed that take into account, in particular, uniform federal regulation of the areas of application, including for private companies. In addition, a flexibilization and simplification of the rigid and complex social insurance procedures would be welcome in order to increase the willingness of companies to be inclusive.

The online survey contains questions on the DEI strategy, DEI initiatives and guidelines, the level of knowledge and attitude of employees and management, the areas of human resource management and the regulatory hurdles in connection with the legal framework, such as the Disability Discrimination Act (BehiG) and social insurance (e.g., disability insurance, IV).