SELF-ID
RESOURCE GUIDEContents
Foreword ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Fundamentals ............................................................................................................................... 4
Self-ID As A Process ....................................................................................................... 4
Self-ID Characteristics ................................................................................................... 5
Calculating Self-ID .......................................................................................................... 6
The Psychology Of Self-ID ............................................................................................... 7
Neurodivergence Vs. Disability........................................................................................ 9
Mental Health ................................................................................................................. 10
Evolving Yet Persistent Models Of Disability .................................................................... 11
Holistic Views Of Disability .............................................................................................. 12
Building Cultures Of Trust ............................................................................................................ 14
Foundations Of Trust ...................................................................................................... 16
Reasonable Adjustments ................................................................................................ 18
Adjustment/Accommodation Data .................................................................................. 21
Training .......................................................................................................................... 22
Employee Resource Groups ............................................................................................ 23
Operationalising Disability Performance.......................................................................... 24
Representation .............................................................................................................. 25
Inclusive Language ......................................................................................................... 26
Implementation Success Factors................................................................................................. 29
Leadership Engagement And Transparency..................................................................... 29
Humility And Honesty...................................................................................................... 30
Internal Communications ................................................................................................ 31
Disability Inclusion Awareness ........................................................................................ 31
Signalling Intentions ....................................................................................................... 31
Announcing The Launch ................................................................................................. 31
Sustaining Momentum .................................................................................................... 32
Cross Pollination............................................................................................................. 32
Tracking Progress And Data Transparency....................................................................... 32
Representing Intersectional Identities ............................................................................ 32
Legal Considerations ................................................................................................................... 36
Data Considerations ....................................................................................................... 37
Disability Employment Quotas ......................................................................................... 38
The Path Forward ......................................................................................................................... 39
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 40
Key Influences .............................................................................................................................. 42

FOREWORD

Foreword
In January 2023, the Valuable 500 released
a white paper entitled ESG & Disability Data:
A Call for Inclusive Reporting at the World
Economic Forum in Davos.
In this body of work, we highlighted the fact that
disability inclusion is strikingly absent fromstandardised key performance indicators,
metrics or targets through which organisations
measure their impact, performance, and thevalue they bring to society.
We also noted significant gaps in the global
business community’s knowledge of employeeswith disabilities, and that these gaps haveconsequences for companies and for workers
ranging from minor frustration to serious
impediments in performing their roles andexclusion from safety-critical systems andprocesses.
The 5 KPIs we included in the white paper
represent a call to action on behalf of our 500
companies and any willing organisation within
the global business community to address thedisability data void.

1

FOREWORD

The Valuable 500 Disability Inclusion KPIs are:Workforce
Representation
What percentage of the company’s
workforce identifies as disabled/livingwith a disability?

Training
Does your company provide disability
inclusion training for its managers andemployees?

DigitalAccessibility
Has your company undertaken a reviewof the accessibility of its digital platforms
and content?
If not, does the company have a plan
to undertake a review over the next
calendar year?

2

Goals
Which goals has the company defined
specific to disability inclusion and how
are business leaders measured against
these goals?

Employee Resource
Groups (ERGs)
Does your company have a disabilityspecific Employee Resource Group (ERG)in place with an executive sponsor?

FOREWORD

We knew from the outset that asking ourglobal partners and companies to publicly
disclose the percentage of their workforce
who Self-IDentify as disabled was one of themost critical yet complex asks we had made.
Since the inception of the Valuable 500, we
have seen many organisations both within
our partners and companies and in the wider
business community making great strides
toward collecting and analysing Self-ID data
but we have also seen tremendous hesitancy
to publicly report this data out of a fear of it not
being good enough, or close enough to whereorganisations think it should be. We saw many
leaders and passionate disability inclusion
advocates confused as to why disclosure rates
were so low and questioning what they were
doing wrong.
We held discussions across various geographiesand learned that there are nuances andintricacies related to how to approach this work
successfully and in a way that is respectful ofworld views, not just western-centric views. We
also heard from the investment community that
there would be no resistance to ingestingdisability performance data into index rankings,
ESG ratings, etc. if companies were willing todisclose it and provide it in a format that could
be standardised and vetted. We also recognisedthat this work had to be informed and led inpartnership with the disability community toensure we got this right.

3

Data for the sake of data does not serve thedisability community well and in some cases
can do harm. It does not provide pathways
to meaningful employment and career
progression, it doesn’t catalyse change inthe way society perceives disability, and it
doesn’t dismantle ableist systems that impact
individuals on a daily basis. Data with intent
does, and can be a powerful instrument ofchange. This document was designed to give
you the insights and tools to nurture that
intent and benefit from the many positive
outcomes of undertaking this work.
Credit: This work was produced by the Valuable
500 and Authored by Former Chief Innovations
Officer, Rhiannon Parker.

FUNDAMENTALS

Fundamentals
Self-ID As A Process
Common goals of corporate Self-ID efforts areto better understand the composition of anorganisation’s workforce, identify employee
needs, connect individuals with peers who
have similar lived experience or identities,
and provide resources. Gathering and analysing
Self-ID data also enables the establishmentof a baseline which can be measured andtracked as organisations set tangible goals
and formalise commitments to increase
disabled representation in the workforce.
In a corporate setting, Self-IDentification(commonly abbreviated to Self-ID) is a
generalised term which refers to processesorganisations use to invite employees to sharedemographic information about themselves.
Organisations commonly use an online survey
or similar methodology to invite employees toparticipate. Others may integrate Self-ID into
human resource information systems and/or
onboarding initiatives.
Self-ID may or may not be anonymous. Whileeach organisation will have its own rationale forwhether or not a Self-ID process is anonymised,
it is our position that anonymising the data is
a best practice in regard to data governance,
the likelihood of employees participating, andprotecting individuals from discrimination orinequity. In many jurisdictions, data protection
and human rights legislation may also preventthe collection of disability-related data if it
is not anonymised.
When it is at its best, Self-ID either includes
or sits adjacent to efforts to understand thesentiment of employees in the workplace.

4

Unfortunately, employee sentiment isoften overlooked or omitted from Self-ID
methodologies. Focus on employee sentiment
provides leadership with the opportunity
to assess, benchmark and compare how
employees with varying identities feel about
and experience the workplace culture andtake action to improve employee sentiment
on behalf of the entire workforce.
For example, if a Self-ID survey which includes
employee sentiment shows that there is astatistically significant difference between
how disabled employees feel about their work
environment, interactions with leaders andpeers, perceived opportunities for progression,etc., compared to other employees, thisprovides meaningful data and insights. Without
asking these questions or explicitly collecting
this data, these differences may never be
detected.
Self-IDentification in an organisational setting
should not be confused with efforts directed
toward complying with legislated or regulatory
disability employment quotas, nor should thedatasets be aggregated or compared. Disability
employment quotas and considerations relevant
to Self-ID in the workplace will be addressed
under Legal considerations.

FUNDAMENTALS“I endorse the premise that
Self-IDentification, or Self-ID, in a
corporate context is an empowering toolthat allows employees to communicate
their demographic information voluntarily.
We see its application in varied forms,
whether it’s implemented through online
surveys, HR systems, or even during theemployee onboarding process.
The choice to anonymise the Self-ID data
is an aspect that I think is open to debate,differing across organizations. My
standpoint, however, is unambiguous:anonymisation of the data is not just a
prudent practice, it is the cornerstoneof effective data governance. Beyond this,I believe it bolsters employee participationand provides crucial protection against
inequity and discrimination. From myperspective, anonymization of disabilityrelated data is not just a recommendation,
but a requirement in many jurisdictions
due to data protection and human rights
regulations.
I interpret corporate Self-ID initiatives
as opportunities — they are chances
to obtain a deeper understanding of theworkforce’s composition, ascertain theneeds of employees, and facilitate
connections among individuals with shared
identities or experiences. They also aid inresource allocation, ensuring that support
is provided where it’s needed most.”
HANNAH OLSON
CEO at Disclo5

Self-ID Characteristics
Self-ID characteristics can include gender,
race, ethnicity, sexual orientation (LGBTQIA+),disability and/or neurodiversity, amongst
others. An organisation may choose to invite
individuals to Self-IDentify through a single
process or multiple processes such as a single
survey or many surveys (i.e. a survey focusedon all lived experiences and identities vs. asurvey specifically focused on disabled
identity). They may also choose to ask thesequestions as part of a one-time orientation
process or on a recurrent basis. This gives
organisations flexibility to focus on a single
demographic or aspect of an employee’s
identity, or on various aspects of how
employees Self-IDentify.

FUNDAMENTALS

Calculating Self-ID
One of the reasons disability performance data has not been integrated into mainstream data setssuch as financial indexes, DEI indexes, and ESG ratings, is because there is a lack of standardisationin the way the data is calculated.
For disability data to be useable by data providers, trusted by quality assurers, and factored
into rankings that allow organisations to be rewarded in capital markets, it is not necessary that
all companies use the exact same methodology. It is however essential that organisations aretransparent about how they arrived at their numbers.
Consider the following examples:

Company A: sends a Self-ID survey
out to 50,000 employees and receives
responses from 22,542 employees.
Of these 22,542 employees, 1,964
employees Self-ID as disabled.

Company B: sends a Self-ID survey
out to 50,000 employees and receives
responses from 35,588 employees.
Of these 35,588 employees, 4,000
employees Self-ID as disabled.

The company chooses to calculate thepercentage of their workforce who
Self-ID based on the number of people
who responded to the survey rather than
the number of people who the survey
was sent to.

The company chooses to calculate thepercentage of their workforce who
Self-ID as disabled based on the numberof people who were sent the survey.

In this scenario their reported
Self-ID percentage would be basedon the following formula:

1,964 = 8%
22,542

6

In this scenario their reported
Self-ID percentage would be based on
the following formula:4,000 = 8%
50,000FUNDAMENTALSIn the previous example, both companies
report 8% disabled representation within
their workforce, yet these statistics are
based on completely different calculations.
Also consider that if Company A calculated
the same way as Company B, their Self-ID
percentage would be 4%, and vice versa if
Company B used the same calculation as
Company A, their Self-ID percentage would be
11%. This is a concrete example of how clarity
surrounding disability data is critical to it
being widely accepted and ingested into
investor grade data sets.
As with the choice to anonymise Self-ID data,
there are many factors which influence howorganisations choose to calculate Self-ID.
Data may have been calculated one way fromthe beginning of Self-ID implementation and acompany may be hesitant to move away frompresenting data in ways that are not comparable
to previous years. It is not necessary for allcompanies to calculate the data in the sameway, ask the same questions, or operate incomplete alignment. However, it is imperativethat they are transparent regarding the data
analysis methodologies used. This transparency
allows data providers and analysts to normalisethe data and facilitate benchmarking with a highdegree of confidence and certainty.

7

The Psychology Of Self-ID
The psychology of Self-ID is influenced by how
the disability community experience the world.
Regardless of geography or culture, we see
examples of how disability is still associatedwith pity, sadness, sorrow, and assumptions
that persons with disabilities are “less than”.
Business has a fundamental role in refuting
these assumptions and harmful views towarddisability by creating opportunities for disabled
talent to be seen and contribute within the
global economy.
It is critical to understand that identifying as
disabled or not is a conscious choice made by anindividual. Therefore, disabled identity cannot
be assumed. An individual may have a medical
condition or a functional or visible difference
and not identify as disabled. Others may assertthat barriers in society are disabling and actively
choose not to own a disabled identity. Bothperspectives are valid.
It is also important to note that disabled
identity is not static; the way people perceive
their identities can and does change over time.
Disabilities can be temporary, situational,
and vary in degree depending on a multitudeof factors.

FUNDAMENTALS“Everyone has an individual journey toidentifying as disabled. For me, the initialdiagnosis of sight loss didn’t register as me
being disabled. It was still me, I just had
some challenges with sight. It is only lateron when seeking support and needing tocomplete a form for government
assistance that I was presented with thequestion of if I was disabled. My initialthoughts were of rejection to the notionthat I am disabled, I don’t want to be known
as disabled. I didn’t see myself as disabled.
My view of disability (at the time) was
someone in a wheelchair not someone withsight loss. I was also aware of societal
attitudes towards disabled people.
After the initial shock, I looked at it
logically, I needed assistance and needed
to stay employed to support my family. I
knew I had to acknowledge I was disabledon the form to get the support I needed.
After sending the form off, I stillrationalised it in my mind that I wasn’t
disabled – it was just how the law saw me.
It took time to process that identifying as
disabled isn’t a bad thing, I am not less of aperson. It took time, because I also needed
to process and accept my loss of vision. My
life was changing, I wasn’t in control and it
was scary – identifying as disabled felt like
another loss, another acknowledgementthat I was less of a person.
Over time, I have realised that being
disabled is not being less, it isn’t a barrier if
you accept that you need to change yourapproach. Identifying myself as disabled
opened my world to talking with others andseeing that society is creating the barriers,
not my disability. I look back and realise8

how uninformed I was, how narrow my view
was and how the media and society have
set that perspective. I have since built up
my confidence to be myself, be there andrepresent disability in the room. It hashelped others open up and see that being
yourself, letting colleagues know that you
are disabled doesn’t make you less of aperson or less able. It’s not easy,
but I do encourage anyone who hasn’t
Self-IDentified, to do so. It is only throughrepresentation and reporting that we canchange the perception within society andensure our children grow up in a more
inclusive world.”
TIM DIXONHead of IT Architecture, Group IT at Intertek

Self-IDentifying as disabled or disclosing
a disability is not the same as providing
detailed medical information. Many people
with disabilities within our ecosystem speak
openly about how important it is to establish
boundaries around requests they receive fromstrangers, peers, managers, etc. to disclose
medical information and histories in their
day-to-day interactions within the workplace.
Whether this applies to a wheelchair user,
someone who is blind or has low vision, hearing
loss, a traumatic brain injury, etc., there should
be no expectation that disabled employees needto educate others on their condition, discuss
the history of how they acquired their disability,
or answer intrusive questions. Respecting
medical privacy is particularly important in theworkplace as there is often a requirement foraccess workplace accommodations and/or
reasonable adjustments.

FUNDAMENTALS“Asking a disabled person to prove theirdisability is asking them to disclose theparts of themselves that are mostfrequently rejected, looked down on, andseen as less than. There is a valid fear thatthey will no longer be seen as a capable
employee. There is valid fear they’ll be seen
and treated as a legal risk. There is valid
fear they will lose their income. People very
rarely go through this often traumatic
process with significant downsides when it
isn’t necessary.
While companies have a legal right to ask
for verification that an ADA-qualifying
disability exists when the disability is notapparent or previously known,
documentation is not required, and it israrely truly necessary. When medical
confirmation is necessary, choose ahumane and respectful process, with theundertone that the employee is valued andcapable. The main focus in the discussions
should be on what barriers exist, and what
accommodations will effectively remove
those barriers. That doesn’t come from a
doctor’s note, it comes from a conversation
with the employee.”
JULIE HARRIS
Executive Director of Stilbe

Across the many conversations we have every
day with the disability community, we areencouraged and energised to see the many
ways that people with disabilities across all
geographies are stepping into their disabled
identities with pride. Despite the many barriers
that are perpetuated by legislation and policy,social norms, and health inequity, people areowning their disabled identities more openly,

9

actively combatting stigma and ill-informed
perceptions, and demanding more in regard
to human rights, career opportunities, andaccess to the built and digital environments.
We look forward to how our vibrant community
continues to gain confidence and experience
the evolution of their disabled identities.

Neurodivergence Vs. Disability
Many current conversations pertaining todisability inclusion centre around the distinction
between neurodivergence and disability.
An increasing number of organisations andindividuals want to know whether they should
formally categorise neurodivergence as adisability or not, and whether neurodivergenceshould be considered as an aspect of mental
health or not. As with any disabled identity, thedistinction between a neurodivergent and/or
disabled identity is fundamentally an individual
choice. Not all neurodivergent people identify
as disabled or perceive their neurodivergence
as a disability. However, many do. Therefore, ourposition is that it is not up to an organisation,
DEI practitioner or other party to categorise
these identities, it is up to the individual.
In the context of Self-ID and addressing thedisability data void, inviting employees todisclose both neurodivergent and disabled
identities is recommended as this approach
offers a richer understanding of theworkforce than if it were not included.

FUNDAMENTALS

Mental Health
Mental health must be given the same degreeof consideration as physiological health.
It must also be recognised as a facet of thedisabled experience – not as a global trend thatbegan in 2020. Historically, sustained levels of
discomfort surrounding mental health as well
as a disproportionate focus on disability as aphysical experience mean that many employees
work without requesting accommodations,sharing their experience with management,or leveraging benefits that focus on mental
health in fear of judgement.
Consider a situation in which a colleague arrives
at work with a broken leg and the comfort withwhich peers are able to express sympathy andshow care for their well-being. Contrast thiswith a colleague who is visibly and/or vocallyliving with depression, who some co-workers
misinterpret as cumbersome, and difficult towork with or approach. As support structures
are developed to address mental health,ingrained stigma must be faced with candour
and empathy.
It has been our observation that mental healthconditions or diagnoses are often referenced
or used as descriptors of negative behaviours
which trivialise or misrepresent the experienceof those lived experiences. Examples include
referring to oneself or specific negative traits
as “OCD”, “on the spectrum”, “crazy”, “bi-polar”,“schizophrenic,” etc. These references tomental health perpetuate inaccurate depictionsof how others truly experience day-to-day
life and sensationalise specific symptoms ofvarious mental health conditions.
As employers look for ways to support anddestigmatise employees’ mental health, it
is important to be mindful of perpetuating a10

culture that excitedly offers “mental healthdays”, quiet rooms, meditation apps, etc.
while simultaneously failing to offer an
employee with chronic depression to request
flexible hours or the ability to join virtual
meetings with the camera turned off.
A consistent theme we hear from thedisability community is how exhausting
it is to have to mask one’s experiences or
identity. Whether this refers to masking in
the form of suppressing the desire to stim,or forcing oneself to make eye contact toadapt to business culture norms, maintaina sustained presence in sensory rich social
environments, appear energetic or upbeat,or maintain privacy around medications, it isimportant to understand that flexibility and“soft adjustments” to work structures, policies
and practices can have a significant impact
on employee experience, productivity, andretention.
Issues that have long been taboo are now
being confronted, but there is a long roadahead to normalise openness around mental
health across the corporate sector, and thisnormalisation is a goal of the Self-ID process.
Embracing workers’ mental health can reduce
churn and increase productivity which in turnbenefits the long-term health and success ofany business.

FUNDAMENTALS

Evolving Yet Persistent Models
of Disability
The way society perceives disability has a direct
impact on nearly every aspect of life for persons
with disabilities. For much of the 19th and20th centuries, societal views and norms were
influenced by the charitable and medical models
of disability.
The charitable model of disability is based on
the assertion that persons with disabilities arehelpless and unable to live full, self-sufficient,and independent lives. The charitable modelof disability calls for help, caregiving, pity andsorrow as primary means to “support” thedisability community who are often positioned
as a source of inspiration. Even as of today,
we still see many indicators of how deeply
woven charitable model thinking is in global
perspectives on disability. These perceptionsof disability and the emphasis on helplessness
come at the cost of autonomy, respect, andaccess to human rights, amongst other key
aspects of being able to participate fully insociety and the economy.
The medical model of disability perpetuates theview that there is something inherently wrong,
deficient, less than, and/or problematic with anindividual who is disabled. In situations whereequal participation in society, the community,
the workplace or any other facet of day-today life is limited, the medical model points
to an individual’s impairment(s), functional
difference(s), deficiency(ies), or condition(s) as
the causal factor. The focus is on “fixing”, “curing”
or “healing” the individual to address suchbarriers.
The social model of disability challenges theseviewpoints and positions barriers in society as
the causal agent which limits individuals’ access11

to physical environments, resources, opportunity
and autonomy. The social model states that it issociety’s responsibility to actively work towardremoving barriers for persons with disabilities.
It is important to note that many people choose
not to identify as disabled because they view
disability as a result of social and environmental
barriers. We are as supportive of anyone whochooses not to identify as disabled as we areof those who identify as disabled with pride.
We have seen tremendous change associatedwith social model thinking – cities, municipalities,
and nations solving environmental barriers,
governments enacting legislation to require
access to digital offerings, global thinktanks
posing tough questions about what a future that
includes AI means for the disability community,
etc. However, we still have a tremendous amountof work to do. For all the progress social model
thinking has catalysed, many disabled thought
leaders and others have pointed out that there
is a lack of human agency associated with thesocial model. This is to say that if the removal of
barriers to full participation in all aspects of life
are deemed to be society’s responsibility, thismeans that catalysing change is incumbent onsociety funding, enacting, and advocating for thischange without meaningful contribution from thedisability community themselves.
The human rights model of disability
complements the social model by assertingthat a disabled individual can use their rights
to dismantle inaccessible systems and play
an active role in ideating, innovating andengineering ones that benefit everyone. The
disability movement has a rich history of
supporting and being supported by individuals,
activists and advocacy groups with intersectional
identities who have leveraged human rights todeconstruct outdated and harmful social norms,
legislation and barriers to accessibility.

FUNDAMENTALSHolistic Views Of Disability“Whether it is in consideration of disabled
representation in marketing and media,
customer service delivery, or accessibility ofdigital or built environments, it is importantto recognise that disability goes beyond
mobility. We point this out because we haveobserved a disproportionate amount of focus
on mobility-related disabled imagery and theway disability is represented and understoodglobally. We have also observed trends
specific to industries where the focus on
mobility is more prominent than other typesof disabilities.
The travel and tourism industry is an exampleof how disability inclusion, accessibility, andother related topics are overwhelmingly
geared toward people with mobility-related
disabilities. It is not uncommon to hear fromblind or D/deaf travellers who are offeredwheelchairs during travel and need to remindcustomer service agents that their disability
is not related to their ability to moveindependently, or travellers who are unable
to access important information due to alack of captioning, or neurodivergent guests
who are offered accessible rooms that havebeen designed to meet a completely
different set of needs than their own.
Holistic disability inclusion requires that thediverse experiences of people with chronic
illness, cognitive and learning disabilities,
and all other forms of non-visible disabilities
are recognised as equal members of thedisability community. In addition to ensuring
people with non-visible disabilities are notleft out of the conversation, it is important totake time to understand some of the

12shared life experiences. We hear often frompeople with non-visible disabilities that theirdisabled identities are challenged,
questioned, or undermined.
Whether this applies to a wheelchair user
who intermittently uses their wheelchairwhen their energy levels are low or when
their balance is off and is called out for“faking” a disability, someone with a stoma
bag being chastised for using the disabledfacilities in a public setting, or someone withpartial or low vision who doesn’t fit thestereotypes we see in the media, we need tounderstand that there is no one better
equipped or more experienced indetermining what disabled identity consistsof than the disability community itself.
This seems like a simple concept; however,the disability community is routinely left outof discourse, policy development, innovation,user testing, risk management, and feedbackon the very things that impact their ability toequitably participate in society.
This is why the mantra Nothing-About-Us
Without-Us is fundamental of any work
related to disability inclusion or improving
disability performance. We have to also
recognize that there should not be a single
story about disability inclusion.
There should not be a singular point of viewthat is accepted, while other views are
sidelined. Part of the holistic view means
finding the courage to accept that different
cultures express their celebration of
disability inclusion differently and that there
should not be a dominant single story of
disability.”
FATMA AL JASSIMDisability Inclusion & Accessibility Consultant

FUNDAMENTALSIn the context of disabled representation in theworkplace, it is important to recognise that
employees with apparent disabilities may be
more likely to self-disclose because of the factthat their disability is visible and they have, outof necessity, had significant experience withdisclosing in the past. Because many disabilities
have visible markers of their presence such asa wheelchair, signing in one’s sign language ofchoice, the presence of a guide dog, etc., thisundermines an individual’s autonomy and ability
to choose to whom and if they disclose.
The goal of any Self-ID process should beto ensure that employees with all types of
disabilities are considered and invited toparticipate in ways that are respectful of their
lived experience.

13

BUILDING CULTURES OF TRUST

Building Cultures
Of Trust
The foundation of any successful Self-ID
process is the establishment of reciprocal trust
between an employee and the business theywork for.
From the perspective of an employee,
this means that for an individual to feel
comfortable sharing information about theirpersonal identity (which can often include
information about their health or other legally
protected characteristics), they must havea clear understanding of how their employer
intends to use that information to support
them as an individual. This includes having
an understanding of what the goals are of
introducing Self-ID within the business andof what their employer intends to do with theinformation they share, and having confidence
that the data they share will be protected,
be subject to appropriate data governanceprocesses, and not used against them in a
harmful or discriminatory manner. Organisations
who undertake Self-ID processes with the intent
of acquiring demographic data rather thanextending care to their employees see limited
success in building trust with marginalised
employees.
Employees will also expect that there is a fairexchange in value whereby the employer actswith their best interests in mind to create
systems, processes and resources that addressneeds specific to their identity/identities.

14“If you’re looking to rebuild the trust of yourjunior and/or marginalised-employee
populations in your workplace, that often
starts by offering them resources, support,
power, authority, and agency that senior
and/or advantaged employee populations
may not immediately benefit from. I’ve seen
this countless times. Senior leaders ask
a grassroots DEI council what they needto feel comfortable working for the goodof the organisation, and the requests theyreceive come as a surprise. Resources
specifically for Black and brown folks.
Protections specifically for LGBTQ+
employees, disabled people, andneurodivergent people. Specialised support
for healing from racial trauma directed atjunior women of colour.
How about an all-company workshop,
or crowdsourcing a resource we can*all* benefit from?” is the common
counter-suggestion from senior leaders,
and the swift response to that is a
resounding “NO.
…The bare minimum needed to rectify
these past and often present harms that
disproportionately harmed marginalisedcommunities is reparative and restorative
efforts that disproportionately support andundo harm done to marginalisedcommunities. Hence, the first step torebuilding trust is recognising that
disproportional harm must be addressed bydisproportionate benefit to those harmed.”
LILY ZHENG
Disability Inclusion & Accessibility Consultant

BUILDING CULTURES OF TRUST

From the perspective of the employer, there
must be a baseline level of trust which assumes
that employees will act in good faith anddisclose accurate data about their identities.
There appear to be several myths or widely
held beliefs that, if given the opportunity,
employees would disclose a disabled identity togain an unfair advantage or access workplaceaccommodations that are not actually needed.
When we look at disability disclosure or Self-ID
at a global or even country-level scale, we havenot seen data or evidence which supports theseassertions. On the contrary, we can witness the
positive outcomes achieved when employers
extend trust to their employees.
Perhaps one of the most significant barriers
to building reciprocal trust as it applies to
Self-ID is the requirement for formal diagnoses
or medical documentation. This is also one of
the most contentious topics to be explored when
implementing and continuously improving upon
Self-ID within the workplace. We have seen many
examples of organisations that require medical
documentation, formal diagnoses, or otherforms of “proof” for employees to gain accessto workplace accommodations or even for theirdisabled identity to be acknowledged or formallyrecognised. Many times, the requirement for
medical documentation serves the purposeof helping an organisation determine whether
they are legally obligated to provide reasonableadjustments or not, rather than approaching
requests from a place of care, increasing
productivity, or providing support. We have also
seen examples of organisations who have adopted“trust-based” models of Self-IDentification anddisclosure and have made a conscious choice notto require documentation.
There is not a one size fits all recommendation
for how organisations should approach thequestion of whether or not a diagnosis is15

required or the specific conditions under which
this is appropriate. However, the disability
community have been explicit in their feedback
that using diagnoses or formal medical
documentation as a means of gatekeeping
access to workplace accommodations or
acknowledging their disabled identity erodes
trust and decreases the likelihood of them
participating in Self-ID within the workplace.
It is important to recognise that there are manyreasons why an individual may consciously
choose not to pursue a formal diagnosis and that
this decision is irrelevant to whether or not theirdisabled identity is valid. In the case of mental
health, persistent stigma still exists around
diagnoses, and in many countries, waiting lists
for assessments and formal diagnoses can beyears long and involve significant time and cost.
Individuals may also make a conscious decision
not to pursue diagnoses because of previous
negative interactions with medical professionals
or inequitable health services.
Whether a diagnosis relates to mental
or physiological health, it is important toremember that many symptoms and aspects of
how a person experiences their life and a work
environment occur regardless of whether
a diagnosis has been sought and received.
This fact raises questions on the relevanceor necessity of medical documentation.
As an example, if someone experiences
intrusive thoughts, the severity may ebb andflow over time, and may be triggered by stressor other factors. Symptoms may become
significant enough to disrupt daily functioning,
require time off work, or require support froma therapist, etc. In this example, the ways inwhich intrusive thoughts affect an individual arepresent whether a diagnosis is present or not.
The same can be said for many other aspectsof mental and physiological health.

BUILDING CULTURES OF TRUSTAdvocates of trust-based models rightfullyquestion what the formal documentation
or diagnosis have to do with the validity ofsomeone’s disabled identity. We recommend
examining these perspectives andincorporating them into corporate Self-ID
methodologies.

Foundations Of Trust
The fundamental starting point for allorganisations is to approach disability inclusionfrom a place of care and curiosity that is wellinformed by progressive models of disability.
No matter what level of organisational maturity
a business is defined by, prioritising meetingthe needs of disabled employees is essential.
It is critical to remember that trust is either
established or eroded from the moment a
potential employee interacts with a business forthe first time. Well before HR has the opportunity
to expose a candidate to disability-inclusive
hiring practices, those candidates will haveinterfaced with the company’s website and digitalassets, social media presence and other facetsof the organisation’s digital offerings. If theseassets are not accessible, this makes an implicit
statement that an organisation’s commitments
may be aspirational rather than tangible.
Candidates may have also visited retail or officelocations which they were unable to access inthe same ways as non-disabled customers or
guests, or seen ads where disability was either
not present or not appropriately represented.

16“Social media and websites are often thefirst impression that someone has of abrand, even if it has a physical location.
If you’re not making your digital content
accessible, what are you telling your clientsand customers with disabilities?
Accessibility is even more vital foraccounts that exist to serve the public.
If you’re an elected official, an emergency
service, or a healthcare provider, what kindof crucial information are you excluding
disabled folks from by not making yourcontent accessible?
How does that exclusion impact their healthand safety? The repercussions of
inaccessible digital content are far more
serious than most people probably realise.”
ALEXA HEINRICHS
Many organisations and their leaders find it
overwhelming to know where to start andlean toward large-scale initiatives aimed at
improving disability performance within theirbusinesses. While these types of undertakings
have the potential to have significant impact,
it is important not to overlook the value of
simple gestures of empathy and care and thegenuine desire to understand disability on amore personal level.

BUILDING CULTURES OF TRUST“It is common for people to know more
about an individual than to know the actual
person. “That one over there has [insert
diagnostic label here].” “She’s the one whoalways needs help.” “He can’t hear all thatwell.” “That little guy goes to a special
school. Nice kid.”
A lot of this knowing about is made possible
by a generally clever and safe use of words.
The jargon and the rhetoric help us keep
a comfortable distance from intimacy.
And prevent us from having to display our
awkwardness.
We don’t like not being ourselves. And that
happens a lot in DisabilityLand. We findourselves off balance.
Visitors in this terrain don’t generally havea lot of social practice with disabledindividuals. They get good, instead, at
pretend closeness. Too friendly. Too rightin your face. Laughing at the joke just alittle too much.
And certainly relieved to have what wasnever really an interaction done with.”
ALAN BRIGHTMAN
DisabilityLand

17

BUILDING CULTURES OF TRUST

Reasonable Adjustments
Another important consideration for Self-ID isto recognise that an individual’s success in theworkplace may depend in part on continuous
opportunities to access the right adjustments
or accommodations to support their functional
needs and role requirements. A functional
difference is when an individual thinks,
communicates, senses, moves, operates,or comprehends in ways that are different towhat society has deemed ‘normal’ or ‘natural’;as a result, systems in place often lack the
support necessary for those individuals tobe successful. Functional differences can bevisible or non-visible; equally they can bepermanent, temporary, and/or situational.

“Disability equality is only possible whenorganisations combine being barrier freefor groups with similar access needs withmaking the reasonable adjustments forindividuals which enable them to contributeon an equal basis.
It is puzzling, given the business benefits,
which include enhanced productivity andemployee engagement, that so few
organisations are even attempting todeliver adjustments fairly and to an
acceptable, explicit, and consistent quality
standard, worldwide.
Too many organisations settle on an ad hoc
basis for just meeting a bare minimum
compliance standard rather than enabling
every colleague to thrive. Denying an
adjustment to a disabled colleague inArgentina because you can legally do so,when you would provide that same
adjustment if they worked in the UK,
constitutes unfair treatment, and isultimately bad for business.
Would you require your left-handed CPO toprovide a medical certificate before giving
her a left-handed mouse?”
SUSAN SCOTT-PARKER
OBE

18

BUILDING CULTURES OF TRUST

There are many names for the ways in whichorganisations support their employees or
through which employees communicate theirneeds. Common references include reasonableadjustments, workplace accommodations,accessibility requirements, ergonomic
adjustments, etc. We will use these terms
interchangeably throughout this resource.
It is our position that making reasonableadjustments is an ethical and often a legal
imperative.
We have seen many examples of complianceand data-driven cultures gone wrong whereby
the requirement to provide disability or medical
data – to prove you are disabled enough to triggera legal obligation – is used as a gatekeeper or
restricts access to reasonable adjustments.
This conveys the message: “We will only treat
you fairly if compelled to do so by local law.”
When reasonable adjustments are managed well,they are done in a way that both implicitly andexplicitly states that the organisation trusts its
people and is committed to giving all employees
the tools and flexibility they need to be productivein their work. Disability-inclusive organisations
support accommodations as key facilitators toremoving barriers and enabling colleagues withdisabilities to participate equitably in all aspectsof their work environment.
A recent analysis by the US Department of Laborof survey data from 2019 to 2022 reports thatnearly half of workplace accommodations madefor people with disabilities can be implemented
at no cost, and where there is cost, the medianis just $300. In addition to gathering information
about the costs of accommodations, the survey
explored employers’ motivations for making
them, their effectiveness and the benefits they
produced. The report includes the following
findings:

19• More than half of employers madeaccommodations to retain valued employees.
• 68.4% of employers said the accommodations
made were either very effective or extremely
effective.
• The direct and indirect benefits of making
accommodations included retaining valuable
employees, improving productivity and morale,
reducing workers’ compensation, and training
costs, and increasing workforce diversity.
This formalised research supports what
the disability community have repeatedly
communicated: the vast majority of workplaceaccommodations are either free to implement
or involve low cost.

BUILDING CULTURES OF TRUSTWe recommend that all organisations
adopt the following recommendations from
Business Disability International. These 12
Critical Success Factors are tangible steps
organisations can take to ensure workplaceadjustment service lines are designed
effectively and efficiently:
1. A named senior executive is responsible for
ensuring the service meets explicit
performance standards and drives
continuous improvement.
2. A named service manager is responsible for
ensuring that the Workplace Adjustment(WPA) service, end to end, meets thesestandards.
3. There is a well-publicised single “door” ofentry to the service.
4. There is a “real” speed of delivery standard– case studies show that it is reasonable toset a standard that states it will take no morethan 14–20 days from when adjustments are
first requested to when they are delivered
and operational.
5. The line manager does not pay and does not
drive the service for their team member/s.
6. Employees are trusted to self-refer and are
not routinely required to prove they have adisability in order to get the tools,
accessibility or flexibility that they require.
7. There is a well-publicised central catalogue
of approved “hard” adjustments, i.e.
technology, assistive devices, furniture.
8. There is a well-publicised catalogue ofapproved “soft” adjustments: i.e. flexitime,
rest breaks, medical appointments,
disability- related absence.

20

9. Passports or workplace adjustment
agreements capture what has been agreed
and delivered for the employee, so they need
not renegotiate with a new manager.
10. Procurement requires key suppliers,
including facilities management and IT
support, to meet the adjustment andaccessibility-related performance standards,
enabling the “end to end service” to deliver
promptly and effectively.
11. The impact of the service is routinely
documented, including the cost benefit
associated with reducing absenteeism;
enhancing productivity and employee
engagement; and reducing management
and legal costs associated with grievancesand litigation.
12. Adjustments are clearly positioned as amanagerial responsibility, not a medical one:medical interventions are kept to a minimum.

BUILDING CULTURES OF TRUST

Adjustment / Accommodation Data
Anonymised data related to the provision of
workplace adjustments/accommodations canserve as a source of rich insights on disabled
representation in the workforce. It can also help
inform leadership on the degree to which anorganisation has succeeded in operationalisingdisability performance.
For example, if a Self-ID initiative is launchedbut yields very low response rates, reviewing
anonymised data associated with the number ofworkplace accommodations provided annually
may help provide perspective. For example, if
Self-ID disclosure is low but there were a highnumber of accommodations requested andprovided, this may indicate that there is work
to do in creating a culture in which employees
feel comfortable disclosing. Anonymised
accommodation data may also help predict or
explain varied Self-ID participation rates acrossdifferent geographies.
If various geographies are defined by high ratesof accommodation requests and high rates of
Self-ID participation and others are definedby low numbers of accommodation requests
and low Self-ID participation, this may point to
the need for more awareness and educationon the availability and pathway to accessing
accommodations to drive higher Self-ID
participation.
In regard to operationalising disability
performance, if a high proportion ofaccommodation requests were provided within
14–20 days, this likely indicates that systems andprocesses are effective at facilitating workplaceaccommodation requests and support a culture
in which employees feel confident in disclosing
their disabled identity or lived experience.

21

We recommend exploring the ways
in which Self-ID disclosures andaccommodation/adjustment data canbe layered to provide a more complete
picture of disabled representation in any
workplace.

BUILDING CULTURES OF TRUST

Training
One of the most significant things a leader can doin support of advancing disability inclusion at asystem level is to invest time, effort, and funding
into ensuring their workforce is educated on
disability inclusion and specific ways to support
disabled employees.
Providing or mandating disability inclusion
training is a great example of how businesshas the power to catalyse global change. As areference, the combined total of employees
across the Valuable 500 at last count was over 22
million employees; most Valuable 500 companies
are multinational organisations, many with
employee counts in the tens of thousands andmany with supply chains comprised of hundredsof thousands of suppliers. Providing employees,
contractors, and suppliers with training based on
the social and human rights models of disabilities
represents a tangible means of dismantlingpreviously held notions on disabled lived
experience and identity, and as we have heard
from the disability community and companies
alike, is a foundational element of building astrong culture of trust.
In the majority of organisations, disability
inclusion is either absent from DEI training, orappears as a brief reference within generic DEI
training initiatives. The importance of providing
training that is disability-specific and is led
by persons with lived experience cannot be
overstated enough. Another strong message
from the disability community is related tothe importance of hiring outside experts andtrainers to provide disability-specific training
rather than asking employees to lead training
sessions themselves.We listened to many
shared experiences of situations where disabled
employees were called upon to educate their

22

peers, develop content and strategic plans, andsolve specific issues. Some disabled employees
enjoy this and welcome such opportunities;
however, many communicated that advocating fordisability inclusion and/or educating their peers
came at the cost of sharing personal stories,
medical history, and lived experience.
Training does not need to be formalised to beeffective. Discourse and knowledge sharing
within our Self-ID working sessions revealed that
simple content focused on the fundamentals of
disability theory and models, and storytellingfrom peers, disabled creators and advocatesare effective. The outcomes of these learning
approaches are to generate awareness, build
empathy, and foster a work environment which is
conducive to building trust.
Organisations who have committed to investingin disability-specific training have also reported
that these perspectives enable them to better
serve and understand their customers andaccess market segments they had not considered
before. This can mean simple things likebecoming aware of and familiar with assistive
technology disabled employees and customers
use, incorporating stories about the life hacks
and ingenuity people rely on to navigate barriers
to accessibility, or stories about how simple
changes to work processes and expectations
can make a significant impact on productivity,
performance, and job satisfaction. Honest
conversations from neurodivergent employeeson things like the emotional and energy deficitthat comes from masking in a work environment,
sensory overwhelm, and being required to be on
camera, etc. are great examples of how training
can help bring more awareness to specific lived
experiences.

BUILDING CULTURES OF TRUST“A culture of acceptance and respecting
differences, as well as a degree of flexibility,
is very important for any disabled employee
to thrive.
Building such a culture requires awarenessacross all levels of the organisation, coupledwith other initiatives. Ultimately, systemicchange to hire and motivate disabled
employees is a long-term investment.
The effort, time and resources are
significant, but the development potential istruly astronomical.”
PREETHAM SUNKAVALLIManager, Business Transformation at
Mahindra Group

Employee Resource Groups
Employee Resource Groups or ERGs refer tovoluntary, employee-led communities that
may or may not be formally supported byan organisation. ERGs are often organisedon the basis of shared identities, interests,
or backgrounds with the goal of supporting
employees by providing opportunities to
network and create a more inclusive workplace.
ERGs often start out as grassroots efforts
led by passionate advocates or people withlived experience seeking to build a sense ofcommunity, generate awareness, and provide
resources to others. Organisations use manynaming conventions to refer to ERGs. These
include business resource groups, DEI councils,
affinity groups, inclusion resource groups, or
network groups.
In progressive organisations, ERGs mature
into recognised functions that benefit fromexecutive sponsorship, allocated budgets and23

formalised, remunerated roles responsible for
their activities. In mature ERGs such as these,
it is also common to see the establishment of
sub-communities or groups which represent andsupport individuals with intersectional identitiesor those with specific lived experiences. In regard
to disability, it is important to note that ERGs are
not just focused on personal lived experienceof disability. They can be for parents and carersof disabled children, spouses of people withdisabilities, and others whose lives are touchedby disability.
When they are at their best, ERGs adopt a
community-first approach. This is to say that thefocus of the ERG is to foster the establishment
and growth of identity-led communities and asense of connectedness rather than supporting
ERGs with the goal of leveraging and/or gaining
access to disabled lived experience andperspectives. We have seen many examples of
how ERGs that do not adopt a community-first
approach can actually erode cultures of trust in
situations where passionate advocates of, andfor, the disability community are utilised as an
unpaid source of expertise, innovation, strategic
advice and peer support. In these cases, burnout
is very common and can have negative impacts
on employee performance because participationin and leading ERG activities eclipses thoserequired in their primary role.
“Disability ERGs go beyond mere advocacy.
They are an untapped resource ofindividuals who know all too well thebarriers presented within yourorganisation. They are community and an
opportunity for many disabled individuals
to feel a sense of belonging.”
JAMIE SHIELDSAMSBUILDING CULTURES OF TRUSTAs a global collective with representation across
41 headquartered countries and 64 industries,
we have noted that ERGs are not common acrossall geographies. Thus, many organisations areunaware of the concept of an ERG or the benefitsof having them in place. In these geographies,
discussions relating to ERGs may give theimpression that they must be formalised, wellthought out and established initiatives rather
than an employee-led effort to connect as acommunity.
It is important to note that taking a community
first approach may be achieved through othermeans than ERGs that are culturally relevant in a
specific geography. Non-western countries havemuch to offer regarding ways of working andnew thought leadership that represents global
perspectives.
For example, in Japan, the concept of wa (和)is an important cultural value which looselytranslates to the concept of “group harmony”.
In the context of the workplace, wa can be
expressed in the form of taking care of andmeeting the needs of all members of a team,and prioritising group values and the welfareof the community over individual ambitions ordesires. Just as we have highlighted the needfor more thought leadership from those withintersectional identities, it is critical that the way
we approach disability inclusion incorporates
global and culturally unique perspectives.
#PositivelyPurple is another global movementthat celebrates and draws attention to thecontribution of employees with disabilities
around the world. More importantly#PositivelyPurple has been connecting disability
Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) and networks
around the world – building disability confidence
from the inside out and driving a movement forchange. PurpleSpace have been leading thismovement since 2017: as a mark of respect to24

the UN International Day of Persons with
Disabilities (IDPD) held annually on 3rd December.

Operationalising Disability
Performance
An overwhelming majority of conversations on
disability inclusion in the workplace are hadthrough the lens of DEI, if they are had at all.
Employees at all levels of organisations havecommunicated that they feel lost as to how they
can participate in enacting change. For many
people, conversations around being an ally or“stepping up” are intangible or lack meaning in
the context of their job duties, the remit of theirrole, or their areas of expertise. In contrast,
tangible actions like a supply chain manager
adding a disability-specific question to an RFP
or adapting service level agreements, an IT
developer engineering systems to be accessible
from the outset, or social media teams ensuring
ALT Text and captioning are added to all images
and videos online are work activities that are
relevant, actionable and meaningful to them. We
need to see more of this. Anyone, anywhere
within an organisation that communicates withothers through media, software, presentations,
and/or websites, can take tangible action toensure that everything they do are respectful
and accessible.
With the above examples in mind, a goal ofthis document is to make the case for moving
beyond a singular focus on disability inclusion as
a DEI construct and to operationalise disability
inclusion. What we mean by this is to catalyse aparadigm shift whereby Valuable 500 companies
expand the concept of what disability inclusion
means to include actions and effort that drive
productivity and profitability, reduce risk,
optimise efficiency and increase the likelihoodof recruiting and retaining talent, etc.

BUILDING CULTURES OF TRUST“Many of us who work on technology
accessibility talk about the concepts of“shift left” and “born accessible.”
The idea is that you think about how you
make your workplaces, your products andyour culture fully inclusive from inception,
not as an afterthought.
Instead of treating disability as something“special” that is dealt with only when astakeholder encounters a barrier, youmainstream the inclusion mindset; youmake it table stakes.
It’s one reason I did away with theAccessibility Champions awards at acompany I worked for. The new approach
was that you shouldn’t get a trophy fordoing your job properly – that’s what yourpay check is for. Though we didn’t get thereby the time I left, the next step was toinclude assessment of how well you
handled this part of your job, making it partof your performance evaluation anddetermination of your compensation. Now
that would have gotten tangible results!”
LARRY GOLDBERG
Accessible media & technology consultant

25

Representation
In the context of this document, disabled
representation refers to the act of ensuringpersons with disabilities are present andidentifiable in all aspects of society in ways thatare consistent with how the disability community
perceive themselves. This can be interpreted inmany ways. It can mean companies creating toys,
publishing literature, and producing media basedon characters their disabled audiences can relate
to and aspire to be.
It can mean casting disabled talent behind and in
front of the camera, so the world consumes media
which portrays authentic depictions of the lived
experience of disability. It can mean seeing
disabled models on the runway or on the cover ofmainstream media publications. For organisations
who do ensure persons with disabilities are
represented across all facets of media, PR &advertising, it is important that the representation
is authentic and informed by how the disability
community perceive themselves. Often times, theway disability is represented in the media,
advertising and PR, stock imagery, and even inperson at events, can be reminiscent of medical
and charitable model thinking.
In the context of business, disabled representation
can also refer to workforce composition – fromseeing peers with disabilities working in allfunctions in the organisation, to board level
leaders who openly identify and speak about their
lived experience. It can mean showing up to aconference or event and encountering multiple
other disabled attendees. It can also be as simple
as having the experience of working with a deaf
colleague who communicates via a sign language
interpreter or with a blind colleague who uses
assistive technology and getting comfortable withthose peer-to-peer interactions.

BUILDING CULTURES OF TRUST

Inclusive Language“Language is one of the most importantsignals that we have to demonstrate our
acceptance or rejection of a person’s
identity.”
EMILY LADAU

The language we use to talk about disabled
identity matters and is central to building
cultures of trust. Even more importantly, thelanguage we use to define disability impacts
employees’ willingness to engage in Self-ID
processes and in some cases may eveninfluence whether an individual perceives
themselves as disabled. The language
individuals use to describe themselves and thedisability community is very much a personal
choice. Some people prefer identity first
language such as “disabled employee” or“autistic person” whereas others prefer person
first language such as “employee with adisability” or “person with autism”. Out of respectfor different preferences, we have used both
identity first and person first references todisability throughout this document.
We recommend holding space for personal
preferences within the workplace as well.

26“It is important to respect personal
preferences, whether one prefers identity
first language or person first language, tocreate an inclusive environment that
accommodates individual choices within
the workplace. I personally introduce mydisability as: “I am a person with a disability
and even in this sentence, the word person
comes first.” I identify as such so thatpeople understand that I will needassistance and let people know I am notasking for special treatment, just looking
for an inclusive experience.”
TUCKER DUPREE
Colleague Experience Lead at BP
When we speak about disability using a lexicon
which is overwhelmingly negative, this
immediately signals how disability is viewed by
the individual using that language or as arepresentative of an organisation’s culture. As
an example, consider the contrast between thephrase “wheelchair user” and “confined to awheelchair” or “wheelchair bound”. This example
demonstrates how language is a carrier ofnegative views and stereotypes on disability
driven by medical and/or charitable models.
These stereotypes signal that disability is tied tosorrow, pity, and a limited ability to live a
productive life. Economic participation in theworkforce is a great example of how thedisability community and business canchallenge and deconstruct these stereotypes.
Having a person with a disability employed in arole specific to operations, finance,
procurement, IT, HR, marketing, or any otherfunction within an organisation demonstrates
that persons with disabilities can thrive in theseroles and that assistive devices are simply
facilitators rather than limitations.

BUILDING CULTURES OF TRUST

However, if barriers in recruiting, retention andcareer progression persist, it makes it difficult
for the disability community to access theseopportunities.
Phrases and words like “bound to”, “confinedto”, “suffers from”, “impaired”, “dysfunction”,“atypical”, “abnormal”, and “disorder” areexamples of common language used every day
which carry and perpetuate ableist perspectives
toward the construct of disability.
As we all examine the language we use todescribe disability or to reference certain
behaviours and experiences, it is important torecognise that ableist language is somethingthat is stubbornly woven into the words, idioms
and phrases many of us have learned over thecourse of our lives. Part of actively dismantling
ableism is to consciously choose to use
language in a different way.
It is easy to become overwhelmed with thefeeling of not knowing what to say and to beconcerned whether our language can cause
offence. It is our position that it is important for
us all to set realistic expectations for ourselves
as we work to remove ableist language from our
vocabulary, and when slip ups do happen,
to acknowledge them and move on.
Self-reflection, accountability, and thedesire to do better are more important thanperfection.

27

BUILDING CULTURES OF TRUST

Below is a list of definitions of disability thatare used across various geographies. These
definitions demonstrate various degrees ofableist language and references to harmfulmodels of disability. As you read thesedefinitions, please consider how the language
used in definitions and ways disability isreferenced and discussed can erode trust.

India

Japan

UK

Persons with disabilities are those who, becauseof physical, intellectual, or mental (including
developmental) disabilities or other impairmentsof physical or mental function are subject toconsiderable restriction in their vocational
life, or who have great difficulty in leading a
vocational life, over a long period of time.

A physical or mental impairment that has asubstantial and long-term negative effect on
your ability to do normal daily activities.

Germany
Persons are considered “disabled” if their
physical functions, mental capacities, or
psychological health are highly likely to deviate
for more than six months from the condition
which is typical for the respective age andwhose participation in the life of society istherefore restricted.
Australia
Recognises the definition of disability as
including those who have long-term physical,
mental, intellectual or sensory impairments
that, in interaction with various attitudinal andenvironmental barriers, may hinder their full andeffective participation in society on an equalbasis with others.
IsraelA person with a physical, mental, intellectual(including cognitive) impairment, either
temporary or permanent, which substantiallylimits a person’s ability to function in one ormore main areas of life.

28

A disabled person is a person with long-term
physical, mental, intellectual and sensory
impairment, which in interaction with barriers(social, communicational, cultural, economic,
environmental, institutional, political, attitudinalor structural) hinders his/her effective
participation in society equally with others.

China
One who suffers from abnormalities of loss ofa certain organ or function, psychologically or
physiologically, or in anatomical structure andhas lost wholly or in part the ability to perform
an activity in the way considered normal.
Ireland
A substantial restriction in the capacity of theperson to carry on a profession, business or
occupation in the Irish State or to participate insocial or cultural life in the Irish State by reasonof enduring physical, sensory, mental health orintellectual impairment.
MexicoAny person who, due to congenital or acquired
reasons, has one or more deficiencies of aphysical, mental, intellectual or sensory nature,whether permanent or temporary and which,when interacting with the barriers imposed by
the social environment, may prevent their fulland effective inclusion, on equal terms withothers.

IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS FACTORS

Implementation
Success Factors
Leadership Engagement And
Transparency
The curation of this document was informed byconversations with the disability industry,
disabled employees, creatives andentrepreneurs, and DEI and operational
practitioners within the Valuable 500
companies who have been actively involved inwork related to Self-ID related. Across thehundreds of interactions with all parties, acommon theme that emerged was theimportance of leadership engagement andsupport of Self-ID processes. Whether it isannouncing the launch of a Self-ID process, or
annual invitation to participate, we heard time
and time again how important it was that
C-Suite leaders and their senior leadershipteams spoke openly about their support for
Self-ID, spoke personally to why they wereasking employees to participate, and spoke
about how the organisation intended to support
employees with disabilities. Employees are
acutely aware of the responsibilities andworkloads carried by their executive leadershipteams; therefore, leadership-led launches
signal to employees that disability inclusion sits
as a priority alongside these accountabilities.
Disability inclusive organisations include
disability performance in the bonus or
remuneration criteria of their leadership teams.
This is another example of how leaders
operationalise disability inclusion and require
accountability across their organisations.

29

From the inception of the Valuable 500 towhere we sit today, we have seen numerous
examples of how important it is for leaders to
speak openly about their own personal lived
experience or the proximity of disability intheir lives. Like any employee, the choice todo so is an individual one, but when leadersdemonstrate the courage to disclose theirdisabled identity or life experience internallywithin their organisation or more publicly, it
fosters trust in meaningful and powerful ways.

“When people rightly say that the majorityof disabilities in the workplace are notvisible – I know it. The impact may soundsmall, I sometimes speak with a loud voicein meetings or need to sit in a certain partof a room, but at any stage of a career, theself-consciousness this creates can be
intimidating. In the past, I have shared myown experience with EY teams, and I foundthat voluntarily coming forward makes ahuge difference. That transparency
creates a recognition that “we see you” andthat you belong.”
JULIE TEIGLAND
EY EMEIA Area Managing Partner; EY Global
LeaderIMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS FACTORS

Humility And Honesty
One of the most consistent messages
communicated by the disability community is theimportance of humility and honesty as it applies
to individual leaders’ and organisations’ disability
performance. This can mean many things – it canmean intentionally sitting in the discomfort ofrecognising that progress is not as advanced oras comprehensive as it should be. It can be
acknowledging that despite good intentions,formalised cost structures, and dedicated roles
and responsibilities within an organisation, there
is still work to do or that people have been let
down. It can be actively acknowledging andchallenging harmful views or belief systems held,
and it can be publicly disclosing data that is alagging indicator rather than a leading one.
What we have learned is that the world’s largest
and most recognised brands both within andoutside of the Valuable 500 dominate themarket fiscally and reputationally because
they are the best at what they do. Excellenceis woven into their corporate DNA and often
it is deeply uncomfortable to acknowledge oreven recognise that disability performance is
not 100%. However, leaders need to face this
discomfort head on in order to create meaningfulchange within their respective businesses. The
sheer scale of the disability population globallyshould be motivation enough – excluding 16% of
the world’s population is never good or ethicalbusiness.
Part of the path to curating this document wasto create safe spaces and environments forleaders and employees to speak honestly about
the complexities of the disabled experience, fearof not doing enough or getting it right, add therisk associated with stakeholder activism, cancel
culture and litigation.

30

We hope that an outcome of interacting withthis resource is to acknowledge that thework of improving disability performance
may never be done and will certainly not be
defined by perfection.
Despite this, setbacks should not be a deterrent
to continuous improvement.

IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS FACTORSInternal Communications
Messaging from disabled employees,
consultants, and corporate communications
practitioners alike asserts that internal
communications are an essential ingredient of
successful Self-ID processes. The hallmarks ofsuccessful internal communications strategies
include approaching Self-ID as something thatis worthy of well thought out, consistentcommunication that starts well before
employees are welcomed to participate in a
Self-ID survey or data gathering initiative.
Disability Inclusion AwarenessFor many organisations, this means startingwith the training and awareness describedabove to ensure that all employees understandthe fundamentals of progressive models of
disability and the importance of ensuring thatenvironments, customer service delivery,
products and services are accessible to all, andunderstand the proactive steps the organisation
has put in place to provide workplaceadjustments/reasonable accommodations toeveryone. The awareness phase of internal
communications is also often focused on
making employees aware of the presence of
Employee Resource Groups or other identity-led
communities within the business.
Signalling Intentions
Once a threshold level of awareness on thefundamentals of disability inclusion has beenachieved, many organisations move on tointernal communications aimed at sharing
leadership’s intentions and the expected
outcomes of Self-ID. Understanding disabled
representation within the workforce must comefrom a place of empathy, care and the genuine
desire to remove barriers on behalf of disabled

31

employees. We have seen many examples
of Self-ID initiatives that have seen limited
success because leadership failed to signal thata Self-ID initiative was more than a simple dataacquisition exercise. Notable topics disabled
employees want to have certainty on are:• Understanding how sharing personal
information about their identity is going tobenefit them and the organisation.
• Having confidence that leadership iscommitted to acting upon the things they learn
if employees take the time to provide feedbackon their disabled lived experience.
• Clarity on whether or not the survey is truly
anonymous. If not, certainty that participating
won’t put them at risk of discrimination,harassment, or stalled career progression.
• Understanding what organisations intend
to do with the data provided and who in theorganisation has access to it.
Announcing the Launch
A hallmark of successful Self-ID campaigns
is a formalised, C-Suite-led launch. Self-ID
launches hold tremendous potential as creative
exercises which allow for heightened awarenessand adoption of brand values, purpose, andidentity. When the messaging is curated
effectively, they also serve as an opportunity
to demonstrate that leadership is committed
to addressing disability-specific inequity or
lagging performance.

IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS FACTORS

Sustaining Momentum
Once a Self-ID initiative has been launched,
it is important to understand that continued
success and engagement cannot be assumed.
Formalised efforts to keep the concept of
Self-ID and the company’s intentions associatedwith understanding disabled representationin the workforce must be communicated. Our
research revealed that making use of multiple
platforms and means of communication were
essential to ensure as much engagement as
possible.
Cross Pollination
Weaving disability inclusion and the desire
to understand disabled representationin the workforce throughout concurrent
communications campaigns was also a common
success factor amongst companies who had
achieved success with Self-ID. We heard manystories of how Self-ID implementation started
with formalised C-Suite led campaigns and wasintentionally made relevant to other ongoing
communications initiatives. These included
examples like International Women’s Day,to celebrate and generate awareness of thenuances of female and gender fluid disabled
identity, neurodivergence adjacent to STEM
awareness and education, discussions on
mental health, neurodivergence and disability
related to the benefits of flexible or remote
working, etc. What these approaches have incommon is that they keep the conversation
on Self-ID going and create opportunities
for people to connect with the concept inmeaningful ways.
Tracking Progress and Data Transparency
Once Self-ID has been successfully
implemented, it is critical that progress
is communicated on an ongoing basis. As

32

with other aspects of Self-ID, transparent
communication is best achieved across multiple
platforms or media. These can include company
townhalls, internal business updates, posts
on an intranet or internal social channel, andpublic disclosure instruments such as annual
reports and accounts (ARAs), sustainability,
ESG, or impact reports. Many employees haveexpressed frustration with participating in
Self-ID processes which lack transparent
communication of disabled representation in
the workforce.
Representing Intersectional Identities“Intersectionality is defined as the criticalinsight that race, class, gender, sexuality,
ethnicity, nation, ability, and age operate
not as unitary mutually exclusive entities,
but as reciprocally constructing
phenomena that in turn shape complex
social inequalities.”
KIMBERLÉ WILLIAMS CRENSHAWIMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS FACTORS“Simply put, these are captured in thedepth of the relationships between
employees. The ability to connect,
establish trust, engage with conflict,
or avoid it, and elicit collaboration or
curiosity. These are attributes that, like
respect, although not captured in a KPI
performance, certainly deeply affect it,
and go on to affect retention rates and/or‘quiet quitting’ and in the long run, theorganisation’s bottom line. In the long run,the organisation’s bottom line is based on
its ability to accept the intersectional
nature of who these employees are, thewillingness to embrace it and the active
nature to bridge the gap where they doexist.
So, when we talk about intersectionality,
a one size fits all approach does not work
and it is naïve to expect one line manager
to bear this responsibility or one C-suite
executive to champion this cause. It is anorganizations’ responsibility to ensure
there is buy in from the top, but more
importantly, every person hired andretained within the organisation is held
to values of inclusion, respecting, andengaging with colleagues within theiruniqueness and seeing that as theorganisation’s strength.”
DR. ELSA ZEKENGFounder, SökerData

33

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Legal Considerations
We found it notable that perceived legal barriers
dominated many conversations we held on
Self-ID and were often cited as the reasonsorganisations were not actively working tobetter understand disabled representation in
the workforce. Concerns over whether
businesses were legally required to provide
accommodations and the cost implications ofworkplace adjustments also dominated thisarea of discussion.
A country-by-country review of legislation
related to disability data is beyond the scope of
this resource. However, due to the manyinaccurate perceptions surrounding thelawfulness of collecting disability data weencountered, it became apparent that a primary
goal of this resource would need to be to dispel
common myths or misunderstandings to clarify
what are and are not legitimate jurisdictional
legal challenges to approaching Self-ID.
An important aspect of the work we undertook
to produce this resource was to open a dialogue
with companies within the Valuable 500 who
were well advanced on their Self-ID journeys.
There was a wide continuum of experience
related to corporate Self-ID initiatives; a handfulof our companies had launched Self-ID in 50+
countries, and many had done so in more thanten countries. Some were implementing Self-ID
for the first time and others had been
progressing this work for multiple years. Somewere seeing representation of employees withdisabilities reported in numbers which alignclosely with the WHO’s data on the global
disability population (16% as of 2023), whereas
others were seeing numbers below 1%.
Regardless of this disparity in approaches taken
and the data outputs, the overarchingconclusion we reached is that in most countries
our 500 companies operate in, there are legal

34

means through which Self-ID can be
implemented. In countries wherelegal constraints were prohibitive, we saw
examples of other means of assessing disabled
representation. The analysis of anonymised
data associated with the number of workplaceadjustments/accommodations requested eachyear is an example.
We highly recommend that all organisations
track and analyse data on how workplaceadjustments were provided, the cost of theseadjustments, and the amount of time it took
to provide them to employees.
In addition to providing insights into how
employees with disabilities experience theworkplace, workplace adjustment provides
an avenue to gather meaningful disability
data in legally restrictive jurisdictions.
Our research also established that risk andcompliance, regulatory, and legal teams arecentral to organisations’ ability to facilitate
Self-ID processes. Despite the critical rolethese functions play, many organisations do
not possess the in-house expertise to advise,
support or contribute meaningfully to
implementation. Furthermore, the lack ofconcrete expertise can often serve as a blocker
to Self-ID processes being established at all.
Given that globally, disability data is legally
governed differently regarding declaration,assessment, communication, treatment andretention, it is essential that organisations
establish formalised roles and responsibilities
dedicated to monitoring and interpreting thelegislative landscape which is constantly
evolving.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONSIn the context of legal considerations,
it was compelling to facilitate conversations
between companies who, at the outset of
the working sessions, believed Self-ID wasn’t
possible in a specific jurisdiction, withcompanies who were able to demonstrateotherwise. The brokerage of knowledge
between Valuable 500 companies resulted
in many lessons and insights being shared.
This included challenging overly conservativeinterpretations of anti-discrimination acts,
codes, employment laws and regulations
and providing evidence of how it was possible
to operate in compliance. We look forward
to our 500 companies engaging in continued
discourse to dispel inaccurate interpretationsof the legal landscape.

Data Considerations
A legitimate legal consideration for collecting,processing, analysing and storing Self-ID datais to ensure that data is governed in compliancewith relevant legislation specific to each
operating jurisdiction.
In relation to regulations such as the General
Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe,
we encountered widespread assumptions
that it was not lawful to collect disability data.
In fact, GDPR compliance was one of the mostfrequently cited reasons for not collecting
Self-ID data.

35

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS“If the lawfulness, value and transparency
for such process was evident, wouldn’t it
become a no-brainer to disability inclusive
employers and employees with disabilities
to collaborate on their joint purpose in asafely and respectfully designed disability
Self-ID process?
It is regrettable that companies as well as
employees still have misconceptions about
the opportunities and benefits for
Disability-related Data and General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR) which define
well the opportunities for how Self-ID of
persons with disabilities can be realised insecure and meaningful ways rather thanprohibiting such process to exist.
It is crucial for disability inclusion to
succeed in a managed way that factors infavour of it can be understood via data andanalysis in relevant context, like at theworkplace. A first step for organisations totake is regular education to all employees
about data protection regulations anddisability rights applied locally as well as
also within the full scope of amultinational’s activity. This can happen as
part of yearly mandatory trainings, as thecase for my employer ever since I joined for
GDPR. This knowledge enables several
crucial steps as once: firstly, higher
chances of trust of the data subject
providing personal data in well-designed
transparent processes respecting such
regulations, and secondly, confidence ofthe data controllers and processors on how
regulatory compliant processes arehandled correctly. This way, risks andmisunderstandings can be reduced on bothsides and processes on Self-ID for
employees with disabilities be enabled.

36

As a start, it should be clear that the SelfID process ensures that the consent is“freely given” and on a voluntary basis,
specific to Self-ID as an employee withdisability, informed and unambiguous
about the type and purpose of these data.
In addition, the process must respect all
principles of Article 5 of GDPR, i.e. that it
specifies explicitly the purposes and usage(Purpose Limitation Principle) of the data
provided, explaining in a transparent way
all steps of processing, rectification,
storage, retention and means of deletion. It
needs to be ensured that solely data
“adequate, relevant and limited to what isnecessary in relation to [that] purposes forwhich they are processed” are collected
respecting the “Data Minimisation
Principle”. Purposes need to be clearly andtransparently linked to the interest of theworkforce, especially employees withdisabilities, and the anonymised reports beavailable to them.”
ALEXANDRA K. NOTHNAGEL
ATOS GROUPLEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

However, an in depth review of Article 9 of
GDPR (which specifically addresses sensitive
personal data such as disabled identity),
revealed that if organisations acquire the data
via a lawful means of processing, assess andmitigate risks unique to data controlling andprocessing, and maintain appropriate data
governance processes in regard to who has
permission to have access to the data and thespecific circumstances under which data canbe accessed, Self-ID data can be collected in
a compliant manner. Gaining and documenting
explicit consent that was freely given,
specific, informed and unambiguous is central
to ensuring compliance, as is the right for
employees to withdraw consent at any time andrequest to see what data the company holds onthem.
As previously mentioned, anonymity of thedata is central to many organisations’ ability
to maintain regulatory compliance with
relevant legislation. Many organisations within
the Valuable 500 and in the wider business
community have elected to use third party dataprocessors in order to effectively maintainanonymity and ensure adequate data protection
and governance and data storage place. Thereis no one size fits all for all organisations; eachof these considerations are unique to thebusinesses evaluating them.
Many discussions related to disability data
lead to discussions of the Disability Pay
Gap, management, leadership and board
composition.
While it is important to highlight the fact that
pay inequity and disabled representation are
key issues to be assessed and addressed, it
is important that the pursuit of this data does
not come at the cost of anonymity or proper
data governance practices.

37

To provide context to how this may transpire
in a corporate setting, consider a situationin which an anonymous Self-ID survey wassent out to 1,000 people and 25 participants’
responses show that they identify as disabled.
If the survey included the opportunity forparticipants to provide information on otherSelf-ID characteristics such as gender, age,sexual orientation, etc., current managementtier (manager, leader, C-Suite, board member,etc.), when analysed, the data set, althoughstill anonymous, may give away informationindividuals provided with the understandingthat it was private and protected. For thisreason, data governance practices such as
establishing a minimum sample size and limiting
how and by whom the data can be analysed andcorrelated are key to maintaining data privacy
and being able to truly preserve anonymity.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONSDisability Employment Quotas
According to the International Labour
Organization (ILO), as of 2019, 103 countries
across the world have quota systems in place
which require organisations to provide thresholdlevels of employment opportunities for people
with disabilities. These thresholds are typically
expressed as a minimum percentage of theworkforce which must be comprised of disabledworkers, and specify an employee count which
renders the organisation responsible forcompliance. 33 of these countries identified(32%) have quotas backed by levies or fines.
Many organisations find themselves underpressure to meet these quotas and avoid fines,
which serves as a distraction to understanding
and supporting their workforce. It has also been
noted that many times disability quota systems
have dedicated talent pipelines which lackmeaningful opportunity or progression for
individuals who formally Self-IDentify via
federal initiatives.
All organisations undertaking efforts to measuredisabled representation in the workforce must
understand that there is a clear distinction
between corporate-led Self-ID, and SelfID undertaken to comply with country-leveldisability employment quotas. In our opinion,
there are also tangible reasons why the two data
sets would be expected to differ, sometimes
drastically. This is an important consideration
given that differences in the two data sets havebeen misinterpreted as an indicator of poor data
quality or integrity.
From our research and conversations acrossthe globe, we learned that many individuals arehesitant to disclose a disability at the federal orcompany level due to the following reasons:38• Restrictions on personal autonomy such as
the number of hours permitted to be worked.
• Requirement to demonstrate and medically
document “degree of disability” based on
various scales or weighting systems (forexample, in Germany and France).
• Frustration with talent pipelines that do notoffer meaningful opportunity or progression.
• Time intensive, costly, and personally invasive
disclosure requirements.
• Fear of becoming ineligible for insurance
policies and benefits. Fear of discriminationfrom line management, HR, or colleagues.
Many countries enacted disability employment
quotas in the post-war era to create opportunity
for individuals who acquired disabilities as aresult of war-time service. Advocating for moreprogressive approaches to increase disabled
representation in the workforce is a key rolebusiness can play. For a comprehensive review
and classification of disability employment
quotas, please review The International Labour
Organization’s report on Promoting Employment
Opportunities for People with Disabilities.

THE PATH FORWARD

The Path Forward
This document, in addition to providing disabled-led perspectives and recommendations on how
to approach this work, serves as an invitation to start where you are and acknowledge that manyother organisations are in the same position. It was not written as a resource with a concise set ofrecommendations; rather it was written as a resource to come to at various stages of engaging inwork aimed at understanding and increasing disabled representation in the workforce. We hope thatthe recommendations, perspectives, and insights within this document will also serve as tools to
help break down the many barriers to progress and to disability data being meaningfully integrated
into business performance criteria.
An important consideration for the format of this offering was to hold space for disabled
entrepreneurs and consultants who hold deep expertise in this area. As you explore how yourorganisation is working to build cultures of trust, to use disability inclusive language, engage insuccessful implementation, and navigate the legal landscape, we recommend actively seeking
out consultants, advisors, and innovators with disabilities to inform and progress work within yourrespective organisations. Your business will be the better for it.

39

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Acknowledgements
The Nippon Foundation is a global impact
partner of the Valuable 500. The innovativemindset they apply to ending disability exclusion
through philanthropy and funding social
innovation makes the production of resources
like the Self-ID Resource Guide possible. They
also play a key role in convening the Japanesebusiness community and catalysing their
engagement in disability inclusive efforts.
We are extremely grateful for their continued
support of the disability community and of thework we do.

Google is one of 15 iconic leaders within the
Valuable 500 committed to co-investing andco-creating system-level change solutions
aimed at enabling full and equitable participation
for the global disability community. Google led
the inclusive design sprint methodology whichbrought together the companies within the
Valuable 500 who were most advanced on theirSelf-ID journeys. This process facilitatedknowledge transfer, innovation and ideation,and critical analysis of resources required tosimultaneously serve the needs of businessand the global disability community.

Deloitte is a fellow iconic leader within the
Valuable 500. Deloitte are committed to using
their brand and business principles as a force
for good.

40

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Individual contributors• Stefan Tromel,International Labour Organization• Michael Stein,
Harvard Law School Project on Disability• Meg O’Connell,
Global Disability Inclusion• Marcie Roth,World Institute on Disability• Anil Lewis,
National Federation of the Blind• Betsy Beaumon• Susan Scott-Parker• Neil Milliken,
Valuable 500 Board Advisor

41

Valuable 500 Company Contributors

KEY INFLUENCES

Key Influences
This document is as much a celebration of the individuals and advocacy groups who show up every day
for the disability community as it is a resource for businesses who are committed to understanding more
about disabled representation in their workforces and how to approach this work. Below is a list of someof the reading materials, media, and resources which have informed, inspired and guided the creation ofthis document. While this is not intended as a formal list of suggested resources, we want to celebrate andamplify the work of the disabled thought leaders, entrepreneurs and activists who have invested their timeand energy to create awareness and educate others.

Media• The Greatest, Apple. Vimeo.
• The Lost Voice, Apple.
• Shifting Models of Thinking – Disability Advocacy Resource Unit (DARU).
• Not Special Needs. March 21 – World Down Syndrome Day. YouTube.
• The Hiring Chain performed by Sting. World Down Syndrome Day 2021 - YouTube.
• TedTalks: Wanda Diaz Merced - YouTube.
• Authentically Reflecting Disabled People - Google All In.
• Your Workforce Includes People with Disabilities. Does Your People Strategy? BCG.

42

KEY INFLUENCES

Literature• Brightman, A. (2008). DisabilityLand. Select Books (NY).
• Byrne-Haber, S. (2021). Giving a Damn About Accessibility. UX Collective.
• Cooke-O’Toole, J. (2018). Autism in Heels: The Untold Story of a Female Life on the Spectrum.
Skyhorse Publishing.
• Criado-Perez, C. (2021). Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. Abrams Press.
• Hammond, T. (2023). A Day with No Words. Wheat Penny Press.
• Heinrichs, A. Accessible Social.
• Heumann, J. (2019). Being Heumann: An Unrepentant Memoir of a Disability Rights Activist.
Beacon Press.
• International Labour Organization. (2019). ILO GBN Self Assessment.
• Ladau, E. (2021). Demystifying Disability: What to Know, What to Say, and How to Be an Ally.
Ten Speed Press.
• LGBT Great. (2022). Seeing is Believing - The Power of Role Models and Visibility.
• Matson, F. (1990). Walking Alone and Marching Together: A History of the Organized Blind Movementin the United States, 1940-1990. National Federation of the Blind.
• Mindfully Evie. (2019). Within These Four Walls. Independently published.
• Nash, K. (2023). Positively Purple. Kogan Page.
• Purple Space. (2022). Purple Planet: How to Create High Impact Disability Employee Resource
Groups/Networks in Global Organisations. Purple Space.
• Singer, J. (2016). Neurodiversity: The Birth of an Idea. Judy Singer; 2nd Edition.
• Taussig, R. (2021). Sitting Pretty: The View from My Ordinary Resilient Disabled Body. Harper One.
• Wong, A. (2020). Disability Visibility: First Person Stories from the Twenty-First Century.
Vintage Books.
• Wong, A. (2022). Year of the Tiger: An Activist’s Life. Vintage Books.
• Zheng, L. (2022). DEI Deconstructed – Your No-Nonsense Guide to Doing the Work and Doing it Right.
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
• World Policy Center, Are employers required to guarantee reasonable accommodation to workers
with disabilities?

43