3.4.1.2 Unacceptable Indigenous Identity Capture Methods

Two primary methods traditionally dominate the landscape of employment identity data capture: Voluntary Self-Identification (VSI) and Anonymous Diversity Surveys (ADS). Each bears its set of advantages and shortcomings, raising critical concerns about efficacy, privacy, and potential biases.

Voluntary Self-Identification provides a detailed glimpse into the workforce's diverse makeup, even possessing the potential to identify Indigenous community affiliations. However, while its depth is commendable, it falls short in practice. When employees share their direct identity, their backgrounds or affiliations, there is an intrinsic vulnerability to the process.

For members of the Indigenous community, sharing such specific and deeply personal affiliations in a direct manner can be discomforting, leading to hesitancy in divulging this information. As a result, organizations might not capture an accurate representation of their Indigenous workforce. Beyond the psychological aspects, there is the looming threat of legal implications for companies that handle such sensitive information directly.

Conversely, Anonymous Diversity Surveys, while safeguarding employee privacy, inherently lack the granularity essential to pinpoint benefits reaching Indigenous communities through employment. The broad strokes these surveys offer might hint at diversity presence but fail to provide detailed insights into how employment benefits are channeled into specific Indigenous communities, thereby missing a crucial dimension in understanding the comprehensive benefit to these communities.

In both scenarios, employees cannot retract their participation in the diversity survey. This breaches FPIC principles. Furthermore, even if they could retract their participation, it would necessitate a potentially uncomfortable conversation with their employer. Anonymized Matched Diversity Analysis solves this.