A draft proposal for a "gold standard" for inclusion and diversity

I've had some time to do some thinking of late, and have a few posts lined up. This first one is, as the title states, a draft proposal for a "gold standard" for inclusion and diversity. I've come across the term "gold standard in a wide range of contexts, but it basically means (in the sense I'm using) the best of something - specifically, in this instance, inclusion and diversity for organisations.

I will probably make this a key part of my submission on whole-of-government LGBTIQ+ policy. 

My draft proposed "gold standard is:

1. Have genuine, appropriate, and effective policies on the characteristics listed below;
2. Active implementation, including annual checks of ALL employees for conscious and unconscious bias on the matters listed below, with an active plan to remove the biases and manage the effects of those biases in the meantime; and 
3. The workforce make up to closely reflect the overall makeup of the total population served by that organisation, within:
    - ±15% of the total where that total is ≥4% of the total population
    - ±30% of the total where that total is ≦2% of the total population.
   
   To illustrate that:
    - suppose group X is 10% of the total population, which is (say) 1,000,000 people. That means 100,000 of the total population has characteristic X.
    - if the organisation has 1,000 employees, 10% of 1,000 is 100 people, which is the "ideal" proportion. Allowing for real variations, the acceptable range is 100±15% (i.e., ±15), so 85 to 115 people.
   
    - suppose group X is 1% of the total population, which is (say) 1,000,000 people. That means 10,000 of the total population has characteristic X.
    - if the organisation has 1,000 employees, 1% of 1,000 is 10 people, which is the "ideal" proportion. Allowing for real variations, the acceptable range is 10±30% (i.e., ±3), so 7 to 13 people.

Matters to be covered by policies (I may revisit this after I check a few websites):

• race; 
• culture and personal values; 
• personal history, or any other presumption against the possibility of genuine change; 
• sex/gender; 
• gender identity (including requirements for no misgendering, deadnaming, or breaches of privacy); 
• sexuality, including bi-, pan- and a-sexuality; 
• ability/disability; 
• age; 
• pregnancy; 
• family, relationships and significant others, including polyamory and key friends, and being single; and
• thinking / working styles; 
• other matters as added from time to time.

PS - I would now add a new item to the above to cover sex/gender: a running three year audit of board members/ Directors / very high level senior managers to ensure housework is evenly divided between that person and their partner(s). The best way to get high ups to realise the impact of things like extended work hours is to live through it.