There have been various schools of thought in the history of geographical thought, and geographical determinism is one such school of thought that deals with the interaction between man and nature. Geographical determinism began with the major initial source of geographical explanation that based its theoretical positions on the notion that human activity was dependent on the physical environment in which it was set.
Geographical determinism was a dominant school of thought until the Second World War and presented the point of view that human action is determined by the physical environment. Geographical determinism asserts that human history, culture, society and lifestyles, development, etc are shaped by their physical environment. Geographical determinism understands human social action as a response to the natural environment.
The Greek and the Roman philosophers were the first to base the physical features, personality traits and culture and society of humans as influenced by natural conditions. The Greek philosophers Xenophon and Thucydides attributed Athens’ characteristic features to the natural conditions and geographical position of the region, as the reason for its ascendance.
Rome was described in a similar way by Strabo. Even Aristotle held climatic differences as the reason for the distinction between Europeans and Asians.
The Aristotelian distinction became a general line of thought for European essentialism in the period, which held the line that the harsher environmental conditions in most of Europe produced courageous people according to Aristotle while the people of Asia were said to lack in courage. Ancient Greece, Aristotle opined, occupied the middle position in terms of the benevolence of environmental conditions had people endowed with the finest qualities.
This line of thinking in geographical determinism continued with Strabo through to Montesquieu who attributed courage to colder climates and cunning to warmer climates. While these are philosophical generalizations, an attempt at classifying geographical features was made by the medieval Arab geographers in their classification of the inhabited world into seven kisbwars or climatic zones. In their attempts at geographical determinism, they attempted to highlight the distinctive physical and societal characteristics of kingdoms falling within these kisbwars.
This mode of thinking of environmental causation was characterized even by Immanuel Kant, who attempted to explain personality traits of people from different regions in terms of environmental features. This continued in an arcane manner until the evolution of geography as a natural science in the 19thCentury, when the German geographer Carl Ritter introduced an anthropocentric form of geographical determinism in the early 19th Century. However, there were certain notable thinkers of geographical determinism even before or concurrent to this. The following are some of the leading thinkers in terms of geographical determinism, starting with Carl Ritter.
Carl Ritter (1779-1859)
Fig: Carl Ritter
Famous Book | Die Erdkunde, or Earth Science, 1817
Famous Quote |“I am ready to argue that geography is next to the divine philosophy”
Work | As a pioneering geographer, what was of supreme interest to Carl Ritter was the human population of a specific area as determined by environmental features. Ritter believed that the Earth was part of God’s plan and included theology in his writings, although he took an anthropocentric view in considering humankind the ultimate purpose of creation.
Ritter believed that the central purpose of geography as a science was to understand the interaction between humankind and nature, else it would fail in its task. He believed in the cultural development of geographical areas such that the greatest possible harmony between nature and culture is achieved. In this task, instead of the traditional study of nations, Ritter undertook the study of regions and their environmental features, forming in total an Earth organism interacting historically with the human organism. Ritter thus held that humankind and the characteristic features of human beings are elements forming part of the total Earth organism and all parts within are thus interconnected. He placed his argument prior to Darwin in the setting of human history.
Ritter’s major work Die Erdkunde, or Earth Science (German for Geography), first published in 1817, which was intended as the total geography of the Earth organism, however, remained incomplete. He could only cover Asia and Africa before his death in 1859. The full translation of the title is The Science of the Earth in Relation to Nature and the History of Mankind.
Alexander Von Humboldt (1769-1859)
Fig: Alexander Humboldt
Famous Book | Kosmos, 1845-1862
Famous Quote | “In this great chain of causes and effects, no single fact can be considered in isolation.”
Work | Alexander Von Humboldt is a German naturalist and explorer who was a contemporary of Carl Ritter. The Humboldt Current which is located off the Western Coast of South America is named after the explorer. Born into a Prussian Aristocratic family, a young Humboldt left his life of privilege to explore Latin America for five years, and since then became a traveller and explorer, travelling and exploring the remotest corners of the world.
Humboldt was a celebrity scientist in his lifetime, and was sought after for his depth of natural knowledge and explorer’s worldliness, with an in depth hands on knowledge of physical geography. Like Ritter, Humboldt described Earth as a living organism, and that nature was living whole bound together in a net-like intricate fabric. Humboldt with his theory of interconnectedness and closely following Ritter, his formulation of Earth as a living organism revolutionized the way westerners saw nature in his age.
In this formulation, no single component of the natural world including human beings could be considered in isolation. In this interconnected natural web, one missing link could create a domino effect for all. A lifetime abolitionist, Humboldt considered colonialism as disastrous for the environment after his stint in Venezuela, where he criticized the anthropogenic interventions of the Spanish on the environment. In his sense, abundantly relevant for contemporary times, all anthropogenic activity must align itself with the Earth organism, making a singular case for geographical determinism. In his most famous publication Kosmos, Humboldt describes this harmony of the universe in terms of the universal laws of nature and the history of science.
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
Fig: Charles Darwin
Famous Book | The Origin of Species, 1859
Famous Quote | “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
Work | Charles Darwin is an English naturalist whose theory of evolution by natural selection is one of the most influential ideas in human history. His theory though, when it first came out, greatly offended the Victorian society of his age, and he was sometimes the object of ridicule for saying that humans and monkeys had a common ancestry. His theories at the time went against the fundamentals of religion and its theory of creationism, and thus was a revolution for science.
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection was published two decades after his travels across the world as explorer and scientist as The Origin of Species (1859). This work revolutionized the biological and geographical sciences out of which grew a new understanding of the natural world as based on common organic descent, multiplication of species, gradualism, natural selection, variation, and inheritance. Darwin explained how the mechanics of order works in the natural world, making humanity come to a clearer understanding of the workings of the natural world.
Darwin endorsed the associative organization of the natural world while rejecting the teleological and theological aspects of earlier geographical thought to come to an understanding of Earth as a living organism with component parts. Crucial in Darwin’s hypothesis was the struggle for existence and adaptation to environmental conditions that every organism must adhere to, else it would be eliminated. With this, Darwin essentially linked the man-environment equation into a natural law of science. Darwin demonstrated how humanity cannot possibly escape its natural endowments. Darwin in fact did most to establish geographical determinism as an important school in geography.
William Morris Davis (1850-1934)
Fig: William Morris Davis
Famous Book | Geographical Essays, 1909
Famous Quote | “It is the relationship between the physical environment and the environed organism, between physiography and ontography (to coin a term), that constitutes the essential principles of geography today.”
Work | William Morris Davis is an American geographer, geologist and meteorologist noted for his studies of landforms. William Morris Davis in fact founded the geographical sub-field of geomorphology. Prior to Davis, dominant thought in landform formation was based on abstract notions such as the Biblical flood. Davis formed a theory of landform formation and erosion, which he called the geographical cycle, more popularly known as the geomorphic cycle. His theory established and comprehensively explains how landforms such as mountains are created, then evolve and mature, and then become old and erode (M. Rosenberg, 2017).
Although in contemporary times, his theories have been greatly modified, Davis revolutionized how humanity understands the process of creation in the geomorphological world. Davis was instrumental in helping humanity gain knowledge and understanding of the man-environment dichotomy in terms of an ontological understanding of geography.
Other than his study of landforms and geomorphology, Davis was also interested in systems of human occupancy, and his essay Regional Geography published in 1899 was part of a detailed regional treatment of the United States. Published in H. R. Mill’s Physical Divisions of the United States, the book and Davis’ essay made extensive observations of human occupation on landforms and detailed a scientific plan for anthropogenic activity dealing with landforms in the United States.
Friedrich Ratzel (1844-1904)
Fig: Friedrich Ratzel
Famous Book | Anthropo-geographie, 1882
Famous Quote | “A philosophy of the history of the human race, worthy of its name, must begin with the heavens and descend to the earth, must be charged with the conviction that all existence is one—a single conception sustained from beginning to end upon one identical law.”
Work | Friedrich Ratzel was a German geographer and anthropologist who followed on Darwin’s theory of natural selection to make the argument that all human beings are creatures of their environment. Ratzel established his thesis of geographical determinism in his work Anthropo-geographie, in which he indulged in a discussion on the impact of the physical environment on human behaviour. In his anthropological understanding Ratzel opined that the nature of human interaction with the environment varies between cultures. The diffusion of these cultural traits required a historical analysis across cultures of the links between history and geography.
Geographical Determinism in Modern Geography
Friedrich Ratzel revived geographical determinism in the late 19th Century, heavily influenced and buoyed by Darwin’s theories. In the early 20th Century, geographical determinism was popularized in the US by Ratzel’s student Ellen Churchill Semple, who proliferated the idea in her publications History and its Geographic Condition in 1903 and in Influences of the Geographic Environment in 1911. Semple in her works engaged in a description of how the physical environment greatly controls human activity.
Semple in turn influenced Ellsworth Huntington and William Morris Davis. In his works The Pulse of Asia and Civilization and Climate, Ellsworth Huntingtondescribes how the climate influences human occupancy and civilization, and how the climate stimulates the development of human accomplishment. His work led to a subset in geography called climatic determinism in the early 20th Century.
However, since the 1920s geographical determinism began its decline, and its claims were often countered. Geographical determinism was also frequently interpreted in terms that were politically racist and facilitated thought on empires and imperialism. This led to the formation of geographic possibilism through the French geographer Paul Vidal de la Blanche who proposed that although the environment establishes limits on culture, it does not completely define culture. Geographical determinism by the 1950s had been replaced by geographical possibilism as the dominant school of thought in geography
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.
On March 31, the World Economic Forum (WEF) released its annual Gender Gap Report 2021. The Global Gender Gap report is an annual report released by the WEF. The gender gap is the difference between women and men as reflected in social, political, intellectual, cultural, or economic attainments or attitudes. The gap between men and women across health, education, politics, and economics widened for the first time since records began in 2006.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]No need to remember all the data, only pick out few important ones to use in your answers.
The Global gender gap index aims to measure this gap in four key areas : health, education, economics, and politics. It surveys economies to measure gender disparity by collating and analyzing data that fall under four indices : economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment.
The 2021 Global Gender Gap Index benchmarks 156 countries on their progress towards gender parity. The index aims to serve as a compass to track progress on relative gaps between women and men in health, education, economy, and politics.
Although no country has achieved full gender parity, the top two countries (Iceland and Finland) have closed at least 85% of their gap, and the remaining seven countries (Lithuania, Namibia, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Rwanda, and Ireland) have closed at least 80% of their gap. Geographically, the global top 10 continues to be dominated by Nordic countries, with —Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Sweden—in the top five.
The top 10 is completed by one country from Asia Pacific (New Zealand 4th), two Sub-Saharan countries (Namibia, 6th and Rwanda, 7th, one country from Eastern Europe (the new entrant to the top 10, Lithuania, 8th), and another two Western European countries (Ireland, 9th, and Switzerland, 10th, another country in the top-10 for the first time).There is a relatively equitable distribution of available income, resources, and opportunities for men and women in these countries. The tremendous gender gaps are identified primarily in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia.
Here, we can discuss the overall global gender gap scores across the index’s four main components : Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival, and Political Empowerment.
The indicators of the four main components are
(1) Economic Participation and Opportunity:
o Labour force participation rate,
o wage equality for similar work,
o estimated earned income,
o Legislators, senior officials, and managers,
o Professional and technical workers.
(2) Educational Attainment:
o Literacy rate (%)
o Enrollment in primary education (%)
o Enrollment in secondary education (%)
o Enrollment in tertiary education (%).
(3) Health and Survival:
o Sex ratio at birth (%)
o Healthy life expectancy (years).
(4) Political Empowerment:
o Women in Parliament (%)
o Women in Ministerial positions (%)
o Years with a female head of State (last 50 years)
o The share of tenure years.
The objective is to shed light on which factors are driving the overall average decline in the global gender gap score. The analysis results show that this year’s decline is mainly caused by a reversal in performance on the Political Empowerment gap.
Global Trends and Outcomes:
– Globally, this year, i.e., 2021, the average distance completed to gender parity gap is 68% (This means that the remaining gender gap to close stands at 32%) a step back compared to 2020 (-0.6 percentage points). These figures are mainly driven by a decline in the performance of large countries. On its current trajectory, it will now take 135.6 years to close the gender gap worldwide.
– The gender gap in Political Empowerment remains the largest of the four gaps tracked, with only 22% closed to date, having further widened since the 2020 edition of the report by 2.4 percentage points. Across the 156 countries covered by the index, women represent only 26.1% of some 35,500 Parliament seats and 22.6% of over 3,400 Ministers worldwide. In 81 countries, there has never been a woman head of State as of January 15, 2021. At the current rate of progress, the World Economic Forum estimates that it will take 145.5 years to attain gender parity in politics.
– The gender gap in Economic Participation and Opportunity remains the second-largest of the four key gaps tracked by the index. According to this year’s index results, 58% of this gap has been closed so far. The gap has seen marginal improvement since the 2020 edition of the report, and as a result, we estimate that it will take another 267.6 years to close.
– Gender gaps in Educational Attainment and Health and Survival are nearly closed. In Educational Attainment, 95% of this gender gap has been closed globally, with 37 countries already attaining gender parity. However, the ‘last mile’ of progress is proceeding slowly. The index estimates that it will take another 14.2 years to close this gap on its current trajectory completely.
In Health and Survival, 96% of this gender gap has been closed, registering a marginal decline since last year (not due to COVID-19), and the time to close this gap remains undefined. For both education and health, while progress is higher than economy and politics in the global data, there are important future implications of disruptions due to the pandemic and continued variations in quality across income, geography, race, and ethnicity.
India-Specific Findings:
India had slipped 28 spots to rank 140 out of the 156 countries covered. The pandemic causing a disproportionate impact on women jeopardizes rolling back the little progress made in the last decades-forcing more women to drop off the workforce and leaving them vulnerable to domestic violence.
India’s poor performance on the Global Gender Gap report card hints at a serious wake-up call and learning lessons from the Nordic region for the Government and policy makers.
Within the 156 countries covered, women hold only 26 percent of Parliamentary seats and 22 percent of Ministerial positions. India, in some ways, reflects this widening gap, where the number of Ministers declined from 23.1 percent in 2019 to 9.1 percent in 2021. The number of women in Parliament stands low at 14.4 percent. In India, the gender gap has widened to 62.5 %, down from 66.8% the previous year.
It is mainly due to women’s inadequate representation in politics, technical and leadership roles, a decrease in women’s labor force participation rate, poor healthcare, lagging female to male literacy ratio, and income inequality.
The gap is the widest on the political empowerment dimension, with economic participation and opportunity being next in line. However, the gap on educational attainment and health and survival has been practically bridged.
India is the third-worst performer among South Asian countries, with Pakistan and Afghanistan trailing and Bangladesh being at the top. The report states that the country fared the worst in political empowerment, regressing from 23.9% to 9.1%.
Its ranking on the health and survival dimension is among the five worst performers. The economic participation and opportunity gap saw a decline of 3% compared to 2020, while India’s educational attainment front is in the 114th position.
India has deteriorated to 51st place from 18th place in 2020 on political empowerment. Still, it has slipped to 155th position from 150th position in 2020 on health and survival, 151st place in economic participation and opportunity from 149th place, and 114th place for educational attainment from 112th.
In 2020 reports, among the 153 countries studied, India is the only country where the economic gender gap of 64.6% is larger than the political gender gap of 58.9%. In 2021 report, among the 156 countries, the economic gender gap of India is 67.4%, 3.8% gender gap in education, 6.3% gap in health and survival, and 72.4% gender gap in political empowerment. In health and survival, the gender gap of the sex ratio at birth is above 9.1%, and healthy life expectancy is almost the same.
Discrimination against women has also been reflected in Health and Survival subindex statistics. With 93.7% of this gap closed to date, India ranks among the bottom five countries in this subindex. The wide sex ratio at birth gaps is due to the high incidence of gender-based sex-selective practices. Besides, more than one in four women has faced intimate violence in her lifetime.The gender gap in the literacy rate is above 20.1%.
Yet, gender gaps persist in literacy : one-third of women are illiterate (34.2%) than 17.6% of men. In political empowerment, globally, women in Parliament is at 128th position and gender gap of 83.2%, and 90% gap in a Ministerial position. The gap in wages equality for similar work is above 51.8%. On health and survival, four large countries Pakistan, India, Vietnam, and China, fare poorly, with millions of women there not getting the same access to health as men.
The pandemic has only slowed down in its tracks the progress India was making towards achieving gender parity. The country urgently needs to focus on “health and survival,” which points towards a skewed sex ratio because of the high incidence of gender-based sex-selective practices and women’s economic participation. Women’s labour force participation rate and the share of women in technical roles declined in 2020, reducing the estimated earned income of women, one-fifth of men.
Learning from the Nordic region, noteworthy participation of women in politics, institutions, and public life is the catalyst for transformational change. Women need to be equal participants in the labour force to pioneer the societal changes the world needs in this integral period of transition.
Every effort must be directed towards achieving gender parallelism by facilitating women in leadership and decision-making positions. Social protection programmes should be gender-responsive and account for the differential needs of women and girls. Research and scientific literature also provide unequivocal evidence that countries led by women are dealing with the pandemic more effectively than many others.
Gendered inequality, thereby, is a global concern. India should focus on targeted policies and earmarked public and private investments in care and equalized access. Women are not ready to wait for another century for equality. It’s time India accelerates its efforts and fight for an inclusive, equal, global recovery.
India will not fully develop unless both women and men are equally supported to reach their full potential. There are risks, violations, and vulnerabilities women face just because they are women. Most of these risks are directly linked to women’s economic, political, social, and cultural disadvantages in their daily lives. It becomes acute during crises and disasters.
With the prevalence of gender discrimination, and social norms and practices, women become exposed to the possibility of child marriage, teenage pregnancy, child domestic work, poor education and health, sexual abuse, exploitation, and violence. Many of these manifestations will not change unless women are valued more.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]2021 WEF Global Gender Gap report, which confirmed its 2016 finding of a decline in worldwide progress towards gender parity.
Over 2.8 billion women are legally restricted from having the same choice of jobs as men. As many as 104 countries still have laws preventing women from working in specific jobs, 59 countries have no laws on sexual harassment in the workplace, and it is astonishing that a handful of countries still allow husbands to legally stop their wives from working.
Globally, women’s participation in the labour force is estimated at 63% (as against 94% of men who participate), but India’s is at a dismal 25% or so currently. Most women are in informal and vulnerable employment—domestic help, agriculture, etc—and are always paid less than men.
Recent reports from Assam suggest that women workers in plantations are paid much less than men and never promoted to supervisory roles. The gender wage gap is about 24% globally, and women have lost far more jobs than men during lockdowns.
The problem of gender disparity is compounded by hurdles put up by governments, society and businesses: unequal access to social security schemes, banking services, education, digital services and so on, even as a glass ceiling has kept leadership roles out of women’s reach.
Yes, many governments and businesses had been working on parity before the pandemic struck. But the global gender gap, defined by differences reflected in the social, political, intellectual, cultural and economic attainments or attitudes of men and women, will not narrow in the near future without all major stakeholders working together on a clear agenda—that of economic growth by inclusion.
The WEF report estimates 135 years to close the gap at our current rate of progress based on four pillars: educational attainment, health, economic participation and political empowerment.
India has slipped from rank 112 to 140 in a single year, confirming how hard women were hit by the pandemic. Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only two Asian countries that fared worse.
Here are a few things we must do:
One, frame policies for equal-opportunity employment. Use technology and artificial intelligence to eliminate biases of gender, caste, etc, and select candidates at all levels on merit. Numerous surveys indicate that women in general have a better chance of landing jobs if their gender is not known to recruiters.
Two, foster a culture of gender sensitivity. Take a review of current policies and move from gender-neutral to gender-sensitive. Encourage and insist on diversity and inclusion at all levels, and promote more women internally to leadership roles. Demolish silos to let women grab potential opportunities in hitherto male-dominant roles. Work-from-home has taught us how efficiently women can manage flex-timings and productivity.
Three, deploy corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds for the education and skilling of women and girls at the bottom of the pyramid. CSR allocations to toilet building, the PM-Cares fund and firms’ own trusts could be re-channelled for this.
Four, get more women into research and development (R&D) roles. A study of over 4,000 companies found that more women in R&D jobs resulted in radical innovation. It appears women score far higher than men in championing change. If you seek growth from affordable products and services for low-income groups, women often have the best ideas.
Five, break barriers to allow progress. Cultural and structural issues must be fixed. Unconscious biases and discrimination are rampant even in highly-esteemed organizations. Establish fair and transparent human resource policies.
Six, get involved in local communities to engage them. As Michael Porter said, it is not possible for businesses to sustain long-term shareholder value without ensuring the welfare of the communities they exist in. It is in the best interest of enterprises to engage with local communities to understand and work towards lowering cultural and other barriers in society. It will also help connect with potential customers, employees and special interest groups driving the gender-equity agenda and achieve better diversity.