On 23 and 24 April, SER Diversiteit in Bedrijf welcomed colleagues from European diversity charters for a working session on equality data. The meeting delivered more than exchange alone. It led to a clearer picture of what is and is not being measured in different countries, and of whether the European network can move towards a shared basis of indicators.

European cooperation around a shared question

At SER Diversiteit in Bedrijf, a programme of the SER (Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands) and home to the Dutch Diversity Charter, we see every day how important it is for organisations to take diversity and inclusion seriously. Many of the questions involved do not stop at national borders. That is precisely why it was so valuable to welcome European colleagues to The Hague for a conversation on equality data: data that can help organisations gain better insight into equal opportunities, representation and inclusion in the workplace.

This meeting forms part of a broader European collaboration. The Dutch Diversity Charter is part of the EU Platform of Diversity Charters, in which 27 national charters share knowledge and experience. Supported by the European Commission, this network shows that inclusion in Europe is not a standalone issue, but a shared responsibility for employers, governments and civil society organisations.

What charters measure and where progress stalls

Ahead of the meeting, the Portuguese charter presented the findings of two surveys: one among signatory organisations and one among the charters themselves. A pattern emerged that is recognisable across many countries. Organisations mainly collect data on gender, still often in binary form, age and nationality. These are variables that are often seen as legally safer to collect. Sexual orientation, non-binary gender identity, ethnic and cultural background, religion and socioeconomic background are far less commonly included. This limits visibility of intersectionality, and therefore of inequality that often arises precisely at the intersection of characteristics.

Where law and practice meet

The session with Guido Terpstra of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights highlighted an important tension: what is legally sound does not always align seamlessly with what organisations need in practice.

Terpstra outlined the framework. Equal treatment is the rule; preferential treatment is the exception. Anyone invoking that exception must be able to demonstrate a disadvantaged position in relation to a relevant reference group, such as the pool of qualified candidates for a specific role. Whether diversity has been “achieved” cannot be captured in a single fixed percentage, but always requires an assessment in context. In his view, inclusion does not fall directly within the same object of measurement.

From a practical perspective, Sabiya Younus-Titsing, Head of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion at NN Group, raised two important points. In her view, inclusion can in fact be measured, provided organisations ask the right questions about safety, belonging and perceived equal treatment. At the same time, that contextual approach does not always offer enough guidance in day-to-day practice. For a hiring manager who needs to make a decision in the near term, such an assessment can quickly feel less clear-cut than it appears on paper.

The discussion did not produce a single definitive answer, but it did make one thing clear: the real work lies in translating legal frameworks into practical action. This is also where charters have an important role to play, not only in interpreting laws and regulations, but also in offering practical guidance and recognisable examples.

In practice: what works, what causes friction

Five organisations shared their experiences: PwC, NN Group, Teleperformance, Fluvius and Sacyr. Their contexts differ greatly — from an accountancy organisation with a longer tradition of self-identification to an international infrastructure company operating in more than twenty countries under different legal systems — yet the same questions kept resurfacing in the discussions.

How do you build enough trust for employees to feel comfortable sharing personal information? How do you avoid relying on categories that no longer reflect the reality of your organisation? And how do you ensure that data supports decision-making, without letting figures become an end in themselves?

One important insight was that averages can be misleading. Figures that look balanced at first glance can, on closer analysis, reveal structural inequality, for example in seniority, pay or progression. As one speaker put it: “The devil is in the details. Always go beyond averages and be attentive to trendline changes.”

At the same time, it also became clear that data alone does not create inclusion. Numbers may show where something is off, but not automatically why. That is why several participants stressed that conversations with employees about belonging, psychological safety and whether everyone genuinely feels able to speak up are essential to interpreting the figures properly.

Three instruments, three perspectives

On the second day, Spain, Luxembourg and the Netherlands presented their own monitoring tools.

The Spanish Diversity Thermometer provides participating organisations with an individual report and is closely linked to the ten principles of the Spanish Diversity Charter. The Luxembourg Diversity Barometer mainly shows how the policies of member organisations are developing and where their focus lies. The Dutch Charter Diversity Monitor tracks the progress of signatories every two years in relation to their action plans. At the same time, the monitor helps SER Diversiteit in Bedrijf to support members in a more targeted way.

The tools differ in design, but they start from the same question: what steps are signatories taking to strengthen their approach to diversity and inclusion, and what can charters learn from that?

Towards a shared foundation

At the end of the meeting, the participating charters explored possible next steps within their informal European network. One question was central: is it possible to work towards a shared basis of core indicators, definitions and conditions, without erasing national differences?

Such a foundation would help countries compare more effectively and make it easier, at European level, to show where progress is being made and where work still needs to be done. The outcomes of this exploration will be developed further in a joint document for the participating charters.

A wider European context

The timing of the meeting gave this exchange added significance. On 21 April, the European Commission announced the winners of the European Capitals of Inclusion and Diversity Award 2026 in Brussels. Leiden received a bronze award in the category for cities with more than 50,000 inhabitants. The same week also marked the start of EU Diversity Month 2026, which this year focuses on an inclusive labour market.

At a time when equal treatment cannot be taken for granted everywhere, cooperation across Europe on this topic is especially valuable. Ultimately, the conversation on equality data is not only about the data itself. It is about what becomes visible, which questions organisations then feel able to ask, and what is needed next to make real progress on inclusion.