Latin America has a rich and diverse culture with a population of over 660 million people from many different ethnic groups and cultural ancestries. Due to the region’s diversity, it is essential for companies and their workforces to continuously prioritize the need for diversity and inclusion in their general work environments, including in their boards and senior management positions, which data indicates are more than 90% occupied by men, mostly from a similar ethnic group.

Studies show that Latin American women are underrepresented among the top echelons of the legal profession – as they also are in the wider corporate environment – despite having a higher level of education than their male counterparts on average (as is the case in Brazil, for instance) or them representing half of the students in law school (as is the case in Mexico).

In the region, both the legal profession and the wider corporate environment face similar challenges in terms of gender equality.

The causes of this inequality are perceived by women as being rooted in the traditional unequal distribution of domestic tasks, the culture of ‘machismo’ and unconscious bias. Apart from purely career-related consequences, these causes also result in other unwanted behaviours, such as workplace harassment, which is frequently mentioned by women when asked about their working conditions.

Much remains to be done in this regard, but over the past 20 years, diverse groups have been trying to raise their voices to increase awareness and fight for their rights and needs. In particular, women have launched initiatives which aim at empowering themselves into a force to be reckoned with and at making opportunities for themselves. They have created groups – like Lawyers in Skirts, in Brazil – to develop their network and mentor each other to achieve their career objectives.

These groups organise workshops and conferences about inclusion, diversity, and women leadership, and have brought to the public’s attention that the evolution of these issues is intricately linked to the economic development of their region and respective countries.

Indeed, gender equality has been proven to contribute to poverty reduction and economic development. According to a McKinsey study, there would be an 11% automatic increase in the global GDP if the gender gap were closed, and specifically, the Latin American GDP would increase by 14% if women were encouraged and assisted in participating as economic actors.

The groups have reached out to female lawyers from other jurisdictions, where accessing top positions is perceived to be easier, and often receive their support. The organisation WILL (Women in Leadership in Latin America), a São Paulo-based non-profit unit, now has advisory boards in Bogotá, the US and London, which enable them to have access to a wider audience and help established lawyers, as well as aspiring ones supporting them throughout their careers.

These organisations already see improvement in top-tier law firms and corporations, but they now want to reach all women with legal degrees, and even expand their programmes to universities, broadening their socio-economic reach into any social group or institution where bias might lurk.

Interestingly, despite women finding it challenging not to have peers to exchange ideas with when they make it to the top echelons of a law firm, it appears that some of these organisations – like Abogadas MX, in Mexico – are admitting men as workshop participants, allies and even board members and mentors. Generally, the non-profits have found this experience enriching, and have discovered that their presence brings the opportunity for a synergistic learning experience, showing that diversity is a question that concerns us all, regardless of gender.

In most cases, if not in all, these groups work towards women being in a fair competition with men – they do not advocate for women to be given extra rights solely based on their gender, but rather, an even playing field.

And indeed, after years of fieldwork, they conclude that lawyers can help:

1. They can impact policies and laws through the specialized skills of their profession and demonstrate how important it is to support women in general. In several jurisdictions, women do not have access to courts or fair laws, for instance, and some gender-related legal issues, like gender violence, are still common in Latin America. Consequently, they feel that there is a lot of space to improve the laws, but also to give equal access to the court system.
2. At a corporate level, lawyers can participate in advocating and creating policies for companies that need to adopt gender inclusion and diversity policies.
3. Furthermore, employees rely upon legal departments to be stewards of ethics and good governance, meaning that these departments must set a good example and promote diversity and inclusion themselves.

Their influence over corporate policies might even be greater in the post-Covid-19 pandemic world. The above-mentioned McKinsey study shows that during the pandemic, women, LGBTQ+ people, POC and parents were found to be struggling more with issues such as mental health, work-life balance, isolation (from co-workers and managers) and job opportunities. These issues were also more pronounced in emerging economies and, in several jurisdictions, were accentuated by a surge in gender-based violence linked to the work-from-home policies.

Many companies have since attempted to offer more policies that are responsive to these struggles and provide greater balance, flexibility, and improve their internal communication.

Given the importance of D&I, this report intends to offer fresh perspectives and insights from across the Americas on where we are as a legal community and also suggestions on what is working to advance inclusion across the Americas.

Through interviews with leading GCs from all over the region, we found that though the situations and nuances differed from country to country, and some seem to be doing better than others there is much that can be learned from one another.

Colombia, for instance, has a high percentage of women in leadership positions, and women have space in the corporate world. In Brazil, however, gender inequality seems to come in addition to other discriminations, such as sexual orientation or ethnicity.

The consensus we found is that, in addition to improving the corporate culture, the legal and regulatory frameworks could be modified to help with D&I. For instance, more transparency could be asked from companies about their hiring/promotion processes and policies could be passed to protect D&I leaders within companies, etc.

However, implementing a change entails asking people to change their behaviour, which they might resist. This requires leadership, diplomacy and pedagogy, and to place the right people in the right positions.

Boards and management teams should always be transparent as to what they are trying to achieve, how they are trying to achieve it, and they should be able to measure the results of any new policy.

In a sense, leveraging the collective experience of a diverse workforce is not as simple as hiring different people and alchemizing their perspectives into corporate gold. Inclusion is as fundamental – it is essential to create an environment where diverse people can feel welcome enough to perform at their full potential.

Maria-Leticia Ossa Daza
Chair of the Latin America Practice
Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Allan Cohen
Research Editor
The Legal 500: In-House Research Team

It is a fact that the hiring process is often dogged by bias. Of course, hiring managers do not reject applications from minority candidates, but unconscious biases have been shown time and again to skew hiring decisions.

Diverse applicants are acutely aware of the risks.

‘Back in the early 2000s, I found that it was very easy to identify who diverse candidates were’, says Phyllis Harris, general counsel, chief compliance, ethics and government relations officer, at the American Red Cross.

‘You could pick it up from a school, a name, you might pick it up from the organization. What is interesting is that, over time, I have seen a 180° whitewashing in résumés. There are candidates out there that believe that they are not going to get an opportunity to interview if someone can readily identify their racial make-up and their racial identity. I know people who have gone as far as changing their first name because they did not want to stand out.’

‘We like to talk about inauthenticity. How inauthentic are you if you have to make a conscious decision to say this résumé cannot in any way reflect that I am African American or that I am native American? You are going into a workplace and, on the very first day, you are not comfortable in being yourself.’

But what if you could remove bias from the hiring process? Some claim that you can.

Automated hiring introduces technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) into the recruitment process, helping to pre-screen résumés that do not meet requirements. In some cases, these tools are now being used to eliminate the need for a human interviewer to interact with prospective new hires. If the process is less human, there will be less scope for human preconceptions to overlook the best talent. Right?

Not according to Ifeoma Ajunwa, associate professor of Law at UNC School of Law, and founding director of the school’s artificial intelligence and decision-making research program. She has seen workplaces embrace algorithm-based technologies for convenience and cost-savings in the recruitment process – as well as in other areas such as training, safety or productivity monitoring and surveillance – filtering out high volumes of applicants, even in white-collar roles. But she has grave misgivings about its potential for discrimination.

‘Automated hiring is seen by a lot of white shoe firms and big companies as an anti-bias intervention. A lot of these firms are turning to automated hiring in good will, with good intentions – they think it’s a way to ameliorate the bias of hiring,’ she explains.

‘The problem, however, is that because hiring platforms are not well regulated, the reality is that they are in fact replicating the bias that already exists and they could actually be exacerbating it. If you have a flaw in an automated hiring system, that flaw is prone to be replicated a million times, versus when you have one biased manager.’

Disparate impact

The problem is that of disparate impact – apparently neutral processes whose outcomes are nevertheless harmful – where a butterfly-wing beat of inattention, ignorance or worse, can set off a tornado of exclusion.

Ajunwa gives the example of video interviewing platforms that use algorithms to measure variables like eye contact or syntax, potentially impacting candidates with autism or deafness, she says.

Closer to home, she describes the case of a former student, a computer science PhD postgrad who was rejected by a major company. On meeting with a company representative at a job fair, it became clear that her skills were perfect for the organization, and, in surprise, the representative investigated. It transpired that an automated program had screened out applicants with a BA in computer science, in favour of those with a BS.

‘It’s not really a meaningful difference. But then you also have to think about, could this have other disparate impacts? Who’s more likely to get a BA in computer science versus a BS? Could this actually have bigger disparate impacts than we know?’ she says.

‘There won’t always be quick fixes.’

Where the puck is going

Ajunwa believes that such consequential decisions being left to technology merits legal attention – and she pinpoints in-house lawyers as playing a potentially significant role in such scrutiny.

‘I think in-house lawyers are particularly at the forefront of the scene, because some of them may be general counsels advising clients on what sort of hiring programs to put in place. So they do need to be aware of these issues with automated hiring because many vendors will be trying to sell automated hiring programs to large firms, and there really is the duty of these general counsels to ensure that the client isn’t taking on a program that is going to be more of a liability than a help,’ she says.

‘At the bottom line, there’s a huge liability if companies get these issues wrong. There’s an important legal liability,’ adds Nuala O’Connor, senior vice president and chief counsel, Digital Citizenship at Walmart.

The extent of the exposure to that liability won’t be evident until the process is run, and the output – potentially reflective of biases along racial, ethnic, national origin and other discriminatory lines – there for all to see. But that’s the baseline, says O’Connor.

‘I’ve always believed that the role of in-house counsel is not just to say what the law is, but to lift up the company and say, “This is what the right thing is”. The role of the savvy in-house counsel when dealing with emerging technology is a little like the ice hockey saying – you’re looking where the puck is going, not where the puck is. This is where the puck is going. Increased use of technology, increased use of data, increased scrutiny. Increased scrutiny of the values,’ she explains.

‘Just as companies are being scrutinized for the values they espouse and having to take positions on controversial social issues, the technology and the data uses of the company are going to be scrutinized for the values inherent in those programs, policies, processes. I think that the smart lawyer and the smart counselor inside is looking at: “what have we built? How is it working, how is it functioning?” This is the digital architecture of a company, just like the four walls of a store are the physical architecture of our company, and it demands as much scrutiny.’

Lisa LeCointe-Cephas, chief ethics and compliance officer at Merck International, has not worked with automated HR systems, but she is conscious of her responsibility to consider where bias might hide in processes and tools.

‘Last week I took one of our new diversity, equity and inclusion trainings from the perspective of a black woman – “How does this read for me?” I’m very vocal about providing feedback on that, because I do think that a lot of the things that we’re building to help us, at times, can actually have biases built into them.’

She believes this awareness should also be applied to potential algorithmic bias within automated tools.

‘I’m fascinated by a lot of that work. There are these new platforms that allow you to say, “You know what? Bob is great. We want to get another Bob. And so, what are the characteristics of Bob that allow us to get another person who will be just successful?” I do worry that a lot of those things have inherent biases built into them,’ she says.

But Ajunwa feels that many in-house lawyers are not truly cognizant of the risks.

‘I think, frankly, that maybe in-house lawyers are just not as technologically astute or as technologically attuned to the nuances of how a lot of automated tools work – such that automated tools that might seem innocuous or that might be neutral could, for example, still have proxy variables that they are using, which are making them ultimately unlawfully discriminatory,’ she explains.

Digital ethics and the law

At Walmart, O’Connor is one of a growing band of corporate counsel looking at the intersection between ethics and the evolving digital ecosystem inside companies. Former president and CEO of civil liberties non-profit the Center for Democracy and Technology, O’Connor now heads up a new function called ‘Digital Citizenship’, which includes lawyers, compliance and policy professionals, as well as technologists and data architects. The organization also includes a program team called ‘Digital Values’, specifically tasked with scrutinizing values embedded in AI and ML.

Legal and digital ethics skills are increasingly at a premium, she says, putting the field in the context of mounting regulatory and corporate attention being paid to technology and data practices.

‘I do think it’s a growing field. It’s looking at technology through that civil liberties lens and through that fairness lens and being a lawyer who can help do that, I think is going to be an incredibly valuable skill,’ she says.

‘We talk a lot about the role of privacy, and I sometimes cringe a little bit because I don’t think it’s just privacy anymore. Data protection is necessary but not sufficient. It’s got to be secure; it’s got to be safe, it’s got to be held to the standards and promises that were made when the data was collected. But the use of that data has also got to be fair, it’s got to be transparent, it’s got to be accountable.’

So, how can companies distinguish between platforms selling what O’Connor terms ‘digital snake oil’ and genuinely helpful tools? And how can they make sure that genuinely helpful technologies do not amplify bias and exclusion?

Authentic auditing

For Ajunwa, the answer is auditing – an ongoing, authentic process, where disparate impacts are not only identified, but corrected. And she believes it should fall to general counsel to ensure that appropriate professionals are hired.

‘Ultimately, if there is an issue of discrimination, the employer is still responsible. The mere fact of delegating hiring to automated hiring platforms does not remove the legal responsibility to refrain from employment discrimination,’ she warns.

Some employers are sitting up and tackling the risks. In December 2021, the Data & Trust Alliance – a non-profit global consortium of leading businesses formed in September 2020 – announced a set of criteria to mitigate data and algorithmic bias in HR and workforce decisions. In recognition of the risks inherent in its members’ increased application of data, algorithms and AI in the search for talent, these ‘Algorithmic Bias Safeguards’ are intended to help companies assess vendors on criteria such as training data and model designs, bias testing methods and bias remediation, among others. They will be used by companies like American Express, CVS Health and Walmart.

O’Connor has been closely involved, since the Alliance knocked on her door to leverage the skills of her team.

‘It really was a top-down, CEO to CEO conversation that these companies are waking up to the realization they have a lot of information and data about people, they wanted to do good things with it, better things than I think the public perception is of what the amalgamation of data could mean for their personal lives,’ she says.

‘Most importantly, this is not just: “let’s put up a page of principles on the wall and it’s all good.” We’ve all done that as companies already; that’s a baseline. This is: “how do we implement? How do we operationalize? What are the questions we have to ask our vendors? What are the processes we should put in place?”’

O’Connor co-chairs the Alliance’s algorithmic decision-making in HR working group, which met weekly to consider how automated HR tools should be evaluated for bias and implemented across the HR, procurement and IT departments. The safeguards are the culmination of that project, including checklists for vendors, anti-bias diagnostic tools and metrics for outcomes.

‘Here are all the values, here are the ways you should be scrutinizing your tools, here are the places in the company that these tools might be implemented, whether that’s in hiring of new people, or an area I think that’s overlooked is advancement and promotion – who are we looking at when we’re creating new jobs or promoting people and who is getting to go on learning opportunities?’ she explains.

‘It can be as granular as: let’s look at the code and see what it does, or as general as: here are five questions you should ask your vendor. And I think it’s tailorable to small, medium and large enterprises.’

O’Connor describes other Alliance projects – one on the use of data and technology in M&A due diligence, to look at how data and technology assets are considered in the acquisition or divestiture of companies, as well as the transfer of privacy policies and commitment when entities change form.

Another studies responsible personalization, examining the values input into tailored online experiences, and the values behind the exposure of people to advertisements for products as diverse as clothing, mortgage loans or educational opportunities.

For companies able to successfully audit and uncover bias and unlawful discrimination, says Ajunwa, perhaps the stickier question is how to go about correcting it.

‘Sometimes you might think you’re using variables that are quite important for the job description or for your industry, but those factors or variables may perhaps have historically racial bias baked in,’ she says.

‘That then becomes a bigger conversation on how you disentangle variables that are widely used in your industry from racial bias.’

For O’Connor, that conversation has to prize humanity above isolated attributes: ‘It’s not just the data, it’s the decision. What is the judgment that you are applying to a human being and is that fair, is that honouring their full humanity, or is that diminishing them to some kind of stereotype or corner of the universe? I’m a believer that technology can be used to open people’s minds and horizons, but we do need to scrutinize it to make sure that’s actually what’s happening.’

Regulation

Whatever the conversations happening in-house, Ajunwa argues that auditing should also come from outside – from interventions by government agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

At the state level, interest is growing and December 2021 saw a bill regulating the use of AI by employers become law in New York City, effective from January 2023. The bill requires companies to conduct a bias audit on automated employment decision tools, to notify candidates living in the city that such a tool will be used and which qualifications and characteristics it will assess, and provide the opportunity to request an alternative process.

At the federal level, the EEOC announced the launch of an initiative to ensure that AI and other hiring and employment decision-making tech tools do not discriminate unlawfully in October last year.

‘My greatest wish is for governmental agencies to really take more charge of regulating this arena of automated decision-making,’ says Ajunwa.

For now, the EEOC plans to prepare technical assistance to provide guidance on algorithmic fairness and AI use in employment decisions. But, Ajunwa believes that judicious use of similar technology could actually assist in the process of creating and enforcing regulation.

‘I think they can do it by actually deploying some automated decision-making tools themselves. The EEOC could use automated decision-making tools to search for disparate impacts from automated hiring platforms or other online platforms. The FTC, which is in charge of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, could actually use that to ensure applicants get more information about their online applications – basically they can use it to reverse the current informational asymmetry between employees and employers when it comes to automated hiring.’

Stepping out of the silo

For data ethics to exist outside of a vacuum, and for any efforts at mitigating bias and disparate impacts in automated employment decision-making to succeed, they must be part of a collaborative effort, says Ajunwa.

‘There is this siloed effect, where you have ethics organizations off to the side writing papers, doing research, and then you have corporations also off to the side, and there’s not really enough conversation between the two,’ she says.

She hopes that more corporations will collaborate with leading edge social and computer science researchers and legal scholars in evaluating their programs and flagging issues.

‘I know of companies using what they claim is research to create automated hiring programs, but it’s research from the 1960s. Yeah, sure it’s research, but I can guarantee you how dated, probably racially and gender biased, and so on that will be,’ she says.

The Data & Trust Alliance has also taken a multi-disciplinary approach: O’Connor’s working group brings together professionals from the fields of law, technology, procurement and diversity. The resulting algorithmic bias vendor evaluation criteria were developed by a coalition of member companies, with input from vendors, business, academia and civil society.

At UNC Law School, Ajunwa has worked to broaden the skillset of lawyers themselves, founding the Artificial Intelligence and Decision-Making Research Program in recognition of the need for a new generation of lawyers to understand not only the nuances of the law, but also the capabilities and potential of emerging technology – and what legal issues could arise.

To ensure the message is reaching employers, Ajunwa also sits on a technology advisory council for a Fortune 500 company, providing expert ethical opinion and advice on products and relationships.

‘Currently our model of dealing with discrimination in the United States is flawed. We have a litigation paradigm where you are basically putting out fires after they’ve already started. I think general counsels should counsel their corporations to rethink that model and not wait until they are faced with litigation to address potential issues,’ she says.

‘Instead of waiting to get a lawsuit and then scrambling to defend themselves, maybe they should have advisory councils already in place so that they can get concrete and useful advice as they are conceiving and rolling out products and entering into relationships with other corporations or entities such as governments. A tech advisory council is useful for that and can actually spot issues before they start – they can spot hotspots before they turn into a full-blown fire.’

I think we are starting to see some first steps towards real change in terms of greater diversity and inclusion. But there is still a long way to go. Most of these discussions (maybe with the exception of that around gender diversity, which is a conversation that has been going on for a while, with limited progress – the glass ceiling is still very real) are fairly new in the region. So, even though there is some progress, it is still incipient. And it would also be naive to say that there is not some good amount of performative discussions taking place.

However, we have seen a lot of companies and many startups in the region making deliberate efforts to promote diversity. They have launched honest (and, in many cases, successful) initiatives aimed at recruiting diverse teams and fostering inclusive cultures. And that is wonderful. My sense is it is probably easier (and more critical) for younger companies to take diversity seriously from the start. Younger people are typically more aware and vocal about these questions. Also, investors (who are obviously critical pieces in the startup ecosystem) are increasingly concerned about this. So, this is likely to foster more inclusive environments, as everyone’s incentives are aligned.

Tech (and finance) has traditionally been a male-dominated arena and there are structural reasons that make change slow and difficult. In tech, the problem starts at an early age, given prevailing stereotypes (e.g., “boys are better at science than girls”). For instance, the toy offer for girls traditionally has been focused towards nurturing roles, whereas for boys it has typically emphasized Stem abilities and physical activity. What follows is less girls engaging in Stem subjects (especially at an advanced level) and then going into tech-intensive careers. As a consequence, there are few role-models for women within the sector. So, there is a vicious cycle, because there are just less women engineers/developers in the market, which means you have to make a conscious effort to look for these women when recruiting for these roles (which, in our case, is all the time). And then, there are also unconscious biases that we are trying to fight (and to prove incorrect). For instance, though merely anecdotal, we have seen that our women developers and data scientists are more likely to hire other women – who then turn out to perform just as well, if not better, than their male peers.

I am fortunate to be part of a company where we take diversity seriously – and where we are very much aware of the many challenges ahead of us. Our leadership team is very diverse along a lot of dimensions, especially for Latin American standards. And this is not a coincidence.

In terms of specific measures we have taken at Addi, for instance, we have adopted a parental leave that is more generous than what is legally required and that does not discriminate on the basis of gender or gender identity – or on the basis of how a person becomes a parent. What this means is that our parental leave is fundamentally the same for all of the company’s colleagues – and it is mandatory for everyone. So, everyone gets to enjoy the same benefit – and fear the same fear when leaving their job for months. We also make a conscious effort to make sure we have fair compensation bands, so that people get paid on the basis of their role, qualifications, performance, etc., not on their negotiating abilities. As far as the legal team is concerned, I am proud to say that it is fundamentally female and that it works fine. Of course, this is not a policy – I have extended offers to male colleagues. But it does warm my heart to see this as a wonderful experiment of professional sisterhood and women partnering with other women.

Unfortunately (?), there is not a rulebook to follow. However, I can think of the following ideas (which are not necessarily focused in legal):

• Find mentors and advocates and cultivate those relationships (and then be a mentor and advocate for others);
• Build networks (e.g., affinity groups) with your peers and rely on them. Welcome newcomers into these groups and be open to help people coming in – after one month you already know more than someone who is just coming in;
• Try to release yourself from the pressure of having to represent all of your minority group. Do the best you can, and do it for you;
• Find places that actually value integrity, transparency and where you can have direct, open and honest conversations – in reality, not on paper.

During the last few years, awareness of diversity and inclusion has gained relevance in the business world, and organizations that promote gender equity and diversity are more positively accepted by society. In Latin America, we have been advancing that line and there is an evident increase in the participation and the commitment of chief executives regarding these topics.
We have made great progress in diversity and inclusion in the region.

We still have much to do – for example, there is a low percentage of organizations led by women, technical areas have a small participation of female talent, and I think what is very evident in the region is a gender-based salary gap.

Colombia has a high percentage of women in leadership positions, and we have space in the corporate world as well as in consultancy and the commercial world. I think Colombian women have gained very important space in business life.

Promoting diversity and encouraging an inclusive leadership style does not only follow social justice principles but it also brings important advantages for businesses, and I think it is viewed in that way in Colombia. It is the principle that guides corporations and opportunities here in the country.

Tone from the top

At Telefónica Colombia, diversity management is a key element of our global strategy. We believe that promoting diversity in our teams and encouraging an inclusive leadership style brings important advantages for the growth of the company and for the wellbeing of the employees. It allows us to attract and retain the best talent, boosts innovation and come closer to a diverse and changing society. That’s why our company is committed to the equity of opportunities and the undiscriminating inclusion of our people. I think that has gained terrain, not only in Telefónica Colombia, but also in the majority of the big organizations in the country, and as organizations act that way, it is an example for society and for the rest of the organizations – it is cultural, to give opportunities and to open the space.

We have a strategy for diversity and inclusion at Telefónica that is divided into five dimensions. One is gender, the other is new generations, the LGBTQIA+ community, disabled people and multicultural interaction.

So for example, in gender equity we have a transparent and unbiased recruitment and selection process; internal and external communications, with memos promoting inclusive language; actions to increase the participation of women in traditionally masculine areas, like the technical areas and, to some extent, the financial area as well; and actions promoting balance between work and personal life.

In the dimension of new generations, we have actions to promote job talent, and we recognize outstanding employees under 35 years of age.

We generate a safe work environment for members of the LGBTQIA+ community, for example by offering extensive benefits, like wedding time, mourning time and parental leave, among others. We have a communications campaign regarding respect and inclusion, and participation in Pride Connection to share and to learn good practices.

We promote the inclusion of people affected by different disabilities as employees and we are trying to attend to the needs of these people as well. We have 32 accessible service centres in the national territory providing specialized attention for people with disabilities, a special attention protocol for people with visual and auditory disabilities, and we have accessible mobile devices.

In the multicultural interaction area, we promote inclusion of people from different ethnic sectors and countries.

Thinking big

As a legal team, we follow the general principles of the organization. As a leader, I actively participate in the local diversity council, and I have had the opportunity to participate in the organization’s female leadership program.

The diversity council is a council in which we establish actions with respect to diversity and inclusion strategy. We establish actions and we follow those actions to meet our objectives with respect to the different dimensions of our diversity and inclusion plan.

In the female leadership program, we empower women. It is a formal program with different speakers, it has a regular space weekly, and there is a graduation ceremony for a selected group of women every year that participate. We share the experience of different women in the organization who have grown and show the women that there is a huge landscape and space, and what they have to do is dare to be part of the recruitment process for different opportunities that we might have, not only locally but regionally. It’s a way to push them to think big, to think that we are capable and there’s no limit.

In the legal area, we consider diversity to be an advantage that boosts our work team. We believe that diversity and differences promote empathy and innovation, generate value in the business and have a positive impact on our resources. At the top of the legal team, we have very good female representation – I’m a woman and I’m the leader of the legal team, but all my direct reports in Colombia are also women. In the region, eight out of eight general counsels are women. So, we are aware of the importance of giving space to women in these positions, of empowering women, and making women visibile in the company, participating in the most important business projects.

Building influence through business partnership

I think lawyers, and everybody, can be potential agents for diversity, and it is the responsibility of everybody to do so.

As lawyers, we have to work hard in order to be close to the business, because we want to be involved at all stages of the business cycle – we want to be business partners, and not just ‘a stage’. That gives us opportunity, visibility, and experience – we gain space, and we gain relevance and importance for the business. Also, lawyers must be open-minded, and not think only about the legal issues, but mix our legal knowledge with business knowledge, which is great for the growth and professional career of the lawyers. We are working to be more flexible, especially in terms of digitalisation tools, because to be one step ahead, you have to have the agility, versatility and the digital knowledge that nowadays is required to be on the cutting-edge.

Diversity and inclusion is near and dear to me, because I am part of the LGBTQIA+ community. I didn’t come out of the closet because I was never in there, and although I was very private in the early years of my career, I never tried to be someone that I wasn’t.

However, in the traditional financial markets, I felt a lot of anxiety for many, many years. I felt that because of my sexual orientation there was a limit to my success, to how far I could go in the corporate structure, because I couldn’t see anyone in senior leadership positions that I could relate to, no one was out in that particular industry in Brazil. I used to hear minor aggressions almost every day, jokes that I thought I had to live with. Although I put a lot of effort into my career and working was such an important pillar of my life, I believed for many years that my personal situation was a ‘ceiling’.

Part of a movement

In 2012, I went to work at HSBC. It was my first leadership position; I was hired there to lead a team of 12 people and be responsible for the legal advice for many parts of the business. And there I started to see that maybe those limits or those restrictions were more in my mind than out there. I started to see a movement of people being themselves about their sexual orientation, people being able to introduce their partners in social events, and even getting educated about how the bank in the UK dealt with this internally. I started to think that maybe it could be a good thing, I could even be part of a movement and talk about an experience that, for me, was very difficult before.

I was still very private at that point; I didn’t talk about my personal life at all at work. But I felt that people welcomed that, maybe people didn’t care, which was great. And the structure of the organization even gave people incentives to get involved in ERG groups, affinity groups, the Pride group, and so on.

In 2015, I started to be very involved in D&I groups and discussions in Latin America, where it’s much more challenging than in the UK, Europe or the US. I realized I could use my voice from my place of professional success to tell others that they should feel safe. At least, in that organization, I felt that this was true. I lived in Argentina for a couple of years, and there I was the first executive sponsor of a Pride group who was also a member of the group. We launched the Pride Committee in Argentina – a country that is open from the legal side, much more open than Brazil, but society is not necessarily the same.

An OUTstanding leader

Because of that work, I decided to join panels to talk about it and, in 2017, I was the first Latin American named in the Financial Times list of 100 OUTstanding LGBT leaders and allies. This came as a huge responsibility for me because I was the first Latin American there. Today, we have others, which makes me very glad. I didn’t know it, but I think that was the validation I needed as a person: to really believe that I deserved to be where I was, separate from my personal situation, because sometimes I felt that I didn’t – that I didn’t fit. Because every time I was with my peers, I didn’t have stories to talk about children, the more traditional family type of talk, I always felt left out.

Since then, I have realized that the aspects of D&I I have had exposure to are very limited. Although I am a gay man, I am white, I am cis and I come from a family that gave me all the opportunities for success – to go to the best schools, to learn English, to live abroad. So I refreshed the way I am working in relation to D&I. Two or three years ago, I started to get educated about racial justice, something that I’m very committed to get educated about in a system that is purely made for the success of white people.

Now I’m putting myself in the humble position of getting educated about how I can get exposure to diversity in my country that is very different from my reality. I’m not diminishing whatever challenges I had to face, but I’ve just realized that I cannot stop here, that I need to go much further as a leader – correct some injustices, broaden the access of opportunities in law schools and in our legal departments to people that have never had them before.

In terms of my personal experience, I had this first wave, where I could say ‘Ok, I’m here’. But I felt I needed to be that role model – a gay guy who speaks many languages, who has travelled the world, etc. The financial industry likes gay people, but they like those role models that look perfect, which I am not! And also it’s from a static point of view – you can be out, but you do not be an activist.

The importance of being yourself

At Nubank, I think I have achieved the true opportunity to be myself. Since feeling more able to be open about my personal life, I feel happier. I think that’s the easiest way to put it. I feel lighter. I feel that I don’t need to hide the type of music that I like, the type of films that I watch, the places that I go. I feel I don’t need to hide that I’m a sensitive person, that I cry sometimes. I feel that I can make comments with my team that I make with my friends, that I had to hide at work previously. And I think I am getting closer to people in my team and in other teams.

I was able to be a very good performer before, but at a cost – anxiety, even moments of depression, many times. I think the main thing about being able to be open is in terms of mental health and happiness. I don’t talk often about my personal life because I’m still private. But I’m me. I don’t feel ashamed anymore whenever it’s appropriate to talk about those things. So, it’s fresh working at Nubank in this sense.

Setting the agenda

At Nubank, I think that the agenda is very genuine. The teams are growing diverse, and we have very ambitious goals to increase this diversity over time. I have worked in US companies, British companies and Brazilian companies before, but there has been nothing really like the diversity we have in Nubank. The dedication of the senior leadership and the amazing D&I professionals from different backgrounds are really inspiring.

We have been involved in many initiatives that aim to promote entrepreneurship from the black communities. There is an investment program called Semente Preta (‘Black Seed’) funding start-ups that are being created and led by black professionals. We have invested funds in many of those start-ups that we will continue to follow, give mentorship to and ensure they have the right opportunities to grow their new businesses.

Salvador is the capital of Bahia, one of the states in Brazil which has a large black community. It’s very important in the landscape of Brazil, so we have opened a lab there focusing on those communities to foster innovation, and we also have ‘Nubankers’ working from there.

Mobilising the legal community

As a legal team at Nubank, we are working with legal teams in other companies to join efforts to foster social and racial diversity in the legal community. Nubank has given us the platform to go out there and say: we need to unite ourselves for broader actions and initiatives in terms of racial justice and diversity in the legal community.

I think there’s a huge potential for the legal community to be more diverse, and because a legal team within a company is not the core business, our teams are not that large, we have fewer opportunities outside the context of the business.

But, internally, we can help with our knowledge to be sure that we have the right policies in place, we support other areas to ensure that whatever decision we make is not discriminatory in terms of clients, and that any language that we use in our marketing is also adequate. So I think we do have the knowledge to help with D&I initiatives. Every single initiative coming from both the D&I and the ESG teams is supported by us in legal, and we have to ensure that we comply with the laws and best practices. Especially when you start sponsoring projects, you have agreements, you have many legislations that you have to comply with. And Nubank is so dedicated to it that just in being part of this huge community, you are involved in D&I discussions every day.

There are many arguments for diversity and inclusion in corporations. From an HR perspective, you want to attract and retain the best staff. From a marketing standpoint, it’s more creative if you have people from different backgrounds – the proposals, the brand, the advertisements will be much more interesting. From a commercial standpoint, if you have a team that is diverse, clients will see themselves in you, so you create this relatability between clients and the people that form your company. From a legal perspective, you need to treat everyone equally; you need to have a very strong culture in terms of respect.

All of this makes sense. We have many reports available showing that diverse companies are more sustainable, long-term profits, results, etc. But, for me, it’s because it’s the right thing to do. If your goal is to see a society that is more equal, more just, fairer, why not start doing it with your own company? Because, doing that, I think you will inspire people who perhaps never thought about diversity, multiplying and inspiring others outside the company. If you want to have a company that leaves a legacy in society, and perhaps influences society, that has the same goals as you would like to see, that’s where you can do it.

The legal profession presents some challenges and opportunities for diversity and inclusion, since we have a special purpose: to attain justice and societal peace for the world. Maybe this is very idealistic, but in a world where conflict is commonplace, we need a lawyer profile. The corporate lawyer should be concerned about having a more diverse and inclusive organization, to understand their clients.

Capturing the zeitgeist

When I engaged in the private practice of law 20 years ago, nobody would talk about diversity and inclusion. We didn’t have maternity leave, we didn’t have a home office so you would have to stay very late in the law firm, and being a workaholic was the rule. 20 years later, things have changed. A new sense of societal demands for women and LGBTQIA+ communities has been captured within the legal profession, and now it is more concerned about diversity and inclusion in general, making the lawyers happier people, and we now have, for example, maternity leave for parents, and a soft landing after having your baby.

However, in 2016, there was a report issued by Women in the Profession (WIP) Peru, a group I am part of, about the proportion of partners in law firms by gender. I was very shocked with the results – we didn’t have parity in the partnerships of law firms; maybe 30% maximum were women.

Aside from the legal profession in law firms and in-house teams, we have academic panels, where until maybe 2017 or 2016, we had all male panels on academic legal topics. It’s something
that is changing – some companies and legal in-house teams have stated to set aspirational quotas of at least 30% women in panels.

Agents of change

I’m very engaged on diversity and inclusion topics – I really want to be, both as an individual and together with all the people around me with the same goals, to be an agent of change in society. I am a member of WIP, and Women CEO, a corporate organization that has a main goal of least 30% of women on boards by 2025. Unfortunately, even public companies that report to the market on their independent directors and so on have a great gap in terms women occupying the C-suite and leadership roles. I think the legal profession is a key profession for diversity, since they are legal and counsel to the whole company on these matters.

When it comes to my team, we are about 85% women. We get together every other day, and I try to have a special one-to-one meeting with each one at least once a month, about whatever makes them worry at the office or at their homes, just to hear their needs. I’m conscious that every person is different and sometimes they do not like to talk en masse. So, I have a very direct relationship with every member of my team.

In the pension fund industry, we participate as shareholders in meetings and committees for different investments that we are in. When we appoint directors, we try to make sure that at least one woman is included by the headhunters. When we look ourselves for directors to represent the pension funds through our in-house research, we like to always make sure that at least one woman is considered in the final group of three that is to be voted on.

I’m part of the inclusion committee at Scotia Bank. It’s one of the oldest diversity and inclusion committees in the financial sector in Peru and has been operating for more than ten years. It has a member that represents each of the different affiliates of Scotia Bank in Peru, and we try to hear the voice of every company, every member of the committee, and then try to issue similar standards and policies on gender and equality in the metrics, events, and workshops that we have.

In Scotia Bank, we have a culture of welcoming everyone. This is not limited to women, this is also extended to different ideologies, experiences, profiles, perspectives, and sexual options. And that diversity has proved to be one of our best assets because, during the pandemic, there was a lack of trust of the government, to the private sector, specifically the financial sector and pension funds, and so this has made us resilient with our clients, they will stick with the relationship because they feel comfortable, and that the corporation has empathy for them.

Pillars of inclusion

In the inclusion committee, we focus on three different pillars: gender equality, disability and the LGBT community. So these are the three pillars that support our different policies. Our strategy on diversity and inclusion fosters a culture of respect, of valuing all the differences and giving equal worth to equal talent. We recognize that we are all different biologically and physiologically, but, in terms of work and salary and opportunities, there should be no difference. That made us issue some policies on wage, salaries and to have equitable compensation packages.

In terms of the selection of staff, we try to do it very fairly in terms of diversity and inclusion. For example, when you apply for a job at Scotia Bank, you won’t have a chart to mark whether you are a woman or man, we only focus on what really matters – if you’re experienced, whether you have values that fit with ours. In our panels for the selection of staff, we have at least one woman and we have always a woman candidate or LGBT candidate as well in the selection (if they voluntarily mention what their sexual preference is).

We have inclusive communication – we have an inclusive language manual that helps us to address the different internal communications in a way that is open and diverse for everyone. We won’t say, ‘Hi there, women’, or ‘Hi there, men’, we would say, ‘Hi there, team’ – very slight words that we use to avoid discrimination and making people uncomfortable.

Check the X-ray

We also track the different initiatives that we have, because whatever you have on paper, you have to measure to make sure it is working. So we have an X-ray report on the different metrics that we use: for example, the number of women versus men that are scaling the corporate ladder, the number of women that have access to promotions. We conduct annual research where we ask people to tell us if they want to become an ally, or how they feel about the fact that Scotia Bank is focused on the LGBT community, if they really want to support the LGBT community. So we have a database of people who will really help us in closed groups to foster the initiatives targeting the LGBT community. Year by year, the percentage of people supportive of the LGBT community is increasing more than 20%.

We have a mandatory quota on disabled people. You can always accuse yourself, saying ‘Notwithstanding the fact that I have looked for disabled people to fit this job description, I haven’t found anyone.’ But we try to do our best, and include people with different types of disability, for example, auditory, visually or physically disabled people. That’s something we are very proud of. We’re still working on accessibility. I don’t think there are a lot of companies here in Peru that have special products for disabled people. But, for example, in Scotia Bank we have an app that reads the different functionalities aloud in Spanish, so you don’t have to actually read the app to make a transaction with the bank.

We have different programs to empower women, to break the glass ceiling, such as leadership skills, networking, and different models that you can engage in. They’re all virtual.

Those are some of the things that we’re working on, across the large spectrum of work we have done for diversity and inclusion.