Your EDI Report Records Who You Hired. It Does Not Record How You Reached Them.
Here is the documentation gap most EDI reports do not capture. They record hiring outcomes. They do not record whether the sourcing strategy was designed to produce them. For Asian heritage candidates, that gap carries weight. Mainstream job boards do not guarantee reach into specific communities. Your workforce data is already indicating where reach has been limited.
Ethnicity pay gap reporting is currently voluntary in the UK, but it is under sustained pressure to become mandatory. The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities recommended mandatory reporting in 2021. Parliamentary scrutiny of ethnicity data has continued since. The question of who you hire is already subject to transparency requirements. The question of how you sourced them is the next area of focus.
Organisations with strong ethnic diversity outcomes did not rely on undifferentiated advertising. They built sourcing relationships with community organisations and specialist channels. They reported on sourcing decisions, not just hiring outcomes. Their boards held them accountable for both.
If your ethnic minority recruitment data shows underrepresentation in specific roles or grades, and your sourcing records show no specialist outreach, that combination warrants attention in your next audit or board review. Outcomes point back to sourcing decisions. Sourcing decisions need documentation.
If someone requested your sourcing records today, what would they show? Speak to us about building an audit-ready approach.
