Inclusion is often framed as compliance requirement or moral obligation. But inclusion also makes business sense—companies that serve diverse customers, employ diverse workers, and design for diverse users can perform better than those that don't. Understanding the business case for inclusion can motivate action that moral arguments alone might not, though the business case has limitations that should be acknowledged.
Market Opportunity
>People with disabilities represent a substantial market. Globally, over a billion people have disabilities. In Canada, millions of people—and their families and friends—make purchasing decisions influenced by disability. This market is significant and growing as populations age.
>The disability market is often underserved. Products and services designed for typical users may not serve disabled users well. Companies that design inclusively access market segments that competitors neglect. First movers in accessible markets can build loyalty before competitors catch up.
>The extended market includes not just people with disabilities but those connected to them. Family members, friends, and caregivers of disabled people may choose businesses that welcome their loved ones. The ripple effects of accessible service extend beyond direct disability customers.
>Age-related disability expansion grows the market continuously. As people age, disability rates increase. Products and services accessible for older users serve both current seniors and everyone who will become one. Designing for disability is designing for an aging population.
Employee Benefits
>Diverse workforces perform better than homogeneous ones—research consistently shows this. Teams with members who think differently solve problems more effectively. Including workers with disabilities contributes to cognitive diversity that drives innovation and performance.
>Workers with disabilities often bring perspectives that others lack. Experience navigating barriers develops problem-solving skills. Understanding accessibility from lived experience informs product development and customer service. These contributions go beyond filling positions to enhancing teams.
>Retention benefits from inclusive cultures. Workers with disabilities who find welcoming workplaces stay. The costs of turnover—recruitment, training, lost productivity—are reduced when employees feel valued and supported.
>Brand as inclusive employer attracts talent. Younger workers increasingly value diversity and inclusion. Companies known for disability inclusion attract candidates who prioritize these values. Employer brand affects recruitment broadly, not just for disabled candidates.
Cost Avoidance
>Legal compliance costs are lower when accessibility is designed in rather than retrofitted. Addressing accessibility proactively avoids lawsuits, settlements, and mandated fixes that reactive approaches create. The cost of fixing accessibility failures typically exceeds the cost of building accessibility initially.
>Accommodation costs are often lower than assumed. Research consistently shows that most workplace accommodations cost little or nothing. Fear of accommodation expense exceeds actual expense in most cases.
>When employees acquire disabilities, accommodation enables continued employment. Rather than losing skilled workers who develop disabilities, accommodation retains them. The alternative—disability departures and replacement—is costlier than accommodation.
>Reputation risks from accessibility failures can be significant. Public failures—lawsuits, viral social media, advocacy campaigns—can damage brand value. Accessible organizations avoid these risks.
Design Benefits
>Designing for accessibility often improves products for everyone. Curb cuts designed for wheelchairs benefit strollers and luggage. Captions designed for deaf viewers help in noisy environments. Clear interfaces designed for cognitive accessibility improve usability broadly. Accessibility constraints drive creative solutions that serve all users better.
>Innovation emerges from accessibility challenges. The problems disability creates are real and consequential, driving innovation to solve them. Solutions developed for accessibility applications often have broader utility. Accessibility R&D can produce commercially valuable breakthroughs.
>Quality improvement accompanies accessibility focus. The discipline of designing for diverse users catches flaws that designing for typical users misses. Products tested against accessibility criteria receive more thorough testing. Quality and accessibility often improve together.
Limitations of the Business Case
>The business case doesn't apply equally everywhere. Some markets are too small to justify business investment. Some accommodations do have significant costs. Not every accessibility improvement pays for itself. Limits exist.
>Business case framing can diminish inclusion's moral standing. If inclusion is justified only when it pays, it can be abandoned when it doesn't. People with disabilities have rights regardless of business benefit. The business case supplements but shouldn't replace rights-based justification.
>Skepticism about business case claims is warranted. Not all claimed benefits materialize. Evidence quality varies. Overselling the business case creates backlash when expectations aren't met. Honest assessment of likely benefits serves better than inflated claims.
>The business case can rationalize exclusion as well as inclusion. If disabled markets or workers don't pencil out, business logic suggests excluding them. The business case is a tool that can be used for or against inclusion depending on circumstances and analysis.
Making the Case
>Effective business cases connect inclusion to strategic goals. Different organizations value different things—growth, innovation, risk management, talent, brand. Connecting inclusion to what leadership already values makes the case more compelling than abstract arguments.
>Data strengthens business cases. Quantifying market size, calculating accommodation costs, measuring employee outcomes—data makes arguments concrete. But data on disability business benefits isn't always available or applicable to specific contexts.
>Stories complement data. Individual examples of inclusion benefits—the product innovation, the valuable employee, the loyal customer—make abstract business cases tangible. Stories and data together create persuasive arguments.
>Starting small allows demonstration. Pilot programs, limited initiatives, and proof-of-concept projects show benefits without major commitment. Success in small efforts builds support for larger ones.
Questions for Reflection
>Should inclusion require business justification, or should rights be sufficient? What's the relationship between business and moral arguments for inclusion?
>How should organizations proceed when business case for inclusion isn't clear? What about situations where inclusion might have business costs?
>What would make business case arguments more credible and less subject to skepticism?