Macif Foundation's framework memorandum

FRAMEWORK MEMORANDUM ON CITIZEN DEBATES ORGANISED
BY FONDATION MACIF AS PART OF THE CID PROJECT


Fondation MACIF is involved, as a partner alongside other social economy organisations in Europe, in a pan-European project entitled CID (Citizenship, Interculturality, and Dialogue). One of the project’s central aims is to create a European forum for reflecting upon intercultural dialogue, what the concept means, how it is perceived in different corners of the European Union and how it is applied concretely.

In its White Paper on intercultural dialogue, the Council of Europe defines intercultural dialogue as “an open and respectful exchange of views between individuals, groups with different ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds and heritage, on the basis of mutual understanding and respect”[1]. Year 2008 was designated the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue by the European Commission, which believes that intercultural dialogue can be an effective instrument not only for managing cultural diversity in a democratic manner, but also for contributing to the promotion of active citizenship on the part of all citizens within the Union.

By organising citizen debates involving policyholder representatives from its founding mutual insurance company MACIF, Fondation MACIF has chosen to explore the issue of intercultural dialogue and integration more specifically. As society becomes increasingly multicultural, the challenge before us is to integrate and recognise the differences between each and every one of us – cultural, linguistic, ethnic, religious, age-related, gender-related, pertaining to sexual orientation, etc. The integration process encompasses every aspect of society living. What, then, are the drivers for integration? A number of integration measures have been identified: through work, the educational system, language, activism through associations, unions, politics, etc.

Fondation MACIF has been deeply mobilised for the past few years, in cooperation with its partners, to foster integration through employment, fight discrimination, promote diversity in companies, integrate young people of immigrant origin, etc. It has chosen to put three measures aimed at integration up for debate, in order to enrich both its discussions and European debate:
- integration through employment;
- integration through a diversity policy in the workplace;
- integration through citizen participation.

As a foreword, the three topics will be presented, along with the questions they raise and which will be set before the MACIF policyholder representatives. This will be followed by a presentation of the citizens’ debates and how they are structured, so as to show how Fondation MACIF intends to give a voice to the representatives and enable them to engage in dialogue on these topics.


1) Outline of the Three Debate Topics and Questions to Address

a) Integration through Employment

There exist many initiatives, whether institutional or association-based, aimed at integrating people through economic activity or employment. These initiatives assist people either in looking for salaried work, or in creating their own enterprise. They are sometimes targeted at specific populations: people of immigrant origin, young people, women, etc. All of these are populations subject to real disparities in treatment when trying to access employment.

In 2008, Fondation MACIF supported initiatives to fight discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin, in relation to employment, through a competition open to enterprises from the social economy (mutual funds, cooperatives, associations and foundations). In association with the Directorate on Immigrant Reception, Integration and Citizenship (DAIC) under the Ministry of Immigration and the Agency for Social Cohesion and Equal Opportunity (ACSE), and with the expertise of the French Equal Opportunities and Anti-Discrimination Commission (HALDE), it wished to take up the issue of the discrimination in hiring, to which people of immigrant origin are subject.

This proceeded from the fact that, in 2007, out of the 6 222 claims lodged with the HALDE, over half were related to employment and 27% were based on origin. Immigrants are more likely to be without employment, with unemployment levels reaching 16.4% in 2002, or twice as much as non-immigrants. Likewise, the level of female employment amongst immigrants “is markedly lower than that of non-immigrant females”[2], and their unemployment rates are higher than those of immigrant males. Immigrant females are, in other words, victim to two-fold discrimination, due both to their origin and their gender. Clearly, the “origin” effect can combine with other factors. The “neighbourhood” effect is also used as grounds for discrimination in the hiring process: the unemployment rate in urban areas classified as underprivileged (ZUS) is twice as high as elsewhere (20% to 10%)[3]. Young people also suffer inequalities in entering the workplace. 19% of young people under age 25 are unemployed, as compared to 8 to 9% of the population above age 25.[4]

Policies have been instituted in favour of integration through employment, based on the postulate that work is a source of social, economic and cultural integration. In contrast, there are inequalities in the quality of the jobs available. 8.6% of women in salaried positions are in forced part-time. The populations of immigrant origin are also more affected by work instability and are far more dependent than are “natives”[5] on subsidised, unstable work. The debate on integration through employment must expand to include considerations on the quality of employment.

Questions:
Do you feel that the workplace is always an effective place of integration?
Are social economy companies, which hold solidarity values high, a vector toward better social integration than are traditional companies?
Do you know of interesting initiatives which you would like to share?
What are the pre-requisites for successful integration through employment?


b) Integration through Company Diversity Policies

Diversity is a vague concept. Some would say it is a “catch-all” phrase. Diversity emerges as soon as the concept of “difference” comes into the picture, whether it is physical and/or social, and can include differences arising from sexual orientation, culture, skin colour, religious practices, etc. In the professional world, a person who is different in such and such a characteristic can suffer discrimination when being considered for a job, or in his/her prospects for development within a company. Examples of this have already been listed. “Emerging in organisations, whether from the private, public or non-merchant sector, is an awareness of the internal and external challenges arising from this growing diversity, which is increasingly visible and lying in wait of recognition”[6]. Companies can less and less allow themselves to remain silent in the face of this trend and, as a result, some choose to institute an active diversity management policy, in order to generate an integration dynamic for those entering the company and fight discrimination. The policy generally falls within the scope of the companies’ considerations on corporate social responsibility. The measures taken within companies most often involve setting up a new human resources management policy, reorganising work methods and standards and strengthening cooperation with the associations and partners in their environment. “The employers who have adopted diversity management plans work primarily from the following characteristics, which are the grounds most frequently-cited for discrimination: gender, ethnic origin, disability and age”.[7] For it is at the level of the company that the needs and opportunities as regards the integration of migrant workers, in particular, are the most concrete. New forms of discrimination are also emerging, more subtle, relating to physical appearance or sexual orientation, but which are still not the focus of many diversity management measures, in the broader sense.

MACIF signed, for instance, the Charter on Diversity, on 10 October 2007. It wishes to guarantee all of its employees equal opportunities, at every stage of their careers. The Charter and, more concretely, all of the measures taken in MACIF’s human resources policy, are aimed at: young people, in particular those born of immigration; people age 45and above or those with over 20 years’ seniority; women; and the disabled. These measures consist primarily of continuing training, individual follow-up and recruitment. Partnership also plays an important part, as MACIF has chosen to work in closer conjunction with the associations, higher learning establishments, intermediary recruitment companies, etc. All of the labour unions have been involved in establishing the company’s diversity policy.

Why do companies choose to conduct an active policy with respect to diversity management? Several motives have been identified by the specialists. In a study carried out by the European Commission in 2005, 83% of the companies surveyed felt that a diversity management policy generated positive fallout for the company, in particular from the business standpoint.[8] They also felt that: heterogeneous teams are more creative and perform better; the integration of a disabled person into a department generates a spirit of solidarity and open-mindedness; equal treatment for all employees is a source of motivation to think about one’s development prospects; promotion for the diversity policy conducted by the company has positive repercussions on its image, etc. Beyond these positive repercussions for the business itself, the existence of a diversity management policy in a company contributes to greater open-mindedness in the workforce and customer base, as well as to better intercultural dialogue.

Questions:
In what ways does a company diversity management policy foster integration?
What edge do social economy companies have in the field of diversity?
Do you know of specific initiatives or experiments which you would like to share?
What would you suggest to improve integration in a company?

c) Integration through Citizen Participation

“The European Union needs to offer European citizens from all backgrounds greater opportunity to participate more directly and actively in the decision-making process, in particular making use of regular participatory projects, such as Plan D[9], debates and public consultations, not only at the EU level, but also at the national and regional levels”.


This is one of the recommendations made by the European citizens who took part in the various consultation and debate projects instituted by the EU through its Plan D, following the “No” votes from France and the Netherlands on the 2006 European Draft Constitution. Behind the invitation to greater citizen participation in the life of the city was the idea that social integration comes through citizen participation. In other words, civil society organisations, associations, unions, political parties, etc. are recognised vehicles for citizen action. These are organisations that convey democratic values, of sharing and respect, which contribute to intercultural dialogue and integration. They contribute to promoting citizens as full-fledged stakeholders in society and play a part as an intermediary.

However, citizen participation through activist commitment is not a matter of course. Associations, unions and partisan groups do not enjoy the same success with all layers of society. To wit, 58% of executives belong to associations, as compared to 30% of factory workers. “Whether in sporting, cultural or musical associations, or activist organisations (unions, parties, school parent associations, in particular), membership rates are much higher amongst those with post-Baccalaureate education, compared to those without degrees. Associations highlight solidarity and cooperation, but are also very much structured according to social ranking”.[10]

Likewise, another indicator of citizen participation can be found in participation in the electoral process. Here, abstention has been observed as relatively high in general, and in particular in certain populations. While gaining political citizenship does confer rights in democratic societies such as ours (voting rates, freedom of expression, right to found one’s own association, etc.), the exercise of rights and in particular voting rights raises the question of people of immigrant origin. Clearly, citizen participation or citizen involvement is not a matter of course. This attests to a lack of political integration.

On that basis, the issue of political integration would appear to lie elsewhere. The aim is, first and foremost, to enable all individuals to become players in their own lives, such that they can act on their environment and thereby gain social power[11]. To achieve true political integration of individuals, regardless of whether they have national citizenship, the challenge would thus be to foster the emancipation of citizens, their ability to act on the world and within the City. These are action principles developed by the people’s education associations, organisations from the social and solidarity-based economy, participatory democracy processes or community development[12].

Questions:
How does citizen participation foster social integration?
Are there tools specific to social economy companies for fostering citizen participation?
What tools do you use in your structures or what do you see being used to encourage citizens/residents/members/users/members to participate, in particular those of immigrant descent?
What are the drivers for active citizen participation fostering real emancipation and autonomy for individuals?


2) Presentation of Citizen Debate Procedure

a) Recruitment

Fondation MACIF wanted to give a voice to MACIF policyholders, through their elected representatives, in order to learn their thoughts, questions and experiences with intercultural dialogue and, more specifically, integration.

Five debates will be held, with the support of MACIF’s Regional Offices. They will bring together 20 to 40 citizens, all representatives of policyholders recruited locally.

Fondation MACIF has chosen to work with committed citizens, who will be present not only in their capacity as policyholder representatives. They are also employees, self-employed workers, employers, union workers from 5 representative French federations, association activists, people from mutual funds, cooperatives, etc. Their mobilisation is expected to fulfil one of the objectives of Fondation MACIF to this end: fostering cross-fertilisation, meaning dissemination of ideas enriched by the exchanges between representatives mobilised in their professional, personal and activist environments.


b) Work Methods

The citizen debates are based on one basic principle – drawing upon the unique expertise of the representatives, beyond their commitment to mutualist values: their expertise as citizens. Because they are, first and foremost, policyholder representatives can offer a viewpoint that goes beyond their profession and/or activist commitments. Their ideas, testimonials, experiences and proposals need to be brought out here.

In order to remain consistent with the values borne by intercultural dialogue, the idea is that participants should be able to exchange freely, and express their opinions and ideas, in a spirit of real exchange and careful and reciprocal listening.

The debate workshops will be facilitated so that each person can express his/her own opinion and work toward the first stages of a collective view on integration and, more specifically, the issues listed above.


c) Workshop Organisation

The three debate topics were identified precisely to cover (in part) the topics of intercultural dialogue and integration:

- integration through employment;
- integration through diversity management policies in companies;
- integration through citizen participation.

The representatives will be asked to focus on one of the three topics, for a half-day. In line with the chosen principle of grassroots-level recruitment, 5 different groups of delegates will be recruited to meet locally, in 5 different regions, and work on one of the 3 themes suggested.
These “roving” citizen debates will make it possible to gather the viewpoints of different groups of delegates, in varied local settings, thereby making it possible to enrich ideas at the local, national and European levels.

Two debates are planned on integration through employment, and two others on the topic of diversity in enterprises (in particular on ethnic diversity); a fifth one will deal with the issue of citizen participation.

Each workshop will be broken down into three parts:

- a part dedicated to information/training: a speaker will come present the issues raised by the topic (general presentation outlining the subject or an illustrative presentation, based on an initiative to be presented). The regional winners of the “Social Economy, Ethnic Diversity and Employment” competition will, for instance, be invited to present their project as part of the debates on the theme of integration through employment.
The citizens will be invited to respond to the information, in particular through the first question suggested for each of the themes. The question must stimulate exchange between participants in the debate (“What do you think?”).
The first stage of the debate will consist of deconstructing the topic, based on their representations.

- a part dedicated to their practices and feedback: to what extent do these ideas echo your practices? What are the apparent effects (or lack thereof) of the initiatives of which you are aware? What are the reasons for this? Based on your active involvement as a policyholder and representative of MACIF, a social economy company, what are the advantages and limitations of organisations in this sector as regards integration?

- a time for working on proposals.
Lastly, representatives will be invited to suggest ideas for recommendations on integration, intended for Fondation MACIF, and for the European Union.

Conclusion

The testimonials, experiences and proposals offered by representatives, consulted at the grassroots-level, with careful attention paid to their contributions as citizens above all, will enrich Fondation MACIF’s reflections at the regional, national and European levels.

Discussions in the workshops are expected to contribute to a finer understanding and definition of the issues at stake in intercultural dialogue and integration, specifically as regards the drivers in employment, diversity management by companies and citizen participation. Furthermore, the debate method used should offer lessons on how dialogue and exchange take place.

All of this work will be put into perspective with the other European partners to the project (in Belgium, Spain, Great Britain, Italy and Romania) and the resulting cross-analysis will be the focus of a report and recommendations submitted to the European Commission in June 2009.

In addition to this report, which will give rise to publication, further ideas will be disseminated on a regular basis, via a blog and newsletters.

Lastly, Fondation MACIF wishes to foster real ownership of the ideas by the representatives involved, so that they can take their experience and proposals back to their local environments and be go-betweens with the institutions, unions and civil society and, in so doing, foster the concept of cross-fertilisation.

[1] Council of Europe, White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue, “Living Together as Equals in Dignity”, 7 May 2008, p. 17.
[2] Tavan, Chloé, “Immigrants in France: a changing situation” (“Les immigrés en France : une situation qui évolue”), Insee, n°1042, September 2005.
[3] Information available at the Observatory on Inequalities website, which can be viewed from: http://www.inegalites.fr/index.php
[4] See http://www.inegalites.fr/index.php
[5] People born in France of two parents born in France. http://www.inegalites.fr/spip.php?article548&id_mot=89#nb2
[6] Cornet Annie and Warland Philippe, “Business organisation and diversity management” (“Organisation des entreprises et gestion de la diversité”), in Diversity in all its forms (La diversité dans tous ses états), Solidarity Journal (Les Cahiers de la solidarité), n°10, Towards Solidarity (Pour la Solidarité), January 2007, p.51
[7] Cornet Annie and Warland Philippe, op.cit., p.50
[8] European Commission, The Business Case for Diversity. Good practices in the Workplace, 2005, quoted in Pavan-Woolfe Luisella, “Diversity: European policy issues” (“Diversité: les enjeux de la politique européenne”), in Diversity in all its forms (La diversité dans tous ses états), op.cit., p.19.
[9] Plan D as in “Democracy, Dialogue, Debate”, launched on the impetus of Mme Wallström, European Commissioner in charge of communication.
[10] Observatory on Inequalities: http://www.inegalites.fr/spip.php?article113&id_mot=91
[11] The process of gaining social power refers back, in sociology, to such concepts as empowerment and capacitación, Anglo-American and Latin American respectively. Central to these concepts is the issue of participation. A person gains social power by recovering self-esteem, recognition of his or her identity and skills and by developing critical thinking. The individual is then able – in other words, has the choice – to participate in the decisions that affect his or her life.
[12] Community development or community empowerment hearkens back to a form of social intervention (community social work in Quebec, in particular) which is aimed at “making a community capable of analysing its own situation, defining its problems and solving them”. (O. Douard, “Popular education, empowerment, capacitación… contemporary forms of providing the most disadvantaged people with social power” (“Education populaire, empowerment, capacitación… des formes contemporaines de l’accès pour les plus défavorisés à la puissance sociale)”, LERIS, 2007)
The community approach is used in particular in the field of health, for instance, in support for drug addicts.