Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disability Grants

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disability Grants is sponsored by Various Corporations. Grants from corporations' CSR programs aimed at supporting individuals with disabilities.

## [](https://pmc. ncbi. nlm.

nih. gov/articles/PMC12645482/)Abstract Disability holds a unique position in employment, including corporate social responsibility (CSR) and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Furthermore, contextual shifts in employment, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, make it critical to explore how disability is considered within company strategies.

Authors reviewed 2020/2021 CSR reports to observe organizational disability inclusion practices and shifts in company approaches to workplace and community initiatives. This analysis helps illuminate what disability inclusion strategies businesses publicize and prioritize, contributing to the growing knowledge of disability inclusion. Building from a previous analysis completed in 2018 (Gould et al.

, 2020), the current review involved content analysis of 129 CSR reports from companies recognized for their disability inclusion efforts. Results showed a substantial increase in organizations that participated in disability inclusion activities and illuminated potential contextual changes. Additional findings highlight primary disability inclusion strategies as well as emerging practices.

Although there is an increasing interest in including disability within business efforts, there continues to be distinct challenges to advancing disability inclusion overall. By providing insights into disability inclusion approaches, the current study sets a foundation for future research to explore the efficacy and long-term impacts of inclusive practices to enhance disability employment outcomes.

**Keywords:**Organizational culture, equal opportunity, corporate social responsibility, diversity, equity, and inclusion, disability inclusion ## [](https://pmc. ncbi. nlm.

nih. gov/articles/PMC12645482/)Introduction Over the past few years, the landscape of work has drastically changed in a myriad of ways, including approaches to supporting employees with disabilities. The purpose of this paper is to explore some of these changes through a review of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports that analyzes how these reports publicly promote the inclusion of disability within organizational settings.

The current review builds from a previous analysis of CSR reports that was conducted in 2018, which identified key strategies to advance inclusion of people with disabilities within the workplace and community (Gould et al. , 2020). Reviewing CSR reports is a useful vantage point to observe organizational practices and how companies approach workplace and community initiatives, such as disability inclusion.

CSR reports are often published on a standardized timeline and provide visibility into business actions for company stakeholders, which can help illuminate how companies openly demonstrate their priorities (Sheehy, 2015).

Building an understanding of company practices can be beneficial for vocational rehabilitation professionals and other disability employment advocates to better interact with and support businesses in developing disability inclusion initiatives.

As a five year follow up to the previous review, the research team was able to observe shifts over time, which is important as there has been a significant evolution in how companies drive and communicate CSR and disability inclusion efforts.

Considerable changes have occurred that prompted this review and make it timely, such as the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the momentum of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and increased focus on racial equity. While the COVID-19 pandemic impacted how all people lived and worked, people with disabilities had distinct experiences (Schur et al. , 2020; Tang, 2021).

During the same time that the pandemic was shifting the way people work, the emphasis of the BLM movement concurrently influenced company approaches to racial equality and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts (Johnson, 2021).

One demonstration comes from an article published in the _Guardian_ (Farah, 2022) which found that three times as many employers formalized their DEI efforts during the year 2020, which was the height of both the pandemic and the movement for racial justice, compared to the year prior.

Given these significant contextual shifts, the research team conducted a review of CSR reports to help contribute to the growing literature and understanding of disability inclusion within business practices. The updated review provides insight into what strategies have remained important, the growth of disability inclusion in businesses, and identification of potentially emerging strategies.

The next section will situate the current study through an overview of the existing literature. #### Corporate social responsibility, disability and diversity There are several key concepts that are critical to understanding corporate approaches to DEI reporting. For example, CSR is a wide and complex category that captures many different aspects of how a company conducts business (Sheehy, 2015).

Most simply worded, CSR refers to the positive impact that companies have in society, the environment, and for their employees (Fenwick & Bierema, 2008). A foundational concept of CSR is that companies have a responsibility to the communities and environments in which they operate (Sheehy, 2015).

CSR reports can help illuminate how organizations approach a variety of strategies designed to have a positive impact on internal workplaces as well as external communities.

Given the structure and content of CSR reports, analysis of these documents can provide an opportunity to further examine how disability is framed within company initiatives and can benefit disability employment advocates in making connections with potential employers. CSR has been growing in popularity and increasingly becoming a core business strategy in recent years.

According to an article posted by the Harvard Business School, there has been a growth in companies that develop and share CSR reports. In fact, this article further describes that of businesses listed on the S& P 500 index, only 20% issued a CSR report in 2011 compared to over 90% in 2019 (Stobierski, 2021). One potential reason for this increase is the well-documented support from consumers and customer bases for CSR.

For example, a majority (55%) of surveyed adults in the U.S. indicated that they would be willing to spend more on products from companies that have a CSR mission (Stobierski, 2021). Additionally, in a different survey, 93% of participants reported that companies should be purpose driven overall (Abiaka, 2021).

While CSR as a business concept has been evolving for decades, one of the more recent impacts on approaches to CSR has been the development and growth of global initiatives to promote socially responsible acts from companies. Global perspectives for CSR are increasingly important as companies find themselves operating cross-nationally (Asmussen & Fosfuri, 2019).

For example, the publication of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) which act as guidance as well as a “call to action” for UN member states to make a positive impact in the world (United Nations, n. d.) have been used as a framework for businesses to leverage when sharing out their CSR work (Latapí Agudelo et al.

, 2019). The UN SDGs are especially noteworthy for this study as they specifically identify people with disabilities as part of these endeavors. The inclusion of the disability community further emphasizes the potential impact on organizational strategies towards disability inclusion within CSR efforts.

In addition to the inclusion of disability within the UN SDGs, there has also been some exploration into disability inclusion as an initiative within CSR overall. For example, recruiting and hiring people with disabilities has been found to be a useful point of view to identify key characteristics of CSR and corporate social innovation (Tabares, 2022). Additionally, Gould et al.

(2020) identified key strategies that organizations utilize to promote disability inclusion that were publicized within CSR reports. While this provides an understanding of what some businesses are doing, previous research indicates that disability remains largely excluded from much of the existing literature on CSR as well as part of publicly marketed company values (Castelnovo, 2022). DEI strategies are tangential and related to CSR.

Companies often enhance equity and social justice within their company and communities through DEI efforts. DEI initiatives capture multiple activities that encompass how businesses support employees from a variety of backgrounds and cultures and can include internal workplaces as well as engaging with external consumers and philanthropic endeavors (Yadav & Lenka, 2020).

DEI is increasingly becoming a central component of CSR, as a way for companies to publicly demonstrate their commitment to advancing DEI both inside and outside of the organization (Laskin & Kresic, 2021). Over time there has been additional recognition of how companies can embed social considerations, such as DEI and social justice, within their CSR efforts.

Although there is an increase in companies considering CSR and DEI and engaging strategies to enhance opportunities for marginalized communities, previous research shows that disability has traditionally been isolated from and left out of existing frameworks (Miethlich, 2019).

#### Corporate public values and disability employment CSR and DEI strategies influence how organizations work internally as well as how consumers and society perceive organizations and their business objectives (Ramesh et al. , 2019; Zepponi, 2022). Reviewing what CSR strategies and initiatives companies publicize can shed light on how organizations signal their values, priorities, and investment of resources.

CSR reports are becoming increasingly utilized and even embraced by companies as a way to publicly share what is important to them and how they are working to make a positive impact in their communities (Jonsen et al. , 2021). In other words, this is how organizations market their CSR planning to influence stakeholder perspectives.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, investing in CSR was found to be a potentially successful strategy for maintaining firm and brand value (Qiu et al. , 2021). Furthermore, as previously mentioned, there has been an expansion of companies publishing CSR reports and referencing DEI strategies as a response to the renewed emphasis on social and racial justice (Davis, 2022; Farah, 2022).

In fact, companies are progressively using DEI as a branding technique to showcase company practices (Jonsen et al. , 2021). Some research has shown that DEI is becoming a common aspect of business and including DEI in public facing materials helps support the recruitment of potential employees and company reputation with consumers and investors (White et al.

, 2019). While these efforts may be demonstrative of what strategies businesses are engaging in, there are concerns that there may be a disconnect between what companies are publicizing versus what is done in practice, especially in relation to disability inclusion (Marcinko, 2020).

Further, there are specific concerns that companies publicly support disability inclusion to enhance how they appear to consumers and investors, and the named practices are not yielding positive impacts for people with disabilities within their companies and communities (Segovia-san-juan et al. , 2017).

Understanding that CSR and DEI are part of marketing and building company reputations adds nuance to the position of disability inclusion. Hiring employees with disabilities and embracing disability inclusion has often been seen as risky for business due to potential stigma or lack of acceptance from customers (Dwertmann et al. , 2021; Houtenville & Kalargyrou, 2015).

This is a long-standing concern that is steeped in ableist perceptions and disability stigma. While research has shown that customers do not hold a negative bias towards employees with disabilities (Dwertmann et al. , 2021), these points highlight potential tension between the importance of CSR and DEI in external communications and disability inclusion.

#### Advancing disability employment Although disability inclusion may be somewhat precarious in DEI and CSR initiatives, there has been considerable growth in understanding disability inclusive strategies. Over the years, literature regarding workplace disability inclusion has identified a number of practices.

Examples include aspects that are related to workplace cultures, such as flexible management and top-level leadership buy-in (Broughton & Strebler, 2008; Erickson et al. , 2014; Gilbride et al. , 2003).

Other practices have been a part of overarching DEI efforts such as employee resource groups and offering trainings on disability inclusion (Gould et al. , 2021; Meena & Vanka, 2017; Phillips et al. , 2016).

Discreet disability inclusion practices have also been identified in supporting inclusive workplace cultures, such as provision of workplace accommodations and opportunities for employees to share their disability status with their employers, also known as self-identification campaigns (Gould et al. , 2021; Karpur et al. , 2014; Schur et al.

, 2014).

Many self-identification campaigns serve multiple purposes, though are often implemented as part of compliance for organizations to maintain their federal contractor status within the U.S. This is done as part of the Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination of employees with disabilities and was amended in 2014 to require organizations to proactively recruit and hire employees with disabilities (U.S. Department of Labor, n.

d. b). Reasons for companies to invest resources in disability inclusion varies widely.

Historically companies have fostered inclusive strategies to comply with disability policies as disability has been viewed as a legal or human resources concern rather than a part of DEI initiatives (Moore et al. , 2017).

More recently there is growing recognition that disability inclusion practices not only advance disability employment as many have been shown to improve workplaces overall and for all employees, not just for employees with disabilities (Chan et al. , 2010; Kalargyrou, 2014; Schur et al. , 2014; Solovieva et al.

, 2011). Because of the multiple benefits for organizations and employees across various identity dimensions, several of these strategies have become a part of DEI frameworks. How companies become aware of disability inclusion practices is likely multi-faceted and may reflect evolving, cultural understandings of people with disabilities as well as the result of concerted efforts by disability inclusion advocates.

One noteworthy example of awareness efforts include the National Disability Employment Awareness Month campaigns sponsored by the Office of Disability Employment Policy in the U.S. (U.S. Department of Labor, n. d. a).

Examples of past campaign slogans include “Disability: Part of the Equity Equation” and “Advancing Access & Equity”. This language is aligned to DEI activities, which may further reflect how disability could be incorporated into these efforts. Perceptions of disability and people with disabilities within DEI frameworks has shifted over time (Mullin et al.

, 2023). For example, one study explored how perspectives of people with disabilities have transitioned from being recipients of charity, in need of help and support, to being viewed as organizational stakeholders (Choudhury-Kaul, 2017). This is further exemplified by disability management itself becoming a noted strategy for CSR (Castelnovo, 2022).

Although inclusion in some CSR frameworks, such as the UN SDGs, may still place the disability community as a “vulnerable” population, there is growing recognition of disability as a notable demographic group within sustainability goals and DEI approaches (Gould et al. , 2020).

As described above, workplace strategies have a distinct impact on the inclusion of people with disabilities, as have major contextual events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic deeply impacted all people around the world, including the way people work.

Changes to how people approached work include physical locations of jobs, interactions with coworkers, the technology and tools needed to complete job duties, and several other aspects of the workplace (Schur et al. , 2020). In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, other research found that companies altered how they engaged and supported their employees.

For example, some businesses increased their investment in and emphasis on mental health supports as well as creating flexibility in the workplace (Mullin et al. , 2023). As companies had to adapt to the changing world, individuals were also profoundly impacted by the pandemic.

However, not all groups of people experienced the pandemic in the same way. In fact, different demographic groups had distinct challenges and experiences through the pandemic, including people with disabilities. For example, Carey et al.

(2021) found that people with intellectual disabilities experienced changes in key elements of daily living, including shifts in employment procedures and concerns about employment futures. Others reported how people with visual impairments and blindness experienced unintentional consequences in daily living as regularly provided accommodations were no longer available due to pandemic related guidance and policies (Rizzo et al. , 2021).

Within employment specifically, workers with disabilities had unique experiences given the massive transition to virtual and remote work settings (Tang, 2021).

While there has been discussion that remote settings allow workers with disabilities to access work opportunities that may not otherwise have been available or accessible, there continues to be debate about whether these changes will have a lasting positive impact for people with disabilities (Jesus et al. , 2021; Koon et al. , 2022; Schur et al.

, 2020). In fact, people with disabilities experienced disparate impacts of the pandemic compared to people without disabilities. Some of these negative outcomes include: higher rates of reduced work hours, increased rates of unemployment, and greater feelings of job insecurity and financial stress (Emerson et al.

, 2021; Houtenville et al. , 2021; Maroto et al. , 2021).

The dramatic changes to the workplace due to the COVID-19 pandemic adds further nuance and additional layers of complexity, emphasizing the need to re-examine public facing disability inclusion strategies.

Given the pandemic and other important factors, like the renewed priority of racial and social justice and increased publication of CSR reports, there is a need to investigate and explore strategies that organizations publicly share to advance disability inclusion.

#### Introduction to the study To further explore how the context of work has changed and contribute to research regarding organizational disability inclusion, the research team conducted an updated content analysis of 2020/2021 CSR reports from organizations recognized for their disability inclusive practices.

This analytical process mirrored that of previous research, which included collecting and preparing data for analysis, organizing data within broader categories, and reporting data in an organized format (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Lieblich et al. , 1998). The analysis utilized findings from a previous article, Gould et al.

(2020), which acted as a framework for deductive analysis to identify specific strategies connected to the inclusion of people with disabilities that were publicly shared within CSR reports. This analysis also included iterative coding to identify emergent themes and issues that are new to the more recent reports.

The current review reflects how strategies may have changed over time and is especially relevant given the massive macro-level and contextual changes that may have influenced the ways companies publicize their disability inclusion efforts. The current analysis was completed to answer the following research questions: (1) What strategies do organizations use to promote disability inclusion within their CSR reports?

(2) What strategies remained prominent in 2020/2021 CSR reports from organizations known for their disability inclusion efforts? (3) How have disability inclusion strategies included in the CSR reports evolved since 2015/16? ## [](https://pmc.

ncbi. nlm. nih.

gov/articles/PMC12645482/)Materials and methods To answer the above research questions, 2020/2021 CSR reports were collected from organizations that received 100% on the 2021 Disability:IN Disability Equality Index, of which a list of 186 companies was published on the Disability:IN website.

Disability:IN is a global membership-based organization that supports businesses that invest resources towards advancing disability inclusion in the workplace.

The Disability:IN Disability Equality Index is a benchmarking tool that is intended to help companies assess their existing policies and practices to identify opportunities to promote greater inclusion of the disability community (American Association of People with Disabilities & Disability:IN, 2022).

Organizations that scored 100% on the Disability:IN Disability Equality Index were selected as the sample as the tool provides a framing of practices that are publicly perceived as innovative with respect to disability inclusion, in alignment with the research questions and intended purpose of the study.

CSR reports were collected from January 1 through March 31, 2022, by web searching company names and phrases such as a “corporate social responsibility report. ” These reports are often published on an annual or bi-annual basis and are completed for the previous year as a look back in time.

While the included organizations were recognized for disability inclusion, they represented a multitude of industries and were mostly from large organizations with over 1000 employees and listed on the Fortune 1000. To see a summary of included company industries, please see Table 1.

To be included in this review, CSR reports had to meet the following criteria: published by one of the companies listed as receiving 100% on the Disability:IN Disability Equality Index, publication detailing 2020 or 2021 company CSR efforts, downloadable format, and include the word “disability” or variation (such as “disabilities”) at least once.

The current study only included reports from companies that received a 100% on the Disability Equality Index to narrow the focus to recognized leaders in the disability inclusion space, enhance feasibility of the study by limiting the project scope, as well as to align with original review (Gould et al. , 2020).

The timeframe of the reports was determined based on the massive changes in the world and workplace, particularly the COVID-19 pandemic and racial and social justice movement. While this study does not specifically evaluate the pandemic, social justice movement, or related policies, these changes to the workplace provide important context for how companies demonstrated their commitment to and strategies for disability inclusion.

Only publications that were downloadable (e.g., PDF format) were included to maintain the integrity of the data as the research team returned to the reports for continued analysis. Finally, the word disability (or variation) needed to be included to ensure the report had relevant information regarding disability inclusion for the review. With these criteria, the research team identified 129 reports to be included.

This is a significant increase from the previous review, where the research team included only 34 reports. This represents both an increase in organizations that had public facing, downloadable reports as well as growth in the number of businesses that participated in the Disability Equality Index.

Some of the organizations indicated that their reports were inaugural, meaning that it was the first time the company had created a public facing CSR publication. Other businesses differentiated themselves by clearly stating how long they had been dedicating resources and investing in CSR as well as diversity and disability inclusion.

Similar to the previous study, many of the reports had various names, like impact report or environmental, social, and governance report. One distinction from the prior study was that the research team did not include specific diversity, equity, and inclusion reports unless directly linked or referenced in the CSR report.

As the field has evolved, it was important to align towards CSR as a way to narrow the scope of the project and confirm greater comparison across the included data. Once the CSR reports were collected, the research team prepared to engage in content analysis. The review involved an iterative process where key narratives were named and coded thematically (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Kyngäs, 2020).

To support the analysis, the research team developed a database of disability inclusion related strategies on Microsoft Excel. The research team deductively categorized key practices within the database using the strategies listed in Gould et al. (2020) as a framework which was important as it helped provide clear definitions of key themes for the research team to build on, contributing to the overall validity of the study.

Following this framework, the research team read through the published reports then copied relevant text related to each strategy thus maintaining integrity of the data throughout analysis. To enhance reliability, the research team continually reviewed strategy and theme descriptions used to create the framework and ensured the copied text from included reports were reflective of these practices.

For disability-related practices that did not align with previously identified practices, the research team created a separate category and further identified potential themes using an iterative process. Throughout analysis the research team met three separate times to discuss the strategies and ensure consensus on overarching themes and categories identified in the data.

The following section will detail the results of the systematic process described above. ## [](https://pmc. ncbi.

nlm. nih. gov/articles/PMC12645482/)Results This study provides an overview of disability inclusion strategies and initiatives that are publicized by organizations recognized for their disability inclusion efforts in their publicly available 2020/2021 CSR reports.

By investigating practices published by known leaders in disability inclusion, we are able to contribute to the understanding of how companies include people with disabilities within their workplaces and communities. Mapping these strategies may help support and enhance recognition of potential best practices and provide a foundation for future research.

The most commonly observed practice within the current study was including disability as part of a diversity section or statement alongside other facets of identity, which was viewed in a majority of the reports (106/129; 82%). Relatedly, another common strategy described in over half of the included reports (76/129; 59%) was highlighting external awards or recognitions regarding disability inclusion.

Providing details about a disability-based employee resource group or similarly identified affinity group was also found in 57% (73/129) of the included reports. For this strategy, it’s important to note that companies may have a disability-based ERG even if not listed, as this categorization was assigned if the ERG was a part of the CSR report, demonstrating the ERG as a CSR initiative.

Another common strategy was including disability within supplier diversity statements (66/129; 51%), which was most often done by including disability and service-disabled veteran-owned business enterprises within the long list of different types of suppliers such as women-owned business enterprises, veteran-owned business enterprises, etc. The following strategies appeared in less than half of the included reports, but still highlight potentially important avenues for advancing disability inclusion.

One fairly common strategy put forth in the reports was community partnerships with disability-related organizations (53/129; 41%). This included ways that companies strategically collaborated with groups to progress business objectives, such as access to talent pipelines or support in education and awareness.

Similarly, a smaller number of CSR reports (47/129; 37%) shared details about philanthropic giving or charitable donations to disability-related organizations.

Some of the strategies that were identified in fewer reports include targeted recruitment efforts to hire people with disabilities, disability-related employee benefits, accommodation resources or programs for employees and customers, disability-related trainings for employees, and capturing and/or reporting data about the number of employees with disabilities. For a complete overview of identified strategies, see Table 2.

The next section details some of the most prominent strategies and provides context regarding emerging practices within corporate settings. ### Most common disability inclusion strategies #### Diversity section or statement that expressly included people with disabilities The most prevalent disability inclusion practice was having a diversity section that expressly included people with disabilities.

Through this strategy, the reviewed organizations appeared to consider disability as a key demographic group, similar to that of other diversity dimensions like race/ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. The widespread use of this practice also highlighted the growing number of organizations embedding DEI within their CSR reports and frameworks overall.

There were various ways that organizations promoted disability as a central dimension of diversity. To frame DEI efforts in the CSR reports, many of the companies detailed how they defined diversity and what diversity meant within their organizations. Capturing the wide breadth of DEI, many organizations listed a number of demographic groups, such as Edison International (2020, p.

22) which stated, “_We embrace all forms of diversity, including age, disability, race, ethnicity, gender, LGBTQ+[Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, questioning, and others], religion, veteran status and diversity of thought, and continue to seek opportunities to support all our employees, partners, and our community_.

” By directly naming disability as part of “diversity” there was a distinct representation of disability as a diversity dimension and identity. Some companies included additional sections about specific aspects of diversity. Within some of these reports, there were designated text sections detailing disability inclusion efforts, such as General Motor’s (2020, p.

150) report with the section titled, “_Equity for People with Disabilities_. ” This approach appeared to be thorough, describing a myriad of strategies the company took to support the disability community, mapped as other practices throughout the paper. By offering full sections on disability inclusion efforts, companies showcased their commitment to and recognition of supporting the disability community as part of their CSR efforts.

Another approach within the CSR reports related to disability as part of diversity was highlighting awards received regarding disability inclusion (76/129; 59%). A majority of referenced awards were related to the Disability:IN Disability Equality Index, which was unsurprising as companies had to receive 100% to be included in this study.

Other examples included being featured in magazines or other benchmarking tools related to disability inclusion. Similar to that of diversity statements, many disability inclusion related awards were listed in conjunction with that of other company recognitions within the CSR reports..

These recognitions may be additionally notable as many of them required resource investment, such as completing lengthy benchmark surveys and paying participation fees, on behalf of the organization. Overall, including disability as part of diversity sections and statements was the most common strategy and potentially demonstrated acknowledgement of disability as a diversity category.

This represents a continued evolving recognition and understanding of disability as part of both overarching CSR and DEI initiatives. #### Disability-specific employee resource group Another major strategy publicized within the CSR reports was having a disability-specific employee resource group (ERG). As previously mentioned, ERGs are becoming an increasingly influential and important aspect of the DEI strategies (Gould et al.

, 2021; Welbourne & McLaughlin, 2013). The inclusion of these groups in a majority of reports further demonstrated how ERGs are becoming mainstream within CSR and DEI efforts. Although this was a slight decrease in percentage from the original study, the increase in the sAltmple size emphasizes the widespread use and importance of ERGs.

While these groups may be known by different names, such as resource councils, employee networks, affinity groups, as well as business resource groups, most of them serve a similar purpose of providing community for employees centered on a specific affinity and helps employees give input on overarching business activities to enhance DEI (Welbourne & McLaughlin, 2013).

Many of the ERG descriptions within the CSR reports included a running list or other overview of all ERGs, which usually aligned with various demographic groups thus reinforcing disability as a dimension of diversity. Other common summaries of the disability-specific ERGs included descriptions of members and key initiatives of the groups. One example comes from Verizon (2020, p.

88), “_We work with our ADVANCE (Advocates for Disability, Accessibility, Neurodiversity and Caregiver Empowerment) ERG, as well as industry partners, to remain informed about accessibility issues and to improve user experiences_.

” This brief statement highlighted the broad connections across the disability community involved in the ERG as well as how the ERG engaged in DEI efforts to advance access for both internal and external stakeholders. Descriptions in other reports also included how disability-based ERGs raised awareness about disability by “_educating_” employee bases and “_advocating_” for people