Peter Waring

International evidence of corporate demand for ‘aesthetic labour’ has stimulated a growing and important literature on the strategic, commercial, legal, gendered and ethical aspects of this labour process (see Spiess & Waring, 2005; Warhurst & Nickson, 2009; Warhurst et al., 2000; Waring, 2011; Witz et al., 2003). There is some evidence to suggest that the growth in ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ strategies and practices by larger firms provides a level of recognition of the need to avoid discriminatory practices based on the physical characteristics of employees whether these be overt, structural or as a result of unconscious bias. It is argued that the emergence of ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ strategies are not just in response to regulatory demands or an enlightened ‘character over characteristics’ approach to hiring, but stems from a desire to meet contemporary Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expectations. In turn this corporate motivation is frequently driven by commercial concerns such as the need to attract and retain capital and talent.

In this chapter, the intersection of aesthetic labour, appearance-based discrimination, corporate Diversity and Inclusion strategies and CSR is explored. Through the examination of Fortune 500 ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ strategies and approaches to CSR, the intent behind the resourcing of ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ and its relationship to CSR is critically assessed. This critical assessment discloses both genuine efforts to reject unethical forms of ‘lookism’ or ‘appearance-based discrimination’ but also several contradictions. These include contradictions between the rhetoric of diversity and CSR and the continuation of aesthetic labour strategies for commercial advantage. Further, the research finds that the physical representation of ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ efforts are sometimes themselves exploited for commercial gain.

Singapore is a modern state that enjoys one of the highest GDP per capita in the world. Like Japan though, the country has a rapidly ageing population (20% of Singaporeans will be 65 and above by 2030) and an age support ratio that will fall to 2.1 by 2030. In recent times, the ruling People’s Action Party has acknowledged that the country’s modest universal pension plan, the Central Provident Fund and the healthcare funding it provides (MediSave), may be insufficient to ensure adequate levels of social protection. While the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (3.8 Universal Health Care coverage and 1.3 Implementation of Appropriate Social Protection systems) seems elusive in the Singapore context, there has been progress in the form of social welfare benefits for targeted generations of Singaporeans. This Chapter examines these investments in social welfare and the extent to which they are likely to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals for older Singaporeans. A central argument developed in this chapter is that these investments in healthcare may address the social protection needs of current retirees, but are unlikely to do so for future cohorts. The chapter concludes by outlining the limitations of the city state’s approach to social protection.