The neurodiversity movement takes a societal view of individual differences by suggesting that people should be respected and not necessarily medically treated based on personal attributes. This commentary article discusses how human differences in intellectual capacities should be considered as another form of diversity with the requirement for medical intervention needing to be considered in terms of overall social change. As a significant portion of the overall workforce could be considered as people with some form of neurological disability this article analyses how co-creation processes occur meaning neurodiverse individuals should be accepted in society regardless of their differences. This article contributes to societal discussions around managing diversity as in society the socio-demographic categories such as age and gender are well established, but newer categories such as neurodiversity are required.

The review explores key issues associated with discrimination and hostility faced by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people at work and organizational responses to it. Starting from a description of the main challenges facing LGBT workers’ identity management, the review examines manifestations of negative attitudes towards gender and sexual minority groups, highlighting processes of subtle discrimination and exclusion. It presents and critiques dominant organizational responses to LGBT stigmatization, highlighting the need for holistic, intersectional approaches, and pointing out issues requiring further research.

Drawing upon the theoretical debate on the concept of common good involving, in particular, Sison and Fontrodona (2012), I aim to show how the common good principle can serve as the basis for a new diversity perspective. Each of the three dominant diversity approaches—equality, diversity management, and inclusion—runs the ethical risk of focusing on community or individual levels, or on particular disciplines—economic, social, or moral. This article demonstrates that the common good principle could mitigate the ethical risks inherent to each of these diversity approaches. There are three positive aspects to a comprehensive common good perspective: 1) it includes considering different community levels, which it connects by subsidiarity, 2) it embraces the moral, social, and economic fields, which it connects by teleological hierarchy, and 3) it avoids the risk of exclusion by generating a sense of solidarity.

The purpose of this article is to develop a conceptual framework to describe ‘socially responsible diversity management’. This framework seeks to demonstrate that the desired social justice outcomes of affirmative action programs and the business benefits of diversity management programs can be achieved but only by undertaking initiatives at a number of levels. Traditional approaches to afirmative action have been unsuccessful in achieving their goal of equitable labour market outcomes and it is unclear that diversity management programs have contributed to business outcomes. The article argues that neither affirmative action nor diversity management has been able to fully achieve its objectives because of a number of limitations. The article argues that organisations can achieve better business outcomes, as well as equity outcomes associated with a diverse workforce, by adopting a relational, multilevel framework of managing diversity. Such a framework provides for the creation of what is termed ‘socially responsible diversity management’.