ity instead of common discrimination against an particular social group (Hutchings & Thomas 2005).
这些具有不同背景的社会群体，在组织之外，如妇女社区、犹太人社区或非裔加勒比社区，被组织视为利润丰厚的产品和服务市场。然而，当这些人在组织内时，他们属于这些截然不同的社会群体的优势被严重淡化，组织更喜欢根据这些人的优点和能力来分析他们的贡献。个人主义的这种重要性，让企业有机会表现出歧视，并将责任归咎于未能实现个人能力的不幸失败，而不是对特定社会群体的普遍歧视。
However, it would be improper to narrow it down to only the consultants of the management and the human resource management who have been enthroned with the responsibility to work on these business case papers. Activists advocating for diversity have also been inadequate in establishing business case on equality for women, who frequently use various terminologies in debates, in regards to policies, that are seen to have a very limited shelf life which eventually become too familiar and quite easier to ignore and tune out (Ahmed, S et al. 2006). Instead of energizing the debate, the terminologies, tend to die out the debate of gender equality (Ahmed, S et al. 2006).
然而，将其局限于管理层和人力资源管理部门的顾问，他们有责任编写这些商业案例文件，这是不恰当的。倡导多样性的活动家也不足以为妇女建立平等的商业案例，她们在辩论中经常使用各种术语，涉及政策，这些术语的保质期非常有限，最终变得过于熟悉，更容易被忽视和忽视。这些术语非但没有激发辩论，反而往往会扼杀性别平等的辩论。
The fact is that the business case discourses written by the corporates have failed to be effective in bring about any change in the equality for women at organizations. Ahmed feels that there has been no attempt to abandon such approach by the organisations as it is understood that it ensures the management with a kind of politics that suits their needs in the corporate world (Ahmed, S et al. 2006).
事实是，企业撰写的商业案例论述未能有效地改变组织中女性的平等。Ahmed认为，组织没有试图放弃这种方法，因为据了解，这种方法确保了管理层有一种适合他们在企业界需求的政治。
As an even more persuading argument that the business cases have on structuring workplace gender relationship is the policy choices of the government with in regards to macroeconomics. For example, Blackmore saw that the businesses took more interest in business cases related diversity during times when a new government reviews the work policies adopted by private companies that results in a drastic restructuring of dynamics of diversity in the workplace. Business cases on diversity are more emphasised on, when there is a certainty among the management, that diversity can be more beneficial to the company in creating more profit, often due to a less interventionist approach and an understanding of the free market (Blackmore 2006). Colling and Dickens in their paper construed that as businesses have “privatized” the responsibility for encouraging equality at workplace, it has further resulted in the promotion of such business cases (Colling & Dickens 1998). They felt that the government in their authority as regulator, are to be blamed, as they stood and backed as well as encouraged equality at work as a concern that can be handled by line management. As a result of which the concept behind capitalization through diversity were associated with the idea of capturing new market, and thanks to the phenomenon of globalization, organizations moved towards service economy that allowed transnational migration with the support of the government (Blackmore 2006). Instead of the government acting as a regulator, it looked like the corporates have been regulating the government. This resulted in corporate reports or business cases on diversity to influence policy debates and thereby acquired larger legitimacy.
商业案例关于构建工作场所性别关系的一个更具说服力的论点是政府在宏观经济方面的政策选择。例如，Blackmore发现，在新政府审查私营公司采取的工作政策时，企业对与商业案例相关的多样性更感兴趣，这导致了工作场所多样性动态的剧烈重组。当管理层确信多样性更有利于公司创造更多利润时，更多地强调多样性的商业案例，这通常是由于较少干预的方法和对自由市场的理解。Colling和Dickens在他们的论文中解释说，随着企业将鼓励工作场所平等的责任“私有化”，这进一步促进了此类商业案例的推广。他们认为，作为监管机构的政府应该受到指责，因为他们支持并鼓励工作中的平等，这是一个可以由直线管理层处理的问题。因此，通过多样性实现资本化背后的概念与占领新市场的想法联系在一起，由于全球化现象，各组织在政府的支持下转向了允许跨国移民的服务经济。企业似乎一直在监管政府，而不是政府充当监管机构。这导致了关于多样性的公司报告或商业案例，以影响政策辩论，从而获得了更大的合法性。
The corporate business case approach evidently did not allow any advancement to women’s wellbeing in the workplace. When it comes to using business case developed by corporates to rationalize and discuss gender equality within the company, it preve
