Ten questions a board should ask about its role in promoting social cohesion

A society with a high degree of social cohesion is typically one in which trust in government and institutions such as education, the legal system, health care and traditional media is high, perceptions of economic fairness and opportunity are positive, and attitudes towards minority groups are inclusive, so people feel psychologically and physically safe more often than not.

A related term is “digital polarisation”, which presents a significant challenge to social cohesion. Digital polarisation refers to divisions in opinions, beliefs and communities online, where individuals are exposed mainly to information that reinforces their existing views, leading to a fragmentation of public discourse and a weakening of shared understanding.

Digital polarisation is a problem because it reinforces echo chambers and limits cross-ideological understanding.

Not-for-profit organisations have a significant role to play in modelling and promoting inclusive and constructive dialogue with a view to increasing social cohesion and reducing digital polarisation.

Not-for-profits are at the frontlines of communities, witnesses to the times when their beneficiaries are at their most vulnerable, whether those beneficiaries are people, animals, the climate, the natural environment, buildings or open spaces. Not-for-profits are often tasked with negotiating solutions to systemic and acute problems that they did not create.

Not-for-profits have an ethical responsibility to strive to ensure that their work makes things better for people and the planet, not worse. Social cohesion is reduced by economic inequality, discrimination, deep divisions in political beliefs, and language that reinforces ideological divisions.

By using their unique role in society to work against those forces, not-for-profits can make a signification contribution to strengthening social cohesion.

To what extent are our governance, policies and operational frameworks designed to support social cohesion and reduce inequalities, rather than unintentionally contributing to their decline?

The way an organisation is structured and the systems it operates within can reinforce existing inequalities or help dismantle them. Boards must ask whether their governance, policies, and operational frameworks are designed to support social cohesion or unintentionally contribute to its decline. An organisation’s diversity and inclusion policies will contribute to increasing or decreasing social cohesion.

Diversity in the boardroom means embracing a wide range of perspectives, rather than enabling only a narrow or uniform range of views. To what extent are the people sitting around the table different from one another in background, identity, thinking styles, skills and demographics? In other words, can we rely on our group of board members to notice problems thanks to their differing interests and blind spots, or are they too similar to one another and thus likely to miss a trick?

How are we engaging with stakeholders to ensure our services meet their needs and promote inclusivity?

Building social cohesion requires actively listening to and engaging with a diverse range of stakeholders. This means going beyond token consultation to ensure that decision-making is informed by those most affected.

What information might we be missing when we make decisions? What might be the unintended consequences of our decisions? Do we know enough? Do we do due diligence?

Do we have blind spots that prevent us from making good governance decisions? These blind spots may come from a lack of board diversity or from hearing our own opinions reinforced rather than seeking alternative perspectives. A clear ethical framework ensures that policies, procedures for making decisions and the decisions themselves not only align with the organisation’s values but actively contribute to building trust within society.

Are we inadvertently reinforcing weak social cohesion by using divisive language in our communications?

Organisations may unintentionally use language or messages that alienate or divide people, reinforcing societal fractures rather than fostering unity. Boards should consider whether their communications, even unintentionally, are contributing to weak social cohesion by failing to be inclusive or by using language that deepens ideological divides.

How transparent are we in our communications with stakeholders about our finances? How do we ensure trust in our organisation among the broader community?

Financial integrity and transparency are a key board governance responsibility. When it comes to the finances, too much communication with stakeholders is preferable to not enough, to maintain stakeholders’ confidence in the organisation. Where we get our money from and where we spend it say a lot about what matters most to the organisation.

How do we gather and incorporate feedback from the communities we serve to improve our services?

Everyone gets it wrong sometimes. When an organisation is inadvertently divisive or hurtful or overlooks its negative impact on others, it’s important to seek and hear feedback from stakeholders and act on it.

How are we choosing our language and images in our communications? Are we including or excluding those who might hold different views from ours?

When we write and choose images for our organisation’s speeches, social media, traditional media, email marketing and other communications, what are our underlying assumptions? Do we assume we are always right? Do we communicate to include or exclude people who do not agree with us? Are we aiming to bring our community together or to highlight divisions? Are we seeking allies or enemies by the words and images we use?

When our organisation is faced with a crisis, do we choose words and actions that promote unity and understanding, or are our words deepening divisions?

When an organisation is faced with a crisis or a vulnerable group of stakeholders, its response can exacerbate divisions or promote healing and unity. Language is a powerful tool, never more so than in uncertain times, when divisive or inflammatory language can increase polarisation and weaken social cohesion, while empathetic and inclusive language can bridge divides and foster understanding. It is important to try to view our organisation’s decisions and stated opinions from the perspective of other people, to understand how we can contribute to solutions.

When our organisation is faced with a crisis, do we choose words and actions that promote unity and understanding, or are our words deepening divisions?

When an organisation is faced with a crisis or a vulnerable group of stakeholders, its response can exacerbate divisions or promote healing and unity. Language is a powerful tool, never more so than in uncertain times, when divisive or inflammatory language can increase polarisation and weaken social cohesion, while empathetic and inclusive language can bridge divides and foster understanding. It is important to try to view our organisation’s decisions and stated opinions from the perspective of other people, to understand how we can contribute to solutions.

Does the organisation advocate consistently for issues across different contexts, or is it selective in its concerns, potentially undermining its credibility and its impact on social cohesion?

This question is important because it helps the board and senior leaders to ensure good governance by identifying organisational and leadership blind spots. For example, if the organisation speaks out about the impact of climate change on the communities it serves, is it equally engaged in discussions about other environmental concerns that affect its stakeholders? If the organisation seeks the input of people with lived experience of particular issues, does it consider all perspectives, or only those whose experiences align with organisational objectives?