Ageism: The Groundhog Day Syndrome of Australian Business
Another day, more reports and analysis, same old story.
Sometimes it feels like being an advocate for workplace age inclusiveness, the older worker, the benefits of longevity and anti-ageism business practices is akin to the Bill Murray role in the Groundhog Day film. A recent report, this time from the Diversity Council of Australia confirms the ongoing existence of workplace ageism impacting both younger and older workers. Again, another report from the World Economic Forum highlights an estimated $500 billion in productivity losses by 2040 for OECD countries due to under- and unemployment of adults aged 55+ relative to younger workers. And new books are landing in bookstores promoting the opportunities increasing longevity offer the world (refer to Longevity Nation by Michael Clinton and The Future of Work is Grey: The Untapped Value of Age in the Workforce by Dan Pontefract). So, we have the same old story, more reports and analysis reinforcing the continuing presence of workplace ageism and its potentially negative impacts on productivity now and into the future. And we have new evidence highlighting the benefits of ageing and older workers. And yet nothing in Australia appears to be changing in the age management space.
The ‘grey tsunami’ scenario and its future negative impacts on national finances remains the dominant narrative informing media reporting on ageing. Federal Government shows a lack of urgency or real interest in tackling population ageing other than through existing budget management. And big business remains myopically focused on the short term and margin management rather than strategic and innovative growth strategies. And if this isn’t challenging enough, we’re now seeing a fledgling intellectual frame developing questioning whether longevity is in fact in the national self-interest in both Australia and the US (refer Going On and On: Why Our Longevity Threatens Our Future by Lucinda Holdforth and Gerontocracy in America by Samuel Moyn.) The peril of longevity is even featuring in the upcoming Festival of Dangerous Ideas with a specific session dedicated to exploring how longevity threatens the future.
Personally, we find this somewhat ironic given the existing media and business negativity towards positive ageing and Baby Boomers. In fact, a more radical idea would be to explore how ageing and living longer can be both a national social and economic benefit. Now that would be an even better topic for the Festival of Dangerous Ideas more so than an exploration of the supposed perils of longevity.
Despite the best efforts of many anti-ageism advocates, Australia appears, relative to the world, to be becoming more of an intellectual backwater when it comes to fostering innovative and positive approaches to embracing age inclusiveness throughout our society. A strong sense of inertia seems to be in place when it comes to embracing the opportunities an ageing population could present local business.
However, we wish to adopt a more optimistic tone to our newsletter by highlighting from a corporate perspective what is possible. Amidst the general gloom we will shine a beacon on some companies that are having a real crack at adopting age-inclusiveness practices as a critical part of their business strategy. Given the lack of local role models, we will rely on overseas data to highlight the possibilities.
55/Redefined is a UK based consultancy founded in 2021 with a focus on unlocking the value of the UK ageing population to future-proof organisations. Backed by a consortium of investors, the consultancy has built an impressive client list of over 300 corporates in its short existence. Late last year 55/Refined released a report of its work with its clients highlighting the age inclusive initiatives it has helped implement within their operations. The scope of work is impressive and demonstrates what is possible when companies understand the upside of ageing and work to realise its commercial benefits.
The Opportunity
The 55/Redefined report confirms earlier forecasts of the significant and growing value of the Silver Economy (refer The Longevity Imperative by Andrew J Scott). This report observes its value as US $22 trillion and growing, noting for those companies that recognise the opportunity, this economy will be a powerful engine of growth.
However, the 55/Redefined report also confirmed very few businesses seem focused on the Silver Economy opportunity, stating its research revealed only 12% of employers have a longevity strategy in place. This confirms earlier data produced by the Boston Consulting Group which found fewer than 15% of companies have a specific business strategy for the over 60s. Further, nearly 70% of companies do not take rising longevity into account when planning sales and marketing initiatives (refer Bolder: Making the Most of Longer Lives by Carl Honore).
We enjoyed the pithy observation within the 55/Redefined report noting that a lack of interest or engagement by business with the growing Silver Economy quite simply means if you don't have an age strategy, you don't have a growth strategy.
The Possibilities for Companies
We celebrate the diversity of UK based companies who are actively seeking to specifically embrace age inclusion as both a workforce necessity and a business advantage. Companies such as AMGEN, Bank of America, Biogen, Canada Life UK, CapGemini, Deloitte, Lilly, Novartis, Page Group, Pfizer, Philips, Sanofi and Uber appear to be working to build the strategic framework that supports future policies and practices facilitating the embedding of age inclusive thinking and behaviours within their companies. The 55/Redefined Report highlights how these companies to differing degrees are:
Developing and communicating a clear age strategy as a key pillar of business and workforce development.
Actively seeking to be an attractive employer for employees in their 50s and 60s and beyond.
Regularly considering the impacts of an ageing population on the workforce, consumers and clients as part of the business’ long-term strategy.
Ensuring business leaders are engaged on the topic of age.
The 55/Redefined Report acknowledges for companies to remain competitive in today’s labour market they must be both intentional in how they attract workers 50 years of age and over and be prepared to help them grow by investing in development opportunities that ensure their continued success. This requires going beyond traditional recruitment strategies and prioritising personal growth and continuous learning and development irrespective of age.
The Report, whilst acknowledging the progress the above companies are making in embracing an age-inclusiveness strategy, recognises at a practical level, to date, these strategies have not been translated into significant changes to existing recruitment and development practices. The report suggests these companies still have significant improvement opportunities in amongst other initiatives:
Designing tailored recruitment campaigns to attract workers over 50.
Training recruiters in age inclusion.
Creating and providing multigenerational teams training to employees.
Creating and deploying reskilling programmes for over-50s employees to pivot roles or move internally.
Undertaking regular skills audits and creating new programmes to hire and train over-50s with little or no prior experience.
However, the Report also recognises the importance of having the right employee benefits in place as both a recruitment and retention advantage for employers. These employee benefits, 55/Redefined explains must be available to all irrespective of age. The above companies appear more active and innovative in this space with promising progress in the following benefit areas:
Creating and maintaining engaged employee resource groups focused on age.
Offering mid-life health and wellbeing options to over-50s employees.
Providing menopause support, such as access to menopause health professionals, time off or flexible work arrangements, and potentially coverage for hormone replacement therapy.
We all understand that major corporate transformation initiatives are rarely straightforward linear processes, no matter how much we might wish them to be as HR, leadership and change management professionals. The 55/Redefined Report seems to reinforce this thought with great progress in some areas and variable in others. However, more importantly the commitment of the above-mentioned companies to recognising a changing world of demographics and beginning to adapt their systems to accommodate the new operating environment is to be applauded. What we celebrate is how they are positioning this change as one principally driven by strategy and not relegated to one of culture change (Refer to our September 25 Newsletter ‘Does Culture Eat Strategy for Breakfast When It Comes to Tackling Ageism?). Our position to overcoming workplace ageism is there must exist a deliberate willingness of leaders to change not only their own attitudes but also the operating systems acting as a barrier to creating ‘age friendly’ workplaces. These companies, at face value seem to be adopting this approach. We agree with the 55/Redefined reports conclusion that leaders who commit to age inclusion as a business strategy won’t just be adapting to demographic change, but setting their organisations apart as forward-looking, resilient, and ready to thrive in an evolving economy.
However, having declared our bias for age management as a business strategy activity, other well-known organisations have chosen a cultural change approach as their preferred vehicle for creating change in workforce age management approach. Again, these companies are more likely to be European multi-nationals. They include such brands as Siemens, Michelin, Unilever and Nestle.
Historically, these companies appear to have first tried to accommodate issues of workforce age management through a focus on implementing ‘older worker’ programmes. Yet, over time their experiences have seen them deliberately shift from a deliberate focus on older worker needs to embracing an age inclusive management philosophy. This has been driven by the recognition that:
standalone older worker programmes can inadvertently reinforce negative stereotypes about this cohort;
employees increasingly have non-linear careers, making chronological age a less useful organising principle;
DEI frameworks can include age alongside other diversity characteristics;
company policies that benefit employees at every career stage act as a powerful contributor to strengthening an organisations employee value proposition.
Nowadays, these companies embed age within their broader DEI or inclusion and belonging frameworks. This reflects a shift in both practice and theory from reactive age management towards proactive age-inclusive human resource management that values multigenerational workforces as a strategic capability. Across these organisations, five recurring practices are evident:
a commitment to lifelong learning that keeps employees employable regardless of age;
the provision of flexible work arrangements which supports different life stages and longer careers;
an emphasis on wellbeing and ergonomics to maintain work ability rather than reacting to decline;
the recognition of the importance of knowledge transfer to preserving organisational expertise primarily through an emphasis on mentoring and coaching activity;
the existence of an age-inclusive recruitment approach with a focus on skills and experience rather than chronological age.
These organisations do not appear to have always independently developed their specific age management approaches but also relied on the existence of external age-inclusive frameworks developed through the unique interests and research of global advisory institutions including the OECD, the World Economic Forum, the World Health Organisation and the International Labour Organisation. These organisations are often the repositories of best practice age management insights, recommendations and practices. Smart companies are not necessarily ‘reinventing the wheel’ but taking advantage of this knowledge when it comes to developing and embedding sustainable age-management policies into their operating environments.
There are relatively few U.S. companies with explicit, enterprise-wide age inclusion strategies comparable to those of Siemens', Michelin, Unilever and Nestle. However, several American companies notably Bank of America, CVS Health and to a lesser extent The Home Depot are regularly cited by researchers and age-diversity advocates for leading age-inclusive practices. Whilst some UK, European and US companies have adopted age-inclusive workforce management practices, the drivers for this approach appear to differ.
European companies tend to frame age- inclusion as part of workforce sustainability management in response to demographic ageing trends and public policy outcomes. In contrast, many leading U.S. companies emphasise skills, employability and business performance, choosing to embed age within broader DEI and talent strategies rather than creating standalone age-management programmes. The US approach reflects an emphasis on individual ownership for lifelong employability whilst the European approach places a higher importance on the role of collective responsibility to drive workforce sustainability. Yet, despite different philosophical underpinnings governing these contrasting age management models, there is significant overlap on the practical interventions necessary to support each model i.e. the commitments to continuous learning and flexible work, the importance of the existence of knowledge transfer and inclusive recruitment practices and the creation of work environments promoting employee wellbeing.
Further innovation in embracing the ageing of consumers and employees, again driven by European organisations, is witnessed by the emergence of a new corporate role - the Chief Longevity Officer (Refer to our October 25 Newsletter: The Emergence of a Chief Longevity Officer Role: Gamechanger or Gimmick?). The French cosmetics company L’Oreal and the Portuguese insurance company Fidelidade are two established European companies who are early movers in this space. L’Oréal, the world’s largest cosmetics company, has elevated longevity to the same strategic tier as climate change and AI. Fidelidade, Portugal’s largest insurer, understands older adults not as dependents but as future builders and is consequently weaving longevity into everything from product innovation to public perception.
Final Thoughts
Tackling ageism within Australian industry feels like a replay of the ‘Groundhog Day’ film.We’re not talking simply of repetition but rather the illusion of progress. In the film every day appears different, yet nothing fundamentally changes because the underlying mindset remains the same. To us this mirrors the current experience of ageism in many Australian organisations.
Like Bill Murray’s character in the film instead of waking every day to Sonny & Cher’s, I Got You Babe, Australia seems to wake each year to another report warning of either workforce ageing or labour shortages or skills shortages or declining productivity or the need to retain experienced workers. Yet organisational responses often remain remarkably similar. Businesses continue to recruit for "high potential" rather than proven capability, emphasise "young talent", under-invest in training workers over 50, and overlook experienced candidates when recruiting. Whilst the dialogue might change slightly around the need to tackle ageism, the ending rarely does.
What makes this paradoxical is the composition of Australian Boards, the people governing behaviour within their own organisations. The 2026 Watermark Board Diversity highlights whilst Boards of our largest listed companies may be becoming more diverse, they are not becoming younger. The average age of an Australian Board member in 2026 is 60.9 years of age. So, while Australian companies are generally comfortable appointing 61-year-olds to govern organisations, many of these same organisations struggle to recruit or retain employees in their late 50s and early 60s. The question must be asked, why is it that older age is often viewed as an asset in governance but a liability in employment? Why is experience valued in boardrooms but not in the operating business?
The examples we have shared of predominantly European and British based companies, show what is possible when business leaders are prepared to challenge precedent. Accepting the world’s demography is rapidly changing and understanding this implication for markets and workforce structures is liberating business thinking in these companies allowing then for the challenge to long established attitudes and behaviours that have become embedded in their company practices and routines.
In Australia we already know age diverse teams perform well; older workers remain productive; mixed age teams improve knowledge transfer and that projected labour shortages are structural rather than temporary. The evidence is no longer the issue, rather, translating the knowledge into different organisational routines. Ageism often survives not because managers deliberately discriminate but because organisations repeatedly use the same assumptions and routines.
Research reveals embedded belief and knowledge structures are captured through the existence of routines. They help provide certainty and predictability to organisation behaviour. Routines act as a connector of the past with the present through converting work patterns into a ‘taken for granted’ status that solidify as frameworks for governing social interactions and modes of thought. Research also highlights that historical business success reduces the inclination to innovate leading to a preference to maintain existing routines irrespective of their ongoing effectiveness in changing environmental conditions. Organisational knowledge development, once institutionalised over time, is difficult to alter. A consequence of this is organisations preferring to commit to search activities that build on their existing knowledge bases rather than embracing more experimental or radical knowledge.
Extending this research into a practical realm, we know many organisations have diversity policies, inclusion statements, age-friendly aspirations and flexible work initiatives. If all these initiatives were deeply embraced by an organisation, an outcome might be the generation of radical knowledge that offered the opportunity to significantly change workforce management attitudes and behaviours. Yet, despite the existence of the above initiatives, we continue to witness recruitment systems, promotion decisions, leadership development and succession planning continuing to favour younger workers. Companies continue to tinker with and refine the existing routines underpinning these activities. This indicates how deeply embedded historical and largely negative thinking surrounding ‘age’ is within current everyday management decision-making, irrespective of whether this thinking remains ‘fit for purpose’ in all instances in the changing environmental conditions these companies are facing.
The lesson for us at encourAGEEQUALITY is that whilst continually making the business community aware of the challenge of ageism remains vital, this of itself is not enough to end the ongoing ageism cycle. We need to break the pattern of companies acknowledging the value of older workers while systematically overlooking them. Only, in our view, by changing organisational habits as witnessed in some innovative overseas companies will the cycle be broken. Where are the local Board members prepared to tackle the paradox of celebrating the value of age in the boardroom but not in the workplaces they govern?
What do you think? Does tackling ageism in Australia feel like a ‘Ground Hog Day’ situation? We’d love to hear your thoughts.
References
55 Redefined. (2025). Age Intelligence in Action: Global Best Practices from Leading Employers Report
Diversity Council of Australia. (2026). Age, assumptions and access at work: Employee experiences of age inclusion in the workplaceReport. (June).
World Economic Forum & Marsh McLennan. (2026). The Future of Longevity: Ageing and the Workforce. (June).
Watermark. (2026). 2026 Board Diversity IndexReport
Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2013). Organizing processes and the construction of risk: A discursive approach. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 231-255.
Powell, W. W. (1991). Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. London: The University of Chicago Press.
Nag, R., Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2007). The intersection of organizational identity, knowledge and practice: Attempting strategic change via knowledge grafting. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 821-847.
