Conference Program

Workplaces are a central arena of adult learning, yet the training-performance debate (Garavan et al, 2021) still underexplores whether workplace learning systems are inclusive for groups that face barriers inside organisation, i.e., women and older workers (50+) (Okatta, Ajayi & Olawale, 2004). This matters for firms because unequal access can reduce the efficiency of training investments and organisational performance (Alheiji et al., 2016) and for society because learning at work can consolidate norms of fairness, voice, and participation beyond the firm (Rasmussen, Milana & Bussi, 2024).

Building on Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) evidence that training can improve organisational capabilities and performance (Becker & Huselid, 2006; Jiang et al., 2012), we focus on distributional mechanisms, asking whether “who gets trained” and “how training is designed and evaluated” condition the benefits (Garavan et al., 2021). We connect strategic HRM with the diversity training (DT) scholarship which shows mixed (sometimes adverse) effects and highlights a theory-practice gap and weak evaluation routines (Pendry, Driscoll, & Field, 2007). Reviews also warn against relying on immediate, self-reported “surrogate” outcomes that cannot capture intended systems-level change (e.g., discrimination, retention), motivating longitudinal evidence on organisational outcomes (Devin & Ash, 2022).

We conceptualise inclusive workplace learning as a diversity-sensitive training system: observable investments whose design, monitoring, and access patterns can be linked to objective firm outcomes. We test whether workplace training in Italian firms is associated with organisational outcomes and whether narrower participation gaps for women and for workers aged 50+ relate to stronger and more persistent returns.

We address five questions: (RQ1) how is training related to HR outcomes (turnover; worker motivation) and to operational/financial outcomes? (RQ2) does quality/evaluation matter beyond intensity? (RQ3) do smaller gender and 50+ gaps coincide with more robust outcomes? (RQ4) do delivery modes and content moderate associations, especially after Covid? (RQ5) do institutionalised arrangements (e.g., interprofessional funds; social partner involvement) correlate with more inclusive training profiles?

Empirically, we merge Italian INDACO-INAPP Firms microdata with AIDA balance-sheet accounts to build a pre/post-Covid panel. Training is operationalised through (i) intensity/coverage; (ii) quality and evaluation; (iii) delivery and modality; and (iv) inclusion metrics capturing women’s and 50+ workers’ relative participation. Outcomes include INDACO-based HR and operational perceptions (e.g., process improvement; innovation capacity) and AIDA indicators (e.g., operational performance; ROE/ROI). We estimate longitudinal models with Post-Covid × Training interactions, explore lags (t → t+1/t+2), and test whether motivation improvements partly transmit training effects to objective outcomes (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000; Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). We also examine heterogeneity by sector/technology intensity, size, internationalisation, and macro-areas.

We hypothesise that narrowing gender and age gaps in training access strengthens collective capability building, reduces turnover, and translates into performance over time. Contributions are twofold: for adult-learning and work research, we offer a replicable measurement strategy distinguishing intensity, quality, delivery, and inclusion using INDACO items; for DT and HR policy, we provide longitudinal field evidence on whether inclusive training systems improve equity for women and older workers without sacrificing performance, and under which organisational and post-shock conditions. We also outline incentives rewarding evaluated inclusion in training systems.