DEI in renewable energy and broader infrastructure area
Feels that not too much minorities and female professions in this space. Just wondering if this is true? Here renewable and broader infra mainly refer to IB/PE/Fund/Dev.
Trending Content
Career Resources
Could be. I helped mentor some grad students focused on the P3 space this year and this was one of the group's research projects, especially for DBEs looking to get selected as subcontractors, looking for federal and other financing opportunities, etc.
When you drive across a bridge or flip a light switch, do you think to yourself "boy I sure hope a black woman worked on the financing of the project that built this or I'm gonna be mad."?
All that matters is it functions with a 99.99% success rate and the best people possible are the ones working on it. I'd like to think that holds true for all things in a professional environment, but at a minimum that should be the case for something as important as infrastructure. I'll put up with the stupid DIE initiatives in tech/consumer/whatever else but please leave this particular sector alone for all our sakes lol
You are bringing this too far. No one’s here saying DEI=offering easier access or lower the bar. I totally agree with you that the best professional deserves the best across industries. However, the truth is that some sectors/industries have nature bias that even don’t offer fair competition. To stand at the same place for the same opportunity, certain minority group needs to be more excellent/outstanding against the non-minority candidate, referring to what you said before, here the example should be a white male. If this sounds hard for you to understand, refer to the Harvard Admission Case just won in Supreme Court this year. Yes, DEI should not be blindsided. But the truth is that many times it’s simply about equal competition.
Get back to the old topic, I’m curious about the demographic diversity level of Real Estate, Infra, Energy space, mainly to understand:
1. Is it because the evaluation system is biased, to be more straightforward, not fair from the initial competition? (Like real estate industry back to 20 years ago).
2. Is it just because certain demographics groups are interested?
3. Is it my sample error/bias?
Cautiously or unconsciously, it’s the ugly truth that bias and unfair evaluation systems exist in various professional field. Be a kind person.
Except in nearly every demonstrated case that's been brought before a court with evidence that's exactly what it results in... but go on.
That's some verbal diarrhea they spout to you in college. No professional field has an in-built bias against anyone or anything because it's an inanimate concept, not a person. People may have natural biases, but that's not solved by implementing discriminatory hiring practices - and yes, any policy that preferences 1 group inherently de-preferences another. DEI doesn't effectuate fairness, it by design employs inherent unfairness in an attempt to level the playing field from the perspective of its beneficiaries (Kendi has written extensively on this topic). It's effectively the same as old racist policies of "blacks need not apply" but in reverse, and because it's presented in a positive light as helping X underrepresented group it gets a pass.
This is literally just restating the exact argument Asian students made to SCOTUS in striking down AA - that they have to be across the board academically exceptional compared to black/hispanic students to have a chance at an "even" field of competition. DEI initiatives almost universally lower that bar for minority applicants. They mathematically have to - if you're dealing with 1,000+ asian/white applicants but only 100 black/hispanic applicants, even if the top 1% of applicants are roughly equal in terms of competency, it's impossible that you have as many qualified applicants to choose from between the two groups. By subsequently placing a quota or in-built hiring preference for a particular group as defined by an immutable characteristic such as race/sex, you are by definition discriminating against the other applicants that do not fall under your definition.
There is no "many times", it's inherently not about equal anything. Equal competition doesn't mean proportionally equal results. The E literally stands for "equity" not "equality". If this sounds hard for you to understand, refer to Webster's dictionary for defenitions.
No
This is the single biggest defining factor for why you see disparate representation across various fields, especially as it relates to men vs women.
Also likely, and it's great that you're even willing to consider that as an option because many people do not.
Kindness has nothing to do with anything here. Evaluation systems aren't meant to be "fair" they're meant to be effective. And if you define fairness as equal outcomes across an entire field regardless of differences in the inputs, then everything is going to seem "unfair".
Based on your reply, I admit that my understanding of DEI is not accurate. I also recognize that’s my initial statement mistake of using the word “DEI”, which is misleading in this discussion. I’m not trying to discuss offer special access or opportunities. Instead, I’m just wondering about the selection process and culture of the sector.
If I use equal opportunity, that sounds more accurate? Simply, I mean not to be biased against/in the disadvantage situation in the interview and selection process just because I’m a female with color not from this country. Asking this since many people had been there. You won’t understand if you are not in that situation.
Only thing I totally disagree with you: if a selection mechanism does not offer equal competition, then it’s either not the most effective one, or racial and gender bias is the fact in this sector/industry. If you don’t want admit this logic, then it explains a lot.
All good! If it was a misunderstanding of definitions then that's all there is to it. Selection process for these roles isn't that different than what you would encounter in consulting/IB/PE/AM. To be competitive you need good grades, demonstrated interest in the sector, and ideally some relevant internship experience. I recruited for infra PE roles before I decided to go the tech route so can speak to that somewhat - it's a competitive area with comparable comp to your typical PE role and has some pretty extensive modeling requirements (especially for anything related to energy infra). The selection process IMO isn't as clearly defined as it would be if you were trying for regular PE/IB, but there seems to be a greater need for you to have a good explanation for "why infrastructure". I've also personally found it to be a bit friendlier to less traditional backgrounds (if you have a good "why" answer).
It's roughly the same thing meaning-wise but as I've been saying, no, you will not be disadvantaged as a woman or a minority. So long as you have the stats to be a competitive candidate, if anything you will benefit from those characteristics because of the prevailing political climate. If you want to feel more secure in terms of preparation I would highly encourage you to just cold reach out to seniors at firms you've done some research on to ask them about their experiences/for advice. It's uncomfortable and takes some thought to craft a good message to catch people's attention, and I feel like many young women choose not to do it because of that discomfort, but putting yourself out there with persistence will be a big differentiator and you will be surprised how many folks are willing to hop on a 20-30 min call to answer some thoughtful questions and help out a student.
Agree to disagree. Competition in my view is inherently unequal, if it weren't then there would be no winners or losers and everyone would get the same result. If I were to have a dunking competition with Lebron James my 5'10 pasty ass would get absolutely wrecked and rightfully so, but it would still be "equal competition" in the sense that I was allowed to participate and Lebron was given no advantage over me by the judges. You cannot define "equal competition" based on the outcomes, the equality is based on being given the same space and opportunity for consideration.
In truth, you shouldn't want equal competition. You should make it your goal instead to stack the deck in your favor in every possible way before you even submit your application i.e. some combination of having the best grades, showing the most interest, doing the most research, asking the best questions, networking to make the right connections, etc. all to give you a leg up on anyone that's just cold applying through a resume portal. It's all about how much work you are willing to put in to make yourself standout and show why you are the best person for the job.
Good luck!
oy vey
going off of this, does one also think "I hope they followed Buy America requirements and paid Davis-Bacon wage rates"? The intent is laudable imo, but oftentimes it's cost prohibitive to burden contractors/sponsors for relatively simple projects when certain kinds of funding partners are present in the deal.
Ha, good points. IMO intent in legislation isn't worth the paper it's written on, what matters is the impact of said legislation that can be quantitatively measured or qualitatively observed. It doesn't help that most politicians are just totally ignorant of cost prohibitions like you mentioned.
Had often thought this sector was niche and self selecting enough to be fairly close to merit based but not certain on it
These roles are indeed highly specialized and people can distinguish who is truly interested and qualified for these naturally as not many people apply for roles in this sector, relatively speaking
Yeah that’s my first impression too! People cares about “where you comes from” more than other sectors.
Well no, that is not what I was saying. What you’re describing sounds like most PE and IB firms though.
Interviewers in renewables and infrastructure can discern through discussions whether applicants have the requisite knowledge and ability for these roles, as it requires a motivated and reasonably intelligent individual to grasp and convey a solid understanding of these technical fields.
The hiring decisions are less about an applicant’s background, and more focused on their potential to grow and contribute meaningfully to the team, considering their intrinsic abilities along with their relevant experiences and skill sets
There isn’t a need for more DEI in sustainable energy, what a moronic idea
Because it makes so much of a difference if a trans black female designed a wind farm vs a straight white male. Smh
Mission critical sectors like infra, energy, healthcare among others, should definitely emphasize merit-based hiring over others.
Honestly, IMO it should be across all sectors…
Definitely. But, roles like Airline Pilots should favor diversity as a priority.
I just want to work with diligent, competent and knowledgeable people who got the job fairly, through merit. Surely others must feel the same. If people want to push for non-merit based hiring, those hiring managers should exclusively work with the people they bring on and be responsible for training them.
That’s an interesting point, I think this is a great idea
I think every industry should have both training and comprehensive competence exams for entry level folk that they must pass as a requirement before starting the job to ensure every person has the necessary knowledge and intelligence to function properly on the job.
Ex:
- Physicians and surgeons need to pass the US Medical Licensing Exam or Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Exam
- Engineers must pass the Principles of Practice and Engineering exam after passing the Fundamentals of Engineering exam
- Accountants must pass the CPA exam
- Lawyers must pass the bar
- Pharmacists must pass the North American Pharmacist Licensure Exam and the Multistate Pharmacy Jurisprudence Exam
At least this way, you at least know you're onboarding baseline competency
Yeah I kind of wonder why they don’t have these entry exams for people prior to their entry level finance jobs
Because it doesn’t take a genius to work an Excel financial model.
I totally agree with this. However, having such a system in place does not mean there is no bias. E.g. College admission. Refer to prior conversations, actually my use of DEI here is not accurate. It’s a discussion more about bias.
Has anyone worked in renewables or infra? I have heard that these sectors require significant technical ability and intelligence
Yes, one of my friends from uni worked in an infra group upon graduation as a first job. She mentioned that it’s possibly some of the most technical and not intuitive sectors she’s ever encountered
Wow. That’s really impressive if this is her first job. Since most common team setup I noticed for renewable energy infra in Dev/PE/IB is a more “experienced hire” sector. People get in because they know what they want after touching some related work. And yes, I agree that this is very technical. Even at consulting side, team staffing needs to have someone understand some basics in the energy infra space, or at least did some similar areas with transferable mindsets and skill sets. Which is very different from most work in consumer and TMT side.
I worked in CRE and RRE debt market for 3 years and 1 year in consulting (IMO not technical at all compared to my first 3 years role). During my work at consulting side I started to see how energy infra, urban planning, transport, and etc connected to or impact RE. It indeed took me a good amount of time and efforts to streamline stories of so what, network, and brush up my long gone accounting and modeling skills for interviews. During interview, I indeed feel like what you mentioned, it’s an area really look into capability and purpose that way more than my past exp. Or it could be just I’m making a career adjustment.
How does energy infra and transport impact RE? Aside from basic stuff like: utilities help people in buildings flush toilets, and people drive cars to offices
Consequatur laboriosam in et et. Itaque repellat nihil possimus iure tenetur corrupti non.
Possimus quis et non quia eum. Dolor sint omnis quae quis officiis sapiente. Voluptatem in sint non et. Iure quo aperiam vel nihil aut alias occaecati.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Vitae minima odit maiores mollitia accusamus ad. Aspernatur quibusdam eligendi esse veritatis harum eum. Voluptate dicta eius non aliquam eveniet officia est. Incidunt quam quos sed maxime non impedit cumque.
Quis rerum modi dolores eos in et commodi accusantium. Consequuntur similique molestias rerum ipsam.
Sed voluptatem enim sed nemo quia vero aut et. Dicta fugit quasi placeat soluta dolore. Nemo et occaecati vero rerum. Sed facere exercitationem cumque. Amet ut in itaque. Reprehenderit architecto voluptas itaque voluptatem id earum.