evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Centre for Inclusive Design — Turning Accessibility Into a Four-Times-Bigger Market Case

Australia · Sydney · See the Australia profile · See the Sydney profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 24% 92/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

A Sydney nonprofit's PwC-modelled research finds products designed for 'edge users' — people with disability, low literacy or age-related impairment — can reach roughly four times their original market, and its audits reshaped a major bank's account guide and a NSW government web

4x
Modelled reach multiplier from inclusive design (precedent cases)
AUD 40 billion
Australians vulnerable to exclusion with modelled combined annual disposable income (2019)
AUD 4 billion
Modelled potential retail-revenue growth from inclusive design
50 of 50 WCAG 2.1 AA success criteria
NSW government website audit coverage
Centre for Inclusive Design — Turning Accessibility Into a Four-Times-Bigger Market Case

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Centre for Inclusive Design (CfID)
Period
2019–present
Keywords
inclusive design consultancy, banking & financial services, government digital services

Context

Since 2019 the Sydney nonprofit Centre for Inclusive Design (CfID) has worked with corporate partners including Adobe and Microsoft to make an economic case for designing digital products around 'edge users' — people with disability, low literacy, or age-related impairment — and has since applied its co-design methodology inside real organisations.

Objectives

To quantify the wider commercial benefit of inclusive design and to translate that case into concrete product and service changes at partner organisations.

Activities

CfID commissioned PwC Australia to model the economic case in 'The Benefit of Designing for Everyone' (2019), citing precedents such as electric toothbrushes and UK closed captioning where accessibility-driven designs reached far larger audiences than originally intended. It then audited and co-designed a plain-language transaction-account guide with National Australia Bank customers, and separately audited a new NSW Department of Customer Service website against all 50 WCAG 2.1 Level AA success criteria across four browsers and multiple device types.

Results

PwC's modelling estimated that at least 5 million Australians vulnerable to exclusion hold more than AUD 40 billion in combined annual disposable income, and that inclusive design could unlock a modelled AUD 4.5 billion in potential salary-earnings impact and AUD 4 billion in potential retail-revenue growth; it also cites toothbrush and captioning precedents reaching roughly four times their original target users. The NAB and NSW government engagements produced concrete audit and co-design deliverables rather than modelled projections.

Conclusions

The headline economic figures come from commissioned modelling of potential impact rather than an independent measurement of realised outcomes, so they should be read as a business case rather than proven results; the bank and government audits are the more verifiable, if narrower, evidence of applied practice.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — Combines a commissioned economic-modelling report (PwC) with fee-based consultancy audits and co-design engagements for individual client organisations (a major bank, a state government department) — a mid-cost, professional-services model rather than mass infrastructure spend.
Time to results
Medium (1–3 years) — Economic report published 2019; bank and government case studies followed in 2020; CfID continues to operate and take on new engagements.
Staffing & skills
CfID co-design researchers and accessibility auditors, PwC Australia economic modelling team (commissioned), Corporate partners: Adobe, Microsoft (co-commissioners)

Conditions for success

  • Corporate/industry co-funding to commission independent economic modelling
  • Direct engagement with 'edge user' customers during co-design, not just desk research
  • Auditing against a complete, named standard (all 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria) across real browsers/devices rather than a partial sample

Common failure modes

  • Headline economic figures are modelled projections, not measured outcomes, and could be over-read as proven impact if not clearly labelled

Commonly funded by

Own resources / municipal budget

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful