After the backlash: what’s next for EDI
How effective are workplace equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives? How can they be measured – and how far do they support organisational performance?
These were the questions explored by the Women and Equalities Select Committee when I was invited alongside other expert commentators to give oral evidence as part of its inquiry into equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI).
My argument was this: the EDI debate has lost precision – and without clarity, neither organisations nor policymakers can make good decisions. In my work across sectors from public sector, criminal justice, care and hospitality, I see these tensions being played out in real time. And it’s clear from my dealings with CEOs, HR directors, senior leaders that they are asking the same questions: what actually works, how should it be measured and how does it connect to organisational performance?
Last year, in my Beyond the Backlash report, I explored the changing landscape of EDI. I observed how organisations were either pausing or quietly reframing EDI programmes, how language had become more cautious and scrutiny over outcomes was intensifying.
Much of this has been attributed to political developments in the United States. But whilst that influence is real, I believe it is overstated as the primary cause of what’s happening here.
What has shifted is something more fundamental: a lack of clarity about what EDI is actually trying to achieve.
EDI is too often treated as a single idea. In practice, it comprises three distinct elements:
Diversity – who is in the organisation and who has influence
Equity – whether systems and processes operate fairly
Inclusion – how people actually work together day to day
These are not interchangeable. Yet organisations frequently bundle them together, evaluating them as if there were a single intervention aimed at a single outcome. And that outcome is often focused on representation – it’s easier to see and it’s easier to measure. But representation alone doesn’t tell you how far your organisation is truly embedding a positive EDI culture that enables everyone to contribute and thrive – and how that affects your bottom line.
The mechanism that really matters is inclusion – and this is where most organisations lack definition, capability and measurement.
Inclusion is where performance lives
Inclusion is often measured through employee sentiment – whether people feel heard or respected. Whilst important, this only tells you how people feel at a point in time. It does not tell you whether the organisation is functioning well.
The key question is how inclusion shows up in everyday work: how decisions are made, whether challenge is genuinely welcomed, and whether different perspectives actively shape outcomes.
Without answering these questions, organisations risk investing in programmes that feel meaningful but fail to translate into measurable impact.
What this looks like in practice
To illustrate this in my evidence to the committee, I shared my work with South Coast Nursing Homes, a group of residential care homes employing around 600 staff.
The organisation had strong values and a diverse workforce, but communication was inconsistent, divisions persisted across teams and communication issues were prone to unnecessary escalation.
The solution was not another EDI initiative. It was about strengthening how teams work together day to day by building trust, understanding and nurturing positive everyday habits. We worked with the leadership team to co-design a 9-month programme that focused on practical tools for managers and teams. Using a train-the-trainer model helped to build ownership and trust.
The transformation was striking. The change in warmth, energy and connection across the care group was unmistakable. There was greater confidence in handling difficult conversations and increased accountability. Staff engagement and retention rates improved significantly.
This is what effective inclusion looks like. It is not a separate strand of activity but is woven into the fabric of the organisation – it becomes simply how high-performing organisations operate.
Moving the debate forward
So what’s next for shaping EDI activity so organisations become happy, fulfilling places to work – while also strengthening performance and effectiveness?
Several contributors pointed to the value of an evidence-led framework – similar to the Education Endowment Foundation model – to help organisations assess what works, for whom, and under what conditions.
But for that to be meaningful, three things matter:
Clarity about the problem – representation, pay disparities, team performance and behaviour are all different challenges requiring different interventions
Better use of data – in many areas, the evidence base is still developing but tracking progression, not just representation sets some ground rules for improvement
Agreement on what works – helping organisations understand what works for them, and clearer alignment between activity and measurable impact.
So while developments in the US have influenced the debate, the UK challenge is less about the removal of formal EDI provisions, and more about improving clarity, consistency, and practical application.
Progress is underway. There is still strong organisational commitment to EDI. But the focus needs to shift away from conceptual approaches, and towards a more precise, practical understanding of inclusion – how people work together, how managers lead, and how organisational culture affects performance, risk and growth.
The current scepticism around EDI is, in large part, a response to imprecision – to programmes that are poorly defined and difficult to evidence.
The answer is not to retreat. It is to be more rigorous.
Organisations need to develop clearer definitions about the problems they are solving, be precise in how they define inclusion, and focus on the everyday behaviours that determine whether teams perform well.
