‘Didn’t Earn It’: Does 'DEI' need a rebrand?

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives have become a cornerstone of corporate strategies, aiming to create more equitable workplaces by promoting fair processes, leading to diverse representation, and fostering inclusive environments. 

However, the term ‘DEI’ has accumulated significant cultural and political baggage. 

New scrutiny has caused some organisations to cut back on DEI budgets, headcount and inclusive hiring efforts. Companies are walking on eggshells as the environment remains challenging, with many firms quietly transforming the way they refer to DEI, omitting mentions of ‘diversity goals’ in their annual reports, or dropping these goals altogether. 

It’s a stark contrast to 2020, when the murder of George Floyd jolted organisations into vocal representation commitments and intentional positive action. Now, critics argue there has been an ‘overcorrection’ to historic underrepresentation, where organisations are dialling back their approaches at a time where powerful voices against DEI become louder (the title of this article ‘DEI = Didn’t Earn It’ has been used provocatively against the profession in internet memes, along with ‘DEI must DIE’). 

As such we’re starting to see changes in the language used in the market; in July 2024, the world’s largest Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) announced it would be dropping ‘Equity’ from the way it refers to ‘Inclusion, Equity and Diversity’, citing the need to lead with inclusion, but attracting criticism from HR professionals who feel this shifts the focus away from addressing systemic inequalities and individual barriers.

What’s driving the DEI backlash?

• Political polarisation: In my last blog I talked about how DEI has become a politically charged topic, particularly in a key election year across the Western world. This in part stems from the Affirmative Action Supreme Court ruling in the US, outlawing race-conscious admissions in higher education. This has created a knock-on effect to the corporate world despite diverse outreach and EEO reporting continuing to be a requirement in the US. 
• Measurement and perceived effectiveness: Many organisations responded to George Floyd’s murder in 2020 with investing significantly into DEI efforts, either into a sustainable strategy closely aligned to business goals, or slap-dash with a short-term, transitory view leading to ‘diversity fatigue’ with the effects already wearing off. Without clear outcome metrics, it’s hard to assess the impact and return on investment, leading some to question the value of these efforts. 
• Tokenism: There is a concern that DEI efforts can sometimes lead to tokenism, where the focus is on meeting diversity metrics and performative representation rather than fostering genuine inclusion. This can undermine the credibility and effectiveness of these initiatives.
• Perceived exclusion: Ironically, some argue that DEI initiatives, meant to include, can feel exclusive to particular groups. Almost 70% of white men feel ‘forgotten’ by DEI initiatives, despite holding more than 40% of leadership positions globally, and two in five Britons reportedly feel championing women’s equality discriminates against men. This has given rise to the notion of ‘Oppression Olympics’, which suggests competition between marginalised groups, where one is perceived as ‘taking away from’ another.  

Evolving DEI

Ultimately, however, experts are confident efforts will continue – even if they're labelled as something else. SHRM argue through their intentional ‘rebrand’ that the principles of ‘equity’, i.e. promoting fairness based on individual needs recognising that not everyone starts from the same place, remains embedded in their work through practices and policies. So, should we change how we talk about ‘DEI’ and have a better chance of achieving the same goals through different means?

1. ESG and social value - Given these challenges, some organisations are positioning DEI under the broader umbrellas of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) or Social Value as a strategic move. Social Value refers to the meaningful impact an organisation has on society – beyond compliance and risk mitigation, to contribute to long-term development, impact and sustainability. The UK’s Social Value Act mandated Social Value as a procurement requirement for all government contracts to address the ‘Social’ pillar in ESG efforts. AMS’s Public Sector Resourcing (PSR) service, which provides more than 17,000 skilled, contingent workers across the UK government at any one time, has formed its own Social Value strategy; from a recruit, train deploy model to upskill trainees from underrepresented backgrounds, to embedding our D&I Alliance of DEIB partners including Bridge of Hope, auticon and Recruit for Spouses to improve representation in our clients’ workforces. By framing DEI within this context, organisations can present these efforts as part of a broader commitment to sustainable hiring and people strategies. Social Value can also be quantified in commercial impact; after implementing Thrive software, PSR generated over £57 million in Social Value impact in 2023-24 financial year. 
2. Belonging - Between 2023 and 2024, mentions of ‘DEI’ and ‘diversity’ in reports from Fortune 100 companies fell 22%, while ‘belonging’ jumped 59%. Earlier this year, we added the ‘B’ for Belonging into how we refer to DEI at AMS, bringing this into the core of how we operate and joining other industry leaders who use DEIB. A recent d&i Leaders webinar explored how belonging impacts wellbeing, reduces turnover and improves workplace productivity, while Forbes ranked belonging as a top 2024 strategy in an uncertain economic climate. Research in Harvard Business Review shows that when employees feel like they belong, they’re 3.5 times more likely to contribute to their fullest potential. And belonging is something most of us can relate to; according to the American Psychological Association 94% of workers feel it is very or somewhat important to them. 
3. Business performance – It’s important not to lose sight of the ‘why’ in a DEI existential crisis. Beyond the moral imperative of promoting fairness of opportunity, practitioners often cite ‘the business case for DEI’, identifying correlations between a diverse workforce and innovation, as well as commercial success. Companies with the highest racial, ethnic and gender representation are 39 percent more likely to financially outperform, according to a 2023 study by McKinsey involving more than 1,200 firms worldwide. In June of last year, a study by the ratings agency Moody’s found that companies with higher ratings tended to have a greater racial diversity on their boards and in their executive ranks. 

There’s a lot that DEI practitioners can learn from the backlash. Rebranding doesn't mean abandoning our principles; by rethinking how we frame and position these efforts we can engage more people in a way that matters to them, reduce unhelpful friction, and create more meaningful and lasting impact.

And if something needs to be called something different, the signals are telling us we should evolve it.