Is D&I due for a rebrand?

Join us this month for a shorter but intense conversation about the future branding of D&I! We discuss how businesses are talking about diversity and inclusion, consider the future of these labels, and hear some of the impacts of justifying D&I in the workplace.

Articles discussed this month are:
"Stop Making the Business Case for Diversity"
"Firms 'Rebranding' Diversity Initiatives to Avoid Unwanted Political Attention" 

If you have a question for us, then you can submit it through this form.

Music used is:
Who Do You Think I Think You Are? by Mini Vandals 

Transcript

T: Welcome back to another episode of D&I Digest. 

H: I'm Henry, I use he/they pronouns.

T: And I'm Tegan, and I use she/her pronouns. We make up the Diversity and Inclusion team here at Anchor, which is an organisation that specialises in housing and care for over 55s.  This month we're looking at a couple of articles discussing the motivation for businesses to value diversity and how they present that in the current climate.  So a bit of a hot topic, think.

H: Very much a hot topic, I think, yeah.

T: Yes, you know, we're all waiting with bated breath for Nigel Farage and Trump to get rid of us all.

H: They're both mentioned in the articles, you'll be thrilled to know!

T: What a surprise! How do you feel then about businesses and organisations having diversity as a value?

H: I'm mixed with this one actually because I think yes, good, wonderful, but I don't often  give much credence to organisational values because they always say things like  integrity. Diversity. Fairness. I'm like, yeah, I hope so. There are laws that should back that up?  Like,  they always feel a bit buzz-wordy. I don't know, like having it as an organisational value doesn't mean that it's anything  for me.  I would much rather see it just happen. I don't always find this in practice, but my gut feeling with kind of organisational values is it's for advertising.

T: Okay.

H: Which it is, and that is fine. But if it's just a value on the home page... Like I'd value more substance behind it which I think I'm pretty sure we've said that many a time.

T: Yeah it's only part of the picture isn't it?

H: Yeah.

T: You've got to feel it when you walk through the door.

H: Yeah and I think so if an organisation has diversity as a value, it doesn't really mean much?

T: I think my favourite's when they've got diversity as a value and then all white board. That's good.

H: Yeah I think exactly that it's so much easier to do it wrong.

T: Yeah.

H: And so to have it as a value without any of the substance behind it just shoots you in the foot more. Like it doesn't add anything and I also think that not having it there actually doesn't mean much because if it wasn't there but all of the board was suitably diverse, whatever that might mean, and you know representations there, they're talking about it. Cool? So I, yeah, I appreciate the value in having organisational values. I don't necessarily  think they mean much.

T: Okay, interesting.  And how do you think they should present that to the public or employers or potential employers, these values? How do you think they're best advertised, I guess? Promoted?  Marketed?

H: I think again, with like evidence. Like I am always incredibly wary  the moment an organization or anything says "We are diverse" or "We are inclusive" because I'm like I don't think you are.

T: Feels too absolute. 

H: Yeah! "We are inclusive." They're not the ones that can say that. 

T: Sure.

H: And so for me, it always gives warning bells actually when someone says like, we are an inclusive organization,  is because actually they don't know that.  And  I've got a lot more respect for someone that says we try to be inclusive and here's what we do to try.

T: Yeah.

H: Then someone who goes, "Yeah, we've done it." Because that for me just indicates complacency.

T: Yeah, I agree.

H: And I don't trust it. Because it's probably not true.

T: I think this is something that our brains do. Maybe not something that other people think of, but I agree with you. It's that difference between saying something like, strive for inclusivity  versus we are inclusive. But I genuinely think a lot of people would look at that and not see it in the same absolute way that our brains interpret it.

H: Yeah, I agree.

T: Potentially.

H: But yeah, for me it's similar to the, "I'm an ally."  Says who?

T: Yeah.

H: And in the same kind of  hit, and I think more so with an organisation, because the people who  are putting those values out don't know the reality a lot of the time. And I think you can say it with good intentions, absolutely, but to say it with such conviction is a real rod for your own back because the moment you're not to one person, your whole value is gone.

T: Yeah. 

MUSIC

T: So our first article today is from Harvard Business Review called "Stop Making the Business Case for Diversity" by Oriane Georgeac and Anita Ratan from 2022. The article starts off by pointing out that diversity is the only core value that organizations feel that they need to justify.  Interesting.  And that research suggests that how an organization talks about diversity has a major impact on its ability to actually achieve  those diversity goals.

H: Water is wet.

T: Yeah. There's a fork in the kitchen. The research was six studies exploring how effective the different rhetoric was attracting  underrepresented job candidates. It's interesting that they've said, like, that's the only one they feel they need to justify, because what else is in the mix? 

H: Well, if think about, like, things like honesty.

T: Okay.

H: No one ever goes, and we're honest because, but whereas people do say like, "We value diversity because that makes for a good organisation, because that gives us innovative ideas, because it helps our bottom line."

T: Okay, right, yeah, yeah. yeah. I'm with you.

H: Whereas no one ever kind of says like, "We value innovation because it helps us think of good ideas."  It's the only one that comes with a justification.

T: A caveat. 

H: Yeah, a subtitle to it.

T: Yeah, okay. I mean it's a tricky one, isn't it, because when we talk about diversity as well, I think you have to define it a little bit because we're all, we all make up a diverse group.

H: Two people are a diverse group.

T: Right, exactly. So, you know, we all contribute to a diverse workforce. Yeah, exactly. So I don't actually think the term diversity is all that helpful sometimes?

H: It's also not a value.

T: It's not a value, it's just a state of existence really, isn't it? Like we're all different. And I feel like a lot of the time what companies are actually trying to drill into. more than anything else, is equity, rather than this idea of diversity. 

H: You often see like, we value diversity, but again, that means  not a lot really, if you know what diversity actually means. Like,  on the surface it's like, yay, good.  There's an assumption that it comes with things like inclusion and belonging and  wellbeing and all of these, but that's not what's said.  

T: No.

H: But maybe that's just me looking too deeply into the language.

T: I do think it's important to have a bit of scope around this kind of language. 

H: This is why diversity is important.

T: You know, it's like, oh yeah, we value diversity. mean, value it or don't value it, it exists regardless within your organisation. It has to because you're not clones of each other. 

H: Yeah, it's not a one person organisation.

T: So it is going to naturally exist. What I think you're getting at is that you don't want to have an organisation where there aren't groups of people from typically marginalised societies.

H: Yeah.

T: That's not really a catchy phrase, is it?

H: That's probably why they use diversity. Yeah, we just don't value homogeneity.

T: There we go. And I think that's really important to define that though, rather than just saying, oh, you know, we are a diverse...

H: A definition is different from justification.

T: It is. It is.

H: And because I think it absolutely needs a definition behind it because yeah, saying "we value diversity" doesn't really mean much but explaining what that is, does. But then saying why feels very hollow. 

T: Yeah,  yes, I understand that. In the first study, language was divided into a business case rhetoric that justified diversity in the workplace by the fact that it benefits the company's bottom line. talking about money, really, aren't we? pretty much. Money and revenue. And fairness case or the moral cases is often called sometimes, justification based on equal opportunity. When looking at all the Fortune 500 companies, approximately 80% used the business case and less than 5% used fairness, and the remainder either didn't justify it or didn't list diversity as a value. I hate to be harsh, that feels so disgusting and uncomfortable to me. As a woman sat here with multiple intersecting identities, the only reason that people would ever see my value  is based on how much money I can bring to that organisation. Tell me  if it's out of pocket, but that sounds very akin to the type of behaviours that we saw centuries ago. It's just been repackaged though, hasn't it? And some of us get paid for it now. That makes me very uncomfortable.

H: Yeah, I hate it. And I think as well the fact that... I mean it goes on to say, but like the fact that it's such a high proportion  of successful companies. Surely we've thought about this a little bit more? No, okay. Never mind.

T: As long as it's bringing in the cash I guess. The next five studies determined whether underrepresented candidates found this business case compelling.

H: Which you'd hope so given that it's written in 80% of them.

T: Hm, yeah.

H: Spoiler alert.

T: They asked more than 2,500 individuals from underrepresented groups including LGBTQ+ professionals, women in STEM fields, black American college students, how much they felt like they belong to that organisation. I'm sure this is going to be incredibly telling. They found that people reading the business case anticipated feeling 11% less sense of belonging, that they were 16% more concerned about being stereotyped, that they were 10% more  concerned that they'd be viewed as interchangeable with other members of their identity group than those who read a fairness case. So basically saying that they feel that because they belong to this marginalised group, they're basically the same as everybody else in that marginalised group. They're not viewed as individually unique, they're just viewed as, well.

H: The bottom line.

T: Yeah, the diversity case. 

H: Yeah. And I was surprised that the numbers were so low. Because if I read a business case for diversity, I don't think I'll belong. I'm surprised that that's only 11% less than the people who read a fairness, like a moral case. I was surprised that the distinction was such a small margin, actually.

T: Okay.

H: I'm not surprised that it was less, at all.

T: Oh no, no. So they also found that compared to the neutral messaging, the business case was even more detrimental with percentages in the 20s. Additionally, after seeing a company make a business case, participants' perceptions that commitment to diversity was genuine fell by around 6%. I  mean again, it's low isn't it? 

H: Yeah.

T: People don't want to be treat as chattel. My identity is not your bargaining chip for you to make more money at the bottom line.

H: Very eloquently said.

T: Actually vile, like I'm not gonna sugarcoat it, think that's vile.

H: Yeah, and especially coming from  a supposedly diverse organisation, it feels worse.

T: Yeah.

H: Yeah, I hate it. 

T: In my opinion, if you have to sit there and justify the fact that people's uniqueness brings a better well-rounded culture to your company, if you have to talk in  numbers to make sense to the people that are running that business, I think you've got a big problem.

H: Yeah. Especially as like our kind of job roles, we hear a lot like you've got to know the business case, you've got to know the moral case so that you can adapt to the stakeholders that you're talking to. 

T: Yes. 

H: It's probably a very unprofessional thing to say, but I don't want to pander to that. And I find it very hard to treat the business case with any authority because for me that's the least important reason.

T: Surely.

H: Like it astounds me that people go, "Oh, it'll make us more money. That's a good argument." Like, you needed an argument? Well, actually, I'd rather you just said nothing.

T: Exactly. They looked at the impact on well-represented candidates which was less consistent. For example, the wording of diversity commitment didn't seem to have any impact on men in STEM fields  who anticipated the same sense of belonging and interest in joining either way. However, White college students reported similar concerns about stereotypes and belonging with a business case. So despite positive intentions, making a business case doesn't actually attract underrepresented job candidates and may well harm represented candidates' perceptions of the employer too. Which is fascinating.

H: Double whammy.

T: Yeah, it's absolutely fascinating, isn't it?

H: In conclusion, stop making a business case for diversity and inclusion. 

T: It's just, it's yeah.

H: It's cringe. 

T: It's very odd, isn't it? Come and work here so we can make more cash. What?

H: It just, feels weird, like even not talking about diversity, it feels strange to be like "You should come and work with us because it benefits the company." Like that's not the party line you'd want to take?

T: Really odd. A proposed explanation for this is that the business case assumes different skills from underrepresented candidates, often shown in the phrase of "unique contributions", as well as suggesting the only benefit is as a business asset, which is what I've said, gross, it suggests a stereotyping and depersonalising approach and ultimately backfires because it signals to employees from underrepresented groups that they're means to an end, which is absolutely what we've said, isn't it? It's just, you can't ask people to come in with all of their background and a lot of the time, trauma, just so they can make a few extra pence on the pound.

H: Yeah. I feel like there's something about it being the assumption that that's all you can bring to a role as well? Like do you want me because I can do the job or do you just want me to take the box?

T: So bizarre.

H: You could just pay me for that if you wanted. If you wanted the numbers.

T: Yeah, exactly, and I'll just sit here and do absolutely nothing. It's not even a recognition of the fact that the reason that you're probably making more money if you are a more diverse organisation is because people bring different skills to the table, not because they just exist in a body that's diverse, you know what I mean? It's really weird and short-sighted, why are they not making that connection? So people are actually bringing difference to your organisation which then makes you a better functioning organisation, that's why.

H: The fact that people feel more comfortable there so they don't have to spend 70% of their energy masking all the time. Like, yeah, short-sighted is the word, definitely. 

T: Surreal. Whilst offering the fairness case was more favourable, actually the better solution might not be to justify commitment to diversity at all and where it's stated as a value with no explanation. So by making a case for diversity, the implication is that value in diversity is up for discussion. Interesting.

H: I love that phrasing.

T: Yeah, that's really interesting. 

H: Actually justifying it means there's something to justify. 

T: If you wouldn't explain why honesty or innovation is valued, why would you explain diversity? Why is that any different? Very true.H: Yeah, I really liked that article. Not because it said anything particularly surprising, but because now there is an article from Harvard that says this is stupid, why are you doing this? 

T: To all of the Fortune 500. 

H: Yeah, the one thing that I do enjoy about the obvious research, because oftentimes, and especially when it comes to D&I, I think there's  that assumption that you need to justify why what you think is true, whereas you're just like, well, it's obvious, isn't it? So now, like, actually having the things that go, well, I can cite these sources because it's stupid and that's why, is really helpful. And I think, like, I flippantly said at the beginning, like, "Oh yeah, water is wet." But like, yeah, having an article, a well-researched article to say, no, actually the business case actively hinders what you're trying to do is really helpful to have as a resource. 

T: It is.

H: And I think like, we've got years of reputation behind this as well. Like this is Harvard Business Review. 

T: Yeah.

H: Businesses listen to them.

T: Yeah, they do, yeah. The problem is I have sometimes with journalism is that the headline's supposed to grab you, isn't it? But some people just read headlines.

H: Yeah.

T: And that is... Just don't do diversity. Just scrap the lot. It's not important. But actually that's not what the article's saying.

H: Or it's not good for business.
T: Yeah, so I think the article's great. I think the headline needs some work. Yeah. Because people are not really into reading beyond the see more button these days. 

MUSIC

T: Our second article is from The Guardian called "Firms 'Rebranding' Diversity Initiatives to Avoid Unwanted Political Attention" and it's written by Chris Osuh and Aamna Mohdin in May 2025, so nice and recent. It talks about the fact that companies in the UK and the US feel the need to disguise inclusion policies in face of attacks and unwanted political attention from both the left and the right. Thoughts? 

H: Unsurprising, but I think it's cowardice. A nice bold claim from Henry there!

T: Bold! Bold claims! So we're starting to see movements away from ED&I phrasing like well-being, belonging, culture. Paul Sessay, the founder of the National Diversity Awards says "They're basically embedding diversity and getting rid of the word. I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing. We've moved from diversity to inclusion and now that's moving to culture." Is there a fundamental difference between diversity, inclusion and culture?
H: I think yes.

T: I agree.

H: They're very different words.

T: They are. Do you need to specify that diversity and inclusion are part of your wider business culture?
H: I think yes, because it's not at a stage where it can be taken for granted. But I think there is a fine line between kind of making it explicit  and hiding it behind another more palatable word. 

T: Okay. What can businesses do though, other than going to what I would call stealth mode?

H: Yeah, this is the bit where I understand it because I do get the motivation behind the rebrand, behind kind of changing tact with it. I think my accusation of cowardice comes more from a moral perspective as opposed to one that is acknowledging the fact that an organisation has to function as an organisation.

T: Yeah.

H: And I don't, in this situation, don't really think the two are compatible because I don't think there is much of a way other than go stealth with it and just kind of say, we're doing all of the same stuff, but we've called it well-being. I think the issue that I have with it is it feels a bit like the All Lives Matter phrasing. Because the reason that Diversity and Inclusion kind of came in was to make something equitable.

T: Yes.

H: Not equal.

T: Yeah.

H: For me, wellbeing doesn't have that same  gravitas to it.

T: No.

H: Same with culture.

T: Yeah.

H: And probably as well because I know where it's come from in the fact that it used to be inclusion and diversity. It just feels very shallow. Which is kind of counterintuitive to talk about culture, which is a very ingrained thing. But yeah, it feels like the way that they're considering culture isn't inclusive for me.

T: Yeah, I think, honestly, this was always going to happen. Whether the conversation was started by Trump or whether it started by Farage or whoever, there has been changes in the same language for years and years. Before our time,  it was called equal opportunities. Before that, it would have been called something else. Before that, would have been called something else.  I do think it goes through bit of a natural evolution. Yeah, 100%. And to argue your point about it feeling a bit All Lives Matter, I would say that if you are to a point in your organisation where you can genuinely and meaningfully incorporate it into your culture work then clearly you're doing something well.

H: I agree. I think my issue is that I don't think anyone is at that point. We're not at that point in society so how can we be at  a point in an organisation that exists in society?

T: Yeah.

H: Like yeah, I don't trust it. I think for me it feels like a...

T: A backslide?

H: Yeah, yeah. Because like, obviously language changes. Absolutely it does. Like, like you say from equal opportunities to diversity to inclusion to equality. There are always going to be shifts in language. For me though, this feels less specific.

T: Okay.

H: And I don't think we're in a position where we can afford to be less specific at the moment without it going wrong. And we've seen it happen with Trump's, "We're knocking D&I on the head, it's becoming wellbeing now. Oh no, lots of people are suffering because of it." Like, the structure in organisations, the foundations were never there.

T: Yes, sure.

H: They were put kind of retroactively in place by calling it explicitly inclusion and I don't think they're established enough to be able to kind of drop that now. Like I understand it I just don't think...

T: You're not buying it?

H: I'm not buying it yeah. Essentially that. I don't trust that it's come from a good place.

T: You are presenting a cynical view of things. And that's fine!

H: I'll tell you what it is. It feels like PR. It doesn't feel genuine.

T: It is! It is.

H: I think when the move from like, for example, when we said actually we're adopting equity rather than equality, we were able to say because actually equality doesn't suit the thing that we're trying to achieve, this is more accurate. That doesn't feel like that's the case here. 

T: No, I mean it's completely prompted by outward pressure, isn't it? Yeah, for sure. With Trump in America drastically rolling back D&I initiatives and Reform in the UK, vowing to scrap them, some businesses, particularly ones in the US, are already scaling back commitments and public displays of support. Others, though, are finding ways to disguise the D &I work so that they can survive this climate and so they can keep doing the good work. Because, I mean, let's be honest, this will shift again in five years, won't it? You know?

H: Oh, I hope it doesn.

T: Inevitably. So, Noreen Biddle Shah, founder of Reboot, a group aiming to tackle racial inequality in finance said, "D&I has become a politically charged term." I mean, I don't think it was ever not. 

H: I think it has become more vitriolic. 

T: Yeah. 

H: But I think to take it out of politics removes half of its context.

T: Yeah, I agree. I don't think that's ever been different, to be honest.

H: I do think it's become more polarisingly politicised.

T: Yes, fine. She also says that this "discourages own employees from speaking out." Their latest financial services report found that ethnic minority professionals, or global majority professionals, in the sector expressed fear of losing their jobs if they raised race-related concerns, and 70% said that there had been little progress since the Black Lives Matter movement. James Hockin, an employment law expert, said that "Because of the moves in the US, there is pressure on British employers to keep policies in place. For a while there has been an attitude of keeping quiet to see how the situation develops, but increasingly employees want employers to take a stance." Dawah Hashmi, a director at Penna, closes the article by saying, "When the US sneezes, the UK catches a cold and this trend concerns me. But the public sector, our primary client base, continues to champion these values. Embracing DEI is not just morally right, it's actually a strategic advantage." Okay.

H: I love that "When the US sneezes the UK catches a cold."

T: It's a bit pathetic isn't it? Yeah I mean I am fully in the doubling down phase of my life. I do not intend to try and roll back things to make them seem more palatable in any way shape or form because, do you know what? I don't get to roll anything back on my personality to make it more palatable.

H: Exactly.

T: Not a bit. Do I get to come out a different shade tomorrow then to be more palatable to the masses? 

H: Yeah. And I don't  want to be?

T: I don't want to.

H: And especially, I mean I know that this is one person speaking on behalf of, like, a whole industry here but I don't think D&I should be palatable to the people who are...

T: No, I agree.

H: ...so vehemently against it. Like actually you're not gonna please everybody. No. And I don't want to change myself to be liked.

T: No.

H: And I think that, obviously that's a microcosm for this, but I don't think an industry should change to be given, I don't know, what, credence? To be given authority, to be trusted?

T: Yeah.

H: Like, it exists because there is a need for it. That's not an opinion thing, that's fact.  It shouldn't have to shift around and hide under different words to get through gaps in organisations that don't want it there. If it doesn't want it there, say so and I'll leave.

T: Yes, absolutely.

H: I think that's the thing, is that I don't want it to be stealth because  that implies that I'm not wanted, and it implies that, not even people like me, it implies that people aren't wanted. So what's the point in hiding that? Just say so. And they'll go find somewhere else.

T: I agree. It's really important for organizations to take a stance and double down on this, I think if you're in the UK. I understand that there's more severe consequences for organisations in the US. And I'm not wanting to side too much with the people making absolutely billions, you know, no. But you can see why they then want it to change.

H: Yeah, it's more understandable or explainable.

T: Explainable, why they want to change things. Fine. I have no idea why the UK needs to jump on this bandwagon and change things, to be honest. 

H: Yeah, that's the bit that...

T: Feels odd.

H: Yeah, I mean, I don't like a lot of it, but that's the bit that feels... cowardly.

T: Yeah, and do you know what, ultimately, call it whatever you like, call it belonging, call it well-being, call it inclusion, call it cupcakes, call it banana bread, I don't care. Ultimately though, if you are saying that this is an organisation where you put people at the centre  and that you want them to do their best work and the best way to do that is to recognise that we're all unique and we all bring different facts to the table and approach that equitably, that's fine. But if that's not coming across in your data, in your culture, in the feedback,  in the way that you run your business, all of it doesn't matter anyway. 

H: Totally. And I think as well, going back to the first article, I think that this is kind of where I've got the ick with it. If you're trying to hide diversity, to me that suggests that you don't care about it.

T: No, not really.

H: It means that you're not willing to stick to your guns with it, it means that you're not willing to stand by it when it's challenged. And like the first article said, that if you're giving a case for it to be debated,  it implies that you think it's worthy of debate. And I think that's where the hiding it and concealing it and going all stealthy with it, I understand. But it still gives that impression, no matter what your motivation for doing it is, the impression that you're giving people is, we're just gonna hide this. Nobody wants to hear that.

T: We're just gonna bury it in something else that feels HR.

H: Yeah, yeah, exactly. And it feels more "we are more interested in protecting the company and the reputation of the company from something we think will damage it  than we are in protecting people."

T: Yup.

H: That's not something I want a part of.

T: All money at the end of the day, isn't it? That's what it's about.  As the first article said, all about the business case. How much money can we make from these people?

H: Which doesn't work anyway. 

T: Yeah, okay. Interesting, I think to bring this conversation to a bit of a close, I think that we will see more dramatic shifts over the next couple of years of what the landscape of D&I looks like. I think people will continue to have  conversations about this maybe  under the guise of a completely new umbrella. I'm seeing belonging used a lot now and I think there's going to be more of that used in the place of diversity. I think the word diversity has become a really loaded word and actually until you've got a real definition for your organisation I also tend to agree that it's a bit meaningless and a bit pointless if you don't want to sit and define it and put some parameters around it.

H: Yeah. I do think as well like while we're gonna see the shift with the language, I do also think you're probably gonna see a polarization with it as well. I reckon there will be some places that really double down  on it. And I think that will be quite interesting to to see.  Especially in terms of how they phrase those things,  because like when you get organizations saying, "we are inclusive." I wonder if it's going to shift more towards that as opposed to the "we are focused on equity for everybody."  I wonder how both sides are going to  frame it  and  support it as well. It's going to be interesting.

T: Very. We'll see how it all unfolds because...

H: It's very live at the moment, isn't it?

T: It is very live at the moment and as D&I professionals and I've spoken to other D&I professionals in different sectors, we're all feeling it.

H: Yeah, yeah.

T: But this is so linked and intrinsic to the people that we are that we won't go to bed at any given night and go, "Well, you know, the world doesn't want D&I anymore, so I guess I'll have to give that up." That's not who we are.

H: Yeah, exactly.

T: There will be different ways and means that we will be involved in human work in the future. Whether it's categorised as diversity or inclusion remains to be seen.

MUSIC

T: Okay, so thank you for joining us for this episode of D&I Digest. I think there's been a lot of conversation and theory expressed today and maybe some even some opposing views which sometimes is not very common at all in these podcasts is it?

H: Always a fun time.

T: Always fun. So remember that you can follow us on our website and social media and we hope you come back and listen in next month. So it's bye from me.

H: And it's bye from me.

Both: Bye!