Media stories about defunding EDI (equality, diversity and inclusion) programmes – and, more recently, ditching Pride merch – have triggered a backlash. Some critics simply dislike the concept, while others argue that shallow corporate exercises have diluted the real impact these programmes were designed to bring: closing ethnicity, disability and LGBT+ pay gaps, securing flexible work and ensuring an inclusive work culture. But could this backlash be a good thing?

 

 

Performative EDI is fragile – and deservedly so. 

 

Token gestures – unconscious‑bias workshops, cupcakes, awareness days – let organisations look virtuous without changing anything structural. Wearing pink T‑shirts or putting a black square on LinkedIn do little to dismantle systemic barriers. This scrutiny can be healthy: it exposes token initiatives and forces companies to move from box‑ticking to embedding EDI into policies on pay, recruitment and workplace culture.

 

Yes, Target, Walmart, Meta, McDonald’s, Ford, John Deere, Lowe’s, Harley‑Davidson and many others have scaled back or scrapped EDI functions: stopped participating in diversity surveys, dismantled EDI teams or withdrawn from advocacy groups. But in the meantime, many companies are doubling down in their efforts. 

 

 

In many ways, inclusion is not optional; it is baked into UK law. 

 

The Equality Act 2010 requires employers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled workers, including flexible hours, breaks or home‑working arrangements, providing special equipment or changing the layout of an office. And under changes to the Employment Relations and Flexible Working Acts, effective April 2024, all employees can request flexible working from day one of employment and employers cannot refuse these requests without any discussion. 

 

Together, these laws make “bring your whole self to work” more than a slogan: employers have to accommodate different needs, remove barriers and provide flexibility. And this matters more now, as the workforce is changing: becoming less extroverted, less conscientious and more anxious, perhaps as a result of the COVID pandemic and technology redefining social lives, but also the improvements in representation and inclusion that have already been achieved.

 

 

The Pension Protection Fund has set its EDI strategy up to 2028. The Independent Investment Management Initiative and Square Mile have not noticed companies in the EU and UK abandoning diversity and inclusion efforts – instead, they have put good working culture at the core. Rather than seeing EDI as a cost centre, organisations view it as a driver of innovation, reputation and long‑term value.

 

Unlike its US counterpart, Deloitte UK has pledged to keep reporting annually on inclusion and to maintain its diversity networks. Barclays has also issued a statement on its unwavering commitment to inclusion, adding that US policy shifts would not influence its UK approach. McDonald’s UK division has continued to work towards its senior leadership representation goals, despite its US parent scaling back EDI programmes.

 

Sometimes, the rollback just means removing explicit targets – which can have unintended consequences, including promoting tokenism and restricting the talent pool. Indeed, GlaxoSmithKline will no longer set diversity targets and has paused certain initiatives, although it insists it remains committed to an inclusive culture. Accenture has taken a similar approach, however AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk instead said they will maintain their inclusivity initiatives.

 

Even in the US, many companies are doubling down on their EDI programmes: Costco says they lower staff turnover and credits supplier diversity for business growth; Ben & Jerry’s, Delta and Patagonia enjoy strong sales and customer loyalty. M&G continues to back EDI despite the backslide. 

 

 

Robust evidence links diversity to better results – but you cannot “add and stir”. 

 

Varied perspectives improve problem‑solving, identify risks sooner and mirror a diverse client base. Inclusive companies also attract and retain top talent more easily. There is evidence of this across different companies, as well as within the UK pension industry, which has been praised by the Pensions Regulator.

 

In particular, 2025 research published by Professor Alex Edmans and commissioned by the Diversity Project reviews extensive evidence that cognitive diversity can improve outcomes by generating more ideas stemming from a broader range of viewpoints and experiences, as well as the broader sharing of these ideas to counter groupthink. At the same time, cognitive diversity can also worsen outcomes because people with different cognitive styles might have a harder time coordinating, communicating and aligning with each other. 

 

This is why you cannot simply “add diversity and stir”. For example, there is stronger evidence for the value-add of skill-based diversity rather than demographic or cognitive style diversity specifically in asset management. And the link with positive performance is strongest where teams have a high degree of psychological safety and a feeling of being valued and accepted, especially when they are dealing with complex idea generation and innovation rather than coordination.

 

 

Backlash is a litmus test. It exposes what was built to last — and what was not. The question now is not whether to keep doing EDI, but how. The organisations leaning in are making it part of business-as-usual: adapting, measuring, embedding inclusion in how they hire, manage, promote and lead. The rest are stepping back — and risking irrelevance in the process. If you are doubling down on EDI efforts, drop us a line: we are looking for a new partner to help us take our research into a new era and grow their brand at the same time.