From Backlash to Better Practices: Rethinking EDI in a Polarised World

In recent years, Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) - or Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), as it is often called in the US—has become a battleground in the ongoing culture wars. Conservatives have increasingly criticised what they term “corporate wokeness,” targeting EDI initiatives as emblematic of a divisive or politicised agenda. This movement has gained momentum, especially with the election of Donald Trump as the next US President, whose administration is poised to prioritise dismantling DEI programmes.

Walmart’s recent decision to scale back its DEI efforts is seen by many as emblematic of this backlash. The retail giant is not alone, with other organisations similarly reconsidering their approaches. While political pressure plays a role, other factors are also contributing to this trend, including concerns about legal risks. For instance, the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard College ruling by the US Supreme Court, which found affirmative action admissions policies unconstitutional, has prompted organisations to reassess whether their DEI strategies might expose them to litigation.

In the UK, positive discrimination - favouring candidates based on characteristics like race or sex - is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010 unless there is a genuine occupational requirement (e.g. female-only recruitment for women’s refuge support workers). However, positive action - such as development initiatives - is permitted under certain conditions. These legal distinctions underscore the need for organisations to tread carefully when designing EDI initiatives.

Understanding the Backlash

As a social psychologist, I believe to counter the backlash, we must first understand its roots. The backlash against EDI is multifaceted, stemming from both genuine concerns and misunderstandings. Common criticisms include:

• Claims of Reverse Discrimination: Critics argue that EDI initiatives prioritise historically disadvantaged groups at the expense of others, particularly majority groups, creating perceptions of unfairness.
• Perceived Ideological Agenda: EDI is often framed as “woke” or politically correct, fostering the belief that it imposes a divisive, partisan agenda rather than addressing universal workplace goals.
• Identity Politics and Division: Critics contend that EDI promotes identity politics by overemphasising differences, which they believe creates division rather than unity.
• Resistance to Change: For some, EDI represents an attack on traditional values, sparking resistance from individuals or groups who feel alienated or threatened by social change.

While some of these criticisms are rooted in misinformation or resistance to change, they should not be dismissed outright. If EDI efforts are to succeed, we must address these fears and misconceptions with sensitivity and evidence-based strategies. Furthermore, we must go beyond defending the idea of EDI to scrutinising its execution. Poorly designed or communicated efforts can not only fail to achieve their intended goals but also exacerbate divisions.

Where EDI Efforts Go Wrong

Many organisations, eager to signal their commitment to inclusion, launch EDI initiatives that are poorly designed, poorly communicated, or both. Common pitfalls include:

1. Superficial or Symbolic Efforts

One-off diversity training sessions or public gestures—such as changing logos for Pride Month—often fail to address systemic inequities. Worse, these gestures can lead to accusations of virtue signalling if not accompanied by meaningful changes to organisational policies, practices, and culture.

2. Over-reliance on Pop Psychology

The use of oversimplified psychological concepts or catchy, accessible ideas over rigorous psychological evidence has become a pervasive issue in EDI. For example while Unconscious Bias Training* is widely used, the evidence around its effectiveness in changing behaviour is mixed at best. It also focuses on individual attitudes rather than addressing organisational policies, working practices and culture.

Programmes that fail to diagnose problems accurately or evaluate interventions rigorously risk being ineffective or even counterproductive. Without sustained behaviour modification, structural change, and an evidence-based approach, EDI efforts are unlikely to achieve meaningful impact.

3. Polarising Framing

In addition to the risk of affirmative action being perceived as unfair or discriminatory, careless use of language can alienate individuals who feel far from privileged. Similarly, framing EDI in terms of blame can result in defensiveness and resentment, rather than empathy and understanding.

4. Avoiding Structural Change

Too often, organisations prioritise surface-level gestures over systemic reforms. For example, failing to address inequitable recruitment or promotion practices undermines the credibility and effectiveness of EDI efforts.

Re-framing EDI: Evidence-Based Solutions

If businesses are to navigate this backlash successfully, they must refocus their EDI efforts on what works. Social psychology offers several evidence-based strategies for impactful and inclusive initiatives:

1. Emphasise Common Goals

Research shows that intergroup conflict decreases when people focus on shared goals. Frame EDI initiatives around universal values such as fairness, psychological safety, and mutual respect. Belonging is a universal human need that benefits everyone, not just marginalised groups.

2. Ground Efforts in Evidence

EDI programmes should draw on robust research. Structural interventions—such as improving recruitment processes and addressing barriers to career progression —are far more effective than relying solely on individual-level interventions like bias training.

3. Avoid Polarising Framing

Instead of presenting EDI as a social justice imperative, frame it as a shared opportunity to build stronger, more cohesive teams and organisational cultures. Highlight how inclusion drives innovation, team performance, and organisational success.

4. Commit to Long-Term Change

EDI is not a quick fix. Sustainable progress requires ongoing evaluation, accountability, and a willingness to adapt over time.

5. Be Authentic and Stand Firm

While celebrating diversity and representation is important for creating a sense of belonging, organisations must be prepared to withstand criticism. Supporting marginalised groups will inevitably draw some backlash. Retreating under pressure sends a damaging message that such support was transactional rather than principled.

From Backlash to Better Practices

The backlash against “corporate wokeness” is not a reason to abandon EDI. Instead, it is a call to rethink how these initiatives are implemented. Visibility, celebration, and support for diversity remain important, but they must be coupled with evidence-based, systemic changes that deliver meaningful outcomes.

EDI efforts should foster belonging for everyone and demonstrate clear benefits to organisations as a whole. By aligning initiatives with shared goals and values, businesses can navigate the backlash while building stronger, more inclusive cultures.

Dr Adam Jowett (PhD, CPsychol, AFBPsS) is Director of Psychology at The University of Law and Chair of the British Psychological Society Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy Board

* A working group of the BPS EDI Board is currently developing a discussion paper on the use of UBT.