Different Journeys, A Shared Destination: Responding to the EDI Backlash

A conversation we need to have

There is a growing sense, voiced most loudly by some white men, that equality, diversity and inclusion work has gone too far. That opportunities are now handed out by identity rather than merit. That they are the ones being left behind.

I want to take that feeling seriously rather than dismiss it. Not because I think EDI has failed, but because a strategy that only some people believe in will never deliver lasting change. If we want fairness to hold, it has to be fairness that everyone can see themselves in.

The backlash is real and it is gathering pace. In the United States, federal diversity programmes have been dismantled and household-name employers have scaled back their commitments. Here in the UK, one 2026 survey found that 28% of businesses had scaled back or dropped EDI and sustainability programmes, while others, such as Deloitte UK, have publicly reaffirmed theirs. Leaders are being asked to choose a side. I would like to offer a better question: how do we design fairness that works for everyone?

What sits behind the pushback

The pushback usually blends genuine anxieties with misunderstandings. Separating the two is where honest leadership starts.

The feelings are often real. Many people are working harder for less. Jobs feel less secure, promotions are scarcer and living costs are higher. When opportunity feels scarce, any programme aimed at a particular group can look like a door closing on everyone else.

Some of the experiences are real too. White working-class boys, for example, have some of the lowest educational outcomes in the country. Men are far less likely to seek help for their mental health. These are equality issues, and they have often been left out of how organisations talk about EDI.

But some of the story is a misunderstanding. In the UK, positive discrimination, appointing someone because of a protected characteristic, is generally unlawful. Positive action is different. It allows organisations to widen the pool, offer development to under-represented groups, and in a genuine tie-break between equally qualified candidates, take representation into account. The bar does not move.

And the data has not reversed. Senior roles, boardrooms and pay still skew heavily towards white men. When a group that has historically held most of the advantage experiences a little less of it, that can feel like loss. It is not the same as discrimination.

Three approaches, one shared ambition

The image above shows four women trying to see over a fence towards a sign marked “Success”. It is a familiar picture, but the third panel changes the conversation.

Approach	What it does	Where it falls short
Equality	Everyone gets the same box to stand on.	Same support does not mean same outcome. The woman in the wheelchair cannot use a box at all.
Equity	Each person gets the support they need: a taller box, a ramp.	It works, but it can look like some people get “more”. That perception is where much of the resentment lives.
Targeted universalism	Everyone walks towards the same goal, on pathways designed for where they start.	It asks more of leaders: a clear shared goal, good data, and honest conversations about who faces which barriers.

Targeted universalism, an approach developed by Professor John A. Powell, starts with a goal everyone shares. Then it asks a practical question: what is stopping each group from reaching it? The answers will differ, so the support differs too. In the image, that means mentoring and networks, funding and finance, flexible opportunities and accessible workplaces.

Crucially, no one is taken off the path. The destination belongs to all of us.

The issues for EDI strategies and programmes

If we are honest, some of the backlash has been made easier by how EDI has sometimes been done.

Programmes that look like they are for “them”, not “us”. When EDI is framed only around particular groups, people outside those groups can conclude it has nothing to offer them, or that it is against them.
Targets without a clear purpose. Representation targets matter, but when they are not linked to a business reason and a fair process, they are easy to misread as quotas.
Training that blames rather than builds. Sessions that leave people feeling accused tend to harden views, not change them.
Activity instead of outcomes. Awareness days and network launches are valuable, but if pay gaps, progression and retention do not move, staff stop believing in the work.
Poor communication. Many people do not know the difference between positive action and positive discrimination. Silence leaves room for rumour.
Retreat under pressure. Quietly dropping commitments sends a message too. It tells those who were relying on them that they were never secure. And under the Equality Act 2010, the legal duties remain.

What leaders need to consider

Leaders set the tone. In this climate, that means holding steady on purpose while being open about method.

Listen before you defend. Create safe spaces where people can voice concerns, including uncomfortable ones, without being shut down. Unheard concerns do not disappear; they go underground.
Be clear about the law and the process. Explain how recruitment and promotion decisions are made. Make sure merit is visible, criteria are published and panels are trained.
Look at the whole picture in your data. Break it down by sex, ethnicity, disability, age and socio-economic background together. You may find barriers for groups you were not expecting, including some men.
Anchor everything in a shared goal. “Everyone who works here can progress on merit” is a goal people can rally behind. “More of group X” on its own invites a zero-sum reading.
Model inclusive leadership yourself. People watch what leaders do far more closely than what they say. Sponsor people from different backgrounds, and be seen to do it.
Do not mistake retreat for neutrality. Stepping back from EDI is itself a choice, with consequences for trust, retention and legal risk.

Making it fairer through targeted universalism

Targeted universalism answers the “what about me?” question directly. The goal is for everyone. The routes are tailored. Here is how it can look in practice, using the four signposts in the image.

Signpost	Universal goal	Targeted support
Mentoring and networks	Every employee has someone backing their development.	Extra sponsorship for groups under-represented in senior roles; peer networks for first-generation professionals, whatever their background.
Funding and finance	Everyone can afford to take up development opportunities.	Bursaries for those on lower pay; help with costs for carers and single parents.
Flexible opportunities	Everyone can do their best work around their life.	Flexible and part-time routes to promotion, benefiting mothers, fathers, carers and those managing health conditions.
Accessible workplaces	Everyone can take part fully.	Reasonable adjustments for disabled colleagues; neurodiversity-aware recruitment that helps many more than it targets.

Notice what happens. A father wanting to see his children, a young man from a former mining town, a Black woman aiming for the board, a colleague in a wheelchair: all are on the same path, towards the same sign.

To put this into practice:

Set one clear, shared goal, owned at board level.
Find out who is furthest from it and why, using data and lived experience.
Design targeted routes for each barrier, rather than one programme for everyone.
Explain the logic openly, so people understand why support differs.
Measure outcomes for every group, and publish progress, including where you are falling short.