Sharon Peake, Founder and CEO, Shape Talent advises that now is not the time to step back from ED&I.
The ground beneath equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) is shifting – and fast. Like tectonic plates grinding beneath the surface, the pressures have been building for some time. Now, we’re seeing fault lines emerge: political backlash, regulatory divergence, cultural polarisation. For those of us who’ve dedicated our careers to creating fairer workplaces, the landscape suddenly feels less certain and more fragile.
If you’re in this work – leading EDI, HR, talent or culture – you’ll know exactly what I mean. Equity, diversity, and inclusion is under threat, and each week seems to deliver a fresh blow to hard-won progress – especially in gender equity.
Honestly? Some days I want to charge in, full tilt, and rail against the backlash. Because if we ever needed proof of why we need equity, fairness, and more women in positions of power, we’ve got it in abundance right now.
But this moment requires more than passion. It requires perspective.
EDI isn’t dead – but it does need a reset
Despite what some might hope, this isn’t the end of EDI. It’s not “over,” not by a long shot. But it is evolving – and rightly so. Equity and inclusion have been through many name changes over the decades (EEO, diversity, D&I, DIB…), but the core idea has always been about fairness: creating workplaces where everyone has equal access to opportunities. That isn’t a trend. That’s a human need.
What has changed recently – particularly in the US – is the level of political hostility. Since the beginning of the year, we’ve seen executive orders signed targeting federal contractors and even private businesses that engage in DEI work. And this has triggered a wave of fear and inertia. Leaders are confused about how to respond without putting their organisations at legal or reputational risk.
At the same time, Europe is moving in the opposite direction. EU directives on Women on Boards, Pay Transparency, and Corporate Sustainability Reporting are making inclusive practices a requirement across Europe. In the UK, we’ve seen strengthened workplace protections with the Worker Protection Act, including strengthened sexual harassment prevention obligations.
For multinationals, these competing regulatory frameworks create a compliance nightmare, with radically different requirements depending on your geography. And many are caught between values and viability, trying to figure out how to show up without being penalised. One of our clients – a US federal contractor – is grappling with what to do with their global women’s development programme – do they continue to invite US-based participants and risk jeopardising their federal contracts or simply exclude this group from future programmes. These are tough choices.
The real backlash? A crisis of perception
Beyond legal risks, the real challenge lies in public sentiment. We’re seeing a shift in perception that “the job is done” – particularly around gender equity. But the data tells a different story.
The World Economic Forum currently estimates it will take 134 years to close the global gender gap. Yet a study – by Ipsos in conjunction with Kings College London – across 31 countries found that nearly half of respondents believe we’ve already gone too far. This mismatch – between reality and belief – is fuelling the backlash.
I hear this often: “I just want the best person to get the job.” And I couldn’t agree more. That’s exactly what equity is about – removing the systemic barriers that prevent the best person from ever getting in the room.
But now, more than ever, we must be precise in how we speak about this work – and how we deliver it.
Risks are rising – but so are opportunities
For companies wondering how to proceed, I see three key risks that need managing:
- Culture risk – In polarised environments, inclusion efforts become politicised. We’re seeing rising incivility at work, drops in psychological safety, and increased concerns for employee wellbeing – particularly among minoritised groups. Disengagement is expensive and great talent doesn’t want to work for, or stay with, organisations where they don’t feel seen and safe.
- Compliance risk – The conflicting regulatory demands between Europe and the US – particularly for businesses who are contractors to the federal government – mean that a business may be legally obliged to track, monitor and progress EDI initiatives in one jurisdiction but be prohibited from doing these exact things in another jurisdiction. But even if DEI roles and practices disappear, anti-discrimination laws remain. Organisations must still prove fairness and mitigate bias in their systems – this is all the harder if you’ve had to dismantle the very systems that help prevent bias in the system.
- Brand risk – This moment is a litmus test for corporate values. Gen Z talent in particular is watching. If your actions don’t align with your stated purpose, then your reputation – and future talent pipeline – could take a lasting hit.
The good news? These risks can be turned into strategic advantages. Here’s how:
1. Support your people
Start by listening. Your employees – especially those in marginalised groups – are navigating fear and fatigue. Create safe spaces for dialogue, whether through listening groups, ERGs, or facilitated discussions. Support your executive teams with the language and tools to hold these conversations constructively, and support your EDI teams, who are feeling the pressure from all angles.
2. Debias your core people processes
Whether or not you use the term EDI, you need systems that are fair. That means auditing recruitment, performance, development, and promotion processes for structural bias. One example: requiring just one woman on a hiring shortlist is often ineffective. Research shows that unless you have at least two people from an underrepresented group, their odds of selection are negligible.
Being data-led protects you from legal risk and improves decision quality.
3. Evolve inclusion – don’t erase it
Yes, some organisations are restructuring. We’ve seen EDI roles merged into talent, employee engagement and other people functions. Titles are changing – “equity” is being quietly dropped. But if this is only a rebrand without real embedding, we’re back to square one.
The key opportunity here is integration. EDI shouldn’t sit on the sidelines. It should live inside your talent strategy, your leadership model, your business goals.
4. Redefine programmes for relevance and resilience
Positive action* (e.g. women’s development programmes, leadership targets) is not only legal in many countries – it’s encouraged. But programmes must be designed with fairness at their core.
One client we work with chose to keep their women’s programme open to all genders, while still addressing gender-specific barriers. Others have added selection criteria to ensure participants align with the programme’s goals. These are smart, ethical adaptations – not rollbacks.
5. Lead the Narrative
This is not the time to go quiet. Every EDI decision – whether expansion or retreat – sends a message to your workforce, your customers, your future hires. You are either saying, “we value equity and will evolve it carefully,” or “we’re scared, and we’re stepping away.”
Some companies – like Canon Germany, BT, Apple, Bayer – have made their stance clear. They’re staying the course. Others are missing a huge opportunity to strengthen their culture and brand.
The choice is yours.
Where do we go from here?
This is a defining moment. Not just for EDI, but for how we lead.
My call to all leaders – especially those in HR, Talent, and Inclusion – is this:
- Be bold enough to listen.
- Be smart enough to adapt.
- Be strategic enough to embed fairness into everything.
- And above all – hold your nerve.
The pendulum will swing again. But how we respond now will define who we are for years to come.
Let’s make sure we’re on the right side of history.
* Note: Positive action supports underrepresented groups by providing opportunities such as mentorship and targeted outreach. Positive discrimination, which is unlawful in many countries, involves selecting someone based solely on identity rather than merit.
