Reassessing Current Approaches to EDI
Much of the mainstream EDI work in organisations has historically been framed around the business case for diversity. The logic has been that diverse teams, by virtue of varied perspectives, drive greater creativity, improved performance, and competitive advantage (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Roberson, 2019). While these outcomes are valuable researchers have questioned whether this rationale goes far enough. Clarity about what we mean by “diversity” and “inclusion” also matters, as the two terms are conceptually distinct yet often conflated (Roberson, 2006).
Fitzsimmons et al. (2023) highlight that, particularly international contexts, EDI is often used as a tool to reduce operational risk or enhance performance, with moral, justice-based, and structural considerations receiving less attention. This pattern is consistent with broader critiques in the literature that caution against separating EDI from its core aims of equity and fairness (Nkomo et al., 2019).
The Need for Structural and Contextual Understanding
Research increasingly emphasises the importance of viewing EDI as a systemic and structural issue rather than purely an individual or behavioural one. Acker’s (2006) theory of inequality regimes highlights how organisations often, and sometimes unknowingly, reproduce race, gender, and class hierarchies through everyday practices, norms, and cultures. This implies that interventions focused solely on interpersonal dynamics, such as unconscious bias training, are unlikely to tackle the deeply embedded nature of exclusion.
Fitzsimmons et al. (2023) further argue that many organisations still rely on essentialist and static understandings of identity categories (e.g., fixed notions of gender or ethnicity), rather than adopting more fluid, intersectional, or socially constructed frameworks (Crenshaw, 1991; Zanoni et al., 2010). These conceptual limitations can weaken the impact of inclusion initiatives, especially in multinational contexts where power imbalances, history, and regulatory environments vary considerably.
Balancing Strategic and Ethical Rationales
There is strong evidence that well-executed EDI strategies are linked to improved organisational performance, particularly when they’re embedded within inclusive cultures and decision-making structures (Deloitte, 2024; McKinsey, 2023). However, relying solely on instrumental justifications can limit the transformative potential of EDI.
Introducing moral and institutional rationales (such as commitments to human rights, fairness, and social cohesion) is increasingly recognised as essential to sustaining EDI progress. Ely and Thomas (2020) note that moral clarity helps build organisational legitimacy and trust, particularly in the face of backlash or resistance. Yet, Fitzsimmons et al. (2023) found that moral reasoning remains underrepresented in much of the current business-focused EDI literature.
The Role of Multinational Organisations
Multinational enterprises (MNEs) can play a major role in advancing EDI because of their cross-border reach and capacity to transfer and share inclusive practices. However, this influence also carries complexity. EDI categories and legal frameworks vary significantly across contexts, making universal approaches difficult to implement (Syed & Özbilgin, 2019). Some MNEs have successfully acted as inclusion catalysts, for instance by promoting religious or ethnic inclusion in jurisdictions where local employers do not. At the same time, evidence shows MNEs may, in some contexts, exploit local social divides to capture advantages (Siegel, Pyun & Cheon, 2019). This highlights the importance of global EDI governance frameworks that balance local responsiveness with consistent principled standards.
Future Capabilities: Building Inclusive Capacity
Alongside structural change, recent analyses identify leadership and social influence, empathy and active listening, and ethics as critical people capabilities for the evolving workplace (World Economic Forum, 2023). Roberson et al. (2017) call for broader organisational literacy in inclusion practices, emphasising the need for both cross-functional and cross-cultural capability.
Moreover, Fitzsimmons et al. (2023) further recommend that organisations establish internal mechanisms to recognise and address resistance to EDI, whether overt or systemic. Understanding this resistance is essential to designing interventions that are not only aspirational but also contextually effective.
Final Thought
Contemporary research increasingly positions EDI as a complex, multi-level challenge requiring both strategic foresight and ethical commitment. While business-case logic has its place it is insufficient on its own. Sustainable inclusion demands attention to power, context, and structural design. As the global landscape evolves, organisations that prioritise fairness, voice, and adaptability will be best positioned to lead, not only in reputation, but in relevance.
Action Point
Choose one persistent EDI challenge in your team or organisation. Reframe it as a system design issue, not a policy gap. Gather diverse voices, map the barriers, and identify one point where equity can be built in. Start small, centre lived experience and act with intent.