Scepticism regarding EDI strategies is emerging, however. Although it was thought businesses were getting serious about EDI, a 2021 survey reported that approximately 80 per cent of US companies are ‘just going through the motions and not holding themselves accountable’ and others are providing questionable EDI data to boost their environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores to attract more investment.[1]

EDI strategies, when scrutinised, are increasingly being exposed as lacking real intent; they are mere empty-rhetoric window dressing used for marketing to create misleading company images. In other words, they are an example of ‘diversity washing’,[2] implemented solely to increase the bottom line, sell products and persuade clients that the company’s policies are ethical and ‘employee-friendly’.

Meaningful commitment to EDI requires an investment of money and time and much more than what many businesses are currently doing, which typically only includes mission statements on the corporate website; references in HR manuals; one-off unconscious bias training given to employees virtually; token females appointed as non-executive advisory directors at the C-suite table; and reliance upon employees themselves to address EDI issues.

Age discrimination

An area where businesses’ EDI strategies are substantially falling short is age. Less than 8 per cent of all EDI strategies include age, even though ageism is one of the ‘isms’ still prominent in EU, Swiss, UK and US workplaces and is considered the most common type of discrimination in Europe. As life expectancies increase, a disconnect has been created between the years people want to work and the period employers consider them to be employable.[3] Despite laws, such as the UK Equality Act 2010, making age discrimination illegal, many employers continue to have secret agendas to nudge out older workers who are not ready to retire, replacing them with younger ones under the misguided assumption it will save costs and reap greater benefits.