Why DEI has failed - and how it can get back on track
DEI promised inclusion but delivered theatre - all slogans, little change. As backlash grew and trust collapsed, a missing truth emerges: class, not just identity, is the fault line inclusion forgo
Over the past year, my thinking on workplace inclusion has been sharpened by reading Paul Embery - particularly his Substack essays and his brilliant book Despised, which chronicles how Britain’s working classes have been culturally sidelined by institutions that claim to speak in the name of progress. Embery’s central challenge is uncomfortable but persuasive: that modern elite-led inclusion agendas often mistake moral signalling for material fairness, and in doing so alienate the very people they purport to help.
Nowhere is this tension more visible than in corporate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), where a framework designed to expand opportunity has, over time, narrowed its moral lens - elevating certain identities while rendering class invisible. That blind spot helps explain why DEI has lost legitimacy, trust, and traction just when organisations need it most.
What went wrong? DEI’s ambition was noble, but its execution became a form of corporate theatre: all gestures, little structural change. And as the backlash has grown, the entire project has begun to unravel.
The rise and stagnation of DEI
DEI’s corporate roots lie in U.S. civil rights law, later expanded through HR compliance and global diversity frameworks. In the 1990s, diversity was about avoiding lawsuits. By the 2000s, gender, LGBTQ+, and disability inclusion gained ground. The 2010s saw “equity” and “intersectionality” become buzzwords, backed by McKinsey-style data linking diversity to profit. As Caroline Casey of The Valuable 500 put it, “The business of business is no longer just business - it’s people, purpose, and inclusion.”
The killing of George Floyd in 2020 supercharged this movement. Within months, companies pledged billions to racial equity, issued solidarity statements, and appointed Chief Diversity Officers. DEI moved from the HR sidelines to the boardroom. But intent outpaced delivery: 97% of Fortune 500 firms made pledges; just 7% reported tangible progress.
In the UK, millions were poured into unconscious bias training, yet few HR leaders saw meaningful behavioural change. Whistleblowers exposed tokenism. The result: a widening gap between corporate rhetoric and reality.
The backlash arrives
By the mid-2020s, DEI had gone from corporate consensus to culture-war lightning rod. “Woke capitalism” became a rallying cry for many on the political right. U.S. states like Florida banned DEI training in public institutions. British commentators derided “box-ticking” inclusion schemes. One columnist called DEI “elitism in disguise.”
Even some supporters admitted the effort had gone off course. The Economist observed that many anti-discrimination programmes “have no effect - and sometimes backfire.”
By 2024, with Donald Trump’s return to office, corporate America began retreating. Federal DEI programmes were dismantled. Some companies rebranded their efforts under softer terms like “belonging” or “opportunity.” Others (Apple, Microsoft, Patagonia) stood firm, insisting diversity still drives innovation.
But beneath the noise, one crucial truth has emerged. DEI’s fiercest debates miss a fundamental axis of inequality: class.
The missing lens: Class
Political scientist Matthew Goodwin notes that while DEI focuses on identity (race, gender, sexuality) it has largely ignored socioeconomic background. Yet class remains the most powerful determinant of life outcomes.
Working-class employees who break into elite professions are paid less, promoted more slowly, and often feel culturally out of place. The Sutton Trust found that UK professionals from working-class backgrounds earn £6,000 less per year than peers from privileged upbringings - even with identical qualifications. The Bridge Group reported they take 25% longer to reach management roles. “The glass ceiling hasn’t shattered,” says journalist Afua Hirsch. “It’s just been relabelled.”
This blind spot has serious consequences. A 2023 Ipsos poll found nearly half of UK workers believe DEI benefits only a small subset of employees, while 39% feel “less included” because of it. For many, especially working-class white men, DEI has come to symbolise exclusion rather than fairness.
The limits of the current model
DEI’s weaknesses fall into three main traps:
1. Access without progression.
Companies have diversified entry-level hiring but failed to ensure advancement. Representation has been confused with transformation.
2. Symbolism over systems.
DEI often lives in silos (women’s networks, Pride months, ethnicity councils) creating “islands of advocacy” rather than structural change. The default corporate response, bias training, has weak evidence of impact and sometimes increases defensiveness among majority groups.
3. The missing data.
Unlike gender or race, class is rarely tracked. Only 27% of FTSE 100 companies collect data on employees’ educational background, and just 12% track parental occupation. “If you can’t measure it, you can’t move it,” says former UK Education Secretary Justine Greening. “That applies to class as much as race or gender.”
Why class matters
Class is not only a moral issue - it’s an economic one. The Social Mobility Commission estimates that the UK loses £140 billion annually in unrealised productivity due to class barriers.
When McKinsey studied “socioeconomic diversity” in 2023, they found that teams with class diversity were more resilient in downturns and more innovative during periods of change. KPMG’s decision to publish its class pay gap and to implement contextual recruitment led to a rise in engagement among employees from working-class backgrounds within two years.
“Socioeconomic diversity is the next frontier of inclusion,” said Bina Mehta, KPMG UK’s Chair.
The broader payoff
Addressing class improves inclusion for everyone. Class cuts across gender and race; many women and ethnic minority professionals are also first-generation graduates or from low-income families.
When companies design policies that remove class barriers, the effects cascade:
Parental leave reform supports working mothers from low-income households.
Alternative pathways into professional roles open doors for those without elite education.
Cost-of-living support helps those facing intergenerational poverty.
PwC’s “Open Access” programme, which removed CVs from early-career hiring, tripled its intake of “first in family” university graduates within five years. “We stopped hiring for polish and started hiring for potential,” said Chief People Officer Ian Elliott.
Reclaiming inclusion
DEI’s decline is not inevitable. It can evolve - if it broadens its lens. True inclusion must recognise the power of class in shaping opportunity. That means redefining diversity to include economic background, rebuilding trust through transparency, and measuring what truly matters.
Representation is not enough; progression, pay equity, and belonging must follow. Inclusion isn’t a monthly awareness campaign - it’s an operating principle.
DEI needs a reboot. One that shifts from optics to outcomes, from identity silos to shared opportunity. The next act of inclusion won’t be about who gets invited to the table - it’ll be about who can afford to sit there.
Over the next few days, I’ll outline research on the impact of class dynamics in the workplace, and what employers can do to become ones that mobilise all of their talent.