As conversations around Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DE&I) evolve globally, businesses in the UK are facing renewed pressure to clarify their stance. In the United States, President Trump has in many places effectively banned equity initiatives and DE&I considerations in federal hiring, resulting in companies and organisations scaling back their DE&I initiatives raising an important question for discussion of how should companies across the pond respond?

For many, the answer may lie in understanding why DE&I matters in the first place. Sarah Mason noted that that diverse teams provide fresh thinking, which is integral to business innovation, while research from Deloitte shows that businesses which focus on workplace belonging can reduce employee turnover, improve performance and increase revenue. In other words, DE&I is not just about compliance or optics – it’s about business success and retention.

There was also discussion about whether DE&I had become a “dirty word” and would be better replaced with ED&I, prioritising equity, or scrapped entirely. Regardless of terminology, Edward Kemp KC pointed out that the landscape in the UK is different to the US. UK employers must comply with the Equality Act 2010, which creates a clear legal obligation to prevent discrimination. This, in turn, has implications for DE&I policy.

Crucially, the UK allows positive action, whereas US law often prohibits it. This distinction makes the former’s approach to DE&I unique and potentially more robust, but not without legal risk.

Several recent cases highlight these tensions. In Turner-Robson v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police positive action measures to increase diversity were wrongly applied leading to claims of race discrimination by existing police offers being upheld. Meanwhile, Higgs v Farmor’s School underscored the complexity of disciplining employees for social media activity tied to protected beliefs. The Court of Appeal, following an appeal, ruled the dismissal of a teacher because of her protected beliefs had been unlawfully discriminatory. The Court found that dismissal must be based on how views are manifested at work, not just personal expression in the private sphere.

This creates a complex environment for employers navigating social media policies, employee rights, and public expectations. As Edward Kemp pointed out, there’s no one-size-fits-all approach, especially for organisations in the public eye.

In addition, gender-based rights are drawing increased attention with the recent UK Supreme Court ruling that women are defined by biological sex. On the surface, this suggests employers may deny access to facilities based on biological sex. However, this leaves unresolved questions: What if there is no third space? What if that space outs a transgender person against their wishes? We await further guidance from the European Court of Human Rights in June, but we heard that businesses should begin reviewing policies now and be prepared to talk to their employees about the situation, which draws strong feeling from many sides.

The Employment Rights Bill, introduced by the Labour Government last year, adds another layer of complexity. New amendments will increase employers’ duties to prevent sexual harassment, with potential financial penalties for non-compliance. Bespoke training and policy updates should be prioritised by companies in light of these changes.

As Sarah Mason noted, effective DE&I strategy in this climate requires more than surface-level action. It demands authentic leadership, transparent reporting, inclusive language, and a commitment to engaging in two-way communication.

Now more than ever, it’s time for businesses to be clear about their commitment to DE&I in their communications – not just for compliance with the law, but to develop an organisation’s culture, build its reputation, and generate long-term success.