On 21 April 2026, the Women and Equalities Committee - a cross-party group of MPs chaired by Labour's Sarah Owen - will hold its second evidence session examining a deceptively simple question: do EDI initiatives in UK workplaces actually work?

It is a question that most employers have never been formally asked. But it is one that every business leader should be asking themselves. Because as the political, legal, and cultural landscape around equality, diversity, and inclusion continues to shift, the gap between intention and impact is becoming impossible to ignore.

This briefing explains what the inquiry is about, what emerged from the first evidence session, what the witnesses said that matters for employers, and what it all means for the way you approach EDI in your business.

Why This Inquiry Is Happening Now

The timing of this inquiry is no accident. It arrives at a moment of genuine tension in the EDI landscape.

Globally, there has been a visible retreat from diversity programmes, driven in large part by the political backlash in the United States. Research from People Management and the CIPD found that 54% of UK businesses changed their EDI approach in response, and 28% reduced or abandoned their programmes entirely. At the same time, three in five UK workers say they would consider leaving an employer that rolled back its inclusion commitments - a figure that rises to 68% among Gen Z.

54%
of UK businesses changed their EDI approach following the US retreat from diversity programmes - and 28% reduced or abandoned their programmes entirely. (People Management / CIPD)

In the UK specifically, the legal and regulatory framework is moving in the opposite direction to the US retreat. The Employment Rights Act 2025 has introduced new enforcement powers through the Fair Work Agency, mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting is confirmed for larger employers, and the socioeconomic duty under Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 - which has never been enacted in England - is now expected to be commenced in late summer or autumn 2026.

Against this backdrop, the Women and Equalities Committee is asking a critical question: if the UK is going to expand its EDI framework, does the evidence show that what we are already doing is effective? Or are employers spending time and money on initiatives that do not deliver?

What the Inquiry Is Examining

The inquiry's scope is broad. It is looking at the effectiveness of EDI initiatives across UK workplaces, with a particular focus on:

The first evidence session took place on 25 March 2026 in Room 6 of the Palace of Westminster, though it was cut short by votes in the Commons. The second session, scheduled for 21 April 2026, will continue the evidence-gathering with additional witnesses.

The Witnesses: Who Is Shaping the Debate

The committee heard from five witnesses at its first session, each bringing a distinct perspective on what works in EDI - and what does not.

Peter Cheese, Chief Executive, CIPD

Peter Cheese, head of the UK's professional body for HR and people development, made a case for what he calls 'collective inclusion' - moving away from initiatives targeted at specific demographic groups and instead embedding inclusion into how a business fundamentally operates.

His central argument was that the 'business case' for EDI - the idea that diversity drives profit - is an unreliable foundation. He told the committee that employers should be cautious about using the business case to drive equality, noting that it will always be contingent and difficult to prove, and that it risks becoming a justification rather than a genuine commitment. Instead, Cheese argued that inclusion needs to be woven into organisational culture, not treated as a separate programme.

The CIPD's 2025 report, 'Resetting EDI and Reaffirming Inclusion,' drew on insights from 50 senior HR leaders and recommended four strategic shifts: aligning EDI with business strategy, using inclusive and accessible language, building manager capability, and preparing for emerging risks including AI and evolving workplace rights.

Professor Alex Edmans, London Business School

Professor Edmans brought an evidence-based academic perspective, challenging some of the most widely cited claims in the EDI field. He told the committee that some widely circulated studies linking demographic diversity to financial performance have been shown to be flawed, and cautioned against drawing simplistic conclusions.

His own research, however, found that equity and inclusion - as distinct from demographic diversity alone - are correlated with financial performance. The key finding: it is the quality of the culture, not the demographic composition of the workforce, that drives outcomes. He argued for expanding the focus from diversity to equity and inclusion, creating psychologically safe environments where people can express different viewpoints and challenge colleagues without fear.

Edmans also warned that focusing exclusively on visible, protected characteristics could lead organisations to prioritise what is easily measurable at the expense of what actually matters - a pattern he likened to short-termism in financial management. His message was clear: evidence, not ideology, should drive EDI decisions.

Iain Mansfield, Director of Research, Policy Exchange

Mansfield offered the most critical perspective. He appeared in the context of a February 2026 Policy Exchange report arguing that the expansion of the UK's HR sector - which the report claims employs 1.6% of the UK workforce, compared with 1% in the US and 0.8% in the EU - has been driven in part by EDI requirements. The report estimates that this 'bloated' HR sector costs the economy £10 billion per year in misallocated labour.

Policy Exchange's recommendations include repealing the 'positive action' provisions in the Equality Act and ending the practice of considering EDI policies in procurement decisions. This is the most deregulatory position in the debate, and while it has attracted criticism from the HR profession, it reflects a strand of thinking that the committee is clearly interested in exploring.

Dr Louise Ashley, Queen Mary University of London

Dr Ashley, an academic specialising in social mobility and inclusion in elite professions, contributed the concept of 'institutional isomorphism' - the tendency for organisations to adopt similar EDI practices not because they are effective, but because they are seen as legitimate. Her point was that much of what passes for EDI is essentially performative: organisations imitating each other without evidence that any of it works.

If you have ever felt pressure to introduce an EDI initiative because 'everyone else is doing it,' Dr Ashley's evidence suggests that instinct should be questioned. The focus should be on what works for your specific workforce and context - not on following trends.

Dr Zoe Young, Founder, Half the Sky

Dr Young, an EDI consultant and academic sociologist, argued that the most effective inclusion work focuses on capability building rather than group-specific programmes. She told the committee that success comes from embedding good practices - like helping managers handle performance conversations humanely - rather than running standalone diversity programmes.

She shared an example of a care company with a highly diverse workforce that achieved strong inclusion outcomes not through formal EDI programmes, but through sound, respectful management practice. Her message reinforced a theme that ran through much of the evidence: inclusion is about how you manage people, not about having a separate strategy for it.

The Inclusion at Work Panel: The Report Behind the Inquiry

Much of the inquiry's work is informed by the Inclusion at Work Panel, an independent group established in 2023 under the previous government's Inclusive Britain plan. The panel, made up of leaders from the private and public sector and advised by a Harvard academic, published its final report in March 2024.

Its findings were uncomfortable reading for anyone invested in the current EDI model. The panel found that many employers want to do the right thing but are implementing initiatives without an evidence base. Many do not know whether their EDI activities are having any impact or whether they represent value for money. In a growing number of cases - particularly around positive discrimination and protected beliefs - the report found that EDI interventions were proving counterproductive or even unlawful.

The panel's key recommendations included:

The current inquiry is, in part, assessing what has been done with these recommendations and whether the incoming framework of mandatory reporting and expanded duties is grounded in evidence.

What This Means for UK Employers

If you run a business in the UK, this inquiry matters to you - not because of what Parliament might legislate, but because of what it reveals about the direction the conversation is heading.

1. The Era of 'Do Something, Anything' Is Over

The evidence heard by the committee makes clear that simply having EDI policies, running awareness days, or publishing a diversity statement is not enough. MPs are asking whether these activities make a measurable difference. If the answer is 'we do not know,' that is increasingly going to be seen as a problem. For employers, this means any EDI activity should be tied to a clear objective, measured against outcomes, and reviewed regularly.

2. Culture Trumps Programmes

Across all five witnesses, the most consistent theme was that inclusion is a product of organisational culture, not standalone programmes. Whether it was Cheese's 'collective inclusion,' Edmans's 'psychological safety,' or Young's 'capability building,' the message was the same: the most effective inclusion happens when it is embedded in how people are managed day to day, not when it is bolted on as a separate activity.

For small businesses, this is actually good news. You do not need a large EDI budget or a dedicated team. What you need is fair, consistent management practice, clear policies, and a culture where people feel they can be themselves and raise concerns without fear.

3. The Business Case Is Necessary but Not Sufficient

The idea that diversity is 'good for business' has been the dominant framing for EDI for over a decade. But the evidence presented to the committee suggests this claim is more complicated than it appears. Edmans's research found that inclusion and equity correlate with financial performance, but demographic diversity alone does not. Cheese warned that the business case is always contingent and can become a convenient excuse rather than a genuine driver.

For employers, the practical implication is this: make the case for inclusion on its own terms - fairness, dignity, legal compliance, and the simple fact that people do better work when they feel valued. If that also improves your bottom line, as the evidence suggests it can, that is a bonus, not the justification.

4. The Socioeconomic Duty Is Coming

One of the clearest signals from the inquiry is that the socioeconomic duty under Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 is set to be enacted in England for the first time. This duty, which has been on the statute book since 2010 but was never commenced by previous governments, would require public bodies to have due regard to reducing inequalities of outcome resulting from socioeconomic disadvantage.

While this initially applies to public bodies, it signals a broader shift towards recognising social class and economic background as inclusion issues. With the class pay gap standing at £6,287 for professionals from working-class backgrounds, and with organisations like Grant Thornton, PwC, and Co-op already reporting voluntarily on socioeconomic pay data, this is an area where forward-thinking employers are getting ahead of the curve.

5. Mandatory Reporting Is Expanding - and It Needs to Be Evidence-Led

The committee is examining whether the expansion of mandatory reporting - to include ethnicity and disability pay gaps - is grounded in evidence. The concern, flagged by several witnesses, is that reporting becomes a compliance exercise rather than a driver of change. The Inclusion at Work Panel found that many employers report data without understanding what to do with it.

For employers, the lesson is clear: when mandatory ethnicity and disability pay reporting arrives (likely 2027 for larger employers), do not treat it as a tick-box exercise. Use the data to understand where your gaps are, why they exist, and what specific, evidence-based actions you can take to address them.

What You Should Do Now: Practical Steps for Every Employer

  1. Audit what you're already doing. List every EDI-related activity in your business - policies, training, awareness events, networks, reporting. For each one, ask: what is the objective? How do we know if it's working? If you cannot answer those questions, that activity needs reviewing.
  2. Focus on culture, not programmes. The strongest evidence from the inquiry points to inclusion being driven by everyday management practice, not one-off initiatives. Invest in training your managers to have fair, open conversations, handle adjustments, address conflict, and treat people with dignity. That is your EDI strategy.
  3. Start collecting data you can use. If you do not already know the demographic makeup of your workforce, start asking. Run an anonymous staff survey on belonging, fairness, and psychological safety. You cannot improve what you do not measure - but only measure what you intend to act on.
  4. Make your adjustments process clear and accessible. With neurodiversity tribunal claims up 164% in four years and the disability employment gap at 29.5%, reasonable adjustments are a live risk area. Ensure you have a clear, well-communicated process - and remember that a formal diagnosis is not a prerequisite for support.
  5. Do not copy - think. Dr Ashley's evidence on institutional isomorphism is a direct challenge to the 'best practice' approach. What works for a large professional services firm may not work for a 30-person business. Design your approach around your people, your context, and your data - not around what others are doing.
  6. Watch the socioeconomic duty. If you are a public body or supply to the public sector, the expected commencement of Section 1 of the Equality Act in 2026 will create new obligations. If you are a private sector employer, it signals a broader shift worth preparing for. Consider how socioeconomic background affects access and progression in your organisation.

The Bigger Picture: What Kind of Inclusion Do We Want?

This inquiry is, at its heart, about something bigger than policy detail. It is about what kind of inclusion the UK wants in its workplaces.

On one side, there are voices arguing that EDI has become a bureaucratic burden - expensive, unmeasurable, and disconnected from real outcomes. On the other, there is compelling evidence that inclusive workplaces deliver better results for both employees and businesses, and that the legal framework needs to expand, not contract.

The truth, as the evidence suggests, sits somewhere more practical. The most effective inclusion is not about grand programmes, expensive consultants, or fashionable initiatives. It is about fair management. Clear policies. Respectful conversations. A willingness to look at data honestly and act on what it tells you. It is about treating people as individuals, not as representatives of demographic categories.

For the small and medium-sized businesses we work with, that is what inclusion looks like in practice. It is not complicated. It does not require a massive budget. But it does require intention, consistency, and a willingness to keep learning.

The Women and Equalities Committee is asking whether UK workplaces are getting this right. The honest answer, for most organisations, is: not yet. But the direction of travel is encouraging. And the businesses that engage with this question now - openly, practically, and without defensiveness - are the ones that will be best placed for whatever comes next.

In short: The rules of the game are changing. Parliament is no longer just asking whether you have an EDI policy - it's asking whether it actually makes a difference. The evidence points clearly towards culture over programmes, data over assumptions, and practical management over grand gestures. For small businesses, that's encouraging. You do not need a big budget. You need intention, consistency, and a willingness to look honestly at how your people are treated.

What to Watch Next