As we enter 2025, the global conversation around Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) in the workplace seems more polarized than ever. On one side of the Atlantic, the United Kingdom continues to reinforce legislation and embed EDI priorities into company policies, as many British organizations see inclusive practices as a natural extension of social responsibility and good business sense.
On the other side, the United States is witnessing a wave of large corporations scaling back or even abandoning EDI programs outright, blaming changes in the legal landscape, cultural pushback, and mounting pressure from various interest groups. This blog explores why these two nations—both historically seen as champions of workplace equality—are charting such different paths today. It also offers practical steps for UK businesses that may wish to distance themselves from “Woke EDI” while still cultivating an environment that values fairness, respect, and opportunity for all.
Understanding EDI in 2025: A Global Overview
Over the last decade, both the UK and the US have built reputations as trailblazers in championing workplace diversity. In the UK, a series of equality-oriented laws, including the Equality Act 2010, laid out clear standards banning discrimination based on race, gender, disability, and other protected characteristics. Public-sector bodies have often gone even further, publishing robust strategies designed to elevate inclusive hiring, pay equity, and a strong focus on “belonging.”
Many private-sector firms have followed suit, seeing EDI not just as a moral imperative but also a driver of business innovation, employee engagement, and brand reputation. In the US, federal protections and higher education programs have historically played an important role in nurturing diversity in the workforce. Affirmative action in particular, introduced to address racial disparities in hiring and education, had been a mainstay for decades. Yet what was once hailed as a progressive push to level the playing field is facing unprecedented legal and political challenges, bringing about a profound shift in how American organizations address workplace diversity.
Why UK and US EDI Initiatives Are Diverging
To understand the UK’s current stance, it helps to look at the growing emphasis on results-based EDI. British businesses increasingly rely on data to pinpoint disparities in hiring, promotions, pay, and other critical metrics, using real-time analytics to track progress and identify areas that need urgent attention. This pragmatic, metrics-oriented approach reflects broader global trends in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) targets, where companies are judged on measurable outcomes rather than vague intentions.
Meanwhile, the UK’s regulatory framework continues to evolve. New or potential legislation—such as the Worker Protection Act and the upcoming Employment Rights Bill—promises to strengthen workplace protections and modernize employment practices. Government bodies and public-sector organizations have been proactive in releasing EDI strategies that encourage private firms to follow suit. These factors contribute to a culture in which EDI is not merely a “nice to have” but an expectation from employees, customers, and stakeholders. Indeed, many UK businesses now view inclusivity as a core part of their corporate DNA, connected to broader corporate social responsibility goals and long-term sustainability.
Across the Atlantic, the situation is increasingly fraught. A major turning point arrived with the US Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling against affirmative action in higher education settings, which sent ripple effects through corporate America. Despite not being a direct ruling on private enterprise, many leading companies cited the decision as a signal that race-based initiatives—once integral to diversity plans—may be on tenuous legal footing.
The political climate has also hardened. Some conservative groups, emboldened by the court’s stance, began amplifying campaigns that argue EDI policies discriminate against majority groups or create undue burdens on businesses. In this cultural and legal environment, organizations that were once eager to showcase their DEI badges have found themselves weighing the costs and benefits of staying the course. Facing mounting pressure, many of them have chosen to take a step back.
Major US Companies Scaling Back on Diversity: Key Examples
Over the last six months, a number of high-profile US businesses have publicly announced partial or complete rollbacks of their EDI commitments. Meta (Facebook) declared on January 10, 2025, that it would end key diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, attributing the move to a “changing legal and policy landscape.” The company insisted it still values diverse talent but would no longer rely on strategies like curated applicant pools to meet representation goals. Soon after, McDonald’s made headlines on January 6, 2025, by scrapping some of its DEI policies, again citing the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling as a primary factor. Among McDonald’s changes were decisions to retire aspirational representation goals, rebrand its diversity team to “Global Inclusion Team,” and pause participation in external surveys such as the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index.
Walmart, the largest retailer in the US, followed suit by choosing not to renew a five-year commitment to an equity racial center it had set up in 2020. Instead, it stopped giving preferential treatment to suppliers based on race or gender. Ford Motor Company made a quieter move in August 2024 when it ceased participating in the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, effectively distancing itself from external benchmarks of progress. Around the same time, Harley-Davidson went a step further, dismantling its entire DEI function, including the use of hiring quotas and supplier diversity spend goals. John Deere signaled its pivot in July 2024 by eliminating all DEI policies and emphasizing that quality and customer trust would take precedence over inclusivity targets. Similarly, Molson Coors announced in September 2024 that it would drop supplier diversity goals and remove aspirational representation from executive compensation. Brown-Forman, known for brands like Jack Daniel’s, halted initiatives that linked bonuses to DEI progress, ended participation in LGBTQ-friendly ranking systems, and canceled projects aimed at diversifying its supplier base.
These announcements are part of what appears to be a broader trend in the United States, fueled by legal anxieties in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling and vocal opposition from certain political sectors. While each company offers its own unique explanation, common threads include the perceived risk of litigation, the conviction that identity-based quotas no longer align with company values, and the sense that DEI has become a lightning rod in the so-called culture wars.
Critics of these rollbacks argue that these businesses are caving to ideological pressure and missing an opportunity to foster more equitable workplaces. Supporters claim that EDI programs had become too politicized, overshadowing merit-based hiring and stoking resentment among some employees and customers.
How UK Firms Are Strengthening EDI Efforts
In contrast, there is no clear evidence of UK firms engaging in wide-scale dismantling of EDI practices. While some organizations are refining their approaches or tightening budgets in a challenging economy, the overall trend is one of continued commitment. Public agencies regularly publish strategies and guidelines, which many private-sector companies adopt to demonstrate their alignment with evolving societal norms. Heightened scrutiny from stakeholders, along with ESG-minded investors, has contributed to making EDI an integral part of broader corporate governance.
However, that doesn’t mean the UK is shielded entirely from outside influences. The anti-DEI sentiment emanating from the US could well cause some hesitation within multinational firms headquartered in Britain or those that maintain significant US operations. Organizations may worry about future legal liabilities or negative publicity spilling over from contentious debates across the Atlantic. For the time being, though, most UK firms appear to be maintaining or even expanding their inclusion efforts, emphasizing transparent data collection, robust reporting, and leadership accountability.
Legal and Cultural Drivers Behind EDI Trends in Britain
Looking ahead, one might ask why the two countries are experiencing such a disconnect. The answer lies in a complex interplay of legal norms, cultural values, and political climates. In the US, the concept of “reverse discrimination” has gained renewed traction, fueling lawsuits and legislative initiatives that challenge race-focused measures. Meanwhile, in the UK, equal opportunity legislation enjoys bipartisan support, and the public discourse around inclusion tends to focus on fairness and broad-based representation rather than zero-sum politics.
That said, the corporate world on both sides of the pond is increasingly aware of how brand loyalty and consumer expectations tie in with EDI goals. Despite the turbulence in the US, companies that draw significant talent from younger, more diverse generations may find that scaling back on inclusion promises risks alienating key demographics. In the UK, the impetus is to demonstrate not only compliance with legislation but also tangible progress in bridging pay gaps and creating pathways for underrepresented groups.
What, then, can businesses learn from each other’s approaches to EDI in 2025? For UK organizations, the US experience highlights the importance of making inclusion practices legally sound and culturally relevant. Defending EDI strategies may require framing them in broader, universal values such as fairness, innovation, and the well-being of all employees. For US corporations that see value in continuing EDI efforts, the British inclination to rely on data and measurable outcomes could serve as a roadmap for building less politicized, more sustainable diversity programs. Ultimately, EDI works best when it is strategic, evidence-based, and aligned with the legitimate needs of the workforce rather than the ideological agendas of external parties.
Practical Steps for UK Businesses to Evolve Beyond ‘Woke EDI
In recent months, a growing number of UK firms have begun to question whether their EDI policies have crossed into the territory of “Woke EDI,” where the focus on optics and political correctness may override practicality or shared organizational goals. Moving away from a “woke” framework does not necessarily imply discarding all the positive strides made in diversity and inclusion. Instead, companies might consider refocusing on core principles like respect, meritocracy, transparency, and the creation of equal opportunities that benefit everyone.
One practical way to do this is to reexamine recruitment processes for fairness without overly rigid quotas or public declarations that can feel performative. By streamlining recruitment steps, standardizing interviews, and continuously analyzing data about who applies, who advances, and who gets hired, organizations can foster a culture of inclusion without labeling any specific group as a priority for numeric targets.
Another approach is to revise training programs so that they teach universal skills—such as conflict resolution, empathy, and teamwork—instead of leaning heavily on identity-based content that might spark controversy or backlash. Rather than mandatory courses, consider voluntary workshops and mentorship opportunities that encourage employees to learn from each other’s experiences. This method respects individual agency and reduces the risk that staff will feel coerced into adopting certain viewpoints. At the same time, offering clear channels for reporting and addressing discrimination ensures that any genuine cases of harassment or bias are treated with the seriousness they deserve.
A further step is to recognize that data can be both a shield and a sword. Gathering robust information on pay disparities, promotion rates, and employee satisfaction can guide decision-makers toward corrective action. But data also helps prove that changes in policy are evidence-based, not merely reactive to ideological tides. Sharing these results internally and externally—within reason—fosters a sense of transparency and credibility.
For UK companies intent on distancing themselves from what they see as “Woke EDI,” it’s also essential to maintain a thoughtful communication strategy. Abruptly canceling programs or eliminating diversity roles without providing solid reasoning risks backlash from employees, customers, and the public. A more prudent approach might be to articulate why a new model of inclusion is necessary—one grounded in fairness for all rather than in what some perceive to be divisive tactics. This pivot could include emphasizing shared corporate values, universal benefits of inclusive practices, and the competitive advantages of a diverse workforce, such as better innovation and a broader range of perspectives.
Leadership, too, must evolve. Executives and managers should model inclusive behaviors not because it is demanded by an external standard, but because it leads to stronger team dynamics and optimal business outcomes. By championing fairness as a shared value rather than a legal or reputational checkbox, leaders can help employees at all levels see EDI as integral to a thriving corporate culture.
Taken together, these actions enable a company to avoid reactionary extremes. Instead of painting EDI programs as purely moral imperatives or dismissing them as intrusive social engineering, organizations can adopt a measured and balanced perspective, rooted in mutual respect, open dialogue, and accountability. By using data judiciously, focusing on skill-building and leadership development, and communicating transparently about policy changes, businesses can stay ahead of legal risks and social shifts while preserving the essence of what inclusion is supposed to achieve: a workplace where all people have the chance to succeed and feel valued.
Looking Ahead: The Future of EDI in 2025 and Beyond
In the final analysis, the diverging experiences of the UK and the US in 2025 serve as a reminder that EDI is not a monolith. Whether one regards the current pushback in the US as overdue course correction or as an unfortunate retreat from progress, it is clear that cultural, legal, and political forces drive decisions in ways that may not apply universally.
The UK’s emphasis on data-driven, measurable EDI has proven more robust, partly because it rests on a foundation of widely supported legislation and expectations from investors, consumers, and government bodies. Nonetheless, UK firms aren’t immune to external pressures and shifting public opinion. By learning from America’s struggles, British companies can future-proof their diversity initiatives, ensuring they remain legally sound, culturally relevant, and widely accepted by employees.
For those UK organizations that wish to pivot away from “Woke EDI,” the steps outlined above—reexamining recruitment protocols, refining training to emphasize universal skills, transparently using data, communicating policy changes carefully, and championing inclusive leadership—offer a blueprint for moving forward. Balancing the desire to avoid being caught up in heated cultural debates with the need to foster equitable working conditions is no small feat.
Yet with carefully calibrated strategies, businesses can honor their obligations to fairness and equality while also respecting the range of perspectives that exist within their workforce and customer base. In doing so, they can remain resilient in the face of shifting social winds and maintain their reputation as equitable, forward-looking employers in 2025 and beyond.