DEI is dead. Long live inclusion.

The term DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) has become both a rallying cry and a polarising topic. What was once an urgent call to action for businesses, institutions, and communities has now morphed into a fraught and, at times, controversial acronym. With mounting political pushback and corporate hesitancy, some argue that DEI is in decline. However, rather than lament its fading influence, should we consider this shift an opportunity—a necessary evolution that allows us to refocus on the deeper, more impactful issue: inclusion.

 

The decline of DEI: a natural evolution?

 

For years, DEI efforts have been criticised for being performative, overly broad, or too focused on checking boxes rather than fostering meaningful change. The backlash against DEI—whether in the form of legislation limiting corporate diversity programs or public scepticism about their effectiveness—has led some to believe the movement is in retreat. But perhaps DEI was already losing momentum, not because inclusion no longer matters, but because the term itself became too diluted and bureaucratic. 

We know that when a term becomes ubiquitous, it risks losing its impact (I haven’t seen a CSR policy in years) - the corporate world’s embrace of DEI often came with vague commitments and hollow promises rather than substantive change. Over time, the term became a catch-all for a range of efforts, some of which lacked the strategic depth necessary to produce real outcomes. If the decline of DEI as a term means shedding ineffective strategies, then perhaps this is an inflection point rather than a crisis.

 

Moving beyond acronyms: the real work of inclusion

 

If DEI has become a ‘dirty’ term in some circles, we need to ask: What was the original goal? Inclusion—the idea that all individuals should feel a sense of belonging and have equal access to opportunity—remains as vital as ever. While DEI may have fallen into political crossfire, inclusion as a principle transcends ideological divides.

By shifting the focus away from a broad and sometimes nebulous DEI framework, we’d argue we can sharpen the conversation. Instead of debating whether a company has a DEI department, we should be asking:
•    Are diverse voices genuinely heard and valued?
•    Do policies actively foster equity, or are they just symbolic?
•    How do leaders ensure that inclusion is embedded in decision-making rather than treated as a separate initiative?

The fall of DEI as a buzzword forces organisations and advocates to confront the work more honestly. It compels us to move beyond optics and toward structural change—rethinking hiring practices, mentorship programs, pay equity, and pathways for advancement.

A future rooted in action

Rather than mourning the decline of DEI as a term, those of us committed to building inclusive workplaces might welcome this moment as a recalibration. The movement toward a more inclusive society was never about the letters themselves but about the principles they represented. If shedding the label of DEI allows us to refocus on the deeper and more specific work of inclusion, then perhaps we are not witnessing a retreat, but a reframing.

Words may fall in and out of favour, but the need for genuine, systemic inclusion remains. And maybe, just maybe, this shift is what will allow us to move from rhetoric to real progress.