Should D&I teams soften their language?

Should D&I teams soften their language?

By Jo Faragher on 9 September 2025

Even before Donald Trump took office in January this year, many businesses had begun to adapt policies and reports to reflect the new, anti-D&I directives that he planned to introduce. Some feared losing government contracts, while others began tinkering with job titles and initiatives as part of the wider backlash.

Gravity Research, a US-based corporate reputation company, analysed almost 1,000 documents from Fortune 100 companies to see how their language had changed. Even by 2024, terms such as DEI, diversity and inclusion decreased by 22%, while the use of more neutral language such as “belonging” increased considerably. Explicit mentions of executive positions such as chief diversity officer or targets such as “representation goal” fell by almost half.

Behind the scenes, a change in terminology may not have meant that these organisations were not doing inclusion work, but what message has it sent to employees and potential customers?

‘Unambiguous prioritisation’

“If you want to keep doing the work it doesn’t matter what it’s called,” says Amri Johnson of consulting company Inclusion Wins. One of the words he feels has attracted the most scrutiny is “equity”, which is also a term that is often misunderstood in a workplace context. “No-one wants equity if the work you have to put in is not the same. You don’t correct historic disparities by creating more disparities.” Johnson argues that it’s about “unambiguous prioritisation” – so if you prioritise working out, for example, you do that every day rather than once and done. “This is not raising the Pride flag in June, this is always prioritising the best conditions for people to do their best work, you build it into systems and structures, so it just becomes normal,” he explains.

Johnson also raises an important point about others’ perceptions of D&I teams when it comes to language. “It’s industry lingo combined with academic lingo and it’s not accessible. Self-righteous competition where we say ‘some of us know these words and you don’t’ goes against the notion of inclusion,” he adds. When organisations bring up targets, for example, some groups assume hiring against protected characteristics will disadvantage them. Instead, companies need to broaden their lens on the who, rather than the ‘what’, when it comes to hiring and progression, Johnson says: “It’s about how wide the net has been cast, we’ve been too focused on group identity.”

Clarity and support

Hannah Awonuga, founder of Illume Executive Consulting, believes that leaders and D&I teams need more support when it comes to inclusive language. This could come from communications or PR teams and is something her consultancy supports organisations to address. “Language evolves over time – we used to call HR personnel, we now don’t use the term BAME – this happens over time and we need to put this into context,” she says. When people don’t fully understand terminology or misinterpret what it means (the word ‘woke’ is a good example here, she argues), they can feel threatened.

“For me, the most important thing is the work and the commitment to change, it doesn’t matter what you call it as long as organisations stay committed to drive cultural change. We still need to ensure that everyone feels valued, respected and included in the workplace, what we call that work is secondary to that,” she adds. D&I teams could do more to provide clarity on how people across the business can support inclusion, such as executive sponsors or those in the C-suite. “You can’t be ambiguous, you need to show them what they need to do. Often D&I work is seen as something that sits with the HR or D&I team alone, but there’s a whole ecosystem that needs to drive this forward,” Awonuga explains. Taking an evidence-based, data-focused approach also helps to supply that clarity, showing where disparities are and who needs additional support.

Evolve and improve

Caroline Fischer, UK country manager at recruitment company Welcome to the Jungle, says that if companies are changing semantics to avoid scrutiny, this risks watering down real inclusion initiatives. She says: “Unfortunately, many companies feel they have to do this for fear of repercussions, but at the end of the day, budgets, accountability, and measurable results matter far more than labels.” Practical measures such as reviewing hiring practices to ensure they are balanced and training managers to hold open conversations will ensure that “authentic inclusion is lived, not just spoken about”, she adds. Being transparent in employer branding, such as sharing diversity data upfront, will signal to employees and potential recruits the business is truly inclusive.

Bola Gibson, executive director of responsible business at law firm Foot Anstey, argues that the backlash from D&I’s detractors may feel sharp now, but is something that has been brewing for a while. “In some ways, the prominence of acronyms like ‘DEI’ created a convenient target for detractors,” she says. “There are two schools of thought about its origins. One is that diversity and inclusion efforts were working well, and today’s backlash comes from people who misunderstand or reject what these initiatives aim to achieve. The other is that, as practitioners, we contributed to this moment by not listening widely enough; some people felt excluded by programmes branded as DEI.”

Changes such as removing certain terms or ‘trigger words’ could prove superficial, when they ought to prompt deeper reflection on how strategies can really add value. She concludes: “This moment is an opportunity for practitioners to challenge ourselves: what are we doing, how are we doing it, and what outcomes are we really driving? Done well, it could strengthen inclusive outcomes by embedding fairness into business structures, breaking down systemic barriers, and designing workplaces where everyone can thrive. While some organisations may step back, I’m hopeful many will seize the chance to evolve and improve.”