- Expansion of EDI bureaucracy has been fuelled by government
regulation, not by market forces or rising prejudice
- Growth of EDI undermines meritocracy, replacing fairness and
talent with group quotas and targets
- Previous estimates suggest direct public sector EDI costs of
£557m a year, with wider costs to the economy potentially in the
tens of billions
- New paper calls for rolling
back EDI, including scrapping procurement requirements and
outlawing quotas
The rapid rise of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) roles,
strategies and mandates is the product of state intervention and
government action, rather than consumer or business demand or
rising prejudice, according to a new paper published by the
Institute of Economic Affairs today.
"EDI Nation: The growth of
the equality, diversity and inclusion bureaucracy and its
costs, by , argues that legislation such
as the Equality Act's concept of “indirect discrimination”, the
Public Sector Equality Duty, and the purchasing power of the
state have pushed organisations into EDI bureaucracy regardless
of its value.
Quangos such as the Financial Conduct Authority and UK Research
and Innovation have embedded EDI requirements far beyond their
original remit, pressuring businesses, universities, and
charities to follow suit. Companies have been forced to expand
EDI by Government mandate rather than choosing to do this to
boost productivity or as part of a meritocratic strategy.
Morton warns that this state-sponsored expansion is damaging
productivity, creating division, and eroding meritocracy. While
past research has estimated the direct cost of EDI roles and
training in the public sector at £557 million a year, with wider
costs to the economy potentially in the tens of billions, the
paper stresses that the bigger danger is the replacement of
merit-based hiring with identity-based quotas and targets.
One assessment found that the number of diversity and inclusion
managers grew by 71% from 2015 to 2020 globally.
The paper recommends a reset, including:
- Removing the legal concept of indirect discrimination
- Ending EDI mandates within the public sector and procurement
- Outlawing quotas and targets in hiring
- Reform or abolition of the public sector equality duty
- Clarifying that aims to hire more or less of specific groups
is direct discrimination
- Clarifying what charged topics such as racism and bullying
consist of
, author of the report,
said:
“Far from reflecting market demand or rising intolerance, EDI
has been driven by government policy and quango activism. It is
costly, divisive, and undermines meritocracy - one of the pillars
of modern economic success. Rolling back state-imposed EDI is
essential if Britain is to restore fairness, efficiency, and
economic dynamism.”
ENDS
Notes to Editors
