When DEI first emerged as an organisational priority, it was a period of learning, building, and experimentation. Organisations were developing foundational literacy — understanding bias, representation, and the business impact of diversity. In those early years, the case for a dedicated DEI function was clear and compelling. The work required focus, expertise, and advocacy to challenge legacy systems and ignite change across complex institutions.
Since then, the discipline has matured. Many organisations have moved beyond awareness and representation targets to embed inclusion into leadership, systems, and culture. Yet as practice has evolved, so too has the conversation. We’re now seeing backlash and fatigue, with some questioning the ongoing need for DEI structures or their return on investment.
But perhaps this moment doesn’t call for retreat — it calls for reconfiguration. The opportunity lies in streamlining DEI, not abandoning it: evolving from a standalone function to an integrated capability that lives across Employee Relations, WHS, leadership, engagement, and talent. Streamlining can achieve both — it reflects the natural progression of DEI maturity and offers a credible alternative to abandonment in response to backlash.
In other words, the question isn’t whether DEI still has a place — it’s whether we can realise its promise more fully by embedding it everywhere, rather than housing it somewhere.
The case for a DEI function
Before we throw out the idea entirely, there are reasons many organisations have chosen to maintain a dedicated DEI team:
-
Specialist knowledge & capability: DEI covers complex terrain (systemic bias, accessibility, intersectionality) that requires deep expertise. A dedicated team can build that domain knowledge, identify hidden risks, and stay current with best practices, regulation, and evolving social expectations.
-
Championing, capacity-building, and advocacy: In many organisations, momentum for inclusion doesn’t just “happen.” A DEI team can act as internal catalysts — educating, designing, advising, checking and challenging status quo systems.
-
Central oversight and accountability: Without a “home” for inclusion work, efforts can fracture, become inconsistent, or lose strategic coherence. A function can help ensure alignment, coherence, measurement, and governance.
-
Signal to external stakeholders: Having a DEI team can communicate commitment to employees, investors, communities and regulators. Its absence may signal deprioritisation or superficiality.
Yet, these advantages don’t guarantee results — and they come with risks and trade-offs.
The critique: Why a separate DEI function can also be a liability
-
Silo & isolation risk When inclusion lives in its own silo, it can be viewed as a “pet project” rather than a core organisational capability. Other functions might see it as optional or marginal, not woven into performance, operations, risk, or governance.
-
“Check-boxing” and performative risk A standalone DEI team can unintentionally become the “face of inclusion,” tasked with delivering discrete initiatives (DEI training, events, statements) that don’t necessarily affect structural levers (e.g. promotions, budgets, operations). This invites criticism of tokenism.
-
Diffused accountability If the DEI function holds responsibility but lacks the authority to shape decisions in other domains (say, talent, operations, product, procurement), it can become a perpetual advocate without real power. That creates tension or fatigue.
-
Cost vs. leverage argument Some argue that resources invested in a separate function might yield more impact if allocated toward integrating inclusion into existing functions (talent, ER, WHS, leadership). The “function” becomes less critical than the levers.
-
Backlash risk & external pressures In certain political or regulatory climates, a DEI function may become a lightning rod: seen externally as ideological overreach, exposed to criticism that overshadow underlying goals. Some organisations are responding by rebranding or downgrading the “DEI team” label.
A hybrid or integrated alternative: Inclusion as a system, not a silo
Rather than answer “yes or no,” perhaps the better question is: where and how should inclusion live in the organisation?
Here’s a possible model:
- Embed inclusion responsibilities across functions
Talent acquisition, performance, development, ER, WHS, leadership — each owns inclusion as part of their mandate.
-
Inclusion design partners (or liaisons) work with these teams rather than for them.
-
A central “strategic enablement group,” not a standalone silo
The DEI team evolves to a “strategic inclusion center” or “inclusive design office” — lighter, more consultative, more integrated.
-
Their role is to support, audit, coach, design guardrails, spot systemic risks, and seed innovations — not deliver everything themselves.
-
Shared accountability and governance
Inclusion goals, metrics, and risk assessments should be part of business unit scorecards, not just HR or DEI KPIs.
-
Leadership (CEOs, executive teams, board) must visibly own inclusion outcomes.
-
Inclusion metrics should feed into enterprise risk and strategic reporting — not sit in a “diversity report” silo.
-
Investment in capability, not solely functions
Rather than focusing on headcount in the DEI team, invest in capability (training, coaching, inclusive design capacity) across the organisation.
- Encourage rotational roles or inclusion-minded development opportunities in various parts of the business.
Learn about developing Inclusive Leadership.
The bottom line: It depends — but the question matters
-
In highly identity-sensitive sectors, you may still benefit from a central DEI function to shepherd consistent practice and compliance.
-
In organisations with mature inclusion experience or flat structures, the central function may become redundant or counterproductive if it isn’t reimagined.
-
What truly matters is that inclusion is operationalised, not that it has a dedicated label.
So: Do we need a DEI function? Maybe — but only insofar as it adds strategic leverage, coherence, and accountability. If it becomes a silo, checkbox, or symbolic vestige, then perhaps the time has come to rethink and move beyond it.
Related Reading:
https://cultureplusconsulting.com/what-predicts-a-successful-dei-program/