Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Policies: Why They Might Be Missing The Mark

Many UK law firms have adopted Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policies that read well, align with professional expectations, and signal the right intent. Yet policies alone often don’t deliver the outcomes they promise. The gap is rarely about a lack of goodwill; it’s about how policies are designed, implemented, measured, and experienced in day-to-day practice.

If I was ever to become a non-executive director of an organisation, probing this issue would be right up there on my agenda.

So what are the issues with EDI Policies that need singling out?

Are we trying too hard?

First, EDI policies can be overly compliance-shaped.

In regulated environments, it’s natural to anchor documents to legal duties and professional standards. But when a policy is primarily written to demonstrate adherence, rather than to change behaviours and systems, it can become a “paper control” that satisfies governance while leaving underlying barriers intact. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) requires firms to treat people fairly and not discriminate, but it does not prescribe a single “policy template” that guarantees inclusion in practice (SRA, 2019).

A policy can therefore be technically sound while still failing to shift culture.

Second, many policies are too high-level to be operational.

Statements about “zero tolerance” or “commitment to diversity” are common, but without clear ownership, decision points, and practical examples, they don’t help managers navigate real scenarios: allocation of work, access to client exposure, performance assessment, or flexible working.

Research on workplace equality initiatives has long noted that programmes framed as voluntary or symbolic can have limited impact unless they are embedded into core processes and accountability structures (Kalev, Dobbin & Kelly, 2006).

Third, EDI policies can miss the mark by focusing on representation without addressing progression.

UK legal services have made progress in entry-level diversity, but disparities often persist in seniority, certain practice areas, and routes to partnership. The Law Society’s diversity data shows variation in representation across roles and highlights the importance of looking beyond recruitment to retention and advancement (The Law Society, 2023).

If a policy does not connect to promotion criteria, sponsorship, work allocation, and development opportunities, it may improve optics without improving outcomes.

Fourth, policies can underplay the role of psychological safety and reporting confidence.

A policy may encourage people to speak up, but if staff believe reporting will harm their career, or that nothing will change, issues remain hidden. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has emphasised that preventing harassment requires more than written standards; it requires effective leadership, training, reporting routes, and a culture that supports early intervention (EHRC, 2020).

Finally, measurement can be weak or misdirected.

Counting training completions or publishing a policy is easy; measuring lived experience is harder. Evidence-led EDI needs meaningful indicators - pay gaps, attrition by group, time-to-promotion, allocation of high-value work, grievance themes - reviewed regularly and acted upon.

Without that feedback loop, firms can’t tell whether the policy is working, or for whom.

None of this is an argument against EDI policies.

It’s an argument for treating them as one control within a wider system: governance, data, leadership behaviours, and operational processes. For UK law firms, the question is not “Do we have an EDI policy?” but “Does our policy change decisions, reduce risk, and improve outcomes - and can we evidence it?”

Who drafts the EDI policy - and why it matters

Who is best-placed to draft an EDI Policy?

In many UK law firms, EDI policies are drafted by a small group: HR, compliance, or senior management, sometimes supported by external consultants. That approach can produce a document that is legally accurate and aligned to regulatory expectations, but it can also hard-wire blind spots.

People who sit closest to risk, reputation, and governance tend to prioritise defensibility and consistency; people who experience exclusion or disadvantage tend to notice where processes fail in practice - work allocation, informal networks, “fit” judgements, and the cumulative impact of micro-behaviours. If the drafters are distant from those lived realities, the policy may describe an idealised workplace rather than the one people actually navigate.

This matters because EDI is not only a statement of values; it is a set of controls intended to change outcomes.

Evidence from organisational research suggests that initiatives are more effective when responsibility is embedded and when there is meaningful involvement rather than symbolic consultation (Kalev, Dobbin & Kelly, 2006). For that reason, the people the policy is meant to benefit ie. minoritised staff, junior lawyers, disabled colleagues, carers, and others affected by structural barriers, should be central to drafting, not merely invited to comment at the end. Co-drafting shifts the policy from “done to” staff to “built with” staff, improving legitimacy, practical relevance, and the likelihood that the policy addresses real decision points rather than generic aspirations.

Let's face it, how many of us or those who draft EDI Policies are social scientists? We may be excellent lawyers, managers, or compliance professionals, but EDI is fundamentally about human behaviour, group dynamics, organisational systems, and how incentives shape decisions. Without that lens, policies can default to generic commitments, one-off training, or “tick-box” controls that look robust on paper but don’t change outcomes.

Organisational research suggests EDI initiatives are more effective when responsibility is embedded and when there is meaningful involvement rather than symbolic consultation (Kalev, Dobbin & Kelly, 2006).

Take a look in the mirror and ask yourself, "Have I or my organisation actually involved the people who it appertains to when considering our EDI strategy and policy?"

Bet you haven't!

References

Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) (2020) Sexual harassment and harassment at work: technical guidance.

Kalev, A., Dobbin, F. & Kelly, E. (2006) ‘Best Practices or Best Guesses?

Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies’, American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589–617.

Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) (2019) SRA Standards and Regulations.

The Law Society (2023) Diversity and inclusion in the legal profession: statistics and trends (diversity data and reporting).

Further reading (UK law firms / evidence-led EDI)

• Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) — Diversity in the profession (guidance, data and reporting expectations).

• The Law Society — Diversity and inclusion hub (research, toolkits and profession-wide statistics).

• Bar Standards Board (BSB) — Equality and Diversity resources and workforce data (useful comparator for the wider legal sector).

• Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) (2020) — Sexual harassment and harassment at work: technical guidance.

• ACAS — Discrimination and equality guidance (practical, UK workplace-focused).

• Government Equalities Office — Gender pay gap reporting: guidance for employers (and annual reporting outputs).

• Social Mobility Commission — State of the Nation reports (evidence on progression and class-based barriers).

• McKinsey & Company (latest edition) — Diversity Wins / Diversity Matters series (useful synthesis; treat as secondary evidence).

• CIPD — Inclusion at work resources (evidence summaries and practical frameworks).

• Kalev, A., Dobbin, F. & Kelly, E. (2006) — ‘Best Practices or Best Guesses?…’, American Sociological Review (classic evidence on what works).