“We don’t have discrimination here — we’ve got a policy.”
It’s a familiar line in workplaces that mean well. But sometimes that very confidence becomes part of the problem.
Blog 5 by Natalie Iddon Blanchard, in a series exploring the paper Kaiser, C.R., Major, B., Jurcevic, I., Dover, T.L., Brady, L.M. and Shapiro, J.R., 2013. Presumed fair: ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. Journal of personality and social psychology, 104(3), p.504.
The paradox of progress
Equality and inclusion policies have become a hallmark of responsibility across higher education, the public sector, and private industry. They signal intention and commitment — yet research by Kaiser et al. (2013) shows a troubling side-effect: when an organisation appears to take diversity seriously, people assume it is already fair, even when evidence suggests otherwise. This “presumed fairness” effect can make discrimination harder to detect, challenge, or correct.
At The Centre of Behavioural Equality (COBE), we see how this pattern manifests differently, yet consistently, across UK sectors.
EDI policy in higher education
Universities rarely lack policy. Every institution has an EDI strategy, an Access and Participation Plan, or a Charter submission. The abundance of policy can create a quiet complacency.
When bias is reported, responses often focus on procedure rather than experience:
“We have processes for that.”
Those processes can feel opaque or adversarial, leaving complainants uncertain whether their concerns are taken seriously. Because institutions see themselves as progressive, discrimination is sometimes reframed as misunderstanding, and staff or students may stop raising issues. Silence is mistaken for harmony, while policy intended to protect becomes a shield that deflects critique.
EDI policy in public sector
In councils, NHS trusts, and government departments, the Public Sector Equality Duty requires organisations to consider equality in decision-making. Yet legal compliance can become the goal rather than the means.
Equality impact assessments are completed, reports published, and policies reviewed — while unequal outcomes persist. Recruitment panels may continue to replicate bias, and complaints can be dismissed on the basis that procedures were followed. When policy itself is treated as proof of fairness, accountability becomes performative, and staff are discouraged from surfacing concerns.
EDI policy in private sector
In the private sector, diversity policies often double as employer branding or corporate social responsibility statements. While this signals commitment externally, it can create brand blindness internally, giving the impression that fairness is guaranteed.
Policies then sometimes function defensively, used to show that discrimination “couldn’t have happened here.” Training or “zero-tolerance” policies may unintentionally suppress honest dialogue, and leaders may assume that inclusion work is complete, leaving underlying cultural issues unexamined. When internal realities eventually collide with external messaging, credibility suffers.
Create policies that illuminate, not cast shadows to hide in
Across all sectors, the same pattern emerges: the presence of equality structures is often mistaken for equality itself. Attention shifts from lived experience to procedure, and those who report bias may be doubted or dismissed.
The solution is not to abandon policy, but to treat it as a tool rather than proof. Every policy statement should acknowledge work remains and include clear avenues for feedback:
“Here’s what we’re doing — and here’s how you can tell us when it isn’t working.”
Organisations can strengthen their impact by providing independent reporting routes, measuring outcomes rather than activity, publishing data transparently, rewarding leaders who surface problems, and framing policy as an ongoing commitment rather than a completed project.
Policies should illuminate the path rather than blind us to the terrain. Fairness is not something we can declare; it is something we must continuously demonstrate.
