Recently, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), a leading voice of HR professionals, announced that it was abandoning the acronym “IE&D” — inclusion, equity, and diversity — in favor of “I&D.”

This decision removes “equity” as a necessary component of the work required to create a workplace where all employees thrive. Removing equity sets a dangerous precedent that flies in the face of decades of research about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the workplace.

Why Equity Matters

One reason we may be seeing a shift away from equity is that people have different understandings of what equity actually means. At its core, equity is fairness. Fair processes often result in a redistribution of outcomes because more people get opportunities to succeed.

Achieving equity often requires treating people differently, which may at first glance make some people uncomfortable. However, the different treatment is meant to account for barriers that employees from marginalized groups encounter that those from advantaged groups don’t. In other words, equity is about changing structures, policies, and processes to give marginalized employees the same opportunities and access to resources that their peers from advantaged groups get.

The presence of high levels of inclusion and/or diversity does not necessarily ensure equitable practices or outcomes. For example, imagine an organization that has a high level of gender diversity but few women in management and executive positions. Company data may show high levels of inclusion and gender diversity, but without explicitly attending to equity, that gender gap within leadership (and ultimately compensation) will persist. This is an example of occupational segregation, which continues to disadvantage women and other people from historically marginalized groups. It also highlights the necessity of an intentional focus on equity for organizations that value fairness.

In addition, SHRM’s approach is misguided because employees are not always aware of the bias, discrimination, or disadvantages they face, so it’s not uncommon for some to feel included in their workplaces, yet still be treated unfairly. For instance, although there is common knowledge of the societal wage gap between men and women, some women are surprised when they learn they are personally affected by the gap.

Focusing on inclusion without acknowledging the unique importance of equity can lead to organizations adopting identity-blind policies and practices, which suggest that all employees should be treated the same and receive the equal opportunities. Research has shown that identity-blind policies allow for the perpetuation of discrimination and stereotyping more so than identity-conscious policies (i.e., policies that recognize and celebrate employees’ differences). Identity-blind policies also create environments where everyone acts in accordance with the status quo — which in most U.S. companies is historically white and male — stifling opportunities to learn from the unique experiences of those from marginalized identities.

The recommendation by SHRM to remove equity from DEI in favor of just highlighting I&D is dangerous and misguided. Without a specific focus on equity, companies lose sight of the ways that current policies and practices do not account for former injustices, and indeed may allow disadvantages to persist.

Organizations should not scale back their focus on equity. Here’s what they should do instead:

• Commit to achievable equity goals.
• Implement and track evidence-based DEI policies and practices.
• Establish accountability and transparency.

Removing equity is not progress, it’s regression. We are at a critical juncture in our society where the possibility of losing significant ground on civil rights gains are an imminent threat. If we want to create a more perfect union, then we must always keep equity as a cornerstone value in our organizations.

Read the full Harvard Business Review article

By Enrica N. Ruggs and Oscar Holmes IV