Just a few years ago, the murder of George Floyd sparked a global reckoning around racial injustice. Across sectors and countries, conversations about inequality, power, and inclusion gained momentum. Today, that momentum feels far less certain. Instead, DEI has become the target of an increasingly loud and politically driven backlash. This backlash is not neutral, research shows that resistance to DEI often serves to preserve existing hierarchies and power structures shaped by long histories of inequality.
When budgets shrink, what happens to DEI?
From a distributed survey and conversations with NGO professionals, a clear pattern emerged: DEI initiatives are often introduced by individuals with strong personal commitment rather than as part of a long-term organisational strategy. These bottom-up efforts have in some cases led to more formal DEI policies, but they also remain vulnerable. When capacity decreases and organisations reorganise, DEI is often among the first areas to come under pressure.
Despite growing pressure on NGOs, most respondents indicate that DEI still holds a place within their organisations. Only a small group (12%) say that DEI receives no priority at all. The majority describe DEI as either a high priority (42%) or a moderate priority (47%). This suggests that, at least on paper, commitment to DEI remains relatively strong across the sector. When it comes to speaking openly about DEI, the picture is more mixed. Just over half of respondents (51%) say they always feel safe to speak out about DEI within their organisation. Another 33% feel mostly safe, while 16% indicate that they rarely feel safe doing so. These findings point to an uneven internal climate, where openness around DEI cannot be taken for granted everywhere. Although almost half of the respondents (47%) indicated that their organisation’s focus on DEI remained unchanged despite financial constraints, more than a quarter (26%) reported a clear reduction. This suggests that while commitment may still exist, the space to act on it is shrinking.
As multiple respondents implied, DEI risks becoming collateral damage of financial cutbacks. This is visible because the decreased focus on DEI is not on purpose, but rather a consequence of limited resources. This reinforces earlier observations that DEI is still frequently treated as a so-called ‘luxury issue’: important but not essential. When times are tough and the focus is on survival, DEI is not always preserved as a core organisational pillar.
Doing DEI without saying DEI
Around the world, organisations are responding by changing how they talk about inclusion. Words like diversity and gender are quietly disappearing from policy documents, job titles, and strategies. DEI teams are renamed “culture,” “people,” or “wellbeing.” The work may still exist, but the language around it is shifting. The role of this so-called ‘self-censorship’ was a striking finding. Respondents describe how international political developments, including a growing American anti-DEI discourse, influence how they communicate about their work. In response, many NGOs consciously adapt their language, especially towards international donors.
At the same time, some respondents warn of the risks. If DEI increasingly has to hide behind other frames, there is a danger that its transformative potential becomes diluted over time. When avoiding certain terms is no longer a choice but a necessity to secure funding, the line between voluntary self-censorship and external pressure becomes blurred. It remains unclear whether this strategy ultimately preserves DEI frameworks, or instead slowly empties them of meaning.
Directions for future research
This study also points to several areas where further research would be valuable. More insight is needed into which DEI practices disappear first under financial pressure, and why. In addition, the role and long-term effects of self-censorship deserve closer attention. While reframing DEI as a “business case” may help maintain donor support, it also reveals a tension between genuine commitment and strategic communication. Finally, future research could explore how DEI can move from being seen as a luxury to becoming a fundamental part of organisational functioning, making it more resilient in times of crisis.
What can we as a sector do?
Based on these findings I have a few recommendations that we as a sector should undertake in order to protect existing DEI policies and develop more robust ones.
- Create spaces for collective reflection, such as focus groups or learning sessions, where NGOs can share experiences and lessons learned around DEI, especially considering large-scale reorganisations and staff turnover.
- Prevent knowledge loss by facilitating exchange between organisations. Larger NGOs with more established DEI policies could share practices and insights with smaller organizations that are still building their approach.
- Map and discuss self-censorship practices within the sector. Making these strategies visible can help organisations reflect more consciously on their choices and risks.
- Based on this, we could develop a DEI language toolkit that helps NGOs communicate inclusively without unnecessarily jeopardising donor relations.
Together we can help ensure that DEI does not quietly disappear when pressures rise but instead remains part of how the sector understands quality, legitimacy, and impact.