Why Justice is the Missing Piece in Diversity and Inclusion | The Case for JEDI in Organisations
Diversity and inclusion (D&I) have long been buzzwords in the corporate and academic worlds, championed as key pillars of creating equitable environments. The concept traces back to civil rights movements that advocated for the fair treatment of all individuals regardless of race, gender, or background. The term “diversity” underscores the variety of human differences, and “inclusion” emphasises fostering a sense of belonging. Yet, as organisations rushed to implement D&I strategies, they have often overlooked a critical component: justice.
At its core, diversity and inclusion efforts focus on representation and belonging. They aim to ensure that marginalised voices are heard and included within decision-making processes. However, these terms do not always go far enough to address the systemic injustices that created exclusion in the first place. By failing to explicitly include "justice," we risk advancing initiatives that superficially address diversity without tackling the power imbalances and historical wrongs that shape modern disparities.
In this article, we will explore why adding justice to the diversity, equity, and inclusion (EDI) framework is essential for creating truly equitable organisations and a more just society. We’ll also examine potential pushbacks to this inclusion, drawing on insights from authors and thought leaders who have analysed the complexities of justice work.
Why Justice Should Be Included in EDI
Justice Addresses Systemic Inequalities
While diversity and inclusion focus on who is present and how they are treated, justice looks deeper at the systemic forces that shape opportunities. As GORM’s mission states, "unity across differences" requires us to acknowledge and dismantle the power dynamics that privilege some groups while marginalising others. Justice moves beyond inclusion to ensure that policies, structures, and histories that perpetuate inequality are reformed. Academics like Kimberlé Crenshaw have long advocated for intersectionality, a framework that underscores the overlapping systems of oppression. Adding justice to the EDI framework allows organisations to address root causes, not just symptoms, of exclusion. Without this lens, your efforts may be perceived as performative, treating diversity like a checkbox instead of a critical social issue that requires structural change.
2. Justice Aligns With Broader Social Movements
In recent years, global movements like Black Lives Matter and #MeToo have shifted the public conversation from inclusion to justice. These movements aren’t simply asking for a seat at the table—they are demanding accountability and reparative action. Justice frameworks, such as transformative justice, emphasize that without addressing harm and power, inclusion is not enough. For example, in restorative justice models, the goal is not just to repair relationships but to transform the conditions that led to harm in the first place. Organizations adopting justice within their EDI strategy would focus not only on creating equitable hiring practices but on addressing racial pay gaps, workplace discrimination, and historical wrongs—making them agents of meaningful societal change.
3. Justice Encourages Long-Term Commitment
Unlike diversity and inclusion, which can sometimes lead to short-term, feel-good initiatives, justice requires a long-term commitment to fairness and equity. By incorporating justice into EDI, organisations signal that their efforts go beyond symbolic gestures, and extend to creating policies and cultures that prevent harm and foster true equity. The justice element holds organisations accountable not just for increasing representation but for ensuring that marginalised individuals have the tools and resources to succeed on their own terms. It also forces organisations to continuously reevaluate and adapt their practices, ensuring they remain aligned with the goal of fostering equitable environments for all.
Why Justice May Face Resistance in EDI Frameworks
Justice Brings Complex Associations
One reason justice is not always included in diversity frameworks is that it brings complex associations, as highlighted by Hammond, and colleague’s in their critique of the "JEDI" acronym. The term "justice" can be polarising, often interpreted through political lenses or connected to radical social movements. While diversity and inclusion are typically seen as organisational imperatives, justice may be viewed as more disruptive. Adding justice to EDI may prompt organisations to confront their complicity in historical and ongoing forms of inequality, an uncomfortable but necessary task. Some may resist this deeper accountability in favor of more palatable diversity efforts that avoid direct engagement with social justice issues.
2. Risk of Dilution Through Commercialisation
The term justice can also risk becoming diluted when linked to corporate frameworks, much like the term "JEDI" was critiqued for aligning with Disney’s Star Wars brand. When corporations co-opt justice without understanding its depth and history, they risk trivializing the term and reducing its impact to a marketing tool. Critics argue that justice initiatives, if not properly grounded, could be reduced to corporate social responsibility programs that lack real transformative power. For justice to be meaningful within an EDI framework, organizations must engage deeply with its implications rather than using it as a buzzword to signal virtue without action.
3. Fear of Alienating Certain Audiences
Another challenge of adding justice to EDI is the fear that it may alienate some audiences. While diversity and inclusion are largely seen as positive, justice, with its associations with legal systems and equity movements, can evoke resistance. Some organizations may fear that justice frameworks would introduce uncomfortable discussions around privilege, reparations, or historical wrongdoing. This concern, rooted in the desire to avoid controversy, can prevent organizations from taking the bold steps needed to address systemic inequality. However, as justice advocates argue, true progress requires uncomfortable conversations and the courage to address historical and ongoing inequities directly.
Conclusion
As diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts continue to evolve, it is essential to recognize the limitations of the current framework. Justice is the missing piece that moves EDI beyond representation and belonging toward accountability and transformative change. Including justice in this equation allows organisations to address the root causes of inequality and take meaningful steps to dismantle them.
While there are challenges to incorporating justice, such as resistance from stakeholders and the risk of dilution, the long-term benefits of doing so far outweigh the costs. Justice ensures that diversity and inclusion efforts are not performative but are grounded in equity and the drive to create systemic change. As we move forward in fostering intercultural competence and bridging across differences, it’s time to embrace justice as a fundamental part of the conversation.
At GORM, we believe that unity cannot be achieved without addressing the injustices that divide us. Let’s move beyond the surface of diversity and inclusion and work toward a future where justice is at the heart of everything we do.
Unlock the power of justice in your DEI efforts with GORM's Intercultural Competence Training—equip your team to foster true equity and lasting change.
