The Economic Effects of the D.E.I. Complex

A guest post from Robin Young

The Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) complex is a progressive governance system that has gained prominence since 2010 and affects all organisations. In the UK, it is linked to four main developments: the rise in social justice ideology or ‘Great Awokening, an expansion of DEI-related legislation and regulation, the growth of stakeholder capitalism, and changing employment patterns. Although some of these trends have recently slowed, their overall systemic influence continues, indicating heightened politicisation, intervention, and bureaucratisation. Christopher Rufo describes DEI as:

‘not just an idea; it’s a complex of policies, priorities, departments, administrators, budget numbers, hiring guidelines, and admissions practices, all enforced by flesh-and-blood commissars within the institutions.’

There is an increasing volume of research exploring these developments, especially the origins of ‘woke,’ but there has been less emphasis on its economic effects. [i]

The Economic Effects

Over the past 15 years, the UK’s economic performance has sharply declined. Between 1960 and 2010, UK GDP per worker (productivity) grew by an average of 2% annually, but since 2010 it has fallen to less than 0.7% annually. Two major recessions marked this period: the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC), which took 5½ years for activity to return to pre-GFC levels; and the 2020 pandemic, which triggered a steep V-shaped recession (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1: UK GDP versus Historical Trends (1960-2028, £bn, in 2022 Prices)

· The level and trend in UK GDP shifted following the 2008 GFC.

· The pre-GFC trend (blue line) was significantly higher than the post-GFC trend (orange line).

· The 2020 pandemic resulted in a V-shaped recession.

Source: ONS, IFS Green Book, October 2024.

These events mark the beginning of each recession, but the decline in trend growth requires further explanation. Other factors, beyond the UK’s dependence on financial services, include demographic issues, a shift towards an IT era, Brexit, and specific microeconomic challenges. [ii] Nevertheless, many of these are longstanding, gradual issues, some of which predate the GFC. Notably, the rise of the DEI complex occurred shortly after the start of the GFC, and the pandemic coincided with a more intense surge of DEI advocacy following George Floyd’s death in May 2020. [iii]

Disentangling the macroeconomic effects of these events is challenging, considering that expenditure on DEI programmes is minor compared to the size of the UK economy. [iv] However, the impact of the DEI complex extends beyond spending on DEI initiatives, subtly but significantly affecting potential growth through increased regulation, bureaucratic oversight, and a misallocation of resources. Additionally, there is little evidence supporting a ‘diversity dividend’ in terms of improved corporate productivity, performance, or profitability.

Economic Theory

Long-term economic growth depends on increases in labour, capital, and total factor productivity (TFP), with TFP playing a leading role, whereby: ‘Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run, it is almost everything (Krugman, 1994).’ [v]

The World Bank divides productivity into five interconnected sub-factors: innovation, institutions, market efficiency, education, and infrastructure. The DEI complex directly influences institutions—as most organisations are subject to DEI-related legislation, regulation, and ‘cultural norms’—and impacts market efficiency by introducing incremental bureaucratic direction. According to Nobel laureates Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson:

· Political and economic institutions are public goods that shape behaviour and incentives, and are more crucial for economic growth than a country’s geography, size, climate, and resource endowments. [vi]

· ‘Inclusive’ (efficient) systems are associated with pluralistic political institutions, enforceable property rights, and the rule of law. [vii] They are generally market-oriented, business-friendly, and competitive, promoting growth-driven cycles of ‘creative destruction’ that foster innovation—another key sub-factor—thereby enhancing productivity growth.

· In contrast, ‘extractive’ (inefficient) systems are characterised by institutions that tend to be interventionist, bureaucratic, self-perpetuating, and susceptible to ‘expropriation risks.’ These systems often require continuous funding, divert resources, and are over-regulated, making them generally less effective at promoting economic growth. [viii]

· Furthermore, institutions can experience minor changes that lead to ‘critical junctures’ which become path-dependent.

Market efficiency relates to institutional arrangements but is more directly tied to the effective allocation of resources, which depends on the regulatory framework governing product, labour, and financial markets. Specifically, market efficiency enhances productivity by encouraging unproductive firms to exit the market, enabling productive firms to grow, and attracting new firms to enter, thereby maintaining a competitive and innovative business environment.

10 Examples

The examples below demonstrate how the DEI complex has influenced the UK’s political and economic institutions and market efficiency.

1. Economic Freedom

The Fraser Institute (FI) has published annual economic freedom indices (EFIs) covering 161 countries for over 30 years. These indices serve as proxies for the effectiveness of political and economic institutions, aligning with Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson’s framework. [ix] Western economies—particularly the Anglo-speaking nations—have been more affected by the DEI complex than other countries. [x] Figure 2 illustrates the relative decline in FIEFIs, rankings, and regulatory components between 2008 and 2022 for English-speaking and other Western nations, compared with Asia and Eastern Europe.

Figure 2: Fraser Institute EFIs: Relative Ranking, Overall and Regulation

NB: Red = Deterioration; Blue = improvement

Anglo Countries: UK, US, Canada, Australia, NZ; W. Europe: Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland; E. Europe: Czech Rep, Slovakia, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia; Asia: Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia

Source: The Fraser Institute.

While the regulatory component covers all employment laws, DEI-related changes have introduced additional obligations since the early 2010s. Furthermore, the Heritage Foundation, which also publishes economic freedom indices, has demonstrated a strong positive correlation, if not causation, between EFIs and future economic performance (see here).

2. Incentives

A 2025 paper that modelled UK productivity growth from 1978 to 2024 concluded that productivity mainly depends on firms’ incentives to improve products and processes through entrepreneurial action. It noted that these incentives are influenced by policies on property rights, marginal tax rates, and regulation, particularly in the labour market. For example, the UK economy has experienced distinct periods of low tax and regulation (e.g., the Thatcher reforms of the 1980s that influenced the 1990s and early 2000s), when growth and entrepreneurial activity were strong, and periods of high tax and regulation (from 2010 onwards), when activity has been more restricted, aligning with the FIEFI. [xi]

Once again, the DEI complex is not the only cause, but the underlying political and cultural forces that support it have led to greater regulation and corporate social responsibility.

3. Legislation

The rise of identity politics has been accompanied by a series of progressive reforms that have transformed the UK legal system, including the prioritisation of minority group identities and an expanded scope for social justice-based judicial interpretation, which, according to David McGrogan, signals a shift from a form of neutral ‘conservative normativism’ towards a more political ‘liberal normativism.’ [xii]

These political changes have had significant economic effects. For example, in 2012, the Supreme Court, citing the Equality Act, ruled against Birmingham City Council in an equal pay case brought by female employees. The judge determined that cleaners (primarily women) performed work of ‘equal value’ to refuse collectors (mainly men), marking a departure from earlier rulings that limited ‘equivalent work’ to men and women performing the same job. The council was liable for a £760 million backpay settlement, which contributed to its bankruptcy in 2023. Similar cases have emerged in the retail sector, with both Asda and Next losing comparable claims; it is estimated that this will ultimately cost the entire retail industry nearly £8 billion.

This illustrates how the legal changes have impacted economic efficiency by substituting automatic market mechanisms with costly bureaucratic systems that demand considerably more HR and legal oversight.

4. Regulation

The creation of twin UK financial regulators in 2012 not only strengthened financial regulations after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) but also gave additional momentum to DEI and ESG requirements. UK regulators adopted an intersectional approach to regulation, which the Prosperity Institute claims adds an ‘extra ideological layer on top of an already burdensome regulatory regime,’ resulting in higher costs and increased risk aversion.

Furthermore, the new Employment Rights Bill contains additional regulations, including stricter reporting requirements for diversity and inclusion across all organisations with more than 250 employees.

5. Stakeholder Capitalism

Stakeholder capitalism signifies a shift from the Friedman Doctrine, which focused solely on maximising profits for shareholders, to aligning with the interests of all stakeholders. It has been promoted by the World Economic Forum (WEF), strengthened by the consolidation and active cooperation of the financial sector, supported by legislative and regulatory changes, and driven by the managerial class, which gains significant influence through the implementation of ESG and DEI programmes. [xiii] This represents a progressive governance shift that causes companies to divert resources from their core activities towards more political goals, thereby undermining the pursuit of ‘efficiency, innovation, and excellence, which are the normal drivers in the free market … that drive wealth creation’ (see here). It also grants large corporations political privileges (via ESG/regulatory capture), provides excuses for poor performance, and creates barriers to entry and industry consolidation that disproportionately affect smaller and newer firms, thereby reducing market efficiency.

6. Employment Patterns

The DEI complex has caused significant shifts in employment patterns. For example, over the past 15 years, employment in human resources (HR) has grown considerably in both absolute and relative terms (see Figure 3 below), with the number of HR staff increasing by 76% between 2012 and 2024—a growth rate nearly five times that of overall employment (similar absolute and relative increases have also occurred within the legal profession). Much of the expansion has taken place in DEI-related roles, driven by the recruitment of a young, credentialed, predominantly female, and politically progressive demographic, with the demand being met by an ‘excess’ of graduates. [xiv]

The HR function within organisations has also evolved from mainly administrative to playing a more significant role at Board level, concentrating on reducing increased legal and reputational risks.

Figure 3: UK HR Employment Numbers & Percentage of Total Employment

Source: ONS

The rise in DEI-related positions compared to market-facing roles raises costs. [xv] In HR, this relates to three factors: the increase in numbers, a rise in the proportion of senior HR managers (See Figure 4), and greater credentialisation. [xvi] Furthermore, while increasing the number of diversity officers and human rights lawyers contributes to economic growth, albeit at a diminishing marginal rate, these roles add costs relative to output, making them inefficient from a resource-allocation perspective.

Figure 4: UK HR Employees by Function

Source: ONS

7. Quangos

The DEI complex is connected to the increasing influence of UK quangos. Figure 5 shows that, between 2019 and 2024, the number of quangos, the amount of government funding, and the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff employed increased by 4%, 40%, and 33%, respectively. While this form of bureaucratic control covers many areas, such as health and safety, environmental concerns, and the regulation of market power, DEI-related ‘mission creep’ has been widespread.

Figure 5: ALBs: Number (#), Funding (£bn) and Roles (FTE, ‘000s)

Source: Cabinet Office.

For example, the Sentencing Council’s guidance on Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs) demonstrated an openly intersectional approach. At the same time, the College of Policing (CoP) has extensively promoted the use of Non-Crime Hate Incidents (NCHI), despite guidance from the previous government, and along with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Education Scotland, it is also the largest employer of diversity officers among quangos. According to the Taxpayers’ Alliance, between 2021 and 2024, the number of diversity roles employed by quangos increased by 20%, while salaries rose by 21%. A 2023 Civitas report examining several quangos highlighted:

‘themes of: failing on your fundamental objectives; excessive ambition; lack of foresight; institutional capture by vested interests; naivety; politicisation; and expert-led interventions that go wrong.’ [xvii]

It also underscored the Bank of England’s recent poor record in keeping inflation around its target, at a time when it has been preoccupied with ‘progressive causes’ such as Net Zero, LGBTQ+ rights, and other diversity initiatives.

8. Charities

Activist charities, which frequently receive funding through government grants or contracts, often partner with law firms, NGOs, and some taxpayer-funded quangos, utilising human rights law and DEI principles to promote various progressive causes (see here). According to Doug Stokes, they often have a ‘vested interest in amplifying grievances to bring about social and political change.’ [xviii] Despite some efforts at redress by conservative activists, these organisations represent a sector of left-wing advocacy that has become embedded within institutions, revealing the interconnected nature of the DEI complex, its operational strategies, and institutional capture. [xix]

9. The McKinsey Thesis

Between 2015 and 2022, McKinsey & Co. published a series of reports arguing that more diverse organisations lead to greater productivity and profitability (see here, here, here and here), supported by papers from BSG, BlackRock and MSCI. DEI policies are said to enhance business performance by retaining and discovering talent, improving decision-making, gaining deeper customer insights, and increasing employee motivation. These reports have been utilised to justify increased spending on recruitment processes and DEI training programmes. McKinsey also links DEI with ESG investing and stakeholder capitalism.

However, the McKinsey thesis has faced criticism in recent years. First, the positive research generally comes from management consulting firms (McKinsey, BCG, and Deloitte), large financial institutions (BlackRock and MSCI), or personnel bodies (CIPD), all of which benefit from DEI advocacy. [xx]

Second, studies showing a positive diversity dividend have been found to lack academic rigour, with Green & Hand questioning McKinsey’s reports on grounds of replication and correlation versus causation. Edmans also points to methodological concerns relating to confirmation bias and cherry-picking financial metrics. Additionally, Simionescu and Strøm found little evidence to support the claim that greater gender diversity on boards leads to better returns.

10. The Overall Diversity Dividend

The McKinsey thesis has also faced criticism regarding its impact on team performance, its effectiveness, its anti-meritocratic consequences, its suppression of viewpoint diversity, and its effect on stock market returns. For example:

· Several studies have found little evidence that more diverse teams enhance business or team performance, with most showing either limited or minor adverse effects (see here, here and here).

· Other surveys reveal widespread dissatisfaction with DEI policies and programmes, indicating they tend to be ineffective, divisive, counterproductive, ideological, expensive, and implemented to ‘minimise potential litigation’ (see here, here, here, here, here and here). [xxi] Following the death of George Floyd in May 2020, many UK companies expanded their DEI training programmes to include US-sourced materials focusing on unconscious bias training and critical race theory (CRT). These were not well received, leading C.J. Strachan to inquire:

Who exactly thought it would be a good idea to imply that your employees and colleagues are all incorrigible bigots, racists, homophobes and transphobes who required ‘re education?.

· There has also been a rise in high-profile legal cases across both public and private sectors concerning gender-critical perspectives. These cases, often initiated by DEI officers within HR departments, have proven costly, time-consuming, and disruptive. [xxii] Additionally, a recent report from Don’t Divide Us highlighted a sevenfold increase in tribunal race discrimination applications between 2016-17 and 2023-24, emphasising a growing grievance culture, concluding:

The proliferation of EDI policies, workgroups and officers has been to the detriment of relations between people at work, thereby obstructing Britain’s economic development … The [Equality Act’s] prioritisation of subjective rather than objective tests is contributing to increasing fractiousness in workplace culture and relationships.

· Hiring and promoting based on quotas is anti-meritocratic and can cause issues. For example, the RAF has struggled to meet racial quotas for pilots and is now short of pilots (see here); West Yorkshire police restricted white male recruitment and hired an ethnic minority candidate who failed the interview (see here); and many NHS trusts implement the Rooney Rule, a term from American football that describes the requirement to shortlist candidates from ethnic minority backgrounds (see here). Furthermore, smaller firms might face more difficulties due to smaller talent pools.

· The DEI narrative has also resulted in a lack of viewpoint diversity, evident across most UK cultural institutions, including the BBC, museums, universities, and the civil service. [xxiii] A 2025 survey by Freedom in the Arts (FITA) revealed a lack of viewpoint diversity in the arts, emphasising a highly progressive monoculture enforced through harassment, cancellation and self-censorship.

· There is limited evidence indicating that diversity policies enhance stock market performance. SSGA launched a fund in 2016 that invested solely in US companies, demonstrating a commitment to proactive gender and DEI policies. Since its launch, the fund (SHE) has underperformed the broad market index, with the S&P 500 (SPY) rising by 190% (red line), compared to 95% for SHE (blue line) (Figure 6). The fund’s market value has fallen from $400 million to $250 million due to redemptions. [xxiv]

Figure 6: SSGA’s SHE Fund versus the S&P500

Source: Morningstar, Accessed 19/06/25

Conclusion

The DEI complex is a governance system led by interventionist policies that has expanded over the past 15 years. Evidence indicates that these changes have affected political and economic institutions, reducing economic vitality, lowering productivity, and possibly marking a ‘critical juncture’ where the UK’s institutions have become more ‘extractive.’ The counterargument—asserting that institutional changes are minor and that a diverse workforce is advantageous—is less convincing.

Overall, progressive ideals, increasing bureaucracy, and institutional self-interest have caused unintended yet predictable economic consequences.

This is a summary of a 25,000-word MA thesis submitted in fulfilment of the Degree of MA in the Politics of Cultural Conflict at the University of Buckingham.

---

[i] The literature on the origins of woke examines how identity politics has gained growing cultural significance, transitioning from academia into mainstream society. Explanations include: 1. Legal accounts linking legislative and regulatory changes to ‘woke’ cultural outcomes (Caldwell, 2021; Hanania, 2023); 2. Instrumentalist theories that use public choice and elite theory to show how incentives and power structures are exploited by a Professional Managerial Class (PMC), which uses social justice narratives to expand its influence and opportunities across various institutions (Burnham, 1941; Ramaswamy, 2021; al Gharbi, 2024); 3. Radical & Hyper-liberal ideas driving cultural change, including a proactive ‘long march through the institutions’ rooted in ‘critical theories’ (Lindsay, 2022; Rufo, 2023), or a more passive establishment of ‘liberal’ taboos (Kaufmann, 2024); 4. Sociological & psychological perspectives: such as a sociology of emotions approach, where progressive ideology, based on empathy and enmity, is propagated by ‘true believers’ within institutions as a moral imperative (Campbell & Manning, 2018; Yancey, 2022); a quasi-religious zeal driven by evidence-free beliefs and concepts like ‘white privilege’ as a form of ‘original sin’ (McWhorter, 2022; Doyle, 2023); and psychological and social psychology views that explore the effects of ‘mind viruses’ (Saad, 2021) or the influence of social media interacting with the ‘3 Great Untruths’ of identity politics (Haidt & Lukianoff, 2018).

[ii] According to TheCityUK, the industry-led body that represents the UK financial services sector, ‘UK financial services contributed £75.6bn in tax revenue in 2019/20. This accounted for 10.1% of total UK tax receipts and was equivalent to 3.4% of UK GDP.’ Although Britain’s exit from the European Union (BREXIT) was unique and politically significant, the UK’s economic performance has not been discernibly different from that of other major European economies, when adjusted for the UK’s disproportionately large financial sector. The IFS report also highlights several microeconomic effects specific to the UK, including technological issues, competition policy, low labour mobility due to high housing costs, poor transport infrastructure, and rising skills shortages (Emmerson, Johnson & Ogden, 2024).

[iii] Musa al-Gharbi argues that the immiserating economic effects of the 2008 GFC prompted frustrations about living standards and anxiety over the future for the Millennial generation, pushing this cohort towards a social justice narrative (al-Gharbi, 2024). The DEI complex serves as the means to influence all institutions and to exert cultural power.

[iv] For example, according to a 2023 McKinsey report, global spending on ‘DEI-related efforts’ totalled $7.5 billion in 2020 (McKinsey, 2023). Research & Markets estimates it increased to $14.1 billion by 2024, and projects it will reach $27.1 billion by 2030. Although this indicates rapid growth, these figures, despite being large, remain relatively modest compared to the UK economy, which had a GDP of £2.5 trillion at the end of 2024. Furthermore, the Trump presidency might also slow this growth rate, along with a ‘vibe shift’ questioning the legitimacy of DEI.

[v] For example, TFP is estimated to account for up to 80% of sustainable changes in economic growth (Solow, 1956), which has been validated across numerous studies and countries, indicating that an economy cannot sustainably increase its long-run growth merely by accumulating additional capital or labour inputs, as these are subject to the law of diminishing returns (Kendrick, 1961; Field, 2004).

[vi] Acemoglu and Robinson cite numerous examples, including the fact that North and South Korea share similar landmass, geography, ethnicity, and climate, but have vastly different political systems: one based on private property and free markets, the other on collectivism and authoritarianism (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012).

[vii] It is important to note that the ‘inclusive’ here relates to an array of systemic factors rather than the ‘I’ in DEI.

[viii] One way to frame this is to compare abstract economic systems that maximise wealth creation at the expense of an unequal distribution of gains (pure free market capitalism) with those that prioritise equal distribution of wealth but experience weaker growth (pure socialism). These are essentially political questions with economic consequences, given the trade-off between more equal outcomes and overall wealth.

[ix] The FI’s Economic Freedom Index (FIEFI) encompasses five factors: the size of government, legal and property rights, sound money, freedom to trade, and regulation. The Heritage Foundation has a similar index.

[x] Social justice ideology originated in US and UK universities, and the adoption of DEI and ESG has been most extensive among Western governments and corporations. Stakeholder capitalism, promoted by the WEF through its annual meetings in Davos and its main participants—such as large asset managers, investment banks, and consultancy firms mainly based in the US, UK, and Western Europe—also remains predominantly Western-centric.

[xi] While both tax and regulation have changed significantly in the UK since 1970, property rights have remained stable, meaning the main factors influencing productivity are related to tax and regulation. A similar study in the US, comparing states with high versus low taxes and regulations, also showed a clear link between lower taxation and regulation and better economic performance.

[xii] Key changes include: the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); the establishment of a new Supreme Court in 2009; Lord Bingham’s redefinition of the ‘rule of law’, to include sub-rules such as the ‘protection of human rights’ and ‘adherence to international law’ (Bingham, 2010); and the Equality Act 2010 (EA).

[xiii] Policies that minimise negative environmental externalities and promote broad-based workers’ rights are not inherently connected to social justice ideology. However, some aspects of ESG policies reflect corporate ‘social justice’ activism, and ESG and DEI policies are largely complementary.

[xiv] For example, the proportion of school leavers entering university rose from about 15% in the 1980s to nearly 50% by the 2010s. John Gray discusses an ‘excess of humanities graduates’ all seeking agency, while Musa al-Gharbi points to an overproduction of symbolic capitalists vying for cultural power.

[xv] Compare HR staff who manage pensions and payroll or lawyers who draft and enforce market contracts, which represent known costs, with those who focus on increasingly open-ended ‘diversity’ requirements. The latter must adapt to rising regulations and subjective interpretations of the Equality Act (Badenoch, 2024).

[xvi] For instance, 20 years ago, the HR sector was predominantly composed of non-university-educated administrative staff and industrial relations officers. Today, an increasing number of D&I Officers hold university degrees and CIPD credentials. According to the employment consultancy Robert Half, the median annual salaries for HR administrators and HR officers are £27,000 and £30,000, respectively. Data from the recruitment website Glassdoor indicates that the median salary of a Diversity and Inclusion Officer, who usually holds a degree and CIPD qualification, exceeds £43,000.

[xvii] Case studies included the Bank of England, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), the Climate Change Committee, Sport England, the DVLA, Ofwat and the British Business Bank.

[xviii] According to Gill, there is a network of government grants and contracts that support various charities promoting ultra-progressive causes derived from overtly political, critical theories originating in academia (Gill, 2024b).

[xix] One consequence has been the recent increase in asylum claims and a backlog of asylum appeals. Asylum claims averaged 23,000 annually from 2016 to 2018 but surged to 106,000 from 2022 to 2024. Similarly, appeal backlogs averaged 7,500 during 2016 to 2018 and increased to an average of 22,900 between 2022 and 2024 (Migration Observatory, 2025).

[xx] For example, the Big 4 consultancy firms—Deloitte, PwC, EY, and KPMG—have been growing their advisory and consultancy divisions, aiming to tap into the DEI consultancy services segment of the market, which was valued at $97.2 billion in 2023. Also, the UK Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development (CIPD) offers DEI courses, promotes an intersectional approach to hiring and advancement, and is responsible for certifying the HR sector, from which it derives revenue. For example, they offer the following services: DEI Courses, intersectional approach to D.E.I., and Qualifications.

[xxi] For example, a 2024 report estimated that DEI training in the UK public sector results in 1 million lost working days each year, with an annual cost of £150 million (CWF, 2024).

[xxii] The advocacy groups Sex Matters, the Free Speech Union, and the Christian Legal Society have all represented numerous cases across the university sector, civil service, NHS, police force, army, and companies such as Coutts, Lloyds Bank, and Asda, all of which have proven to be lengthy, costly, and, in no small part, due to ideologically overactive HR departments. Cases involving Professor Jo Phoenix (Open University), Maya Forstater (tax consultant), Anna Thomas (civil servant), Peter Wilkins (research scientist), Denise Fahmy (The Arts Council), Rachel Meade and Lizzie Pitt (social workers), and Roz Adams (Edinburgh Rape Crisis) have resulted in compensation and costs in the region of £150,000 each. Moreover, the treatment of Prof. Kathleen Stock by Sussex University resulted in a £585,000 fine, and two high-profile cases concerning the NHS are currently progressing through the system, each incurring significant costs.

[xxiii] For example, Tim Davie, the Director-General of the BBC, is on record stating that the BBC is proud of being a progressive organisation. There are numerous examples of how the BBC has promoted a gender ideology perspective (e.g., in programming, resourcing, news reporting, and through their website) while downplaying gender-critical news and views, such as barely reporting on the Jo Phoenix case, completely overlooking the WPATH files, and initially describing the Cass Review as a ‘toxic debate’ originating from both sides, rather than focusing on its substantive conclusions about the untested use of puberty blockers. Additionally, the BBC spends at least £80 million each year on diversity recruitment, programmes, and news content (Gill, 2025).

[xxiv] There are some mitigating factors, such as size and sector bias effects. For example, the S&P 500 is a market capitalisation-weighted index, meaning large-cap tech stocks have dominated its performance during this period. It has provided headwinds for most non-tech-oriented funds.

References

Daron Acemoglu and Robinson, James. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Random House.

Caldwell, Christopher (2021). The Age of Entitlement. Simon & Schuster, United States.

Campbell, Jason and Manning, Bradley. (2018). The Rise of Victimhood Culture: Microaggressions, Safe Spaces, and the New Culture Wars. Palgrave Macmillan.

Doyle, Andrew. (2023). The New Puritans: How the Religion of Social Justice Captured the Western World. Brown Book Group.

al-Gharbi, Musa. (2024). We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite. Princeton University Press.

Gray, John. (2023). The New Leviathans: Thoughts After Liberalism. Penguin Random House, UK.

Haidt, Jonathan and Lukianoff, Greg. (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind. Penguin.

Hanania, Richard (2023). The Origins of Woke. Broadside.

Kaufmann, Eric. (2024). Taboo: How Making Race Sacred Produced a Cultural Revolution. Forum, UK.

Krugman, Paul. (1994). The Age of Diminished Expectations. MIT Press.

Lindsay, James. (2022). Race Marxism: The Truth About Critical Race Theory and Praxis. Independently published.

Ramaswamy, Vivek. (2021). Woke, Inc.: Inside the Social Justice Scam. Center Street.

Research & Markets. (May 2025). ‘Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) - Global Strategic Business Report’. Research & Markets

Rufo, Christopher F. (2023). America’s Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything. Broadside Books.

Saad, Gad. (2021). The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense. Regnery.

Solow, Robert M. 1956. ‘A Contribution to the Theory of Growth.’ Quarterly Journal of Economics 70:65−94.

Yancey, George. (2022). Beyond Racial Division: A Unifying Alternative to Colorblindness and Antiracism. IVP.

Yglesias, Matthew. (23/01/25). ‘The Vibes They Are a-Shiftin’. Substack.