This paper aims to provide, based on a systematic review of the literature, a future research agenda for the emerging field of diversity washing in organizations.
This paper reports a systematic literature review that identified 15 relevant papers based on a broad literature search across different sources and research types that tackled diversity washing.
The authors summarize the findings of the systematic literature review by providing tentative answers to what motivates organizations to adopt diversity washing, their strategies to do so, how stakeholders perceive diversity washing, and the key strategies to prevent or revoke such deceptive practices in organizations. Based on these findings, the authors developed a future research agenda that guides scholars in their research efforts in this field.
The authors present a future research agenda and put forward three theoretical propositions that predict the likelihood of engaging in diversity washing in organizations.
The results have broad social implications, as diversity-washing practices can cover discriminatory practices in organizations with negative social consequences and implications.
This paper is the first systematic attempt to integrate the literature on diversity washing to date and opens several directions for future research.
Introduction
Organizations and society are increasingly diverse in a context in which global population dynamics and mobility are heightened by factors ranging from globalization trends, wars or ecological crises (Baldassarri and Abascal, 2020). Social diversity brings significant organizational benefits (Herring, 2009), yet it also brings challenges often tied to conflict, discrimination and marginalization of some occupational minorities (van Rijswijk et al., 2024a, 2024b). Efforts to mitigate diversity-related challenges and promote equitable employment practices and more inclusive workplaces have led to the development of diversity management practices widely adopted and implemented by modern organizations (Köllen, 2021; Yadav and Lenka, 2020). Moreover, due to the pervasive ethical and political implications of (heightened) social diversity, many societies nowadays implement institutional frameworks that focus on equality and inclusion (Bernstein et al., 2020). Under such institutional pressures, organizations are compelled to develop diversity management programs and report on their diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) practices (Gillberg, 2024). Stakeholder demands for reporting on diversity management practices follow from such institutional pressures, and modern organizations must comply with diversity reporting as an integral part of the social criteria in environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting (Plotnikof et al., 2022). In this context, modern organizations spend considerable effort communicating via different channels their diversity management work and their commitment to the equality and inclusion social agenda (Bartoli and Rouet, 2023; Gillberg, 2024). However, the pressure to present a public image in ESG reporting that is in line with all stakeholders’ expectations sometimes leads organizations to engage in deceptive communication practices, such as greenwashing (i.e. exaggerating an organization’s environmental efforts to create a favorable public image), brownwashing (i.e. downplaying an organization’s environmental achievements to avoid criticism from stakeholders), rainbow-washing (i.e. commercializing LGBTQ+ rights to develop a progressive public image with superficial support) and pinkwashing (i.e. exaggerating the contribution to gender equality).
Concerns about misleading or inaccurate ESG reporting have been extensively discussed in the literature. A burgeoning body of research is nowadays dedicated to greenwashing (Montgomery et al., 2023) and, to a lesser extent, brownwashing (Huang et al., 2022), rainbowwashing (Garczarek-Bąk et al., 2024; Özbilgin and Erbil, 2024) and pinkwashing (Lubitow and Davis, 2011). In a similar vein to these forms of ESG washing, more recent research has also documented such deceptive organizational practices in relation to diversity management, referred to as diversity washing. Diversity washing can be defined as an organization’s diversity rhetoric that presents misleading and distorted information about its inclusion, equity, unbiased employment practices and innovative diversity management practices (Pasztor, 2019; Plotnikof et al., 2022). Diversity washing is a pressing issue that requires scholarly attention due to its major real-world consequences and risks. For instance, companies engaging in diversity washing, such as the recent well-known Wells Fargo case, can mislead investors about their genuine commitment to DEI by spinning their diversity efforts to attract investments, thereby eroding public trust and perpetuating systemic inequalities within organizations (Baker et al., 2024; Murray, 2024).
In contrast to other forms of ESG washing literature, studies on the consequences of diversity washing are still scarce, and it is not yet clear how it impacts overall organizational performance. A notable stream of research explored the erosion of public trust, intention to buy and the brand attractiveness of organizations that engage in diversity washing (Baker et al., 2024; Olbermann et al., 2024). Companies that engage in diversity washing are likely to adopt deceptive communication practices on other ESG topics as well (Baker, 2006), and much like greenwashing (Montgomery et al., 2023), diversity washing threatens organizational legitimacy and has important consequences for organizational outcomes. Moreover, the potential of diversity washing to supplant genuine DEI efforts, erode public confidence and perpetuate systemic inequalities within organizations drives the importance of further investigation into this phenomenon. Diversity washing not only misleads, intentionally or unintentionally, stakeholders about an organization’s commitment to DEI but also accentuates existing disparities by masking the genuine need for substantive social change. Experimental and field research shows that unsubstantiated DEI claims elevate employees’ perceptions of corporate hypocrisy, ultimately reducing their commitment and increasing their intention to leave the organization (De Cock et al., 2025). Empirical evidence also shows that companies that engage in diversity washing do so to distract public attention from financial difficulties, and such companies also tend to receive better ESG ratings (Baker et al., 2024). These empirical results point out that deception may actually be effective and call for a better understanding and integration of existing empirical evidence on diversity washing. As a deceptive form of organizational communication, diversity washing builds on the information asymmetry between managers and external stakeholders; therefore, we integrate insights from agency theory (Shapiro, 2005) with the cognitive approach to institutional pressures (George et al., 2006) to explain the antecedents and forms of diversity washing. We further discuss contingencies that foster strategic congruence (Fry and Smith, 1987) as preconditions that can prevent diversity washing. Such an integrative theoretical framework has the potential to fill existing gaps in understanding diversity-washing practices and make contributions to authentic DEI initiatives, leading toward a more inclusive society.
Our study presents the first systematic review of scholarly literature on the topic of diversity washing. Based on a preliminary evaluation of the selected papers, we have defined four research questions that guide our analysis and integration:
What motivates organizations to engage in diversity washing?
What diversity-washing strategies do organizations use?
How do stakeholders perceive organizations that engage in diversity washing?
What strategies can prevent or revoke diversity washing in organizations?
The main objective of this paper is to embark on a theory-driven integration of existing literature on diversity washing and to propose a research agenda for future investigation of this emerging topic.
Our approach answers the call for more research on diversity washing in organizations (De Cock et al., 2025; van Rijswijk et al., 2024b) and contributes to both theory and practice. As our objective is to develop a research agenda to spur this research area, we address, based on a systematic review, critical gaps in the current, limited literature. These gaps include the lack of an accurate definition and operationalization of diversity washing, the scarcity of quantitative examinations and the limited understanding of its antecedents and consequences for organizations and society. While the vast majority of current ESG literature focuses on environmental and, to a lesser extent, governance issues, research on the social aspect remains scarce (Bernini et al., 2023; Gatti et al., 2019). The research agenda we present contributes to this domain as it refines our understanding and fosters the development of robust countermeasures against diversity washing. Since the topic of diversity washing is still emerging, future research that follows this agenda also contributes to discussions about regulations to prevent such destructive practices. From a practical standpoint, our review examines the various normative pressures that organizations encounter in their pursuit of legitimacy, drawing on the institutional framing perspective of George et al. (2006). This analysis helps organizations recognize how diversity washing can manifest intentionally and unintentionally and highlights the significant corporate and societal repercussions, such as long-term reputational harm and the further marginalization of minority groups. In addition, this study offers a list of methods to prevent diversity washing, which practitioners can integrate into their organizational policies to minimize the risk of inadvertent diversity washing.
The paper is structured as follows: We first build on the institutional framing perspective (George et al., 2006) to conceptualize diversity washing as a discrepancy between substantive and symbolic strategic actions, then we present the method for the systematic search and analysis of the literature and summarize the key findings along the four research questions. We then discuss future research directions and formulate theoretical propositions derived from our conceptual integration of the literature on diversity washing in light of the institutional framing perspective. We conclude by discussing the key practical implications of our results.
Theoretical framing
The concept of diversity washing originates in the CSR literature (Ahmed, 2007a) and focuses on ESG principles dealing with a comprehensive view of how organizations integrate broad normative pressures in their strategic orientation. The most well-known ESG washing concept, namely greenwashing, was introduced by American environmental activist Jay Westerveld and originated from his 1986 essay criticizing hotels for misleading eco-friendly claims (de Freitas Netto et al., 2020). Hotels promoted towel reuse as an environmental measure, while their primary motive was cost-saving, offering minimal actual environmental benefits. Over the years, researchers have increasingly identified different forms of ESG washing, such as brownwashing (Huang et al., 2022), rainbow-washing (Garczarek-Bąk et al., 2024; Özbilgin and Erbil, 2024) and pinkwashing (Lubitow and Davis, 2011), as well as the main topic of this paper, namely diversity washing (Baker et al., 2024). Although all these forms of ESG washing focus on different social issues, they share a common theme, namely that they mislead stakeholders by creating a false or exaggerated (positive) image of an organization to meet public expectations. Ashforth and Gibbs (1990) developed the organizational legitimacy theory to explain why organizations focus on ESG goals in addition to pursuing purely economic goals. This theory, widely adopted in greenwashing literature, posits that to gain and maintain legitimacy, organizations have to comply with a social contract between companies and society, requiring adherence to certain normative expectations (Eliwa et al., 2021).
Organizations strive for legitimacy and face different (and sometimes even contradictory) institutional pressures in relation to the DEI agenda as they have to meet regulatory obligations set in their institutional field as well as broader societal expectations related to diversity practices. Moreover, organizations face resource-related pressures from their shareholders and internal stakeholders (employees and management) as they are expected to maintain their competitive position and gain access to relevant resources (including financial and human capital). We build on the institutional framing perspective (George et al., 2006) to argue that pressures from regulatory actors and societal expectations primarily impact control, while pressures from shareholders and internal stakeholders (employees and management) primarily focus on resources. Moreover, in line with the agency theory that emphasizes the role of information asymmetry (Shapiro, 2005), internal stakeholders and, in particular, managers often have a better information position to be informed about the organization’s diversity practices than shareholders or other external stakeholders. This imbalance can result in diversity washing, as managers might selectively disclose information that paints the organization in a favorable light while concealing less favorable information, making it difficult for other stakeholders to effectively monitor the actual state of affairs. In addition, when genuine diversity-related actions impact managers’ interests, the principal-agent problem may arise. Managers (agents) may prioritize their own interests as employees over those of shareholders (principals), potentially leading to diversity-washing practices rather than substantive actions.
As depicted in Figure 1, three of the sources of normative pressures are external to the organization, while the pressures from employees and management are internal normative pressures. The normative pressures stemming from these sources can be interpreted as legitimacy-related threats or opportunities as they are likely to impact the loss or gain of resources and control (George et al., 2006). Consistent with the cognitive micro-foundations of strategy development (Barney and Felin, 2013), we propose that the way managers collectively interpret and make sense of normative pressures influences the strategic approach to diversity management and, in turn, sustains the organization’s strategic coherence (Fry and Smith, 1987). Strategic coherence reflects the alignment among various organizational processes, values and practices with the external environmental conditions and constraints (Fry and Smith, 1987), and literature to date shows that strategic coherence is conducive to authentic ESG implementation (Khalid et al., 2025). Moreover, research that combined field and experimental studies shows that evidence-based DEI cues alleviate perceptions of organizational hypocrisy, thus indicating internal strategic coherence and ultimately impact on perceptions of inclusive workplaces and organizational commitment (De Cock et al., 2025).
The diagram presents an organizational E S G strategy including diversity management at the center, surrounded by influencing factors. From the top, regulatory obligations point downward. To the left, shareholder expectations are connected with external normative pressures. At the bottom, expectations of internal stakeholders such as employees and management contribute through internal normative pressures. On the right, societal expectations feed into the strategy. Dashed arrows highlight control-related institutional pressures and resource-related stakeholder pressures, while dotted lines reflect additional external and internal normative pressures.Source and types of normative pressures faced by organizations in their quest for legitimacy
Source: Authors’ own work
The diagram presents an organizational E S G strategy including diversity management at the center, surrounded by influencing factors. From the top, regulatory obligations point downward. To the left, shareholder expectations are connected with external normative pressures. At the bottom, expectations of internal stakeholders such as employees and management contribute through internal normative pressures. On the right, societal expectations feed into the strategy. Dashed arrows highlight control-related institutional pressures and resource-related stakeholder pressures, while dotted lines reflect additional external and internal normative pressures.Source and types of normative pressures faced by organizations in their quest for legitimacy
Source: Authors’ own work
In terms of strategic orientation concerning DEI-related pressures, we distinguish between substantive and symbolic organizational actions in relation to normative pressures (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990; Eliwa et al., 2021; Hyatt and Berente, 2017). Institutional theorists also distinguish between substantive and symbolic isomorphism in diversity-related organizational actions (George et al., 2006). Isomorphic substantive diversity actions refer to proactive commitment to the DEI agenda and actual implementation of diversity management practices, while isomorphic symbolic diversity actions refer to discursive organizational actions that reflect a ceremonial commitment to the DEI agenda supported by little or no actual implementation. Building on this distinction, diversity washing is reflected by the presence of isomorphic symbolic actions that are not supported by substantive isomorphic diversity-related actions and practices. We believe that diversity-washing practices, defined as decoupled organizational actions (George et al., 2006), primarily focused on symbolic rather than substantive diversity practices, are the results of incongruent representations by management of different types of pressures (control versus resource-related) stemming from different sources of normative conduct (external versus internal). Such strategic ambiguity is easier solved by the adoption of symbolic practices such as diversity washing, which could be an easy answer for companies to maintain their legitimacy without damaging the (incongruent) expectations of one or more parties. Figure 1 presents an overview of these pressures from internal and external sources to organizations.
To summarize, organizations gain and maintain legitimacy by meeting different types of normative expectations stemming from different sources and adopting two types of strategic actions, namely substantive practices (social and environmental disclosure reflects genuine changes in the adoption of practices aligned with the DEI agenda) and symbolic practices (behaviors are portrayed as aligned with social norms frequently without real organizational changes to comply with the DEI agenda). To establish, maintain and defend legitimacy, organizations must meet evolving societal ESG standards, often resulting in the absence of substantive practices and the emergence of symbolic practices that create room for diversity-washing practices as a form of decoupled organizational actions in which symbolic and discursive organizational claims are not supported by genuine organizational commitment to the DEI agenda. Finally, we argue that conditions that favor strategic congruence (Fry and Smith, 1987), or the substantive alignment between organizational DEI values and practices (Khalid et al., 2025) with the external and internal stakeholder expectations, reduce the likelihood of engaging in diversity washing.
Method
We conducted a systematic literature review to gain a comprehensive understanding of previous research on diversity washing in organizations. This review was carried out on 21 June 2024 according to the PRISMA guidelines (Liberati et al., 2009; Page et al., 2021). PRISMA, or Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, is a well-recognized framework that enhances the transparency and reproducibility of systematic reviews. By following the PRISMA phases, we ensured a rigorous and standardized approach to our literature review. Figure 2 illustrates the PRISMA flow diagram detailing the entire literature search and selection process. Initially, we developed a search query to retrieve articles that mention diversity washing or associated terms in any article field. This query is as follows:
The diagram follows a structured PRISMA format showing the selection of studies. On the left, records from databases include E B S C O host with 14, Web of Science with 7, and ScienceDirect with 1, totalling 22, from which 2 duplicates were removed, leaving 20 records screened. Fourteen were excluded, 6 reports were sought for retrieval, all retrieved and assessed for eligibility, with 0 excluded, leaving 6 included. On the right, other methods identified 3 from citation screening, 6 from forward search, and 0 from AI tools, totalling 9 records. All were retrieved, assessed, and included, leaving 9. In total, 15 studies were included in the final review.Flow diagram of the systematic literature search process
Note(s): Based on the PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram. From “The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” by Page et al., 2021, International Journal of Surgery, 88
Source: Authors’ own work
The diagram follows a structured PRISMA format showing the selection of studies. On the left, records from databases include E B S C O host with 14, Web of Science with 7, and ScienceDirect with 1, totalling 22, from which 2 duplicates were removed, leaving 20 records screened. Fourteen were excluded, 6 reports were sought for retrieval, all retrieved and assessed for eligibility, with 0 excluded, leaving 6 included. On the right, other methods identified 3 from citation screening, 6 from forward search, and 0 from AI tools, totalling 9 records. All were retrieved, assessed, and included, leaving 9. In total, 15 studies were included in the final review.Flow diagram of the systematic literature search process
Note(s): Based on the PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram. From “The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” by Page et al., 2021, International Journal of Surgery, 88
Source: Authors’ own work
“[…] diversity washing” or “diversity misinformation” or “diversity disinformation” or “inclusion washing” or “inclusion misinformation” or “inclusion disinformation” or “equity washing” or “equity misinformation” or “equity disinformation” or “DEI washing” or “DEI misinformation” or “DEI disinformation”.
The selection of keywords in the query is informed by the relevant terms found in the recent studies conducted by Baker et al. (2024), Asif et al. (2023) and Gillberg (2024). The query was conducted in the most comprehensive and relevant social science databases, namely EBSCOhost (all included journal databases: PsycINFO, PsycArticles, ERIC, LISTA, MEDLINE, GreenFILE, CINAHL, Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection, Business Source Complete and Academic Search Premier), Web of Science and ScienceDirect. When executing the query, we filtered for English-language peer-reviewed journal articles and papers from conference proceedings. No filters were applied to publication years. As shown in the PRISMA flow diagram in Figure 2, the query yielded a total of 22 records, of which 2 records were removed as duplicates. A screening based on the title and abstract excluded 14 records, as they were apparently unrelated to organizational diversity washing. The six remaining papers proved relevant after a full content screening and were included in our sample. In the second step, we used the backward snowballing method, screening the reference lists of the studies in our sample. This process yielded three additional relevant papers, expanding our sample to nine papers. Subsequently, as a third step, we conducted a forward snowballing search, identifying six additional relevant studies that cited the articles in our sample. For our final step, we used an AI-powered search engine (Elicit.org) to search for papers using the keywords from our search query. However, this yielded no new results, so our final sample includes 15 papers addressing the phenomenon of diversity washing in organizational contexts. From these papers, we extracted the research aim and key outcomes. In what follows, we will describe our findings related to our four research questions.
Results
The articles in our sample were published between 2019 and 2024, except for two papers that Ahmed authored, exploring diversity washing as early as 2007, and one by Marques in 2010. Table 1 provides an overview of the research aims and key outcomes of the studies in our data set. In the subsequent sections, we summarize these findings by research question to present the current understanding of diversity washing.
Overview of included studies in the sample
| Article | Research aim | Research method | Key outcomes regarding diversity washing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ahmed (2007a) | Examining how diversity workers use the term diversity and how they interpret it, particularly within the context of educational organizations | Semi-structured interviews with diversity practitioners in higher education in Australia |
|
| Ahmed (2007b) | Examining the impact of the race relations amendment act on the creation, distribution and effectiveness of racial equality policy documentation within British universities, particularly the gap between what these documents say and what the organizations actually do | Semi-structured interviews with diversity and equal opportunities officers from universities in the UK |
|
| Asif (2023) | Examining the role of (female) independent directors and good governance according to ISO3700-2021 on firm sustainable development goal (SDG) performance | Literature review of studies identified through Scopus and Web of Science databases |
|
| Baker et al. (2024) | Examining whether publicly traded companies in the USA exploit voluntary statements about their dedication to DEI for their own advantage | Analysis using (among others) Poisson regressions, bivariate sorting, and sentence BERT on SEC filings and online public profiles and resumes of publicly traded corporations in the USA |
|
| Bartoli and Rouet (2023) | Examining the factors that drive the emergence of inclusion in new CSR policies of companies, analyzing whether these policies are genuine strategies for societal change or merely isomorphic trends and “washing processes” | Conceptual review of the conceptual and ideological evolution of inclusive policies |
|
| Bhopal (2023) | Examining the role of equality and diversity staff in (non-REC member) higher-education institutions by drawing on the concept of whiteness and white privilege | Semi-structured interviews with equality and diversity staff in higher education in England |
|
| Dover et al. (2020) | Examining the signaling function of organizational diversity initiatives by analyzing how these initiatives unintentionally affect perceptions of organizations and their employees | Conceptual review of the signaling function of organizational diversity initiatives in the social psychological literature |
|
| Garczarek-Bąk et al. (2024) | Examining the literature on CSR, this article articulates criticisms of the strategy with concrete business examples and emphasizes alternative approaches for responsible business implementation | Critical literature review and analysis of CSR reports |
|
| Gillberg (2024) | Examining how for-profit organizations employ diversity-washing activities to appease diversity work skeptics, reflected in online corporate diversity and inclusion communication | Thematic analysis on website content of Swedish-based multinational corporations |
|
| Kele and Cassell (2023) | Examining how diversity is presented within the employer branding of small and medium-sized law firms and how this presentation differs from their actual diversity practices | Semi-structured interviews with participants and marketing people, as well as a review of online and offline marketing materials in law firms in the UK |
|
| Marques (2010) | Examining diversity statements on the websites of three major US corporations to assess whether they “walk their talk” | Critical review of websites and diversity issues in recent decades of companies in the USA |
|
| Olbermann et al. (2024) | Examining how diversity washing in influencer advertising on social media is perceived, particularly the impact of user-influencer similarity and parasocial interactions | Experiment (a 2 × 2 between-subjects approach) |
|
| Pasztor (2019) | Examining how organizations known for their high-level diversity management practices portray diversity on their corporate websites to understand linguistic and semiotic consistency in the framing and rhetoric of diversity | Summative content analysis and framing analysis of corporate websites |
|
| Plotnikof et al. (2022) | Examining how activist practices can enhance the repoliticization of diversity efforts within organizations | Semi-structured interviews and document analysis with norm-critical activists |
|
| Whitney and Norman (2024) | Examining synthetic data’s risks and ethical implications (such as the emergence of diversity-washing), especially within machine learning and artificial intelligence | Conceptual review of risks of synthetic data |
|
Motivations to engage in diversity washing
Diversity washing refers to the negative discrepancy between the diversity narratives organizations promote in their DEI policies and marketing messages and the actual experiences of employees (Ahmed, 2007b; Baker et al., 2024; Kele and Cassell, 2023). The reasons why organizations engage in diversity washing are diverse. A first account of the motivation to engage in diversity washing was documented by Ahmed (2007b) in a study on ten UK universities as a cover-up communicative strategy for the ongoing racism, discrimination and marginalization of occupational minorities. A second set of motives refers to the business case surrounding diversity practices, as organizations with clear diversity management programs are more positively perceived by their stakeholders; therefore, painting a positive image of diversity and inclusion has clear economic benefits (Baker et al., 2024; Plotnikof et al., 2022). A third set of motives why organizations have to misreport their diversity practices refers to institutional pressures and the isomorphic tendency to do what the most successful organizations in their field do (Bartoli and Rouet, 2023; Pasztor, 2019). This institutional motivation reflects a mimicking behavior aligned with the practices adopted by the more successful actors in the organizational field that serve an impression management function (Pasztor, 2019) and does not necessarily reflect intentional attempts to mislead stakeholders in pursuing financial gains. These motivations to engage in diversity washing are legitimacy-seeking efforts that attempt to preserve a positive organizational image in relation to various stakeholders (internal and external) and maintain organizational control over key organizational resources.
Organizational strategies in diversity washing
Diversity-washing organizations often lack diversity policies (Kele and Cassell, 2023), and when they do have such policies, they are frequently used as “evidence” of the organizational compliance and commitment to diversity, effectively masking underlying forms of racism (Ahmed, 2007b). Besides that, some organizations use the presence of diversity staff members as a form of diversity washing: their efforts are often not appreciated, and their existence is used primarily as a means to comply with regulatory obligations (Bhopal, 2023). Many diversity-washing organizations prominently display impressive diversity awards on their websites, often as a result of past or ongoing anti-diversity lawsuits (Marques, 2010). Preliminary evidence suggests that particularly major diversity-washing American companies publicly emphasize their pro-diversity attitude compared to non-American companies (Marques, 2010).
The external claims of diversity-washing organizations, presented in marketing materials such as corporate websites, focus on public brand image management and treating diversity as a commercial asset (Kele and Cassell, 2023; Pasztor, 2019). At a discursive level, organizations use similar patterns in diversity-washing texts to frame diversity, regardless of the type of organization (Pasztor, 2019). Kele and Cassell (2023) and Pasztor (2019) observed that organizations often use the access-and-legitimacy approach in their communications. Pasztor (2019) also noted that organizations frame diversity as something they actively facilitate through inclusion-stimulating activities (whose effectiveness remains questionable in practice) or as a key organizational asset promoted by corporate values. The term diversity is often strategically used as a less confrontational alternative to equity (Ahmed, 2007a) by which organizations try to show their (symbolic) commitment to inclusiveness (Pasztor, 2019). The widespread use of the terms equality and diversity gives a false impression of complete inclusiveness, enabling institutions to selectively address only some less controversial issues (Bhopal, 2023). In formulating their DEI efforts, organizations use multivocal communication strategies to serve audiences with contradictory interests in business value and social justice (Gillberg, 2024). Since diversity washing primarily aims to satisfy audiences with a high interest in social justice, Gillberg (2024) introduces the term’ business case washing’ to describe the communication of diversity initiatives in a manner that satisfies stakeholders who are primarily interested in economic value. In doing so, organizations aim to maintain their control over important financial resources (George et al., 2006), yet they endanger their strategic coherence, as the real DEI practices and efforts are not aligned with their public disclosures. The narrative way organizations frame diversity diverts attention from the underlying institutional equity issues it is supposed to address (Ahmed, 2007a, 2007b).
Stakeholders’ perception of diversity washing
Diversity-washing practices can mislead stakeholders about an organization’s commitment to diversity, often resulting in higher evaluators’ environmental, social and governance ratings (Baker et al., 2024). However, when clients suspect diversity washing, especially when organizations make vague claims, it can damage the public brand image and reduce purchase intentions (Olbermann et al., 2024). Such companies frequently face negative publicity concerning employee treatment and violations of anti-discrimination rules (Baker et al., 2024). Beyond these adverse effects on individual organizations, diversity washing can erode public trust in corporate social responsibility initiatives overall (Garczarek-Bąk et al., 2024). Sometimes, it is difficult to determine whether diversity activities can be considered as diversity washing, but even unintentionally, these activities can still be perceived negatively by stakeholders: they might hinder underrepresented groups from addressing discrimination or depict them as less competent, or conversely, they lead traditionally privileged groups to feel unfairly treated or even discriminated (Dover et al., 2020). When stakeholders identify signs of diversity washing, it becomes increasingly difficult for organizations to restore their strategic congruence. One of the few viable strategic options they have is to disclose their true substantive practices and engage in authentic DEI efforts to restore their external legitimacy. One recent example involves Wells Fargo, that conducted “sham interviews” with diverse candidates for already fulfilled job positions to boost its diversity statistics (Flitter, 2022). After the disclosure, they were forced to respond publicly and suspend their hiring policies.
Strategies to prevent or revoke diversity washing
To genuinely achieve organizational inclusiveness and equality, the term diversity must be redefined and closely linked to concepts like justice and equality (Ahmed, 2007a). To do this, Plotnikof et al. (2022) emphasize the importance of norm-critical activism that disrupts prevailing norms and challenges the underlying discrimination-enabling politics. This norm-critical activism operates along three discursive tensions: personal and public issues (i.e. activists can address these norms as public diversity issues because their personal experiences provide them with unique insights), creative and conventional methods (i.e. creative methods effectively challenge norms, but conventional approaches are sometimes necessary to reach a mainstream audience) and safe and unsafe spaces (i.e. achieving change requires norm-critical activism in environments where activists face opposition and interact with people who hold different viewpoints). In addition to redefining diversity, organizations must recognize that diversity is an ongoing effort that requires continuous learning, problem-understanding and the representation of minorities across all organizational departments and levels (Garczarek-Bąk et al., 2024). Good governance practices are also crucial in addressing diversity washing, with reporting, disclosure and transparency being essential for assessing progress toward inclusiveness as nonfinancial business performance metrics (Asif et al., 2023). All these efforts aim to maintain a sense of strategic coherence (Fry and Smith, 1987) that ultimately boosts financial as well as ESG organizational performance (Khalid et al., 2025). From a practitioner’s perspective, diversity-washing documentation can also serve as a strategic tool to highlight the disparity between stated intentions and actual practices (Ahmed, 2007b). Finally, as organizations increasingly use technologies such as machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) for tasks such as drafting communication statements, it is crucial to thoughtfully integrate diversity into these technologies to prevent the risk of diversity washing (Whitney and Norman, 2024).
Future research agenda
Accurate definition and identification of diversity-washing practices
A relevant direction for future research on diversity washing concerns the very identification of organizations that engage in such deceptive practices. As van Rijswijk et al. (2024b) observe, there is a notable lack of resources to clearly distinguish diversity-washing practices from genuinely supportive diversity policies. The literature on greenwashing, which is richer and much more advanced, also struggles with finding ways to accurately identify deceptive claims in organizational communication documents (e.g. financial annual reports) (Stammbach et al., 2022). A first valuable suggestion for future research on diversity washing refers to the crystallization of a core definition and categorization of diversity-washing practices. To date, much like studies on other aspects of ESG washing, the diversity washing literature is rather oblivious to the various forms of diversity washing that organizations engage in. A plausible organizing framework for such practices could be the set of organizational motivations to engage in diversity washing. Based on our sample, we have mentioned three key motivators for diversity washing, aligning with the legitimacy theory by reflecting (at least) societal pressures. The first motivator, masking discriminatory practices, responds to societal expectations and regulatory requirements for equality, aiming to get legitimacy by hiding these activities (Ahmed, 2007b; Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990). The second motivator, pursuing financial benefits from a positive stakeholder valuation, highlights the economic aspect of legitimacy, as organizations seek to attract customers, employees and investors by building a positive image of diversity to secure economically important resources and support (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990; Baker et al., 2024; Plotnikof et al., 2022). The third motivator, mimicking successful organizational actors, demonstrates that organizations (sometimes even unintentionally) adopt diversity-washing practices by emulating industry leaders and aligning with established norms to gain legitimacy (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990; Bartoli and Rouet, 2023; Pasztor, 2019). These motivations to engage in diversity washing could yield different practices ranging from intentional disinformation to omission in reporting. To this end, a call for further research is made for more studies documenting and describing such diversity-washing practices stemming from various motivations.
A second direction for future research concerns the use of AI systems to detect diversity washing and to categorize different forms of diversity-washing practices. Such technology-powered attempts have been successful in the case of greenwashing (Moodaley and Telukdarie, 2023), and we believe they could contribute to the literature on diversity washing as well. In studies on greenwashing, various textual and numerical data sources have been used to build diverse AI-based solutions to understand the meaning of greenwashing and the detection of this phenomenon. Along these lines, Stammbach et al. (2022) propose the ClimateBERT model (i.e. a deep learning model based on the transformer model architecture analyzing environmental claims found in the quarterly earnings calls of companies and organizations). Moreover, Kobti et al. (2021) analyze the green claims of 48 companies based on their Twitter official accounts using SVMs (Support Vector Machines), BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) models and a sentiment analyzer, and Lin et al. (2023) analyze the consumer sentiments of product reviews in relation to sustainability for tackling aspects like sustainability relevance, review authenticity and meeting of user expectations. These technologies also hold significant potential for research on diversity washing since they can efficiently analyze large data sets to provide deeper insights regarding washing patterns.
Antecedents of diversity washing
Based on the insights on motivations to engage in diversity washing, we call for a theory-driven integration of antecedents of diversity washing. In our theoretical framework, we combined the legitimacy theory (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990) with a framing perspective on institutional change (George et al., 2006) to argue that organizational commitment to the DEI agenda can boost their legitimacy by capitalizing on opportunities and mitigating threats of losing resources or control. In line with the framing perspective on institutional pressures, adopting isomorphic actions (actions that are championed and approved by the powerful institutional agents in the field) is a risk-avoiding strategy (George et al., 2006); therefore, we would expect that organizations engaging in substantive actions related to DEI adopt a less risky strategy than organizations that decide to behave in a nonisomorphic perspective and deviate from the DEI prescriptions accepted in an institutional field. By engaging in isomorphic actions in relation to the DEI prescriptions, organizations protect their legitimacy in the eyes of their stakeholders, and as such, compliance with the DEI prescriptions is a defense mechanism that organizations can successfully deploy to cope with the legitimacy threats stemming from DEI normative pressures. The key question is, therefore, why do organizations engage in diversity washing as a risky practice in which the symbolic diversity-related actions are not supported by substantive diversity-related actions and an authentic commitment to DEI values? We argue that diversity-washing practices originate in managerial decisions to engage in decoupled organizational actions in relation to diversity management. As such, diversity washing reflects a state of strategic incongruence (Fry and Smith, 1987), and it is likely to diminish organizational performance. When decoupled organizational actions focus on symbolic rather than substantive diversity management practices, organizations tend to misrepresent and boost their discursive claims on diversity management. Such misrepresentation reduces their legitimacy and, ultimately, their financial and nonfinancial performance (Khalid et al., 2025). In line with the frameworks presented in Hyatt and Berente (2017) and the framing perspective on institutional change (George et al., 2006), we argue that incongruencies in the way managers interpret different types of DEI normative pressures stemming from various sources are the key drivers of decoupled organizational actions in relation to DEI agenda. In line with the strategic coherence perspective (Fry and Smith, 1987), we argue that incongruent stakeholder pressures favor strategic incongruence and precipitate diversity washing, while congruent stakeholder pressures facilitate strategic congruence and ultimately mitigate diversity washing. We, therefore, formulate three theoretical propositions regarding the conditions under which managerial interpretations of normative pressures are mixed or incongruent, and organizations tend to engage in diversity washing reflected in decoupled actions or sizeable differences between symbolic and substantive DEI actions:
Consistency in the diversity-related normative pressures experienced from internal stakeholders and external stakeholders reduces the likelihood of engaging in diversity washing, with the pressures perceived from internal stakeholders being more likely to trigger isomorphic substantive DEI actions.
Inconsistency in the framing of the DEI-related normative pressures (some aspects perceived as threats and some as opportunities) increases the likelihood of engaging in diversity-washing practices, as such inconsistencies trigger tendencies to adopt decoupled actions with perceived opportunities in relation to DEI being more likely to trigger substantive actions.
Inconsistencies in perceived resource and control-related normative pressures in the DEI framework, or inconsistencies in the types of normative pressures, also increase the likelihood of engaging in diversity washing as such inconsistencies also foster the adoption of decoupled organizational actions with resource-related pressures in relation to DEI practices being more likely to trigger substantive actions.
Consequences of diversity washing
It is paramount that future research explores the consequences of engaging in diversity washing more systematically. In terms of methodologies, we believe that the research designs currently used in greenwashing research could be very informative for understanding the consequences of diversity washing. For instance, numerous greenwashing studies use experimental designs to investigate people’s reactions to “green” environmental claims (de Jong et al., 2020; Ioannou et al., 2023), and others use analytical methods applied to large data sets to compare data from different companies to uncover greenwashing patterns (Heras-Saizarbitoria et al., 2020; Hora and Subramanian, 2019). Such research designs are also applicable in future studies on diversity washing. Unlike false ecological claims that constitute greenwashing, the diversity rhetoric that covers discrimination and marginalization of occupational minorities has more pervasive and immediate harmful consequences. Such consequences expand far beyond hurting the financial revenues of the organization and have important ramifications for segregation and intergroup conflicts for the society as a whole. Moreover, it is important to understand the differentiated impact of diversity-washing practices on various organizational outcomes. In a recent study carried out on a large sample of companies, Baker et al. (2024) show that organizations that engage in diversity washing experience more personnel-related complaints, turnover and discrimination-related fines, yet in terms of stakeholder perceptions, these organizations typically receive high ESG ratings and attract more investments from investors that value such rankings, showing that current ESG ratings are poor proxies for ESG performance. Such results call for a more differentiated approach in testing the impact of diversity washing on various organizational outcomes. For example, scholars can develop a multidimensional diversity index by combining various measurements, including surface-level and deep-level diversity indicators, behavioral indicators (e.g. recruitment and promotion data), performance metrics (e.g. finance and innovation output data) and content analysis (e.g. corporate communication in marketing materials, press releases and independent media coverage of the organization’s diversity). Another important avenue for future research concerns how diversity washing practices affect different categories of organizational stakeholders, as various categories of stakeholders may experience the seriousness of diversity washing differently. For instance, customers might be less deterred in their purchasing intention from diversity-washing companies, whereas prospective employees may be more sensitive and discouraged in their intention to apply for jobs in such companies. Such differentiation in stakeholder reactions to diversity washing may also influence the mechanisms organizations adopt to mitigate the risk of diversity washing. For example, emergent and employee-driven diversity management practices, such as diversity networks (van Rijswijk and Curşeu, 2025; van Rijswijk et al., 2025), can mitigate the risk of organizations engaging in diversity washing as they reflect genuine engagement and support for bottom-up DEI initiatives. Moreover, not all diversity-washing attempts are equally severe, as hiding discriminatory practices may have more serious consequences than misreporting aspirational DEI commitments and strategy. Finally, different motivations to engage in diversity washing may affect organizational outcomes differently.
Diversity washing and other ESG-washing practices
Diversity policies are an essential part of organizations’ ESG activities. As discussed earlier, besides diversity washing, there are also other forms of washing related to ESG activities, such as greenwashing and woke washing, yet the vast majority of studies focus on the environmental aspect of ESG while considerably fewer address the social aspect (Bernini et al., 2023; Gatti et al., 2019). In future research, we encourage examining these forms of ESG washing from a comprehensive perspective by integrating knowledge about these different misleading ESG practices. It is conceivable that organizations may adopt similar strategies across different areas of ESG washing, suggesting that findings from studies on greenwashing or brownwashing, for instance, could apply to diversity washing and other forms of ESG washing as well. This holistic approach can make the identification of patterns clearer and develop a deeper understanding of organizations’ washing strategies, which is essential for devising effective prevention methods. While some recent studies have begun to place diversity washing within the broader context of organizational ESG activities (Baker et al., 2024; Garczarek-Bąk et al., 2024), our findings highlight its underrepresentation (which possibly can be attributed to the required more comprehensive data sets and methods of analysis), which is imperative for a thorough understanding of ESG washing practices. For example, the information asymmetry could be a common denominator of greenwashing and diversity washing intentions, as firms operate in environments that often lack standardized, comparable and equally enforceable disclosure metrics. The greenwashing literature reported that regulatory or market changes such as green finance policies and the introduction of environmental mandates (Zhang, 2022a, 2022b) can counterintuitively increase the likelihood of greenwashing practices. In a similar vein, in contexts in which DEI practices are mandated, information asymmetry may enable organizations to publicize commitments to DEI initiatives while concealing their real organizational practices. Therefore, similar to greenwashing, in the absence of mandatory and comparable reporting guidelines across different ESG domains, organizational engagement in such deceptive practices as diversity or greenwashing is still possible. In addition, recent societal and political developments, such as the influence of the Trump administration and reactions to the broader “woke movement,” have led some companies to shy away from DEI issues. This opposite mechanism from diversity washing, where companies become more reluctant to be transparent and report on their social policies, presents another avenue for future research. Investigating this mechanism and its impact on ESG reporting could offer valuable insights into the evolving landscape of organizational ESG activities.
Pluralism of research perspectives and methods
Diversity washing is a complex and multilayered phenomenon that calls for multidisciplinary and multimethod examination to gain more fine-grained insights into the complexity of diversity washing. On the one hand, the in-depth exploration of such practices requires combining academic insights from various disciplines such as psychology, sociology and management. The ramifications of diversity washing span different social systems, and interdisciplinary insights are needed to tap into the implications of diversity washing at the individual, organizational and societal levels of analysis. Moreover, the use of various research methods can allow for a more comprehensive exploration of antecedents and consequences of diversity washing. Large-scale organizational-level research, as the study reported by Baker et al. (2024), can shed light on the typologies of diversity washing and their consequences for different stakeholder groups, while vignette experiments can generate insights into the causal structure of the diversity-washing. It is worth mentioning that the current paucity of studies using quantitative approaches (as shown in Table 1) underscores the challenges of using such methods, including the absence of clearly defined indicators and a significant lack of available data from firms, especially concerning deep-level diversity characteristics. Using experimental designs in future studies, or combining survey with experimental design [as in the study of (De Cock et al., 2025)] will enable scholars to establish causal claims in the study of diversity washing. All in all, integrating insights from various disciplines and using various methods (possibly in combination, including AI to explore large data sets and large learning models for analyzing company documents to identify false or unsubstantiated claims) holds promise for advancing our knowledge and understanding of diversity washing.
Limitations
Our study also has several limitations. As usual with literature reviews, despite our best efforts, we may inadvertently overlook relevant publications on diversity washing in organizations. In addition, the low number of studies is an important limitation of our paper, yet we believe that including studies with diverse research designs, our review provides a comprehensive view on diversity washing. To compensate for the small number of studies, we also used an integrative conceptual framework from which we derived three theoretical propositions and articulated a research agenda that guides future research efforts on the topic of diversity washing.
Conclusion
This paper reports a systematic literature review on emerging phenomenon of diversity washing to propose a comprehensive future research agenda. Drawing upon the legitimacy theory (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990), the strategic coherence framework (Fry and Smith, 1987) and a framing perspective on institutional change (George et al., 2006), we argue that (incongruent) stakeholder pressures are central drivers for diversity-washing practices. The literature review identified three primary motivations for organizations to engage in diversity-washing practices:
masking discriminatory practices;
pursuing financial advantages; and
mimicking successful peers.
We also outlined the strategies organizations use such as lacking substantive and robust diversity policies, ineffective diversity management staff, leveraging diversity awards for reputational gains and deploying discursive tactics that mask superficial DEI efforts. Although these strategies may serve short-term legitimacy of branding goals, they risk eroding stakeholder trust and damaging organizational credibility, ultimately tarnishing an organization’s public image. Efforts to prevent or reverse diversity washing require redefining terms such as “diversity,” “justice” and “equality,” acknowledging that diversity requires ongoing organizational commitment, promoting good governance practices and leveraging appropriate technology with a diversity-oriented focus. Building on these insights, we developed a targeted research agenda emphasizing the need to for conceptual refinement and clear definition of diversity washing, for improving detection mechanisms and tools and for a systematic and theory-driven examination of its antecedents. To this end, we proposed three theoretical propositions to guide future research efforts that aim to investigate these antecedents. Given the complex, multifaceted and context-dependent nature of diversity washing and the scarcity of quantitative studies, we advocate for methodological pluralism and interdisciplinary research approaches. While our review is constrained by the limited number of existing studies on diversity washing, we used a robust theoretical framework to enhance the generalizability and relevance of our findings. Finally, the research agenda and the integrative framework presented in this study offer valuable direction for scholars seeking to investigate the emerging topic of diversity washing. For practitioners, our findings offer actionable insights, specifically that a nuanced understanding of the normative pressures faced by organizations in their search for legitimacy can inform their efforts to detect and mitigate diversity washing and make their organizations aware of the potentially detrimental long-term organizational and societal consequences. Furthermore, the list of methods that increase strategic coherence and prevent diversity washing can assist policymakers in developing policies that minimize the likelihood of these deceptive practices.
Statements and declarations
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to this article’s content.
