Insights

A half-year on from those US executive orders, Michael Diviney and Tess Tattersall explore their current implications for this side of the Atlantic, and the benefits of holding firm on DEI values and programmes. Trump and DEI Diversity, equity and inclusion (‘DEI’) was at the top of Donald Trump’s agenda for the start of his second term in office. In January, President Trump’s executive orders included: EO 14151: “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”, intended to dismantle all federal government DEI programmes as “discriminatory”; and EO 14173: “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” “to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities”, impacting federal contractors. These executive orders mean that corporate America faces new challenges and risks, particularly around federal government contracts. An immediate effect is that many US companies and firms have reviewed, rolled back on and even cancelled their DEI programmes, or at least on how and if they are reported. According to the Financial Times: “Of the top 400 companies in the S&P 500 index, 90% of those that have filed an annual report since Trump’s election have cut at least some references to DEI, with many ditching the term entirely.” 1 Trump’s move did not come out of the blue but is symptomatic of a pre-existing range of concerns about DEI, for example that it prioritises race or gender over merit, leading to preferential treatment for some employees over others. Elon Musk’s X post on 15 December 2023 is indicative of such reaction: “DEI must DIE. The point was to end discrimination, not replace it with different discrimination.” The history of DEI in the US is long and complicated, and organisations have been struggling with the popularity and efficacy of their DEI programmes. Some companies were already moving away from DEI, and this has been exacerbated by the term ‘DEI’ becoming politicised. The criticism and scepticism that have been building for several years in the US have not just been among conservatives. In her 2022 book DEI Deconstructed, Lily Zheng, a liberal, progressive DEI consultant, outlines the problems faced and caused by DEI programmes in the US, for example that many are performative and do not work, i.e. do not substantially improve equality. Some of the language used is seen as exclusionary, and some initiatives as favouring some groups of people over others. Against such a background of DEI fatigue, Zheng and other DEI experts argue that a rethink and reset is required. Ripple effects for Ireland, the UK, Europe? Some companies in Ireland and the UK, particularly multinationals or subsidiaries of US corporations, may be challenged to follow suit and realign policies or harmonise approaches across global operations. For Irish and UK companies with operations in the US, DEI programmes are a source of new legal and business risks. Nevertheless, the context of DEI on this side of the Atlantic is shaped by different cultures, histories and, significantly, legal frameworks. The US and Europe are different. This is a complex issue, and companies here considering moving away from DEI commitments also need to consider the more immediate legal and business risks of such reversals. The issue is complex, yes, but at the same time it is possible to take a position, which we can summarise as follows: DEI makes legal sense, business sense, and is the right thing to do. The legal case for DEI The contexts for DEI differ between the US and Europe, and ‘affirmative action’ is an issue with which to illustrate the wider divergences. It can also shed some light on why there has been such a strong reaction to DEI in the US, and particularly to why affirmative action is seen by some as discriminatory. (Though not directly related to workplace equality, the US Supreme Court decision in 2023 effectively ending affirmative action in college admissions is symptomatic of the DEI ‘pushback’.) DEI in the US is rooted in the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, which led to the requirement for government agencies and contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin”. This is a position that has gone further than would generally be permitted in Ireland, the UK or Europe, where case law provides that affirmative action is permitted but only as an exception to the general rule prohibiting discrimination. In Ireland, the more restricted concept of ‘positive action’ allows measures to be taken to rectify inequality as long as one group is not automatically preferred to others. So, the US and Europe are different, and, in certain respects, the legal risks for Irish and UK companies of dropping DEI programmes appear to be the opposite of those in the US. This distinction is crucial, as it underscores why a direct adoption of the anti-DEI position of the US federal government may not align with EU and UK legal frameworks, and companies here seeking to move away from DEI may be at risk. In Ireland and the UK, DEI programmes can serve as key supports for helping employers comply with equality legislation and manage related risks. Having DEI policies, practices and training in place shows that all reasonable steps have been taken to prevent discrimination and comply with the law. In April, the Employment Lawyers Association in the UK warned that companies leave themselves open to “adverse findings of discrimination” if they unpick policies designed to enable DEI. As well as compliance with existing and robust equality laws, DEI initiatives will also help employers prepare for and align with new employment legislation on the horizon from both the EU and the UK government, for example regarding pay equity and transparency, gender balances on boards, etc. The economic case for DEI DEI programmes have become an economic necessity for the stewardship and management of contemporary and future workforces. In Ireland, for example, the latest national census of 2022 reports that there were 631,785 non-Irish citizens living in the country, representing 12% of the total population. This has brought huge demographic changes such as a seismic shift in the diversity of Ireland’s workforce, underlining the need for inclusive policies, practices and leadership. The trajectory of these profound demographic changes will continue upwards, and (partly) out of economic necessity. Developed economies like Ireland and the UK need more inward migration to maintain growth levels and the future funding of the retirements of today’s workers. In its 2025 global employment outlook, the OECD warned about the effects of falling birth rates in the developed world. As more workers retire, the size of the working age population will decrease, causing labour shortages and dampening productivity growth. Without immigration, Europe faces large declines in its population, 2 which implies that DEI should be an economic priority for businesses. As an emerging core business discipline, DEI is strategically vital for the recruitment, retention and leadership of new diverse workforces, as well as meeting the needs of the diverse customer bases that reflect these demographic changes. The business case for DEI Beyond the necessity to mitigate risk and comply with the law, there are sound, widely researched benefits for businesses that engage with DEI and build trust with diverse and inclusive teams. These include attracting talent, employee engagement and retention, greater innovation and performance, and, ultimately, strategic and competitive advantage. Productivity and performance Employees who feel accepted and valued in their workplace are more productive. Diversity, equity and inclusion increases collaboration and creates stronger teams. It is a key driver of workplace satisfaction and performance. DEI is recognised as a condition for better-performing boards, bringing a broader range of perspectives, experiences and skills, helping to avoid the failings of groupthink. Consulting firm McKinsey & Co, who have been tracking the effects of DEI for over 10 years, reported in 2023 a 39% increased likelihood of financial outperformance for those companies surveyed in the top quartiles of both gender and ethnic representation on executive teams versus the bottom quartiles. 3 Investors and portfolio managers increasingly review these metrics when making investment decisions. 4 Creativity and innovation “I think the most diverse group will produce the best product.” Tim Cook, Apple CEO With a multicultural, multigenerational workforce, diversity of background, experience and worldview can enhance the insights, creativity and innovation of teams, leading to better business results with products and services that better fit more diverse markets. Teams comprised of people with different perspectives informed by factors such as gender, age, ethnicity, etc., as well as their individual life and work experiences, have been shown to have enhanced problem-solving abilities, resulting in better decisions. Reputation A good reputation is a huge asset for a business; but once lost, it is hard to regain. A diverse, equitable and inclusive workplace reflects an organisation’s ethos and values. Today’s stakeholders (investors, customers, employees) are more socially conscious and expect organisations to match their values. They want to invest in, buy from and work for businesses that do the right thing. DEI raises an organisation’s reputation with all its stakeholders. Client and customer relationships Diverse teams, reflecting the change from homogenous to multicultural societies, can understand a broader range of customers and clients, which leads to deeper relationships and loyalty. A 2024 survey by marketing data and analytics firm Kantar of more than 23,000 people in 18 countries found 75% of consumers said that a brand’s diversity and inclusion reputation influences their buying decisions. 5 Conversely, a lack of diversity in an organisation risks it misunderstanding (or ignoring) its changing customer base, both in domestic and global markets.   Employee engagement and retention Employee wellbeing and DEI are related. We are happier if we feel respected by and connected to the people around us. An inclusive and equitable culture creates a sense of belonging and purpose, which fosters trust, engagement and loyalty. Such engagement helps to mitigate against staff turnover, saving on the time and money effects of constant recruitment, induction and upskilling. Recruiting talented people With today’s multigenerational, highly informed and selective talent pool, the DEI credentials of a business are core to its ability to attract and keep good people. Businesses need to wear their (genuine) DEI values on their sleeves to compete in a full-employment market for the top talent. A 2024 survey by ACCA of 10,000 accountants in 157 countries found that 73% believe a strong diversity and inclusion culture is a key factor in their deciding to work at an organisation. 6 Conversely, given that employers struggle to find people with the right skills, broadening the talent pool with DEI practices and strategies also makes excellent business sense.   Business transformation and resilience In a business context of constant flux, research has shown that inclusive organisations with diverse teams are better at dealing with and navigating change as they tend to be more adaptable, 7 resilient and open to communication, outperforming their peers. DEI is the right thing to do Ultimately, the human rights bases of DEI practices and strategies need to be recognised. At their core are the ethical principles of equality, making it a level playing field for all, and equity, ensuring that access to the playing field is fair by addressing any systemic barriers. While it may be understandable that some companies have reversed, or at least become silent about, their espoused DEI values, given the legal and commercial risks caused, inter alia, by US executive orders, it is also questionable how core these values were in the first place. It is those organisations that have DEI baked into their values and purpose, that hold fast and at the same time address and rethink DEI’s teething problems, who will benefit strategically in the longer term. Such commitment to diverse, equitable and inclusive workplaces will also benefit society, resonating with an evolved, 21st-century view of the corporation as purpose-driven and stakeholder-focused. Resetting and reframing ‘DEI’ In May this year, EY published a survey of 1,200 CEOs from large companies around the world, including 40 in Ireland. Over 80% of these Irish leaders said they are holding firm on their DEI commitments, continuing with existing policies or expanding them, compared with 75% of respondents internationally. According to Deirdre Malone, head of employment law at EY Ireland, most companies still see their DEI policies as “a source of resilience and competitive advantage”. We believe that companies should not be deterred by the DEI ‘pullback’ narrative but instead keep in sight the ultimate prize of DEI by adhering to their DEI commitments to realise the strategic and commercial benefits, such as customer and talent/staff growth and retention, as well as complying with the law, and respecting human rights. At the same time, however, DEI is overdue a ‘reset’, for which the current climate provides an opportunity. DEI in the workplace should not be ideological or activist but be balanced with business and organisational goals. On this side of the Atlantic we could learn from the US experience, and a new wave of pragmatic, problem-solving DEI experts determined to get this important work right. Instructively, the sub-title of Lily Zheng’s book, DEI Deconstructed, mentioned above, is “Your No-Nonsense Guide to Doing the Work and Doing It Right”. Key questions about some features of DEI are being asked, such as the use of quotas, as well as the reaction of some groups who feel DEI is preferential or even discriminatory. Also evident from the US experience is that some companies have stopped using the term politicised ‘DEI’, while remaining committed to equality and being inclusive. There has also been a trend to mention ‘merit’ more in people recruitment, development and promotion. In the end ‘DEI’ is only a label for important work that should continue. Joelle Emerson, CEO of Paradigm, a US diversity consultancy, quoted in the Financial Times, has phrased it as follows: “It looks like most companies are standing by their goals of creating fair, inclusive workplaces, while at the same time distancing themselves from a politicized acronym. The acronym is far less important than the work.” 8 Michael Diviney is Executive Head of Thought Leadership at Chartered Accountants Ireland. Tess Tattersall is a Content Editor and Project Manager at Chartered Accountants Ireland. “US companies drop DEI from annual reports as Trump targets corporate values”, Financial Times, 16 March 2025. ↩ “Visualised: Europe’s population crisis”. The Guardian, 18 February 2025. ↩ McKinsey & Company, Diversity Matters Even More: The Case for Holistic Impact (November 2023). ↩ International Labour Organisation, Transforming Enterprises through Diversity and Inclusion (2022). ↩ Kantar, “Three quarters of consumers say inclusion and diversity influence their purchase decisions” (July 2024). ↩ ACCA, Global Talent Survey findings (2024). ↩ C. Dixon, “The significance of a diverse workforce for advancing organizational change and development” (LinkedIn, July 2024). ↩ “The DEI backlash: Employers ‘reframing not retreating’, Financial Times, 3 February 2025. ↩

Smaller employers completing gender pay gap reports for the first time in 2025 have a wealth of information to draw on but much work ahead, write Aoife Newton and Andrew Egan A lot can be learned from the first three years of gender pay gap reporting in Ireland, which means those employers new to this reporting in 2025 have a wealth of valuable data to learn from.  Many large employers are already producing in-depth and illustrative annual gender pay gap reports. Although primarily focused on statutory reporting requirements, they also reflect best practice approaches to tackling gender pay gaps and outline clear, insightful ways to explain these gaps.  For employers preparing to report for the first time, these reports are worth reading, if only to give you a sense of the approach others have already taken. As much as you can learn from this, however, you should not underestimate the volume of HR, payroll and other data required for gender pay gap reporting, the complexity involved in merging this data, the calculations required and the scrutiny you can expect to face when communicating your findings to stakeholders internally and externally.  Gender pay gap results published in 2025 will be based on data collected over 12 months, typically from July 2024 to June 2025, though the exact dates will depend on each employer’s chosen snapshot date.  This means employers not already focusing on gender representation across their organisation may find themselves having to explain sizable gender pay gaps. With Irish employers employing as little as 50 people in scope for reporting next year, we expect to see a lot more focus on this area from the media, employees and other stakeholders.  Smaller employers are subject to the same legislative requirements as their larger counterparts; there are no exemptions for employers with limited resources. This means they will be required to produce a report reflecting accurate results aligned with 11 statistical gender pay gap metrics along with a narrative detailing the reasons for existing gaps and measures (both existing and planned) to reduce or eliminate these gaps.  New 2024 regulations – new results? The Employment Equality Act 1998 (section 20A) (Gender Pay Gap Information) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 were introduced last May and it will be interesting to see what impact they have on this year’s gender pay gap reporting results. Under the 2024 Regulations, social welfare payments relating to certain periods of protective leave can now be included in gender pay gap calculations. This is a welcome development as it may help reflect parity of payment in line with notional hours worked.  Prior to this, the regulations have only included ‘top-up’ payment made by employers as relevant pay for gender pay calculations, providing that social welfare payments should be excluded (notwithstanding that full hours have been included).  The impact of this approach has been to reflect a lower hourly rate of pay for employees in receipt of certain welfare payments.  For 2024 reporting and beyond, employers will need to include both maternity leave benefit along with a maternity ‘top-up’ payment (i.e. 100% pay) matched with 100 percent hours.  This should reflect a notional increase in pay for women, thus helping to ‘reduce’ an employer’s gender pay gap compared to last year’s reporting. The 2024 Regulations also adjust the treatment of share options and interests in shares. These are now considered benefit-in-kind rather than forming part of bonus payments.   This could have a significant impact on the gender pay results of in-scope employers as benefit-in-kind is not included in either overall gender pay calculations or separate bonus calculations. Previously, share options and interests in shares were included in both.   The issue of actual shares (to be valued on the date of issue) continue to be part of the bonus calculation. So far in 2024, we are seeing steady results in completed reports compared to reports in the two years prior.  Typically, any significant variations in results can be explained by reference to changes in personnel at a senior level or due to business restructures. Both will continue to impact annual reporting.  Comparison is key An important aspect of reporting for many employers is how favourably, or otherwise, they compare with their peers operating in the same sector or industry. For example, if an employer operates in a sector that is traditionally male dominated (e.g. engineering), this will clearly influence their gender pay gap results.  In certain sectors, such as professional services, where employers are recruiting in the same talent pool as their competitors, how their organisation compares to their peers really matters.  Ideally, employers will want to see results that are either “similar to” or “more favourable than” their competitors.  If their results are not, boards and management should query why they are out of line with competitors with a similar resourcing structure recruiting from the same talent pool. In particular, it is worth examining whether there are discriminatory practices behind any results revealing a wide gender pay gap as this could be affecting female representation at the higher levels of the organisation – or perhaps the organisation’s pay and bonus structure is weighted in favour of men?  Ultimately, gender pay gap results serve to root out any embedded issues that may be impeding more equitable pay across the board. New developments in 2025 The biggest change in 2025 will be the extension of the gender pay gap reporting obligation to employers with just 50 employees. In addition to this development, we expect to see some changes to how the gender pay gap reporting process is carried out.  As it stands, employers must include their gender pay gap data and statement of information on their website – or have it available for public inspection.  We understand the Government has issued a tender for the development of an online gender pay gap portal, with development due to start in the coming weeks and testing earmarked for the new year.  It is expected that the portal will have similar functionality to an online gender pay gap portal already in operation in the UK.  If this is the case, the portal will allow employers and other interested parties to compare and contrast results with ease, rather than having to rely on the current, more laborious, manual process.  This new system of reporting is also expected to result in the reporting deadline being brought forward to the end of November 2025.  Employers – both those already reporting and new to the regime – will therefore have a five-month window in which to report, slightly shorter than the current six-month timeframe.  All employers in scope for reporting next year must thus be vigilant and ensure they are up to date at all times with the portal requirements and potential new deadline.  The EU Pay Transparency Directive Looking further ahead, as the EU Pay Transparency Directive (the Directive) is due to be transposed by June 2026, we expect to see many more changes to the reporting regime in the coming years.  The implementation of the new rules under the Directive will not only change the amount of data required but will also align gender pay gap reporting more closely with the employee engagement agenda.   Further, gender pay gap reporting under this Directive will not simply be about producing an annual report of results and narrative; it could also open up data results to scrutiny from trade unions and other employee representatives.  Where there are gaps of more than five percent in any category of worker (these categories are yet to be defined), which cannot be objectively justified and cannot be rectified within a six-month period, the employer may have to engage in a joint pay assessment.  Such joint pay assessments are expected to involve trade unions or other employee representatives.  Employers and all relevant stakeholders should, therefore, be more concerned about how the Directive will shine a light on their organisation’s gender pay gaps, bringing current reporting closer to the principle of equal pay and overall pay transparency.   Acknowledge the gaps Given the additional layer of data scrutiny under the EU Pay Transparency Directive, we are encouraging all employers with gender pay gaps in favour of male employees to commit to deeper analysis.  By better understanding the causes of such gaps at every level of their business, they will find these discrepancies easier to explain (based on objective criteria), and also potentially easier to rectify.  And while not all gaps may be fixable in the short-term, a deep analysis can give employers a good starting point to devise a longer-term solution, as well as greater scope to explain these gaps to legislators with reference to objective criteria. Ultimately, employers who are not focused on gender parity, closing gaps or preparing for the impending new regime, may be exposed to time-consuming and potentially contentious joint pay assessments.  Aoife Newton is Head of Employment and Immigration Law, KPMG Law LLP  Andrew Egan is a Director with KPMG, leading the firm’s tax data and analytics service offering

Fractional executives can bring genuine value to business leaders, offering specialised knowledge and niche experience on a flexible basis, writes Tony Dignam The business landscape has undergone significant transformation in recent years, driven by advances in technology, economic shifts and evolving work patterns.  One notable trend that has emerged is the rise of the fractional executive. These seasoned professionals offer their expertise to multiple companies on a part-time or “fractional” basis, providing strategic leadership without the commitment of a full-time role.  What is a fractional executive?  A fractional executive is an experienced leader who offer their services to businesses on a flexible basis as and when needed.  They can occupy various roles such as Chief Finance Officer, Chief Marketing Officer, Chief Technology Officer, and more.  These professionals can bring a wealth of experience and specialised skills to the table, helping companies navigate complex challenges and phases of growth or change.  Benefits of the fractional executive The concept of a fractional executive is not entirely new, but it has gained significant traction in recent years.  Economic uncertainties and the need for cost-effective solutions have driven many businesses to reconsider traditional employment models.  Hiring a full-time executive can mean a substantial overhead, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises that may not have the budget for high salaries and benefits packages.   Fractional executives offer a more affordable alternative, potentially allowing companies to access top-tier talent “on demand”.  The gig economy has revolutionised the way people work, with a particular emphasis on flexibility and project-based engagements.  Fractional executives fit perfectly into this model, offering their expertise for specific projects, limited periods or ongoing for an agreed number of days per week or per month.  This flexibility benefits both the executive, who enjoys diverse work experiences, and the company they work with, which can tap into specialised skills as needed.   Access to specialised expertise  Fractional executives often have broad subject matter expertise and plenty of relevant experience they can bring to the table and fast. Many will have held senior positions in their field and possess a deep understanding of best practices in their industry.  This knowledge can be invaluable for businesses looking to implement strategic initiatives or navigate complex change or growth.  Flexibility and scalability  One of the main advantages of fractional executives is their flexibility. Companies can engage them for specific projects, short-term needs, or on an ongoing fractional basis.  This scalability can give businesses more scope to adjust their executive resources according to their existing needs without long-term commitments.  Cost-effective leadership  Hiring a full-time executive can be a significant financial burden, especially for smaller companies. Fractional executives can offer a cost-effective alternative, potentially providing access to top-tier leadership at a lower cost.  This financial efficiency can be crucial for start-ups and SMEs operating on tight budgets, or for employers for whom long-term senior executive needs are harder to forecast.  Fresh perspectives  Fractional executives often work with multiple companies across different industries. This diverse experience means they can bring fresh and innovative perspectives to the businesses they serve.  Their ability to think outside the box can help companies to overcome challenges and seize new opportunities.  These executives sometimes also bring the benefit of fresh contacts and networks to senior teams, which can add value to scaling businesses. This means that the fractional executives can support and enhance business leadership by offering specialised expertise on a flexible, cost-effective basis.  Tony Dignam, FCA, is Managing Director of The Agile Executive