12 June, 2026

The concept of equity has been well and truly in the firing line this week, as a result of the circumstances around the horrendous murder of Henry Nowak.

This article in The Times: ‘revealed: how public servants are taught not to treat everyone the same’ is indicative of the general tone. It ‘outs’ all the organisations that have guidelines advising staff to treat different people differently, with the implication being that this is at best unfair and at worst destructive.

It’s a familiar critique, and it’s easy to see why it has resurfaced now. But we think it misunderstands what equity is trying to do, and why it has a rightful place in corporate people strategies (as well as in many other places, including government and the civil service).

Equity starts from a simple fact – people don’t begin from the same place. In the corporate context, this means that by the time individuals enter the workplace, differences in education, networks, financial security and confidence have already shaped their opportunities, as well as the experiences they may have had of structural inequalities around race, sexuality, gender and disability.

A system that treats everyone identically locks those differences in. And this means that ostensibly ‘neutral’ processes that fail to recognise individual life contexts often produce unequal outcomes.

Equity aims to ensure that outcomes are more closely tied to ability and effort, rather than to circumstance. In that sense, it reinforces the principle of merit, rather than undermining it.

Yes, it’s more complex than simply applying exactly the same processes and systems to everyone. And yes, it can be hard to put into practice and implement in a way that remains true to intentions.

But that doesn’t make the concept wrong. And we continue to believe it should be trumpeted, not seen as something to ‘uncover.’

By Larissa Persons