Diversity, equity and inclusion office schemes are failing to protect Jewish workers, survey suggests

More than seven in ten Jewish employees have avoided raising concerns over antisemitism at work despite diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) schemes in place, new research suggests. The same study also found that three-quarters of respondents believed that the unsatisfactory approach over matters affecting Jews was inconsistent with the effective response to wider Jewish racism. Entitled “Yes but…”: Antisemitism and the Limits of Workplace Inclusion, the research was conducted by Pearn Kandola, a business psychology consultancy specialising in DEI and organisational behaviour.

The survey of Jewish employees found that 70.8 per cent of respondents had avoided raising such concerns, while just 15.9 per cent said they felt able to do so. The organisation found a “significant” gap between organisations’ stated commitments to tackling racism and discrimination and the confidence Jewish employees have in raising antisemitism concerns. The research found that 87 per cent of respondents agreed their organisation expressed a clear commitment to tackling racism and discrimination, while 75.5 per cent said their DEI approach was inconsistent in its response to antisemitism.

Meanwhile, 83 per cent said their organisation’s DEI function was visibly active on racism and discrimination more generally. The study follows the consultancy’s 2024 research into antisemitism and Islamophobia in the workplace, which found that antisemitism at work had increased by almost 50 per cent after October 7, 2023. Interviews for the new study found that employees’ concerns were sometimes dismissed through denial, questioning whether incidents were discriminatory, explaining away behaviour as a misunderstanding, or acknowledging prejudice without taking meaningful action.

Professor Binna Kandola OBE, senior partner at Pearn Kandola, said: “One of the most striking findings was that the arguments used to minimise antisemitism were the very same arguments that have long been used to dismiss racism. These are arguments that DEI professionals should recognise and challenge, yet Jewish employees were encountering them from the very people responsible for promoting inclusion. “This is not simply a question of whether people feel psychologically safe to speak.

It is also about whether organisations have the capability to listen, understand what they are being told and take appropriate action. No employee should have to repeatedly prove that their experience matters before it is taken seriously.” The report argues that some established DEI frameworks, particularly those focused exclusively on power, privilege and representation, may make it harder for organisations to recognise antisemitism and Jewish vulnerability.

It also warns against assuming that a general commitment to equality necessarily means an organisation has the expertise to identify and address antisemitism. Pearn Kandola makes six recommendations for employers: independently reviewing DEI practices; developing specific expertise in antisemitism; distinguishing representation from inclusion; clarifying the role of employee resource groups; strengthening organisational listening; and introducing reflective practices to help DEI teams examine their own assumptions.

Stressing that the consultancy’s findings are intended to strengthen DEI, Kandola added: “DEI has an essential role to play in creating fair workplaces. But any function concerned with reducing bias must also recognise its own capacity for bias. Strengthening DEI means being willing to examine where established methods, models or assumptions are preventing people from being heard.” The repor involved a survey of 1,002 Jewish employees between July and September 2026, alongside 17 qualitative interviews, and is available from Pearn Kandola at pearnkandola.com.