We hear that gender equality would experience a backlash to which we would have to resolve. This is a reality in the United States. But we do not share this reading for Europe, and even less so for France. Two phenomena are confused: an organized retreat and free speech. Two areas too: politics and the media, where the offensive is real, and businesses, where commitments are largely held.
Talking about going backwards is dangerous. Outside of North America, this thinking poorly describes the reality of organizations: it transposes a political and media confrontation to companies. It also offers an argument to those who want the programs to be stopped. Words not only describe reality; they help make it.
Objections have always existed
In Europe, we are not observing dismantled rights or massive abandonment of systems. With rare exceptions, through American mimicry, the diversity roadmaps are preserved, sometimes reinforced. In France, the Ipsos survey of April 2025 does not note a rejection of diversity and inclusion policies; according to the Cegos 2025 study, 77% of employees take this into account when choosing an employer. The storm is blowing across the plateaus and into the ballot boxes; in organizations, the course is held.
What is observed, on the other hand, is the freer expression of objections: reluctance, doubts, frontal opposition. But an objection that is said is not a policy that goes backwards. To confuse the two is to mistake the thermometer for the fever. These objections have always existed: “there is no longer room for men”, “quotas are anti-meritocratic”, “mixed diversity is outdated”. Resistance to change is human; it has nothing to do with a plot. What has changed is their visibility. It’s uncomfortable, but it’s not a step backwards: it’s an update.
This update requires a response. Responding is not defending yourself: it’s moving the debate forward. To “quotas destroy merit”, let us respond that merit presupposes clear rules, verifiable criteria and traceable decisions. To “women don’t want power,” let’s ask what power we make desirable, sustainable, compatible with real life. To “we are doing too much for women”, let us remember that the objective is not a favor, but equity of access to opportunities.
Concrete problems to solve
We also need to change the narrative. For twenty-five years, we have been repeating that “diversity = performance”. But if that were enough to convince, diversity would have been established a long time ago. But it is progressing too slowly, especially where careers are decided: meetings, visible missions, positions of operational responsibility, executive committees, evaluations. Performance is a necessary argument, but not always mobilizing. It can even provoke a defensive reaction: do we have to prove that women bring in something to justify equality?
How to change the story? By ceasing to approach diversity only as a cause to defend, to anchor it in concrete problems that everyone seeks to resolve. The quality of meetings: not quotas, but round tables where all voices count. Risk management: different perspectives identify blind spots. Psychological safety, the organization of work, responsible AI, taking into account maternity as well as paternity: so many entry points useful to everyone.
Diversity then progresses through actions, inscribed in rituals and practices, sometimes without even being named. This is the subject of the report that the Enterprise and Diversity Workshops by Essec is making public this week, with suggestions for concrete actions and indicators.
Efficiency strategy
The method is simple: start from the real challenges of the organization, choose credible entry points, then look at the data: who speaks in meetings, who receives strategic missions, who is promoted, who leaves? Then come the rituals: balanced pre-selections of candidates, written promotion criteria, ban on interrupting, table rounds, right to explanation, monitoring of access to springboard positions. Finally, we pilot, we measure, we correct.
This change in posture is not a renunciation: it is an efficiency strategy. Not to stop saying “mixity”, but not to confine it to a word that some people contest before even listening. Show that gender equality improves the real functioning of organizations: more robust decisions, fairer careers, less tense collective.
Achievements are never guaranteed. But between defeatism and blindness, there is a path: that of a demanding optimism, which looks objections in the face, reinvents its stories and maintains confidence in the meaning of history. Speech is freed; history does not go backwards. It’s up to us to write the rest.
About opinions
This text is signed by a guest author. He expresses his opinion and not that of the editorial staff. Our Live section aims to allow the expression of pluralism on religious, social and current affairs subjects, and to encourage dialogue, according to the criteria set by our editorial charter.
Share your opinion in comments or by writing to us at: readers.lacroix@groupebayard.com
