POV: Should DEI strategies be standardised globally or tailored to local contexts?

In the race to build truly inclusive workplaces, global organisations often face a quiet but critical tension. The same company that champions equity in one country may find those very frameworks falling flat—or even backfiring—in another. What feels progressive in one context may feel irrelevant, impractical or culturally misaligned in another.

And yet, the absence of a unified approach can dilute intent, creating fragmented efforts that lack consistency and accountability. So where does one draw the line? Should DEI be governed by a universal playbook that ensures fairness across all locations, or should it be shaped by the lived realities of local talent, markets and mindsets?

At its core, this isn’t just a strategy question—it’s a question of impact. Because inclusion that doesn’t resonate is inclusion that doesn’t work.

Anuradha Das, chief human resources officer, Jeh Aerospace

Both—standardise intent, localise execution.

This is a question I get asked often—and my answer, drawn from years of ground-level DEI work, is unequivocal: it has to be both.

A global framework is your north star, the non-negotiables around dignity, equity and fairness that must remain constant regardless of geography. But a global framework without local contextualisation is just a policy document gathering dust. Uniformity is not fairness.

At Tata Motors, our most impactful DEI interventions were born from deeply local insights. The all-women assembly line at our Pune PV plant didn’t happen because of a global mandate—it happened because we asked what genuine inclusion on the shop floor truly required, and then redesigned the machinery, workflows and support structures accordingly. The Second Career Initiative Programme addressed the very Indian reality of women who step away from careers and find re-entry nearly impossible.

These solutions were local. Their impact was transformational.

So my framework is simple: Standardise the ‘why’ and the ‘what’—your values, accountability structures and metrics. Localise the ‘how’—the programmes, partnerships, language and interventions.

Today, as chief people officer at JEH Aerospace, I am living what I believe is the next chapter of this story—where DEI is no longer a strategy you execute, but a culture you inhabit. Here, inclusion is effortless, woven into every policy, every process and every hiring decision. We hire purely on merit—and because we have deliberately dismantled bias from our systems and mindsets, merit gets an equal chance to surface from everywhere.

That is the destination. And the path to get there demands exactly what this question debates—a principled global foundation, brought to life through contextually intelligent local action. Keep going, until the day DEI stops being a programme and simply becomes who you are.

Takeaway: Standardise intent, localise execution—because inclusion only works when it reflects real, lived realities on the ground.

Atul Mathur, EVP- HR, Aditya Birla Capital

Universal in concept, customised in implementation.

DEI as a concept needs to be adopted universally because it has significant benefits for both people and organisations. However, local-level and organisation-specific customisations are important.

The DEI concept and strategy must be consistent, but the implementation and context determine what customisations are needed based on local or organisational requirements. Both are required—a combination of universal principles and contextual adaptation.

DEI is important because it brings real value. When you look at decision-making, diversity brings different points of view, which makes the process better. You’re able to examine things from various perspectives instead of just one unified viewpoint. That’s why diversity adds value.

Whether it’s gender diversity, inclusion of differently abled individuals, regional diversity or language diversity—whatever form it takes—it always brings a different perspective, a different flavour, which makes the whole process of decision-making stronger. It’s a healthy way of approaching any decision-making process.

However, the local context and the organisation’s context need to be kept in mind. For example, an organisation could be a startup or a well-established company. You could be a market leader or a challenger. It depends on the context and the scenario you’re operating in. This is why the strategy needs to be customised.

But DEI as a concept definitely needs to be universal.

Takeaway: DEI must be universal in principle—but its strength lies in adapting to organisational and market realities.

Sarika Saini, senior director – HR & DEI, Birlasoft

Both—DEI is broader than labels and requires global principles with local feasibility.

I think both are necessary, because DEI has many dimensions that need to be considered. Recent political shifts have derailed some DEI efforts, but DEI is not only about one aspect of inclusion.

DEI is about including everything—generations, genders, ethnicity, perspectives and even team-building strengths. People have thinking roles, action roles and implementation roles. Having this diversity is what’s required at a global level.

When you implement these initiatives, you have to assess what is locally feasible in each country and what you can do within your own organisation in alignment with leadership vision.

Ultimately, it’s a top-down approach initially, but when it becomes well-conditioned, it can also become bottom-up, because people at every layer have to contribute.

Takeaway: DEI is broader than labels—it requires global alignment on inclusion and local alignment with culture, leadership and feasibility.