You can’t tell from the messaging itself. The test is whether the people you are trying to reach can explain, in their own words, what your organization means by diversity, equity and inclusion, what it is doing, and how it will judge progress. It also matters whether what they say matches what they experience at work. This guide shows how to check that, using published research. It applies to any organization, including animal shelters, rescues, vet practices, pet brands and the nonprofits around them.
What “successful” DEI messaging looks like
No source reviewed validates a single universal DEI messaging score, survey or pass mark. Success is better judged on several dimensions, drawn from the concerns the research keeps raising. Those concerns are understanding, alignment with practice, inclusion, leader credibility and weak measurement.
- Comprehension: Can people explain your definitions, priorities, current actions and intended outcomes without looking at the statement?
- Specificity and recall: Can they name a concrete initiative or commitment, or do they only repeat a broad value line?
- Credibility: Do they believe leaders will follow through? Do they see the message as consistent with real decisions?
- Representation and relevance: Do affected people recognize their experiences in your words and images? Do your examples avoid stereotypes?
- Inclusion and participation: Can people across groups be heard and understand decisions through your channels?
- Behavior and organizational indicators: Where relevant, look at participation, access to opportunities, and recruitment and retention patterns. Read these next to employee feedback, and don’t claim messaging alone caused a change.
Privacy matters here. Don’t collect or publish sensitive group data without suitable protections, especially in small teams where individuals are easy to identify.
Why polished messaging often fails the test
Communicators themselves report gaps
The Communications Network’s 2023 survey of communications practitioners, published on its “Put a Stop to Colorblind Communications” page, found these gaps. The figures describe its respondents only, not all organizations or communicators.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →#1 Best Overall
- 42% said they had a strong understanding of DEI concepts.
- 57% saw the impacts of implicit bias in social-good communications.
- 25% did not feel prepared to bring their organization’s DEI values into their communications work. Another 40% felt ready only to an extent.
- 46% recognized unintentional reinforcement of stereotypes and a lack of understanding about appropriate language for racial-equity messaging.
- About 21% reported a lack of support for DEI initiatives in their organization.
The same page flags weak measurement as an information gap. It also warns that communications can drift away from internal policies and practices. Respondents perceived staff as more diverse than boards, and boards as more diverse than senior leadership. If your messaging celebrates diversity while leadership looks very different from the rest of the team, people will notice.
The Communications Network puts the standard bluntly: “Surface-level messaging with vague mentions of diversity and equity is not going to cut it anymore.” It also describes communications for good as “a directive to use communications to drive changes in attitudes, belief systems, policies, norms, behaviors, and biases.”
Audiences can hold inaccurate beliefs about progress
A 2024 article indexed on PubMed reported three studies with 1,776 participants. Black and White U.S. workers tended to overestimate organizational racial progress in executive representation. Those misperceptions may shape beliefs about whether DEI policies work. The lesson is to check what your audience believes against accurately contextualized organizational data. It does not show that every audience shares this misperception.
Choosing channels and framing
The evidence does not name a winning channel or message formula. It does offer some signals worth testing in your own setting.
Internal versus external communication
A 2025 mixed-methods study of Italian companies (Ravazzani, Mazzei, Fisichella and Butera) used focus groups, interviews and a survey of 75 managers responsible for DEI. It describes internal communication as a way to inform employees about concrete initiatives, and external communication as a way to drive societal change. Common tools were official declarations, internal events, external partnerships and sustainability reports. Companies put more effort into internal than external communication. The researchers suggest fear of diversity-washing accusations as one possible reason. This describes those companies, not a ranking of channels.
Formal conversation for people who feel less included
A study in Austria and Germany found that employees who felt less included more often reported no formal, hybrid or informal communication about equality, diversity and inclusion. They also more often wanted more of it. Formal interpersonal communication, such as official meetings, looked particularly relevant. The sample was imbalanced and limited to those two countries, so treat this as suggestive.
Explaining that the goals are hard
A 2023 Academy of Management Journal article studies “diversity rhetoric,” meaning how leaders talk about diversity and its effects. The authors propose that contingent rhetoric can motivate more employee diversity effort than a simple value-in-diversity message. Contingent rhetoric explains why diversity goals are difficult and what effort they require. That is one finding about rhetoric and effort, not a phrase guaranteed to improve outcomes.
Inclusion messages and engagement
A 2025 Public Relations Review study of 551 White employees in the United States found associations between organizational diversity and inclusion communication and two forms of allyship communication. Diversity communication had mixed relationships with engagement. Inclusion communication showed positive direct and indirect relationships with engagement. These are associations in a defined population, not proof that DEI messaging raises engagement everywhere.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Satisfaction and leader integrity
A 2026 survey of 2,051 employees in Germany and the United States found that supportive DEI communication was associated with satisfaction with that communication and with an inclusion climate in both countries. Managerial integrity partially mediated the link in Germany but not in the United States. So measure how satisfied people are with the communication and how they rate leaders’ integrity. Interpret results in your own context.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to run the check
- Name the audience and the purpose. Employees, volunteers, adopters, clients, donors or the public each need a different test. Decide which one you are assessing.
- List what you have actually committed to. Write down the definitions, initiatives, owners and timelines. Only substantiated commitments should appear in messaging.
- Set a baseline. Ask a short set of questions that cover the dimensions above. Mix open-ended prompts, such as “In your own words, what is our DEI focus?”, with rating items on credibility and satisfaction. Add a few interviews or focus groups.
- Split results by group. Look for differences between roles, tenure, and identity groups where numbers are large enough to protect anonymity. An average can hide a group that is not being reached.
- Compare with practice. Check the answers against policies, leadership composition, and the indicators you can track. Where messages claim more than practice delivers, fix the practice or the claim.
- Revise and repeat. Change one thing at a time, such as message specificity or channel. Rerun the same measures to see whether anything moved.
An academic library case study gives a small example of baselining. An employee-led DEIA audit rated eight areas to establish a baseline for engagement and understanding. Confidentiality prevented precise calculation of participation rates, and the authors called for more research on communications that maximize participation and buy-in. It is a practical illustration, not a validated benchmark.
Comparing message or channel options
| Axis | What to compare |
|---|---|
| Audience and purpose | Internal understanding, recruiting, customer or donor communication, public accountability |
| Specificity | Broad values language versus a clear account of action, ownership and progress |
| Channel | Formal meetings, internal events, email or other mediated updates, external partnerships, public reporting |
| Credibility | Whether claims have evidence and match policy, leader behavior and lived experience |
| Inclusion | Whether affected people recognize themselves, participate and can respond safely |
| Measured outcome | Recall, comprehension, satisfaction, perceived integrity, participation, or a relevant organizational result |
Run a small, ethical comparison with the intended audiences, then revise based on what you find.
Keep messaging in proportion to the change behind it
A 2024 meta-review summarized 37 review articles, 60 practices in 12 categories and 22 linked outcomes of workplace diversity and inclusion interventions. It found no single category superior across the board, and evidence quality and generalizability varied. So judge your communication against the specific practice it describes, whether that is a hiring change, a mentoring program or an accessibility upgrade. Messaging explains and builds trust in change. It doesn’t substitute for it.
Recommended Free Tools
What this evidence can’t tell you
The studies cover different populations and countries. Several were reviewed as abstracts or summaries rather than full text, and most report associations rather than cause. None is specific to animal welfare or the pet industry, so treat them as general guidance for any organization. No benchmark says what a “successful” result looks like for your organization, which is why a baseline and repeated measurement matter more than any outside score.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
