Beyond the Score: Rethinking Workplace Inclusion Audits for Real Change

Why your first Workplace Inclusion audit shouldn't aim for benchmarking - but for trust, adoption, and actionability.

Every organisation trying to do better on diversity, equity, and inclusion eventually asks the same question: Where do we stand?

It’s a reasonable question. The frameworks are ready. The maturity scales are neat. “Awareness,” “Compliance,” “Strategic,” “Integrated,” “Sustainable.” Add in a scoring rubric or two, and suddenly DEI looks quantifiable - even clean.

But anyone who’s led change in this space knows the truth: inclusion is not a clean process. It’s not linear, not always visible, and certainly not something that lives comfortably in an Excel column labelled “score.”

At Fair Cultures, we’ve audited organisations across industries and geographies. We’ve experimented with many tools, models, and survey types. And yes, we’ve used scoring frameworks too. But we’ve learned that the first audit, and often the second, needs to prioritise something else entirely:

Not benchmarking. But trust.

If you want to build a truly inclusive workplace, your first step isn’t measuring performance. It’s making sure people believe in the process. And that starts with who gets to speak, what is heard, and how the organisation responds.

Workplace Inclusion Maturity Models: useful but incomplete

Most DEI audits today draw from a version of the same logic.

Organisations are mapped along a maturity curve, usually broken into five stages:

1. Awareness - The organisation recognises DEI as a topic, but there’s no strategy.

2. Compliance - Focus on legal minimums, reporting obligations, and policies.

3. Tactical - Programs and trainings begin to emerge, often HR-led.

4. Strategic/Integrated - DEI is embedded in systems, leadership behaviour, and decision-making.

5. Sustainable/Transformational - Inclusion is cultural DNA. It shows up in operations, customer experience, innovation, supply chain, and social impact.

   
   

These models serve a real purpose. They help organisations:

• Name where they are.

• Chart a direction of travel.

• Present a structured case to leadership or investors.

  
  

They also allow comparison. And this is where it gets tricky.

The moment you introduce benchmarking, you introduce pressure to look good. The audit becomes not a mirror, but a scoreboard. And the temptation grows: let’s audit the most visible things. Let’s tell a good story. Let’s optimise for reputation.

But what if your workforce doesn’t feel heard?

What if only 15% of your people contributed to the data?

What if you’re “scoring” your inclusive leadership maturity, but haven’t included the perspectives of line managers, interns, or contractors?

That’s not a reflection. It’s a fiction.

The Missing Link: participation and trust

When we started running audits, we followed the standard path. We developed a survey, added scoring criteria per initiative, ran analysis across functions, geographies, and identity groups. We could calculate a coefficient of maturity. It was clean, presentable, and, we thought, accurate.

But something didn’t feel right.

We noticed that many organisations using off-the-shelf tools were only hearing from a small, self-selecting group of employees, sometimes just 10–20%. That might be enough for a Net Promoter Score. It’s not enough for inclusion.

We realised: what mattered more than a precise score was widespread contribution. If 90% of your people opt out of your audit, what exactly are you benchmarking?

So we flipped the premise.

In our approach, especially for first audits, the goal is not to get the cleanest score. The goal is to engage the highest number of contributors across functions, seniority levels, and identities — and to use that feedback to identify actionable, resourced change.

We consistently aim for 90–95%+ participation in our survey + listening formats. That’s because we design for inclusion from the start. Anonymous surveys are paired with voluntary, intersectional focus groups. We cross-check insights. We analyse not just what’s being said, but where it’s being said - which roles, which geographies, which groups are signalling the strongest needs.

This gives us a different kind of insight: one that’s nuanced, intersectional, and grounded in lived experience.

Why the first (and second) audit are different

There’s a tendency in Workplace Inclusion work to treat every initiative as a communications moment. The audit becomes a way to show progress to the board, to customers, to peers.

But your first audit isn’t your brand story. It’s your trust test.

What you’re doing is asking your people: Do you trust us enough to tell us the truth?

And your people are asking back: Will you do something with what I tell you?

If your audit doesn’t pass that exchange, no score matters. No benchmark will carry meaning.

Your second audit serves a different purpose. Now you’re not mapping the unknown, you’re measuring traction. You’re saying: we committed to X, did it land? We ran Y, was it worth it? You’re building internal accountability, not external validation.

So for both audits, but especially the first two, here’s what matters more than a perfect score:

• Did people participate?

• Did they recognise their input in the findings?

• Are the recommendations implementable with current resources?

• Is there a feedback loop to say what was done?

Our method: actionable, participatory, human

Here’s how we design audits that drive real change:

1. Max participation to your workplace inclusion audit

We don’t stop at sending a survey. We integrate audit participation into onboarding, manager comms, team meetings, and ERG spaces. Everyone gets multiple chances and safe channels to contribute. The goal: broad, deep input, not just loud voices.

2. Intersectional signal mapping

We analyse feedback across multiple identity dimensions (e.g. race, gender, age, LGBTQ+, disability, tenure, function). We surface patterns and outliers. Some of the most important insights come from groups that represent <5% of the company.

3. Initiative-by-initiative maturity scoring

We still apply scoring to programs, but we look at effectiveness, participation, and perceived impact. A flashy ERG with low engagement might score lower than a quietly effective, inclusive hiring practice. The point is to link investment to results, not noise.

4. Resource-aligned recommendations

There’s no point recommending 10 changes if you can only fund 3. We help leaders understand the cost, in time, people, and money, of each action. That way, feedback becomes not a wishlist, but a roadmap.

5. Built-in feedback loops

After the audit, we help you close the loop. People hear back what was said, what was learned, and what will be done, or why something won’t be. This maintains trust for future assessments.

What we’ve seen when this works

When organisations run inclusive audits, we see a measurable shift. Not just in numbers, but in tone.

Here’s what changes:

• Employees are more likely to speak up in future engagement surveys.

• Inclusion initiatives are more targeted, more effective, and more budget-aligned.

• ERGs become strategic partners, not just volunteer groups.

• Leadership understands where the friction is, and how to prioritise.

• People begin to feel: My voice matters here.

One company we worked with uncovered that most inclusion-related tension was surfacing in mid-level teams in their operations function, but not in tech or marketing, where DEI programs were being targeted. A conventional audit might have missed that. Because we tracked signal strength across departments and roles, they reoriented their budget to build line manager inclusion capability in those key teams. Within six months, both retention and engagement scores in operations improved.

This is what we mean by actionable DEI auditing.

What we’re arguing for

To be clear: we’re not dismissing benchmarking. It has a place. Maturity scales are helpful. Comparative data can be motivating.

But if you’re just starting, or if your DEI work has been uneven, focus first on contribution, not comparison.

Score your ability to listen. Score your willingness to act. Score the strength of your internal accountability.

The rest will come.

The score is not the story

The story of inclusion in your workplace cannot be told by a single number. It’s told by the people who feel seen, or don’t. By the teams who feel heard, or don’t. By the actions that follow the audit, or the silence that settles in after.

If you’re serious about change, start by auditing differently.

And if you want support in designing a more participatory, resource-aligned, and intersectional audit, we’re here to help.

📩 Want to design your first DEI audit differently?

Reach out at contact@faircultures.com

Or follow us on LinkedIn for more insights and case studies.