The words Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion often come up in discussions about social change, workplace culture and policy – but they are frequently misunderstood or used interchangeably and therefore incorrectly.

It’s worth taking the time to define each one clearly, so we can better understand their distinct roles and how they work together.

  • Justice: refers to the fair and equal treatment of all individuals under the law. It involves ensuring that everyone has access to the same rights and opportunities, and addressing systemic issues of power and privilege, such as discrimination and oppression.
  • Equity: refers to the fair distribution of resources and opportunities, taking into account the unique needs and circumstances of individuals and communities. This may involve taking proactive steps to address historic and systemic inequalities, in order to create equal opportunity for historically marginalised groups.
  • Diversity: refers to the presence of a wide range of differences within a group or organisation, including (but not limited to) differences in ethnicity, gender, sexuality, ability, age and socioeconomic background.
  • Inclusion: refers to efforts made to create a welcoming environment for everyone, and a creating a sense of belonging for all individuals. It involves creating a culture and environment that respects and values differences and actively works to eliminate barriers and biases. 

Source: Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science

Why is it important to understand all four definitions? And why does justice and equity come before diversity and inclusion?

Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion are often grouped together under the acronym JEDI. They are in this order for a reason.

Too often, the conversations around social change get stuck on increasing “diversity” and “inclusion.” And while they are important, without justice and equity, they have limited impact.

On its own, inclusion often assumes that the goal is simply to invite historically excluded communities into existing structures – without questioning why they were excluded in the first place or addressing the power imbalances that keep things that way.

Meanwhile, an increase in diversity does not guarantee that systems of oppression holding people back will be challenged. Simply having more representation in a space doesn’t automatically shift power dynamics, eliminate barriers or ensure that historically under-resourced voices are heard, valued and supported. Without justice and equity, diversity can become a numbers game, one that prioritises optics over real transformation.

This is also why justice and equity must come before diversity and inclusion, because without first addressing unfairness, efforts around diversity and inclusion risk becoming performative and superficial.

Read