As 2026 heads into its final stretch, DEI work finds itself at a genuine crossroads. Political headwinds in the US and Europe, quiet rollbacks inside companies that once championed inclusion loudly, and the rapid, often uncritical adoption of AI in hiring and HR are all reshaping the ground DEIB practitioners stand on. To take stock of where things actually are – beyond the headlines and the backlash – we sat down with Sofie Brostrøm Skovbo, DEI Lead at Copenhagen Business School, for a candid conversation about what’s really happening inside organisations right now.
With over a decade in the field, Skovbo brings a norm-critical lens shaped by years of frontline experience – from building large-scale leadership training programmes at Danske Bank to steering CBS’s own DEI strategy. In this interview, she speaks frankly about why so much DEI work still gets abandoned halfway, why she refuses to feed the “DEI is under threat” narrative even as colleagues elsewhere report real fear, and why AI’s growing role in HR concerns her – not despite the hype, but because of it. She also makes the case for slowing down, both in how organisations approach AI and in how they think about what makes DEIB work genuinely effective.
Interview with Sofie Brostrøm Skovbo, DEI Lead at Copenhagen Business School (CBS)
Could you briefly introduce yourself and describe your path into DEIB work – what drew you to this field?
I had applied for a master’s programme at CBS, and between the time I applied and the time I started, the programme changed its name and profile – from Leadership and Management Studies to Diversity and Change Management. So I didn’t actually know I was going to be studying diversity management when I applied. That’s how I got into the field, which is odd to think about now, because I couldn’t imagine doing anything else. Most people don’t end up working in exactly what they studied, especially in the social sciences and humanities, so I’m one of the fewer people from my programme who actually works specifically as a DEI specialist. Looking back, it makes sense life catapulted me in this direction – I was always a justice warrior. I get hit really hard by injustice, and I can’t not do something about it.
One thing worth adding: research from CBS that came out two years ago looked into the DEI consultancy landscape in Denmark and found 59% of Danish DEI consultants reported that they had not received formal training or education specifically in DEI. Lived experience can be a type of qualification, but it isn’t necessarily enough on its own to work as a consultant. I think that’s an interesting, and not entirely unproblematic, backdrop to why and how people find their way into this work.
How has your understanding of what “good” DEIB work looks like evolved over your career?
I’ve been fortunate to be exposed to the newest research and thinking on this since my master’s – including what has and hasn’t worked. That means I was introduced early to norm criticism as an approach: focusing on the majority, the norms, the culture and the processes, instead of trying to “fix” the minority. I’ve been tuned into that for the 12–13 years I’ve been doing this work, but it keeps evolving, and I keep being challenged to examine my own biases and assumptions.
I still see a lot of people doing the “fix the women” approach – a mentorship programme for exclusively for women because we want “more women in leadership”. After more than ten years of hearing this, and knowing how wrong it is, I’m almost allergic to it. What I am seeing more and more, thankfully, is a norm-critical perspective that looks at the root cause of a problem rather than its symptoms. The imbalances you see in top management, in powerful positions, in a segregated labour market – those aren’t the problem, they’re symptoms of it. Much of my work is getting people to look at the actual problem and fix that, rather than fixing minoritized individuals. That understanding has spread a lot over the last five to eight years, which is encouraging – even though it’s still hard for many organisations to let go of the idea of doing something specifically for the “poor” women.
What trends or shifts are you currently seeing in how companies approach bias and inclusion at a strategic level – and what’s driving those shifts?
This work hasn’t fully made it to the strategic level in most places. What I will say is that people like me are formulating DEI policies and measures in more norm-critical ways, and it’s not being opposed by top management to the extent it used to be. That’s a shift. But it doesn’t mean leadership is driving the norm-critical approach – I still overwhelmingly see organisations driven by compliance.
On the political backdrop: I don’t want to give too much attention to what happened in the US in 2024. I see it as ripples that will die out fairly soon, though I know that’s context-dependent. What concerns me more is the broader move toward right-wing nationalism at a political level, which is translating into things like the EU stepping back on parts of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, and Horizon Europe becoming more lenient on the gender equality plan requirements for research institutions like ours. I’d even draw a comparison to return-to-office policies — there’s a broader tendency toward going back to “discipline” and “get in line” 1950s management styles. Often, I don’t think DEI is being specifically targeted; it’s just part of what’s affected by that pattern.
Thankfully, I also see the opposite: when there’s push and shove, there’s a counter-reaction that says this is more important now than ever, and organisations start really embedding it into how they work. Institutionalising inclusive environments – weaving this into the fabric of the organisation and how business gets run – is one strategy people in roles like mine have leaned into. So it’s not all bleak. If you want headlines: right-wing political shifts and EU legislative retrenchment are the big drivers right now.
In your experience, what distinguishes organisations that make genuine progress on DEIB from those that don’t?
I’m frequently asked for examples of organisations that do this really well, and I honestly can’t give a clean answer, because organisations aren’t one thing. More often than not there are pockets doing really good work, and pockets that aren’t. I think DEI work in organisations is still in a maturity phase where it’s volatile. An organisation does something good, then realises “I created a monster, this is taking so much time and energy, it’s not going away on its own” – and they park the initiative in a corner, or abolish it. So it’s less that some organisations just do it well and more that the work fluctuates.
That said, when I see Nordea doing an Iftar dinner during Ramadan or an Eid celebration open to all colleagues, I think that’s really good work — especially given that Islam is one of the most politicised corners of DEI in Denmark. Building bridges, busting myths, bringing colleagues of different faiths (or no faith) together – that matters. When I see companies being bolder in recruitment — anonymous recruiting, inclusive language, alternative recruiting approaches – I love that they’re being intentional about it, because this isn’t something you just implement once.
But I still don’t think there’s one company, or a couple, that go above and beyond across the board. A few years ago you saw companies proudly flying rainbow flags; fast forward, and some have quietly gutted their DEI teams – one company let go of 17% of staff overall but 50% of its DEI team. Even organisations that have done genuinely great work for a long time can suddenly do something embarrassing and cringe on DEI. That’s not to expose anyone – it’s to say that, at my most optimistic, we’re at a maturity stage where this work is still volatile and very sensitive to fluctuations: economic conditions, financial situations, political climates.
Can you share an example where a bias-aware initiative made a tangible difference in an organization — what made it work, and what would you do differently in hindsight?
Bias awareness isn’t something that happens overnight – it’s “mirror work”, it’s hard work over time. I’ve been running a DEI training programme since my time at Danske Bank, where we trained more than 600 leaders, talent acquisition specialists, communications colleagues and DEI ambassadors, including train-the-trainer programmes. When I joined CBS four years ago, we took that programme and built on it, and I’ve been running it since 2023. It makes a difference – it’s myth-busting, eye-opening and actionable.
What works is making the room safe enough for people to express concerns or pushback, even if they’re frustrated with DEI or don’t understand it – we have that conversation. That moves the needle for understanding and for people leaders seeing the relevance of the work. It’s five modules, two hours each, so ten hours of face time, plus peer groups of about four leaders who meet between modules with reflection-based homework – not reading or writing, but observing and reflecting. Sixteen hours total isn’t the end of the world, even in a busy calendar, and it isn’t a tick-the-box exercise – it generates ongoing demand for sparring and consultancy afterward. For example, leaders bring me their leadership dilemmas, invite me to talk with their teams about the difference between intention and impact, and the learning continues well past the programme itself.
In hindsight: what makes it work is time and expertise in the room – I’d push for three hours per module instead of two if I could. On expertise specifically: DEI work is very often placed with an HR colleague who finds it interesting, or a project leader, rather than a genuine subject matter expert. Job postings ask for a project leader when what’s needed is a subject matter expert who can teach and facilitate — you can be both, but they’re not the same thing. I’d also sharpen communication before the programme launches: clear messaging from the top saying “expect this invitation, here’s why we’re doing it, we expect you to participate.” When we’ve done that well, the difference in engagement has been remarkable; when we’ve slacked on it, it shows.
One bigger hindsight from my time at CBS: I arrived to a huge gender equality plan with enough work for the next 30 years, and top management wanted to start with DEI training – my favourite part of the job. But the foundation wasn’t in place. Four years later, I’ve been building out into the organisation without something solid to stand on or lean against. That was the opposite of my experience at Danske Bank, where the foundation came first. If I’d known then what I know now, I’d insist on building that foundation before going out into the organisation — it would have been easier and less painful, including for me. That’s not to say it was all wrong; wicked problems don’t work that way. We’ve still moved the needle. It just would have gone better in a different order.
Have you felt a shift in your role or the nature of your work over the past few years – in terms of how you’re engaged, what’s asked of you, or what resistance you face?
I’ve been privileged here. CBS has a rector who has been externally very vocal and unequivocal that DEI is more important than ever – when one of our accrediting bodies wanted to walk back DEI requirements for certifying universities, he teamed up with 32 other Nordic business schools criticized them. He uses his external influence and position to be a real advocate for this work, so from my vantage point, I haven’t personally felt a shift or increased resistance.
I do hear from colleagues at other organisations who are experiencing real fear – I’m not denying that experience. But I try hard not to feed the narrative that DEI is “under threat,” because I think repeating that narrative adds another 50% on top of the actual pressure. If leadership says “don’t say diversity, say workplace culture,” fine – what matters is whether the work continues, even though I have my own pet peeves about language. One thing we teach in the DEI programme is about the brain going into fear mode – the same dynamic that led Christian Hansen to pull down their Pride flag out of fear of cost or backlash. You don’t pull people out of fear mode by shouting at them; you have to let people calm down, realise there’s often no legal basis for the fear, and get back to the actual work.
AI tools are increasingly being used in e.g., hiring, performance reviews, and workforce planning. From a DEIB perspective, what concerns – or opportunities – does that raise for you?
CBS was quick to get on board with generative AI – the logic being “we can’t stop this train, so let’s at least get into the steering room.” I understand the strategy, but I think we should be more critical. We haven’t yet implemented much on the HR side at CBS – no organisation-mandated AI scanning or shortlisting, at least not that I know of, though individuals may be doing it informally.
More broadly, I’m very much on edge about how uncontrolled the spread of AI has been. We should have learned from the internet and the dark web about the risks of uncontrolled digitalisation, and I think we’re swallowing this raw, without chewing. We built human bias into AI, and in some ways AI is now more biased than we are – it’s almost a compound-interest effect. The latest research I’ve seen shows AI prefers résumés written by AI over ones written by humans – ChatGPT prefers ChatGPT-written résumés, Claude prefers Claude-written ones. It’s similarity bias, but in machine form.
The exception is AI built specifically for accessibility or inclusion – that’s a fundamentally different starting point, with real potential to level the playing field for marginalised people and people from less privileged socioeconomic backgrounds. But the way AI is being used broadly right now, I believe, is dangerous. Geoffrey Hinton, one of the founding figures of AI has warned Bernie Sanders [that] AI could erase jobs, fuel wars, deepen inequality, and outsmart humanity itself. This uncontrolled, unregulated spread, not to mention little to no literacy and serious unresolved copyright issues. I’m cautiously optimistic, though: the pace of this is already causing people to speak up and say “slow down,” and we’re already seeing that the promised productivity gains aren’t fully materialising – companies that fired 30% of staff are having to rehire people for quality control, because someone has to actually operate and check the AI. People’s jobs are being reduced to editor or compliance-officer roles, and I don’t think people want that. I see a counter-revolution already starting, which makes me less fearful.
Do you think AI is changing what it means to be a DEIB practitioner? Are there parts of the work it makes harder, or conversations it opens up that weren’t possible before?
If we find a more balanced way of working with it, AI has real potential to create more equal opportunities and make products, education and services more accessible and inclusive – Develop Diverse is a good example of that. For me it comes down to purpose: are we doing this to move faster and cut labour costs, or because we want a fairer world with wider access? That intent shapes how solutions get designed and implemented.
For a role like mine specifically – an internal consultant driving DEI work – I don’t think AI replaces the core of it. There’s something distinctly human about the work that I don’t think you can code into a computer, whatever you want to call it – energy in the room, human connection. I’d be thrilled if AI could take all the data work, reporting and writing off my plate – that would be lovely – but I don’t think the parts of the job I actually enjoy are going anywhere. I also have control issues: even for summarising long text, I don’t trust that it highlights what I’d consider most important, so I fact-check it anyway. And I’ll admit I’m not well trained in prompting yet – that’s on me, and it’s part of AI literacy.
One more thing worth flagging: research has shown that when women use AI to write applications or résumés, they’re judged as lazy or incompetent, while men using it the same way are seen as efficient. Our existing gender biases are simply being reproduced in how AI use itself is perceived – which may be part of why many women hold back from using these tools. I suspect similar patterns would show up for other marginalised groups; the bias seems to persist no matter the topic.
What does the future of DEIB work look like to you – especially inside large, complex organizations?
I think this is a genuinely interesting moment because the AI debate forces us to confront what is distinctly human, and what the value of that is – something we haven’t seriously engaged with in a long time. I don’t want to underplay the cost or the wreckage this could cause before we get there, but zooming out, I think that that reckoning is probably healthy. If there’s a silver lining, that’s it: this moment is pushing society to become much more cognizant of what is distinctly human and what humans need.
If you were advising an organization just beginning to take AI fairness seriously, what’s the first thing you’d tell them to do – or stop doing?
Honestly, I don’t think direct advice would be taken seriously, so my strategy is to ask uncomfortable questions instead. CBS offered basic AI training last autumn that touched on hallucinations and bias in a single “be aware of it” line, and I pushed back. If bias were fixed by saying “be aware of bias”, I wouldn’t have a job. Most people don’t even really know what bias is. Also, research is coming out suggesting AI use is making us dumber – called cognitive offloading, and we may be looking at the first generation less capable than the ones before it – teachers are raising alarms that new graduates can’t write a simple text unaided.
If someone did ask me directly what to do: slow down. This is a fear-based rush – fear of missing out, fear of falling behind, fear the train is leaving without you. Pace yourselves, control the fear-based reaction, stop and reflect before making decisions. The real question worth asking is: the train to where?
