Equity, diversity and inclusion began as a recognition that access to opportunity was not equal for all. The latest topical UIIN brief argues the concept is overdue for a reframing, and that university entrepreneurship is the ideal place to start.

Why this conversation needs reframing

What is more inclusive than the notion of opportunity? Equity, diversity and inclusion originated in the recognition that opportunities are not equally accessible to everyone. The term has since become increasingly politicised, particularly in debates around education and employment What began as a desire to flatten the playing field has produced a different perception: that not everyone is equally supported, and that some groups are now more advantaged than others.

If opportunity is the point, entrepreneurship is an obvious place to look. Universities are increasingly supporting entrepreneurial mindsets and new venture creation, helping people recognise opportunities and develop the means to act on them. Both universities and entrepreneurship are powerful gateways to opportunity, making this a natural space to rethink how EDI is framed and implemented.

Universities occupy a distinctive position in this debate. They have been at the forefront of EDI initiatives because of their ability to expand access to education, and for exactly that reason they have also become the battlefield on which EDI has been criticised, undermined and rolled back. Within that climate, the brief argues, universities face a practical rather than ideological question: how to design entrepreneurship ecosystems that expand participation, strengthen innovation and deliver economic value at scale.

Where participation narrows

Participation in entrepreneurship does not narrow nor expand by accident. Long before a venture reaches the market, design choices shape who moves forward and who quietly steps back. Some students find it easier to access early support, credible networks or seed funding, while others may not apply at all, anticipating that they are unlikely to succeed within existing criteria. The resulting gaps are patterned rather than incidental, and underrepresentation is rarely explained by differences in intent or capability.

Universities are often where these dynamics first become visible. For many first-time founders, the university is where entrepreneurial identity takes shape and where the sense that “this is for people like me” can either grow or disappear. When a system is unintentionally calibrated around a narrow idea of what a founder looks like, the cost is not only unequal opportunity. Economic underperformance is added as talent is filtered out early and innovation capacity is reduced before it has the chance to develop.

The brief examines how this plays out across access to finance, mentoring and networks, and how early-stage support structures often assume that founders can absorb the cost of unsuccessful attempts. Students without financial or institutional buffers face greater downside risk for the same level of experimentation, which shapes not only who continues but which kinds of ideas ever get tested.

Mentorship and social capital compound the effect. Access to the right people can provide advice, confidence, introductions and a clearer route through an unfamiliar system, yet those relationships are not equally available to everyone. As one higher education researcher quoted in the brief observes, the university environment can seem unwelcoming without the cultural capital inherited from a wealthier background with tertiary-educated parents.

Exclusion as economic inefficiency

The most distinctive argument in the brief is economic. Debates about EDI are often framed as questions of cost or trade-off and redistribution. Development economics offers another perception. Long-term growth depends on how effectively economies use human capital, knowledge and social connections. Exclusion represents a form of inefficiency rather than prudence. When barriers prevent large parts of the population from participating in entrepreneurship, valuable talent and ideas remain underused.

Inclusive entrepreneurship therefore has a clear economic function. It can address market and institutional conditions that limit who gets to create, develop and scale new ideas. The evidence assembled in the brief supports the case: gender-diverse research teams generate more novel and higher-impact ideas, diverse and inclusive entrepreneurial teams show better decision-making and higher innovation outcomes. In the United States, immigrants are nearly twice as likely to start businesses as native-born citizens, with comparable patterns identified across the UK and Europe.

This leads to a more uncomfortable question. If broader participation can contribute to innovation and growth, economic reasoning alone does not fully explain resistance to inclusive entrepreneurship. Political economy research points towards questions of power and control. Entrepreneurship creates income and economic mobility, and it also gives people greater influence over which ideas receive investment, which problems are addressed and whose priorities shape markets.

The question is therefore less about whether inclusion comes at the expense of growth. The evidence presented in the brief suggests that exclusion itself carries an economic cost. More important is who gets to contribute to growth, who benefits from it and who gets a say in shaping what comes next.

From deficit to asset

As EDI initiatives face growing criticism and rollback, the brief explores how they have been implemented and where they can be improved. Its central recommendation is a shift from a deficit-focused to an asset-based model. Where EDI has come from a space of problems, framing initiatives around helping the downtrodden creates a deficit-based starting point that can reinforce the very stereotypes it seeks to overcome. When the conversation instead centres on opportunity, people’s capabilities, ambitions and potential, and on structures that enable everyone to flourish, the results differ.

That shift has implications for how initiatives are funded, who shapes them and how their value is communicated. The brief argues for bringing the productivity and innovation case closer to the centre of the discussion, while also treating entrepreneurship as a capability that can strengthen employability in an uncertain labour market. It also highlights initiatives already putting these ideas into practice, including the W-Power programme for women in Northern and Arctic regions, which generated more than 120 new business ideas, and Germany’s federally funded EXIST Women programme for women at universities and research institutions.

Designing for participation

Viewed through an EDI lens, effective solutions focus on system design rather than individual correction. Institutional assumptions about what counts as a credible venture, a scalable business model or a successful entrepreneur influence which ideas and founders receive recognition and support. Broadening participation therefore begins with broadening what universities recognise as entrepreneurial.

The brief identifies several ways programmes can do this in practice. Students should have a genuine role in shaping initiatives, inclusive role models need to be visible, and messaging should speak to opportunity creation and societal impact. Programmes can also recognise social and community-based ventures, encourage diverse teams and make support mechanisms more accessible through transparent criteria, varied review panels and alternatives to the traditional pitch.

Authenticity matters throughout. Students quickly recognise superficial commitments, and initiatives built primarily around meeting targets can feel artificial and ultimately weaken trust. Effective programmes need to reflect their context, including regional needs, the institution’s mission and the surrounding entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Conclusion

EDI in university entrepreneurship comes down to a practical question: how can institutions create conditions that allow more people to participate and succeed? That starts with recognising where structural barriers exist and intentionally design the support around the realities and needs of different students, institutions and entrepreneurial ecosystems. By enabling a wider range of founders to experiment and persist, institutions strengthen innovation capacity, economic contribution and public trust.

The full UIIN Insights Brief explores the evidence behind this argument, shares practice insights from EDI specialist Monroe France, and highlights initiatives and recommendations for university leaders and entrepreneurship support teams.

Ready for more?

How can universities create more equitable and inclusive environments for all? In the podcast Towards a more equitable, diverse and inclusive university, we unpack how institutions can embed EDI more effectively, while our infographic series Building the pipeline for EDI leadership in universities highlights practical approaches to strengthening inclusive leadership.

Todd Davey (author) is an A/Professor Entrepreneurship at IMTBS, Associate Partner at UIIN, and Founder and Director at ICKR.
Sue Rossano-Rivero (author) is a Professor for Sales and Marketing at Hochschule Niederrhein University of Applied Sciences.
Cameron McCoy (author) is the Founder of The Adaptive Group and ReboundEdu.
Luca Barbera (author) is a Junior Project Officer at UIIN.