The Effects of Nudging on Diversity and Inclusion: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

Diversity and inclusion in organizational settings are still under-researched themes despite their societal relevance. In this preregistered systematic literature review, we examine how nudging as an agency-preserving intervention tool can create a more inclusive and diverse workplace. Nudging is rooted in behavioral economics and aims to influence decision-making processes without restricting freedom of choice. Inclusion refers to creating a work environment where everyone feels valued and encouraged to contribute. Diversity reaches beyond demographic factors, fostering more innovative and creative organizational practices, and better decisions. We searched for applications nudging towards diversity and inclusion initiatives at the workplace in four databases: PsycINFO, Scopus, EBSCOhost, and Web of Science. Peer-reviewed articles published in the last 15 years were included regardless of article type in organizational settings were included. Nine studies met our inclusion criteria. Based on their findings, we show a positive association between the use of nudging techniques to create more inclusive and diverse workplaces and advance a classification of nudge types in this domain. We discuss the importance of being aware of the potential drawbacks and negative consequences of using nudging interventions. Potential drawbacks that may arise include lack of autonomy and overload. Further research is needed to explore which nudging techniques are most effective in promoting diversity and inclusion.

1. Introduction

In the workplace, there has been increasing attention to the importance of a varied workforce. Central to this is the message that companies should view people’s differences as a valuable resource rather than a hindrance (Berg et al. 2012). According to a Pew Research Center survey of a national representative sample of almost 6000 workers in the United States of America, 15% of respondents reported that their organization is not spending enough attention to diversity, equality, and inclusion issues, featuring Black workers being the most likely to be included in this percentage, and women being more likely than men (Minkin 2023).

The concept of diversity is widespread in contemporary society and workplaces, but it seems to lack a clear definition. Diversity is a term that is attributed to various meanings depending on context and purpose. According to Berg and Håpnes (2001), the concept of diversity is about recognizing and valuing differences, rather than polarizing between similarity and difference. This perspective views differences as a source of opportunities, where previously marginalized groups are seen as potential rather than a problem. Moreover. Turi’s et al. (2022) findings “indicate that age diversity, diversity beliefs, and leadership expertise have a statistically significant impact on organisational performance” (p. 1).

Diversity and inclusion represent two under-researched topics, especially in organizational settings, despite their social relevance and cost (e.g., see Suciu et al. 2020). Several studies have pointed to prejudices related to foreign origin in the workplace, especially in recruitment processes where for example, a foreign or ethnic name can reduce the chances of being called for an interview (e.g., Adamovic and Leibbrandt 2023; Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004). Many qualified people with a foreign or ethnic background may experience being overlooked, which creates both individual and structural challenges. Furthermore, while there is an increasing production of academic literature that takes on the nudging approach, its applications in organizational settings and, specifically, for reducing inequality and discrimination remain modest.

Employee resistance is arguably the most important and resistant barrier to the success of diversity and inclusion initiatives in organizations. This is one of the main findings in a review by Gündemir et al. (2024), advocating “for a behavioral perspective to generate a more nuanced understanding of the complex nature of this resistance, which highlights its potentially ambivalent and subtle manifestations, and emphasizes its evolving nature in response to changing contexts over time” (p. 1). This motivated us to investigate how an initiative such as nudging—rooted in behavioral economics—can function as a tool to promote more inclusive and diverse workplaces. To our knowledge, only one systematic review of the literature on this topic has been attempted before (Cervantez and Milkman 2024), which seems to have been performed around the same time as the present review—despite the topic has been addressed for the last 10 years or so (Bohnet 2016).

The aim of this systematic literature review is to examine the implications of implementing cost-effective, scalable, and liberty-preserving behavioral interventions called nudges for creating a more inclusive and diverse workplace. We examine and highlight the challenges related to inclusion and diversity in the workplace, as well as explore potential solutions with a focus on the use of nudging. A systematic review approach was preferred because it provides access to a wide selection of peer-reviewed articles in a short time, which strengthens the purpose of the research question: to investigate and disseminate knowledge about nudging measures to inform and increase diversity and inclusion in the workplace (see also Gopalakrishnan and Ganeshkumar 2013).

The study provides useful insight into how nudging techniques can be used to create a more inclusive work environment and contribute to increased diversity. This is a relevant and timely research contribution, especially at a time when many organizations are calling for concrete tools to work more systematically with diversity and inclusion (see Almeida et al. 2024). We also point out potential disadvantages of nudging, such as lack of autonomy or overload. This emphasizes the need for further research, especially with a view to identifying which nudging techniques are most effective in different organizational contexts. Next, these “inclusion nudges” may be embedded into the legal system to support organizations achieve their diversity and inclusion goals “without requiring them to impermissibly focus on the demographics of those they seek to hire and promote” (Eisenstadt and Haugh 2024, p. 250).

1.1. Diversity and Inclusion at the Workplace

Several studies have emphasized the importance of implementing and maintaining diversity and inclusion in the workplace (e.g., Hunt et al. 2018; Crouppen 2020). In the workplace, the focus on a diverse workforce has become increasingly stronger in recent years. In today’s globalized business environment, diversity and inclusion are not only an ethical imperative but also a strategic advantage for companies that want to maintain competitiveness and achieve long-term success. Workplaces that do not embrace the increasing cultural diversity in the workforce risk falling behind in an increasingly diverse market (Hunt et al. 2018).

Diverse work groups and leadership teams can offer a wide range of ideas, perspectives, and skills that can help solve complex problems in new and creative ways. By creating an inclusive and diverse work environment, where all employees feel valued and respected regardless of background, organizations can foster a culture characterized by collaboration, innovation, and increased productivity (Hunt et al. 2018; Berg et al. 2012). At the same time, it is acknowledged that implementing diversity and inclusion is not necessarily a simple process. Resistance and challenges can arise from both management and employees, especially in organizations with a history of homogeneity. Therefore, it is crucial to implement a thorough and strategic approach to inclusion and diversity, including training and development of cultural competence among employees and leaders (Berg et al. 2012). Among others, Dimeglio (2023) and Hunt et al. (2018) point to the challenges many companies face in diversifying their workforce, despite their commitment to diversity and inclusion. Despite companies’ commitments, many still struggle to attract, hire, and retain employees from groups that are not sufficiently included.

Next, we present nudging as a useful, effective, and economic approach to improve inclusion and diversity practices at the workplace. According to Crouppen (2020), tiny interventions called nudges can be used to encourage employees to develop better habits, work smarter, and connect better with their colleagues.

1.2. Nudging as an Approach for Behavior Change

To address some of the challenges introduced in the previous section, we emphasize the importance of using nudging techniques to attract, recruit, and integrate diverse talents into the workforce. The term nudge was first introduced by Thaler and Sunstein (2008) and refers to the use of subtle, non-coercive incentives and adjustments in choice architecture to influence people’s decisions and behaviors in a beneficial way without forcing anyone to act in a certain manner. The essence of nudging lies in designing the environment or choice architecture so that it becomes easier or more attractive for individuals to make desirable choices or follow desired behaviors, while still having the freedom to choose differently.

Nudging is a form of soft paternalism that seeks to influence the choices people make without prohibiting anything or changing the incentive structure. In organizational settings, nudges were shown to have increased productivity by up to ten percent over a six months’ period and workforce retention by eight to twelve percent (Thaler and Sunstein 2008).

In another case, small changes in language and content in job advertisements were used to promote diversity and have been effective in attracting and retaining talents from underrepresented groups. Dimeglio (2023) illustrated how companies have used changes in language and content in job advertisements to attract a more diverse pool of applicants. By facilitating contact between potential candidates and employees through nudging techniques, organizations can provide better familiarity and trust with employers. Similarly to how financial performance affects corporate culture, Guiso et al. (2015) showed how performance improves as a function of employees’ perception of their ethical and trustworthy top managers. Conversely, nudging may offer a simpler and lower-cost intervention technique for facilitating the uptake of employment services through policymaking initiatives. For example, getting job seekers into the workforce by reducing physical and cognitive effort in the uptake of an employment program in British Columbia, Canada—Hopkins and Dorion (2024).

According to another study discussed by Sterne et al. (2016), nudging can be used to increase awareness of diversity and inclusion among employees. This can include simple measures such as including diversity training as part of the onboarding program for new employees or highlighting diverse role models in the workplace through pictures and stories. Consul et al. (2021) discussed how removing demographic indicators from CVs can reduce bias in the recruitment process and emphasizes the importance of facilitating the onboarding process to integrate new employees more effectively into the organization through nudging techniques.

The effectiveness of nudging has been addressed in several review studies (e.g., Mertens et al. 2022), finding small to medium effect sizes and ample variability across the domain and type of intervention. For example, the authors of this meta-analysis found that decision-structure nudges (i.e., changes in organization or structure) seem to perform consistently better than nudges that target information availability and intention reinforcement. The effectiveness of applying nudging to policymaking was further scrutinized by Benartzi et al. (2017) in economic terms: monetizing the return on investment when comparing nudge and traditional policy interventions. Their analyses included interventions in the domain of retirement saving (e.g., Carroll et al. 2009), college enrollment (Bettinger et al. 2012), energy conservation (Allcott 2011), influenza vaccination (Milkman et al. 2011).

Most studies on nudging use experimental methods, especially randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which allow for the identification of causal effects. This is in line with recommendations in social science research, where experimental methods are often considered more reliable than analytical or archival approaches, due to their ability to isolate and test specific interventions. In addition, meta-analyses and comparative studies are used to identify patterns across experiments and contexts.

Nudging studies also vary in their choice of population. Many target individuals, such as households in energy conservation measures (Allcott and Rogers 2014) or employees in savings programs (Thaler and Benartzi 2004). Others examine the effects among companies or institutions, particularly in the areas of financial regulation and public policy. Geographically, the United States of America and the European Union are the most studied areas, but several studies also cover developing countries, particularly in the areas of health and microfinance. Methodological variation makes it possible to identify both specific and general effects of nudging, while geographic and demographic breadth strengthens the external validity of the field. This provides a good basis for further research and policy design.

With respect to dual processing cognitive theories (Kahneman 2003), nudging can be an effective tool for changing behavior from System 1 to System 2 (Kahneman 2012). System 1 thinking, which governs quick and often stereotypical reactions, can lead to inappropriate decisions based on immediate impressions. By implementing nudge strategies that appeal to System 2 thinking, which involves more conscious and analytical assessment, one can counteract these biases and encourage more reflective and inclusive decisions (Thaler and Sunstein 2008). Therefore, it is important to explore how nudging can be used to shift behavior from automatic, stereotypical thinking (System 1) to more conscious, reflective thinking (System 2). This involves linking cognition with behavior to create an environment that encourages more conscious and inclusive decisions (Kahneman 2012).

System 1 thinking operates quickly and effortlessly, often based on heuristics and past experiences, while System 2 thinking is more analytical and requires conscious effort. Heuristics are mental shortcuts or simplified rules that people use to make quick decisions and form judgments based on limited information (Tversky and Kahneman 1974). They can lead to effective decision-making in many situations. However, they can also lead to biases or errors when used uncritically, especially when it comes to complex issues like diversity and inclusion.

With the representativeness heuristic, a person may assess the likelihood that something belongs to a particular category based on how similar it is to a typical representative of that category. For example, if a person meets someone from a particular ethnic group and assumes that they have certain characteristics based on stereotypes about that group, they are using the representativeness heuristic. In the context of diversity and inclusion, using representativeness heuristic can lead to erroneous assumptions or stereotypes about individuals or groups based on their affiliation with certain categories. This can contribute to discrimination or lack of inclusion in the workplace (Tversky and Kahneman 1974).

1.3. Nudging in the Domain of Diversity and Inclusion

Diversity nudges refer to small, subtle changes or measures in the recruitment process and work environment designed to promote diversity and inclusion. These simple adjustments can influence the behavior and decisions of recruiters, managers, and employees, which in turn can help increase diversity in the organization (Dimeglio 2023).

Transformational power, another type of nudge, describes the significant and profound effect small changes can have on the organization’s culture and practices regarding diversity. Diversity Dividend is a term that refers to the benefits an organization achieves by having a diverse work environment, including increased innovation, better decision-making, increased creativity, and a more representative and inclusive culture (Dimeglio 2023; Humberd and Torres 2020). Research has shown that nudging strategies can be effective in influencing behavioral changes in various areas, including health, environment, safety, and politics. Implementing nudging within diversity and inclusion has gained increasing interest, as it has proven to be both useful and cost-effective. A guidebook published by Kepinski and Nielsen (2020) provides practical tips and examples of how organizations can become more inclusive and reduce unconscious biases. The authors demonstrate concrete ways to change behavior, culture, and systems in the workplace to support diversity. Kepinski and Nielsen (2020) point to the need to increase awareness of how nudges can outmaneuver unconscious biases that affect decision-making in the workplace. They present a selection of applied techniques in various organizations and their implications in critical decision moments throughout the HR lifecycle, inspiring organizations to design their own nudges as part of diversity and inclusion initiatives. Among the 447 effect sizes across 212 publications, the effect sizes attributable to nudging in organizational settings were as low as 5.59% and the majority of these included structural changes to the choice architecture (Mertens et al. 2022—see supplementary information, p. 14).

Three types of inclusive nudges are identified and categorized in targeted areas by Deloitte (2015). Feel the Need nudges motivate by targeting the subconscious emotional bond, process nudges guide the subconscious to make more objective decisions, and framing nudges attempt to change the perception of a situation from a potentially biased approach to a more positive and inclusive viewpoint. For example, a Feel the Need nudge technique can illustrate biases in the assessment and selection of candidates as part of the recruitment process. This is achieved by giving two groups of evaluators fictitious CVs for a specific position, where the only difference is the candidate’s gender and name. The results can then be shared with the entire group to increase awareness among assessors about the implicit impact their biases and stereotypes can have on hiring and evaluating candidates.

These nudge techniques help promote inclusive practices and combat unconscious biases in the workplace. They have proven effective in supporting behavioral change and creating a more inclusive culture in organizations (Kepinski and Nielsen 2020; Deloitte 2015).

From a behavior analytic perspective, nudging can be seen as stimuli that change the likelihood of a particular behavior occurring without restricting choices. This concept can be related to behavioral analysis terms such as SD (discriminative stimulus) and EO (establishing operation). SD refers to a stimulus that makes a particular behavior more likely. In the context of nudging, these can be small changes in the environment or the presentation of information that lead to the desired behavior. For example, changes in language and content in job advertisements can be an SD that increases the likelihood of people from diverse backgrounds applying for the positions. EO, on the other hand, refers to a situation or stimulus that increases the value of a particular reinforcer. By integrating diversity training as part of the onboarding program for new employees, organizations can create an EO that makes it more likely that employees will participate and benefit from the training. Similarly, removing demographic indicators from CVs can create an EO that reduces bias in the recruitment process by making it easier for recruiters to focus on relevant qualifications and experience (Thaler and Sunstein 2021; Humberd and Torres 2020; Deloitte 2015).

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with the guidelines from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (Prisma 2020). Before starting the review work, we prepared a protocol in accordance with the guidelines for reporting systematic reviews. This protocol was preregistered and uploaded to the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/v2q3t/). The protocol was developed to clearly define the research questions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, search strategy, data collection methods, and analysis plans before the review was conducted. Preregistering the protocol on OSF helped increase transparency and openness in the research process. This is crucial for reducing the risk of bias and increasing confidence in the results presented in the study (Moher et al. 2009).

2.1. Databases

To find relevant research articles for the review, we conducted a systematic search of the databases PsycINFO via Ovid, Scopus, EBSCOhost, and Web of Science between 17 February and 29 February 2024. Moreover, we conducted an exploratory search in Google Scholar between 10 January and 19 February 2024. The databases PsycINFO, Scopus, EBSCOhost, Web of Science and Google Scholar were selected based on their high recognition and relevance in disciplines such as psychology, behavioral sciences and economics—all key disciplines in understanding nudging, inclusion and diversity in the workplace. PsycINFO is particularly valuable for its depth in psychology and behavioral research, while Scopus and Web of Science offer broad interdisciplinary coverage and extensive citation data that enable the identification of key studies and research streams. EBSCOhost provides access to several specialized databases covering both social science and work-related topics. Google Scholar was included as a supplement to conduct exploratory searches and capture gray literature or recent publications that may be underrepresented in the more traditional academic databases. Taken together, these databases were considered to provide comprehensive coverage of literature related to the topics of nudging, inclusion, and diversity in the workplace.

2.2. Search Terms

To find the right search terms, various processes were conducted to achieve the best possible results. All searches were performed using Boolean operators, and all searches were conducted in English as this yielded the most results. Initially, search strings such as (nudging* OR nudges) AND (inclusion OR diversity) AND workplace were used, but as this yielded few results, the search string was changed to (nudge*) AND (inclus* OR divers*) to achieve the best possible results. Workplace became an inclusion criterion rather than a search term. Both the AND operator between the search terms and the category/thesaurus (subject) were used, and the results included articles that contained both search terms and were classified within relevant subjects. Furthermore, the search was filtered to only include peer-reviewed articles written in English. This was performed due to limitations in available languages, where Scandinavian was not available as an option, so English was set as the only language criterion.

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies were as follows: Studies were included if they met the PICO format, explicitly examined the effect of nudging measures, were conducted in the workplace or similar organizational contexts, were not older than 15 years, and were either original or review articles. The 15-year time frame (2009–2024) was chosen to balance including sufficient historical developments in the research field while ensuring that the analysis is relevant to today’s workplace. This period captures a period in which both the concepts of nudging and diversity have received increased research and practical attention, particularly in the wake of important societal changes and policy developments related to inclusion in the workplace.

Furthermore, experimental, quantitative observational studies, and qualitative studies that provided insight into the impact of nudging in the workplace, as well as studies conducted in the workplace or similar organizational contexts, were included. On the other hand, studies were excluded if they were older than 15 years, only focused on one of the elements (such as nudging, diversity, or inclusion), were not peer-reviewed, or dealt with nudging measures in school contexts or to promote healthier eating habits. When prioritizing selected articles, original or review articles were preferred, followed by studies that explicitly examined the effect of nudging measures on creating a more inclusive and diverse workplace among employees.

2.4. Screening Process

The screening process was conducted using Rayyan version 1.3.3 (Ouzzani et al. 2016) and the PICO tool was used for the literature review (Bramer et al. 2018). The review of the results was carried out with a two-step screening process. In level 1 of the screening process, titles and abstracts were reviewed to assess whether they met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The exclusion criteria were applied to the database before the search was transferred to Rayyan. Then, duplicates were checked using the Rayyan tool (Ouzzani et al. 2016).

The selection criteria for whether the articles should be included in level 2 were a simplified PICO. PICO stands for Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (Bramer et al. 2018). P stands for participants, i.e., employees in the workplace; I for intervention was limited in this search to measures to promote inclusion and diversity. C for comparison means possible comparisons between different measures or the absence of such measures, such as feedback systems, implementing regular feedback systems for employees to evaluate and improve inclusion practices. O stands for the effect of nudging on creating a more inclusive and diverse workplace, measured by indicators such as job satisfaction, work environment, and diverse representation in the organization. Specifically, P (population), I (intervention), and C (comparison) were the focus, with the criteria: research conducted with children and adolescents was excluded. Articles had to involve an intervention implemented in a workplace or organizational contexts, and the intervention had to aim to increase diversity and inclusion in a workplace using nudging measures.

Other measures included training and awareness, as well as the development and implementation of training programs for employees on inclusion and diversity. Another measure could be diversified leadership training, i.e., implementing leadership development programs that promote understanding of diversity and inclusion and ensure that leaders are aware of the importance of creating an inclusive environment.

Articles that focused on food, diet, or mental health were excluded. In level 2 of the screening process, the full text of the articles was reviewed about the inclusion and exclusion criteria defined by the PICO method. The population (P) was thoroughly assessed at level 1, but if the article did not concern the workplace or the active workforce, it was excluded. Then, the intervention (I) in the articles was carefully reviewed. If the intervention met the criteria for nudging, diversity, or inclusion, the article was included. If an article presented multiple interventions, and only some of these met the criteria for nudging, diversity, or inclusion, the article was still included.

2.5. Inter-Rater Agreement

After the previous steps were completed, a fellow student of the first author was involved in the screening process using the Rayyan tool. The purpose of establishing an inter-rater agreement was to reduce selection bias and ensure reliability in the screening process. Cooper et al. (2020) emphasized the importance of inter-rater agreement and support the idea that reliability in assessments is crucial. Cicchetti (1994) has also highlighted the importance of inter-rater reliability in the assessment of normed and standardized assessment instruments. Through the Rayyan tool, the additional screener assessed every tenth article, which constituted about ten percent of the articles. This process was conducted independently and with a blind one to ensure objective assessment.

2.6. Risk of Bias

Two different tools were used to assess the risk of bias in the studies. ROBINS-I for empirical studies and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) for review articles. The ROBINS-I tool is a reliable and effective tool that can be used to assess the quality of articles included in the literature studies (Sterne et al. 2016). The ROBINS-I tool consists of several domains that address various aspects of the study’s design, conduct, and reporting. Each domain has several specific questions that must be answered to assess the risk of bias.

Using ROBINS-I, each study was assessed across multiple domains, including participant selection, exposure classification, outcome measurement, missing data and selective reporting. A consistent pattern among the included empirical studies was the risk of selection bias—particularly related to unclear recruitment processes—and measurement uncertainty, as several studies used subjective indicators of inclusion experience and diversity. The assessment was conducted by answering each of the questions related to each article with either low, moderate, or high risk of bias.

AMSTAR, on the other hand, is a tool designed to assess the quality of systematic reviews. It assesses a range of critical domains, including defined research questions, search strategies, inclusion criteria, data extraction, and methods for data synthesis. AMSTAR provides a systematic approach to assessing the reliability and quality of review articles.

The result of the analysis shows that most of the articles met the criteria for “yes”, while some of the articles were marked with uncertainty. Through the AMSTAR tool, review articles were assessed based on defined research questions, search strategies, clarity of inclusion criteria, and data synthesis.

Table A1. Risk of Bias Assessment in Empirical Studies.

Author (s), Year	Confounding	Selection	Measurement of Exposure	Departures from Exposure	Missing Data	Measurement of Outcomes	Reported Results
Collopy et al. (2022)	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Low	High	Low	Moderate
Enders et al. (2021)	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Low	High	Moderate	Moderate
Feng et al. (2020)	Low	Low	Low	Low	Law	Low	Low
Jaiswal and Dyaram (2020)	Low	High	Low	Low	Moderate	Low	Moderate
McCallaghan (2022)	Moderate	High	Low	Low	Moderate	Low	Low
Williams (2018)	Low	High	Low	Low	Moderate	Low	Low

Note: The table shows assessments of the risk of bias carried out in each individual empirical study. Low risk = The study has taken adequate precautions to reduce bias. Moderate risk = Moderate risk in the studies, but they are not serious enough to mean that the results are invalid. High Risk = Weakness in the studies that may affect the results.

and

Table A2. Risk of Bias Assessment in Review and Proposed Practice Studies.

Author (s), Year	Systematic Search	Independent Reviewers	Selection Procedures	Quality Assessment	Risk of Bias	Publication Bias	CoI
Atal et al. (2019)	Partially yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
Mattis et al. (2022)	Partially yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
O’Meara et al. (2020)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Partially yes	No	No	Yes

Note: The table shows assessments of the risk of bias in each review and proposed practice study. CoI = Conflict of interest. Yes = The study meets the requirements to reduce the risk of bias to a high degree. Partially yes = The study partially meets the requirements to reduce the risk of bias in the studies, but there are some shortcomings or uncertainties that may affect the results. No = The study does not meet the requirements for risk of bias; the results may be influenced by sources of error.

in the Appendix A include a complete overview of the ratings using ROBINS-I and AMSTAR, respectively.

3. Results

The search described in the Methods section resulted in a total of 2511 hits. This result was further screened, resulting in 2433 hits. A two-step screening process was conducted to select relevant studies. In level 1 of the screening process, titles and abstracts were reviewed to assess whether they met the inclusion and exclusion criteria (n = 78). In level 2 of the screening process, the full text of the articles was reviewed about the inclusion and exclusion criteria defined by the PICO method (n = 69). It was further noted that Web of Science did not yield hits relevant to the research question. The articles found through this database dealt with topics outside the focus of the research, such as food and health or school contexts, and not workplace conditions. Therefore, these articles were excluded from further analysis. PsycINFO yielded 1537 hits, EBSCOhost yielded 254 hits, Scopus yielded 362 hits, and Web of Science yielded 357 hits. A total of 2510 hits altogether, but after screening and removing duplicates, 78 articles were taken for thorough review. Further, one article was selected through PsycINFO, five articles were selected through EBSCOhost, and three articles were selected through Scopus. In total, nine articles were selected as relevant to the research question; for an overview, see Figure 1.

3.1. Characteristics of the Studies

To understand the research question of how nudging as a measure can increase diversity and inclusion in the workplace, nine studies that illuminate the topic in various ways are presented below. The selected studies used different study designs, including experimental designs, cross-sectional studies, mixed methods, and theoretical studies. Experimental designs manipulate specific variables while controlling for other factors to observe the effect of the manipulation. Data are collected under controlled conditions and analyzed to draw conclusions about causal relationships, while cross-sectional studies collect data from a given point in time, providing a snapshot of a population or phenomenon (Svartdal 2015). They are useful for identifying relationships between variables but do not provide information about causal relationships.

Mixed methods is not a design in itself but an approach that combines both qualitative and quantitative data. Questionnaires, interviews, observations, and statistical analyses are used to provide a more complete understanding of the phenomenon (Creswell 2003). A theoretical study focuses on developing or testing theoretical models, often by comparing and analyzing existing theories and research (Svartdal 2015). Sample sizes vary from study to study, with the largest study including 576 participants (Feng et al. 2020). The remaining eight studies are spread between these extremes. One of the studies uses a mixed-method design, one is a proposed practice, two are reviews, three of the studies used cross-sectional designs, and two used experimental designs; for an overview, see

Table 1. Summary of results.

Study	Topic	Design	Country	Sector	Type of Nudging	Main Results
Atal et al. (2019)	Nudge theory applied to gender diversity	N/A—Proposed practice	United States of America	Information technology	Prompting and timely questions	In this proposed practice, gender diversity may be enhanced by asking questions that are properly timed at IT sourcing events
Collopy et al. (2022)	Different approaches to nudging to foster a culture of diversity and inclusion	Mixed method	United States of America	Engineers and academics	Choice architecture nudging and social norms nudging	Nudging contributed positively to change academic and engineering culture towards more inclusion and diversity.
Enders et al. (2021)	The study will examine perceptions and attitudes towards the DEI plan among employees.	Cross-sectional	United States of America	Public sector	Inclusive nudging and annual review nudging	The DEI plan received broader support than nudging. Ethnic and minority groups supported inclusion reminders and annual review reminders as part of the DEI plan more than other groups.
Feng et al. (2020)	Using nudging to increase diversity and inclusion in the hiring process	Experimental	United States of America, Asia, Europe	Not specified	Grouping nudging, order nudging, diversity nudging	The study showed that highlighting diversity through nudging influenced recruitment choices. Dividing candidates by ethnicity increased the likelihood of choosing minority candidates.
Jaiswal and Dyaram (2020)	How perception of diversity affects employee well-being, with inclusion as an intermediate factor	Cross-sectional	India	Information technology	Managerial nudging, such as feedback and rewards	Diversity in the workplace, both based on superficial and knowledge-related attributes, affected employee well-being. Nudging as a management measure can also help improve employee well-being.
Mattis et al. (2022)	A theoretical framework for facilitating diverse news consumption through recommender design	N/A—Interdisciplinary literature review	The Netherlands	News consumption	Five diversity nudges: gatekeeper, clickworthiness, self-actualization, model citizen, and popularization nudges	Nudging measures can be effective in promoting diversity in news consumption on news recommendation systems
McCallaghan (2022)	The connection between diversity climate, racial microaggressions and employee well-being in the workplace.	Cross-sectional	South Africa	Not specified	Diversity climate improvement nudging, diversity training nudging	The study shows that workplace diversity and exposure to racial microaggressions affect employee well-being and behavior. Nudging measures can help improve the working environment.
O’Meara et al. (2020)	Applying behavioral design to faculty hiring	N/A—Narrative and integrative review	United States of America	Academic faculty members	Application of small changes in decision situations to contrast biases in each of four hiring phases.	Relatively few studies examine the effects of nudges to mitigate gender gaps and safeguard the employment of ethnic minorities
Williams (2018)	How Accountability to Racially Diverse Committees Affects Hiring Decision-Making	Experimental	United States of America	Human resource committees	Blind screening nudge technique and debiasing nudge strategy	Diverse committees increased recognition of bias and appreciation of diversity in appointments. Nudging strategies such as blind screenings and joint assessments reduced bias and promoted gender equality.

.

According to Creswell and Creswell (2018), the collection of various studies with varied study designs is beneficial as it provides complementary perspectives, consistent findings, increased generalizability, and both depth and breadth in understanding the research question. This approach strengthens the evidence and allows for more robust conclusions to be drawn. Participants were recruited directly from the work environment, being either faculty members, employees, or potential employees at various institutions and organizations. Data was collected using different methods such as interviews, surveys, experiments, and quantitative and qualitative analyses of participants’ reactions. These approaches made it possible to examine various aspects of the work environment, including perceptions of diversity, equality, inclusion, and workplace climate, and looked at how nudge techniques can be used to promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace. In one of the studies, participants were offered compensation for participating in the study (Feng et al. 2020), which can be problematic and influence the responses (Svartdal 2015).

3.2. The Effect of Different Types of Nudging on Diversity and Inclusion

The results of our review show that various types of nudging measures have proven effective in promoting diversity and inclusion in the workplace. The studies examined several aspects of nudging, including managerial nudging, inclusive nudging, diversity climate improvement nudging, choice architecture nudging, grouping nudging, and sequence nudging.

The effectiveness of nudging measures is clearly reported in the original studies. For example, managerial nudging has been shown to improve employee well-being, as demonstrated by Jaiswal and Dyaram (2020). Additionally, diversity climate improvement nudging and diversity training nudging, as studied by McCallaghan (2022), have been successful in creating a more inclusive work environment. Regarding inclusive practices, the studies have shown that measures such as inclusive nudging and diversity climate improvement nudging have had positive effects in creating a more inclusive work environment. This is particularly important for promoting equality and creating a workplace that is open and supportive for all employees.

Recruitment processes have also been positively influenced by nudging measures. In the study by Feng et al. (2020), it was found that grouping nudging and sequence nudging increased the likelihood of selecting minority candidates in the recruitment process. This shows that nudging can be an effective strategy to ensure that recruitment processes consider diversity and inclusion. Cultural change was also a focus of nudging measures. The study by Collopy et al. (2022) showed that choice architecture nudging and social norms nudging were used to shift organizational cultures towards more inclusion and diversity. This suggests that nudging can be an effective tool for creating a workplace culture that is open, supportive, and inclusive for all employees. Overall, these studies show that nudging measures have been successful in promoting diversity and inclusion in the workplace in several ways. From improving employee well-being to changing organizational cultures, nudging has proven to be an effective strategy for creating a more inclusive, diverse, and fair workplace for all employees. Below, each study included in this review will be presented.

Atal et al. (2019) addressed the low proportion of women in the IT industry and discussed how stereotypes and other factors affect women’s participation, especially at the leadership level. The researchers argue that American companies can influence gender diversity in the IT industry by using their relationships with IT suppliers. They proposed using Nudge theory during strategic procurement of IT services to increase the focus on diversity. By using both existing data and their own survey among mid-level managers in large companies, the study identified gaps in the focus on diversity in the procurement process for IT services. Clear differences were found between men and women in participation and leadership in the IT industry. Nudge theory was proposed as an effective approach to increase gender diversity in the procurement process by asking specific questions about diversity during strategic procurement events. The study called for more research on how such practices affect diversity in supply chains over time and the success of diversity initiatives within the IT industry.

Collopy et al. (2022) aimed to explore nudging approaches to promote a culture of diversity and inclusion among engineering faculty. It used a mixed-method approach with observation and self-reported data to evaluate the effect of the Faculty Learning Community (FLC) among approximately twenty faculty members from various engineering departments. Data were collected through interviews, participants’ reactions, and quantitative analysis. Phenomenography was used to show the development in participants’ experiences, while the CUE Syllabus Review Tool was used for quantitative evaluation. The results show that nudging approaches have contributed to a more inclusive culture in the engineering school, where the faculty not only learns best practices but also practices implementation, gradually changing attitudes and behaviors. Nudging has proven to be an effective strategy for encouraging change and promoting diversity and inclusion in the engineering faculty.

Enders et al. (2021) engaged in a study with the purpose being to evaluate the perceptions of employees and faculty at the Mayo Clinic Department of Health Sciences Research (HSR) about a proposed departmental plan for DEI. The study also included the use of nudging as a strategy to promote DEI goals, particularly to correct unconscious biases and promote inclusive behavior in the work environment. The results of the study showed significant support for planned DEI activities among HSR faculty and staff participants, particularly for anonymous promotion reviews and training on DEI topics. However, there was less support for indirect approaches such as inclusion nudging. The results revealed that more participants from racial or ethnic minority groups supported inclusion nudging and anonymous promotion reviews, while leaders showed greater support for annual review nudging. This suggests the need to consider different perspectives and needs when implementing the DEI plan, as significant differences in perceptions were found based on diversity and professional groups. For example, more women than men saw training for all HSR employees as the most important planned activity (p = 0.04), while participants who identified as racial or ethnic minorities preferred other inclusion measures as one of the most important DEI activities (p = 0.03).

Feng et al. (2020) explored the use of nudging techniques to increase diversity in hiring processes. The researchers conducted eight experiments, where they divided job candidates based on various categories such as gender, nationality, and university, to see how this affected the choices of the participants. In the first experiment, job candidates were divided by gender, and the results showed that participants were more likely to choose more gender-diverse candidates when they were divided by gender compared to when the candidates were randomly mixed. The second experiment focused on nationality and found that dividing candidates by nationality led to participants choosing more nationally diverse candidates. In the third experiment, candidates were divided by university, and the results showed that participants were more likely to choose candidates from different universities when they were divided by university. Experiment number four dealt with gender and found that participants were more likely to choose a balance of male and female candidates when the candidates were divided by gender. Experiment number 5A examined gender and quality and found that dividing by gender increased diversity without reducing the quality of the choices. In experiment 5B, when there was no overlap between candidate groups based on competence, partition dependence increased the diversity in candidate selection without compromising quality. Experiment number six showed that partitioning by gender increased the proportion of female candidates selected, especially among people with weaker gender stereotypes. Experiment number seven showed that when people chose a single candidate, they were more likely to choose candidates who were not grouped together, especially when minority candidates were grouped together and majority candidates were not. The pilot study showed no effect of partitioning candidates on the selection of minority candidates when participants only chose one candidate. The conclusion of the study was that nudging-based choice architecture interventions can increase diversity and inclusion in recruitment processes without reducing the quality of hires. Partitioning candidates based on different categories can help organizations achieve more diverse and inclusive outcomes in the recruitment process. These findings challenge previous assumptions that social categories always lead to negative outcomes and show how small changes in choice architecture can positively influence decisions. Overall, the study shows that knowledge of nudging and inclusion can be a valuable resource for HR professionals who want to promote diversity and inclusion in their organizations.

Jaiswal and Dyaram (2020) examined how employees’ perceptions of both surface and knowledge diversity affect their well-being at work, and how inclusion mediates this relationship. Surface diversity refers to visible or observable characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, or age, while knowledge diversity involves variations in skills, education, experience, and competencies among employees. The study involved 248 full-time employees from large organizations in India, and data were collected through an online questionnaire. The results showed that perceived surface diversity had a negative relationship with well-being (β = −0.20, p < 0.05), while perceived knowledge diversity had a positive relationship with well-being (β = 0.26, p < 0.01). Inclusion was found to mediate the relationship between knowledge diversity and well-being (β = 0.26, p < 0.01), but not for surface diversity. This indicates that different forms of diversity can have different effects on employee well-being, with inclusion playing a crucial role. The researchers suggested that managers should use nudging strategies, such as small adjustments in organizational practices and policies, to create a more inclusive environment and reduce the negative effects of surface diversity. These measures can include awareness training, promoting open communication, and encouraging collaboration across different backgrounds and perspectives, with the aim of improving employees’ self-control, intrinsic motivation, and well-being.

Mattis et al. (2022) performed a review that gathered data by reviewing existing research articles and theoretical frameworks from various sources, such as previous studies and articles. In this study, the researchers explore how “diversity influences” and “nudging” can be implemented in news recommendation systems (NRSs) to encourage more diverse news consumption among users. Diversity influences refer to strategies and measures designed to affect users’ behavior and encourage them to engage with a broader range of news on NRSs. The purpose of the study is to present a theoretical framework for diversity influences in NRSs and to explore how these influences can be adapted to individual and situational factors to achieve the desired effect; namely, to increase the diversity of users’ news diets. By using nudging as a tool, the researchers seek to influence users’ news choices without restricting their options or dramatically changing the economic incentives. This involves designing the choice architecture of NRSs in a way that stimulates users’ engagement with a broader range of news while maintaining freedom of choice and autonomy. To achieve this purpose, the study identifies various types of nudging measures, including Gatekeeper’s Nudge, which involves strategies to influence which news is presented to users initially, such as by adjusting algorithms or editorial guidelines. Clickworthiness Nudge focuses on making certain news articles or headlines more attractive or clickable for users, for example, by using exciting headlines or images. The third is Model Citizen Nudge, where certain news consumers or their behavior are highlighted as a positive example, which can encourage others to follow suit. Self-actualization Nudge appeals to users’ personal goals or values to motivate them to choose a more varied range of news. Lastly, Popularity Nudge highlights the popularity of certain news articles or sources to influence users’ choices, for example, by showing the number of likes or shares. Each of these nudging measures is designed to subtly influence users’ news choices in a way that encourages diverse news consumption without restricting their freedom of choice. The findings of the study indicate that nudging measures can be effective in promoting diversity in news consumption on news recommendation systems. However, the article also points out that such measures come with certain challenges and trade-offs and that they will not necessarily work for all users or in all situations. Emphasis is placed on the need to adapt nudging measures to individual differences and situational factors, as well as the need to balance diversity with other important evaluation goals.

McCallaghan (2022) examined how the diversity climate in the workplace affects employees’ experiences of racial microaggressions (RMAs), organizational commitment, intentions to leave, and job satisfaction in South African organizations. Using a cross-sectional design with 262 participants from the Gauteng province, data were collected through structured questionnaires. The results showed a negative relationship between cultural environment and RMAs, as well as positive relationships between cultural environment and organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and intentions to leave. Reduction in RMAs led to improvements in cultural environment and well-being outcomes, while a better cultural environment led to further improvements in organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and reduced intention to leave. The study also observed that gender and ethnicity influenced perceptions of diversity climate and experiences of RMAs. Men generally had a more positive experience of the diversity climate than women. Therefore, the need for targeted measures such as nudging to address these differences and promote an inclusive work environment for all employees is suggested. Leaders and organizations can implement training programs on diversity and inclusion to increase awareness and understanding of RMAs and promote a culture of respect and tolerance.

O’Meara et al. (2020) reviewed the literature on implicit and cognitive bias in faculty hiring in American higher education institutions. Using theories from behavioral experiments and social psychology, the study analyzed the four phases of the hiring process. Data were collected from four databases. After reviewing 154 articles on bias, 57 articles were supplemented to focus on relevant findings. The study used an integrated and narrative approach to examine bias in faculty hiring. The four phases studied were job description preparation, marketing and recruitment, candidate evaluation, and shortlisting and final decisions. Challenges were identified in each phase, particularly related to bias in job descriptions, recruitment strategies, application evaluation, and final hiring decisions. The study concluded that nudging could be a potential strategy to reduce bias and promote inclusive practices in the hiring process. By making small changes in decision situations, nudging can help improve choices and reduce bias. The need for further exploration of nudging strategies to promote fair and diverse faculties was also emphasized.

Williams (2018) explored whether the composition of hiring committees affects decision-making processes related to hiring and promotions, focusing on reducing racial bias and discrimination. Using an experimental design with two groups, one ethnically diverse and one homogeneous, the study included 182 participants. Data were collected via an online survey. The results showed that participants in diverse groups had a higher belief in the importance of diversity in the workplace compared to homogeneous groups. They also supported more business-related justifications for diversity. Furthermore, participants in diverse groups were more likely to discuss bias and identify subtle forms of bias in decision-making processes. When it came to promotion recommendations, participants in diverse groups were more likely to recommend minority candidates for promotion. Even after controlling for other factors, exposure to a diverse group increased the likelihood of recommending a minority candidate for promotion. According to the study’s conclusions, participation in diverse groups can have a significant impact on beliefs about diversity, awareness of bias, and promotion decisions in workplace environments. Nudging was identified as an effective strategy for promoting diversity and inclusion in the workplace, even without direct participation from minority groups.

4. Discussion

This study has examined the use of nudging techniques in organizational contexts dealing with diversity and inclusion, particularly in recruitment and hiring processes. The purpose was to provide an overview of existing literature to contribute to a better understanding of the question: What effect does nudging have on creating a more inclusive and diverse work environment? We chose to perform a systematic literature review, which provides a structured approach to comparing findings across studies and identifying patterns, trends, or deviations. It also allows for the synthesis of knowledge from various studies to generate new insights and guide future research or practice (Gopalakrishnan and Ganeshkumar 2013).

The review of the literature indicates that nudging measures can be effective in promoting diversity and inclusion in the workplace. Several studies show that nudging can help reduce bias, increase awareness of diversity, and improve perceptions of inclusive practices among employees and managers. By implementing small changes in decision-making processes, recruitment strategies, and organizational practices, nudging can help create a more diverse and inclusive work environment. There is also a consensus that nudging measures should be tailored to the organization’s needs and context to be most effective (O’Meara et al. 2020; Williams 2018; McCallaghan 2022; Atal et al. 2019).

The main types of nudging measures identified include default options, framing, priming, and social norms. Each of these types affect specific cognitive and behavioral mechanisms, often unconsciously, and can be associated with positive outcomes related to D&I when implemented in a thoughtful manner.

Default options, such as anonymous applications or inclusive language as standard in job advertisements, reduce the potential for implicit bias by minimizing the activation of stereotypes. These measures are particularly effective because they leverage System 1 thinking—fast, intuitive, and automatic—in shaping the initial assumptions for decision-making. When default options are inclusive, they often guide decision-makers toward more equitable outcomes without requiring active reflection.

Framing information, such as emphasizing the value of diversity to team performance, influences how decision-makers perceive candidates. This activates both System 1 and System 2: it creates an immediate positive association (System 1) while also inviting more thoughtful consideration (System 2) of the benefits of diversity.

Priming, or exposing individuals to diversity-related concepts before they make decisions, has been shown to reduce bias. For example, reminding hiring committees of the importance of fairness and representation can unconsciously activate egalitarian values, which also appeals to System 1.

Social norms, such as emphasizing the organization’s values or the inclusive behavior of colleagues, can lead people to follow inclusive norms. This type of nudging exploits our inherent desire to conform to group expectations, subtly but effectively influencing behavior.

Effective nudging in the context of diversity and inclusion requires an understanding of how these mechanisms interact with cognitive processes. Dual processing theory—System 1 (intuitive, rule-based) and System 2 (analytical, reflective)—provides a useful framework. Nudges are often most effective when designed to interact with automated decisions (System 1), but some nudges can also work by disrupting automatic patterns and promoting conscious reflection (System 2), especially in complex situations such as recruitment (see also Van Gestel et al. 2020).

The current results are consistent with the work of Berg and Håpnes (2001), which emphasizes the recognition and appreciation of diversity in the workplace, and with Atal et al. (2019), which explores the implementation of diversity and inclusion. These studies support each other by promoting the idea that diversity is a valuable resource for organizations.

The current findings underscore the importance of diversity and inclusion in the workplace while acknowledging the challenges that may arise in implementing such practices. Previous work, such as Hunt et al. (2018) and Sterne et al. (2016), highlighted the importance of diversity and inclusion, which is supported by the current results. On the other hand, McCallaghan (2022) discusses the challenges related to implementing diverse practices, pointing out that while the benefits of diversity and inclusion are clear, there are still barriers that must be overcome to fully realize these benefits. McCallaghan (2022) specifically highlights resistance and cultural barriers as obstacles to effective implementation, complementing Hunt et al. (2018)’s focus on the benefits of diversity.

Furthermore, both Sterne et al. (2016) and Jaiswal and Dyaram (2020) indicate that nudging can be a valuable tool for reducing bias and promoting inclusive practices in the workplace. Examples of successful nudging techniques support the idea of how these techniques can be integrated as part of a broader strategy to promote inclusive practices in organizations. Overall, these findings provide a more comprehensive picture of the challenges and opportunities related to diversity and inclusion in the workplace, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to effectively address these issues.

According to Thaler and Sunstein (2008), it is important to be aware of potential drawbacks and negative consequences of using nudging interventions. Malina and Selto (2015) discuss the risk of focusing too much on specific goals, which can come at the expense of other important aspects of a study or objective. Potential drawbacks that may arise include lack of autonomy and overload. Lack of autonomy can lead to a sense of loss of control and reduced self-esteem among employees, while information overload and choice overload can lead to confusion and reduced efficiency. Overall, the findings indicate that the use of nudging has both positive and negative aspects, but it is a cost-effective method for achieving change with both small and larger measures. It has proven effective using simple strategies (Thaler and Sunstein 2008).

However, nudges must be part of a broader strategy to produce lasting change. Isolated interventions may create short-term behavioral change, but they do not necessarily change attitudes or structural barriers. Therefore, organizations should combine nudges with structural reforms and long-term cultural measures.

4.1. Strengths and Weaknesses

The effectiveness of nudging interventions depends strongly on the culture of the organization. Studies indicate that the interventions need to be adapted to the specific needs and context of the organization (O’Meara et al. 2020; Williams 2018; McCallaghan 2022). Resistance and cultural barriers, as mentioned by McCallaghan (2022), can reduce the effectiveness of the interventions. Moreover, the implementation of nudging requires support from management to be successful. Without management commitment, the interventions can lose their impact and legitimacy.

To enhance the reliability of our review, we adopted two recognized tools, ROBINS-I and AMSTAR, to assess potential biases in the included studies. Based on the ROBINS-I assessment, however, several studies featured missing data or inadequate reporting of dropouts, which weakens the reliability of the results. Concerning the AMSTAR assessment, although the majority of reviews met many of the criteria (particularly related to search strategy and questions), a recurrent weakness was the lack of assessment of the risk of bias in the included primary studies. This reduced the ability of the review articles to provide comprehensive and valid conclusions. This result could be partially due to expanding the more stringent assessment criteria of the AMSTAR applicable to systematic reviews to a narrative and integrative review and a proposed practice study.

We conducted our search in four databases, ensuring interdisciplinary results and strengthening the internal validity of the review, while adhering to the Prisma (2020) guidelines. We consulted the department librarian to find the most appropriate search terms for the study, allowing for the inclusion of as much relevant literature as possible, which strengthens the study. However, the method used excluded gray literature, which may have omitted relevant research and thus introduced a form of selection bias. In partial response to this criticality, we used an inter-rater agreement metric to assess the appraised studies, which helped ensure consistency and reliability in the selection process. This increases the credibility of the selection and strengthens the validity of the conclusions drawn based on the selected articles.

To ensure high reliability and reduce the possibility of random errors in this study, a protocol was developed before the review could start. Among others, the protocol included inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies to be included in the review. By having clear criteria, it was ensured that only relevant and reliable research articles were included in the analysis. According to Bannach-Brown et al. (2024), developing a protocol before a systematic review can be very useful. This helps make the process more transparent and ensures that it is conducted correctly. The protocol can also help researchers avoid bias, make them more accountable, and ensure that all results are reported, regardless of whether they are positive or negative. Moreover, the protocol developed in advance helped ensure that the search process was conducted consistently and that the assessment of study quality was performed objectively. Emphasis was placed on ensuring internal validity through a systematic approach to the selection, analysis, and interpretation of the research articles.

Further challenges were represented by the potential bias in the interpretation of the selected articles, as there is always a risk of subjectivity or bias in the selection of relevant studies. These include (a) limited generalizability, as there is variation in context and organizational types across studies, making it difficult to generalize findings broadly, (b) the use of self-report: as several studies use self-report data, which may be subject to social desirability bias and subjectivity, thereby reducing data quality; and (c) a short time horizon in the interventions: many interventions are short-term, making it challenging to assess long-term effects of nudging.

This literature review had a time limit from 5 January 2024 to 1 March 2024, and such a limitation means that articles published after 1 March 2024, were not included in the review. The choice of a 15-year time frame (2009–2024) was made to ensure the relevance and timeliness of the research, especially because the concepts of nudging, diversity and inclusion first received significant research attention during this period. Nevertheless, this time limit may have led to the exclusion of potentially relevant, older studies that could have provided important historical context or insight into long-term trends. It is also possible that more recent, but not yet published, studies were not captured.

Another potential weakness of the study is the predominant use of cross-sectional studies among the selected studies. Although cross-sectional studies are useful for identifying relationships between variables, they only provide a snapshot of a phenomenon and do not allow for the establishment of causal relationships. This limits the depth of understanding and may hinder the ability to draw concrete conclusions about the effect of nudging measures in the workplace. Only two of the studies were experimental. Additional experimental studies could have provided the opportunity to directly compare different nudging measures and evaluate their effectiveness in promoting diversity and inclusion in the workplace. Although this can be considered a limitation, cross-sectional studies still provide valuable insights and a broad basis for further research.

Moreover, it should be noted that the topics of diversity and inclusion can be studied at different points in time due to economic cycles. For example, the implications for the workforce can vary greatly depending on whether the “push factors” from the outbound country of origin are war or forced immigration, or economic cycles in the host country (Ozgen 2021). Thus, it would be simplistic to assume that the same nudging interventions will work similarly as the contingencies that build up different exemplifications of potential discrimination or isolation rest on unique historical and social backgrounds.

4.2. Ethical Considerations

Schmidt and Engelen (2020) point out in their research on nudging and ethics that it is crucial to consider ethical guidelines when implementing nudging. Furthermore, the use of nudging, especially directed at System 2, can reduce the risk of creating ethical dilemmas compared to when it is directed at System 1 (Thaler and Sunstein 2008). The authors argue that this is due to the increased transparency that often accompanies nudging that affects System 2, making it easier to detect and assess the influence. While it may be harder to detect nudging effects in automatic System 1, they will be more transparent and easier to identify when directed at the analytical System 2 (Thaler and Sunstein 2008).

A literature review should strive to include research from various sources and perspectives to ensure a comprehensive and representative review of the field (Svartdal 2015). In this literature review, various databases with different specializations have been used, and studies from different countries and fields have been included.

Another ethical perspective in this study is the use of nudging in work environments to promote diversity and inclusion. Nudging can potentially affect autonomy and freedom of choice, and therefore it is crucial to handle it with care. A critical assessment of ethical guidelines is necessary to minimize the risk of negative consequences of nudging in the work environment (Jones 2020). It is also important to ensure that the interpretation and presentation of results are careful and honest to avoid misinterpretation or manipulation of data (Brown 2019).

Moreover, review studies focusing on nudging as a means of influencing others’ choices and decisions should be treated with even more care concerning transparency, objectivity, potential conflicts of interest, and autonomy. Transparency affects the extent to which the researchers in primary studies disclose the purpose and procedures of their interventions with the population. This way, it is possible to mitigate the manipulation object (Michaelsen et al. 2021). Objectivity and disclosing possible conflict of interests are closely associated and refer to the ethical responsibility of making the readerships of nudging studies aware of whether the results and conclusions may have been altered as a function of potential benefits due to authors’ or other stakeholders’ multiple or ambiguous roles. For example, when private companies and marketeers implement nudging interventions, their intentionality raises ethical concerns (see Schmidt and Engelen 2020) which could be further aggravated through significant power imbalances, such as the case of marginalized groups in diversity and inclusion initiatives. Lastly, autonomy in the nudge agenda of policymaking is nested in the very philosophical underpinning of the approach: the tension between a libertarian-preserving approach while exercising paternalism towards the users and recipients who are either indifferent to the presentation of alternatives or judge it unimportant. On the other hand, the effects of changed defaults options for those with at least a weak preference for the alternative may cause negative reactions and be perceived as manipulative (see also Wilkinson 2012).

4.3. Further Research

During the writing of this literature review, several positive aspects of using nudging in the workplace to increase diversity and inclusion have emerged, but there is limited research specifically examining the relationship between nudging, diversity, and inclusion in the workplace. The results, however, showed that the use of nudging can have positive effects on increasing diversity and inclusion in organizations. Our findings open up several opportunities for further research in this area. An interesting avenue of further research would be to examine which factors influence the effectiveness of nudging in promoting diversity and inclusion, such as organizational culture, leadership style, and individual differences among employees. By exploring potential challenges and barriers that may arise when implementing nudging to promote diversity and inclusion, and how these can be overcome.

Daniels and Bailey (2014) have discussed feedback systems in their book Performance Management. Further research on this could form the basis for investigating how feedback systems can be used to identify and reward inclusive behavior among employees. This could involve evaluating how feedback systems can be directed towards promoting behavior and engagement that is sensitive to diversity, as well as participation in diversity-related activities. Further research could explore how nudging techniques can be integrated into these feedback systems to reinforce desired behavior. For example, visual reminders or rewards related to inclusive behavior could be implemented as part of the feedback process.

The combination of feedback systems within OBM and nudging strategies can help create an environment where employees are encouraged and rewarded for participating in diversity-promoting activities and for showing respect for differences. This can help create a more inclusive organizational culture that values diversity and promotes a positive work environment for all employees. Further research on the relationship between nudging, diversity, and inclusion can help generate new knowledge that is of interest for both academic and practical purposes. For example, such studies can explore how different nudging measures can affect employees’ behavior and attitudes in the workplace, as well as identify best practices for implementing such measures effectively.

Lastly. We suggest focusing more on the bearings of employee composition and individual differences in organizations. Variations in demographics and attitudes among employees can affect how nudging is received and how effective it is. Further research is suggested on how individual differences may affect the results of nudging interventions in this domain. By examining these questions more closely, researchers can contribute to developing theories and models that explain the mechanisms behind effective diversity and inclusion initiatives in organizations. This can, in turn, help managers and decision-makers design more targeted and effective strategies to promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace.

4.4. Implications for Practice

As an implication of this study, organizations should consider implementing nudging to strengthen diversity and inclusion in the workplace. Organizations or researchers can benefit from insights into various nudging strategies and their impact, which can contribute to a better understanding of how nudging can improve performance and well-being. However, further empirical studies should be conducted to confirm these assumptions and to quantify the potential impact of nudging techniques on organizational performance.

Our ambition is that this literature review will provide novel insights into how nudging can be applied in various organizations with a focus on diversity and inclusion, and what significance it can have for their employees. The results of the study are relevant across different sectors and fields; particularly, for consultants and managers involved in changing processes.

We argue that nudging is not the solution to all inequality or discriminatory issues (similarly as it is not supposed to replace traditional policy tools—Benartzi et al. 2017), but it can be an effective approach in such processes. For example, employers and managers can start implementing and improving their diversity and inclusion initiatives by introducing subtle reminders, possibly streamlined into their recruitment and selection interfaces, for example, when screening CV. They could harness the power of social influence to fight pluralistic ignorance affecting false marginalizing and discriminatory beliefs among workers, customers, and suppliers in their fields, for example, by disclosing expectations and ambitions in their corporate communications. Finally, from executives to operators, all are responsible for promoting and facilitating the adoption of new or alternative practices when these are better aligned with the goal and policies for safeguarding diversity and inclusion in the workplace. Failing to do so may affect the quality of service delivery, which in the case of health care can be very costly and not only in economic terms (e.g., see Williams et al. 2025 for a guide applied to nurses).

While nudging has been regarded in this study as a cost-effective and effective technique to get diversity and inclusion initiatives started or (better) known among employees and organizational members, it is paramount that these are sustained by providing positive consequences and embedded incrementally in the encompassing cultural practices.