Consumer behaviour 2026 report
June 24, 2026
No Comments
New research uncovers the payment habits, preferences and priorities shaping the future of payments in the UK.
17 July 2025
by Payments Intelligence
The payments sector continues to navigate evolving diversity and inclusion (D&I) expectations as organisations balance regulatory requirements, stakeholder demands, and operational considerations. This report presents findings from a comprehensive survey of 23 payments sector leaders, examining current D&I practices, data collection methods, and strategic priorities for 2025.
The research captured insights from a diverse cross-section of industry leadership, including chief executives from established payment processors and emerging fintech firms, C-suite officers responsible for risk and compliance functions, and senior directors overseeing strategy and operations. Respondents represented organisations spanning the payments ecosystem: from traditional banking institutions and global payment networks to specialist consulting firms and innovative biometric technology providers. The survey participants included leaders from both UK-headquartered companies and international firms with significant UK operations, reflecting the sector’s increasingly global yet locally regulated nature.
Survey responses were collected between November 2024 and May 2025, providing a current snapshot of industry practices during a period of continued regulatory evolution and economic adjustment. The participating organisations ranged from boutique consulting firms to large multinational corporations, offering perspectives across different organisational scales and business models within the payments landscape.
The research explores how organisations approach recording and evaluating protected characteristics across different stages of the employee lifecycle, from recruitment through ongoing employment. The findings provide payments sector leaders with benchmark data to inform their D&I strategies and operational decisions in 2025.
The survey reveals a predominantly stable approach to D&I policies across the payments sector, with 65% of organisations reporting no changes to their D&I prioritisation for 2025. This suggests that many companies have established frameworks they consider appropriate for their current operating environment.
However, the remaining 35% of organisations are making adjustments to their approach. Equal proportions—15% each—are either increasing or decreasing their D&I prioritisation, indicating divergent strategic responses within the sector. A small minority (5%) are undertaking policy revisions, suggesting refinement rather than wholesale changes to existing approaches.
This mixed picture reflects the complex considerations payments organisations face when balancing various stakeholder expectations, regulatory requirements, and business priorities. The equal split between those increasing and decreasing prioritisation indicates the sector is still working toward the optimal D&I strategy.
During recruitment and onboarding processes, organisations demonstrate varying approaches to collecting data on protected characteristics. Sex emerges as the most commonly recorded characteristic, with 73% of organisations capturing this information. This high rate likely reflects established HR systems and legal requirements that have historically included sex as a standard data point.
Ethnicity and disability data are recorded by 36% of organisations respectively, representing a moderate level of adoption. Gender identity data collection occurs in 27% of organisations, while sexual orientation receives the lowest recording rate at 14%. Notably, 27% of organisations report collecting none of these protected characteristics during recruitment and onboarding.
When examining evaluation practices for recruitment data, the pattern shifts slightly. Sex remains the most evaluated characteristic at 71% of organisations. Disability evaluation occurs in 41% of organisations, while ethnicity evaluation happens in 35%. Gender identity and sexual orientation evaluation rates stand at 29% and 18% respectively. Nearly a quarter (24%) of organisations evaluate none of these characteristics, with an additional 6% reporting uncertainty about their evaluation practices.
Entry-level positions receive distinct attention in D&I monitoring, reflecting recognition of their importance for long-term workforce composition. Sex data recording for entry-level roles occurs in 61% of organisations, maintaining its position as the most tracked characteristic but at a lower rate than general recruitment.
Disability data recording for entry-level roles reaches 39% of organisations, while ethnicity recording occurs in 35%. Gender identity and sexual orientation data collection for entry-level positions stands at 26% and 22% respectively. A significant proportion (35%) of organisations collect none of these protected characteristics for entry-level roles.
Evaluation practices for entry-level role data show higher rates of analysis relative to collection. Sex evaluation occurs in 75% of organisations that collect such data. Ethnicity and disability evaluation each reach 50% of relevant organisations. Gender identity evaluation stands at 42%, while sexual orientation evaluation occurs in 33% of organisations. However, 17% of organisations evaluate none of these characteristics for entry-level roles.
The relationship between data recording and evaluation reveals significant insights into organisational D&I practices. Across all roles, organisations demonstrate varying levels of data utilisation, with evaluation rates ranging from 67% to 100% of recorded data.
Sexual orientation data shows the highest utilisation rate, with all organisations that record this information also evaluating it (100%). Disability and gender identity data achieve strong evaluation rates of 88% and 83% respectively. Sex and ethnicity data, despite higher recording volumes, show 75% evaluation rates, indicating some organisations collect but do not analyse this information. Organisations recording no protected characteristics show 67% evaluation rates for their baseline practices.
Entry-level role data presents different patterns, with generally lower evaluation rates for most characteristics. Sexual orientation maintains strong utilisation at 80%, while gender identity sustains 83% evaluation rates. However, sex data evaluation drops to 64%, and disability evaluation decreases to 67%. Ethnicity evaluation remains stable at 75%. Most notably, organisations recording no protected characteristics for entry-level roles show only 25% evaluation rates, suggesting significantly limited systematic review of baseline practices compared to all-role recruitment.
Beyond recruitment and onboarding, organisations show reduced engagement with protected characteristic monitoring. Only 50% of organisations record sex data at other points during employment, representing a significant decrease from recruitment levels.
Ethnicity and disability data recording during employment occurs in 30% of organisations respectively. Gender identity and sexual orientation data collection each reach 20% of organisations. More than half (55%) of organisations record none of these characteristics beyond the recruitment phase.
Evaluation patterns for ongoing employee data show higher analysis rates among organisations that collect such information. Sex data evaluation reaches 91% of relevant organisations, while ethnicity and disability evaluation each occur in 55%. Gender identity and sexual orientation evaluation rates stand at 45% and 36% respectively.
Data maintenance following recruitment presents another perspective on organisational commitment to D&I monitoring. Sex data maintenance occurs in 52% of organisations, while disability data maintenance reaches 33%. Ethnicity and sexual orientation data maintenance each occur in 29% of organisations, with gender identity maintenance at 19%. A substantial proportion (38%) maintain none of these data types following recruitment.
When examining specific D&I focus areas, organisations demonstrate varied priorities. The most common response (25%) indicates no specific focus on protected characteristics, suggesting either broad-based approaches or limited D&I emphasis.
Among organisations with specific focus areas, sex receives attention from 21% of respondents, maintaining its prominence across all survey dimensions. Ethnicity and disability each command focus from 14% of organisations, while gender identity and sexual orientation each receive focus from 11% of organisations. A small proportion (4%) report being unsure about their current D&I focus areas.
These focus area selections align broadly with data collection patterns, suggesting organisations tend to prioritise monitoring and action around the same characteristics. The significant proportion without specific focus areas may reflect organisations that prefer comprehensive approaches or those with limited D&I activity. The presence of uncertainty amongst some respondents indicates that D&I strategy communication may require attention in certain organisations.
The survey findings reveal a payments sector in transition regarding diversity and inclusion (D&I) practices. While most organisations maintain stable policies, the presence of both increasing and decreasing prioritisation indicates ongoing strategic evaluation across the sector.
Data collection and evaluation practices show clear hierarchies, with sex consistently receiving the highest attention, followed by ethnicity and disability, then gender identity and sexual orientation. This pattern likely reflects historical data collection practices, regulatory requirements, and organisational comfort levels with different characteristics.
The gap between data collection and evaluation suggests many organisations gather information they do not actively analyse. This presents both challenges and opportunities for sector leaders seeking to optimise their D&I approaches.
The payments sector demonstrates varied approaches to diversity and inclusion, with organisations making different strategic choices based on their specific circumstances and priorities. While sex, ethnicity, and disability receive the most attention across data collection and evaluation practices, significant proportions of organisations maintain limited D&I monitoring.
The stability in D&I prioritisation for 2025, combined with the mixed signals on strategic direction, suggests the sector continues to evaluate optimal approaches. Leaders should consider how these benchmark findings relate to their own organisational contexts, regulatory environments, and stakeholder expectations.
As the payments sector continues to evolve, D&I practices will likely require ongoing assessment to ensure they remain aligned with business objectives, regulatory requirements, and stakeholder expectations. The current diversity in approaches across the sector provides multiple models for organisations to consider as they refine their D&I strategies.
New research uncovers the payment habits, preferences and priorities shaping the future of payments in the UK.
New research shows vulnerable customers are strong adopters of AI and digital banking, but are far more likely to experience failed payment journeys and poorer outcomes.
UK merchants expect agentic commerce to grow rapidly, but uncertainty around liability, fraud, and standards is slowing readiness.
You need to be logged in to do this!
