Dog friendly office: Inclusion, Exclusion, and the Fine Line Between Preference & Choice?

Jason Roberts, CEO
Aug 14
3 min read

The word inclusion gets used a lot in workplace conversations.

But in recent years, I’ve noticed that it is also being stretched, sometimes applied to situations that are really more about personal comfort than systemic barriers.

So, how do we tell the difference between a workplace preference and true exclusion? Let’s start with a simple example: A job advert says :

“We have a dog-friendly office"

Some people would light up at the thought. Others might hesitate perhaps because they have allergies, a phobia, or come from a cultural background where dogs are not typically indoor companions.

Is this exclusion? Or is it simply a work environment that won’t appeal to everyone?

Exclusion of Personal Preference? Where the rubber meet the road

The Nine Protected Characteristics

Under the UK Equality Act 2010, there are nine protected characteristics:

Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage and civil partnership
Pregnancy and maternity
Race
Religion or belief
Sex
Sexual orientation

These exist to ensure people are not treated unfairly because of who they are. If a policy or practice disadvantages someone on one of these grounds, that’s discrimination, and it is unlawful.

By this definition, a dog-friendly office does not target a protected characteristic. Unless, for instance, it could be proven that allowing dogs discriminates against people with certain disabilities or health conditions (e.g., severe allergies), it is not exclusion in the legal sense.

Preferences vs Protected Rights

Here are some examples of workplace preferences that may not suit everyone, but generally fall outside the scope of the Equality Act:

Dog-friendly office: Great for pet lovers, not for everyone.
Open-plan workspace: Energising for some, distracting for others.
Hot-desking: Flexible for the company, unsettling for people who prefer routine.
Casual dress code: Comfortable for many, uncomfortable for those who prefer more formality.

These are not inherently exclusionary, they are choices about workplace culture. They may make some people opt out, but they do not block access in the legal sense.

Now compare that to incursions against the nine protected characteristics:

Not hiring someone because they are pregnant: Discrimination based on pregnancy and maternity.
Refusing flexible hours to a practising Muslim who needs time for daily prayers: Discrimination based on religion or belief.
Excluding a wheelchair user from meetings because the meeting room is upstairs with no lift: Discrimination based on disability.
Offering social events only in pubs may indirectly discriminate against people whose religion prohibits alcohol.

These are not about personal preference, they are about barriers that prevent people from participating fully because of who they are.

Where Inclusion Fits In

Here’s where the conversation gets more nuanced.

While the Equality Act sets the minimum legal standard, inclusion is about going further. It’s about creating environments where more people can thrive without needing to assimilate into a single “dominant culture.”

That doesn’t mean every workplace must cater to every preference. It means thinking through the unintended consequences of cultural choices, and being willing to adapt when those choices create avoidable barriers.

For example, a dog-friendly policy could be reviewed to:

Have pet-free zones for people with allergies or discomfort.
Allow certain days as “no pet days” to accommodate all staff.

These aren’t legal requirements, but they show an intent to widen participation.

Exclusion vs Preference

The risk in blurring the two is this:

If every personal discomfort is labelled exclusion, the term loses its power. Real, harmful exclusion becomes harder to identify and harder to fight.

Exclusion is a systemic barrier tied to identity.

Preference is a personal choice about what environment you want to be in.

Both are valid in decision-making, but they are not the same thing.

The challenge for organisations is knowing where to draw the line:

If it’s a legal or systemic barrier, it must be addressed.
If it’s a preference, it should be considered but it may not dictate the organisation’s culture.

In conclusion, true inclusion balances fairness with practicality. It’s about widening the circle without making it so large that its shape, and its meaning, disappears entirely.

The real question is not “Do we include everyone?” it’s “Do we remove the barriers that prevent people from being included?”

Perhaps everything else, in the end, comes down to preference and choice.

About Us

"Finding Diverse Suppliers is time-consuming as the process today involves researching against multiple databases."

Founded in 2019, Kaleida International is a B2B marketplace for Tenders connecting Buyers to Suppliers, and Diverse Suppliers. With a focus on helping the Chief Procurement Office achieve its ESG goals, and alerting companies to new revenue opportunities, Kaleida's fully-inclusive platform helps Buyers find, identify and assess Diverse Suppliers they can invite to Tender.

In 2025 Kaleida will publish £800b in both Public and Private sector tenders for suppliers, and Diverse suppliers to apply to. By increasing access to commercial opportunity, we believe we can drive equality through providing access to economic parity.