How can we fight for diversity in business in the era of Trumpism?
02/24/2025
4 min
Share
In the United States in particular, policies promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) are being challenged. Why is this? And how are minority groups and their allies who benefited from these initiatives reacting?
DEI initiatives have long been presented as levers of social transformation and organizational performance. However, a backlash has been observed in several large companies, particularly in the United States, where the rise of anti-woke discourse and cultural tensions are redefining strategic priorities.
Companies such as Ford, Walmart, Meta, Amazon and McDonald’s have reduced diversity commitments, citing economic pressures, external criticism or a shift in internal priorities. While the promotion of diversity was previously seen as a moral and economic imperative, it is now becoming a controversial issue, exposing companies to unprecedented pressures.
A context of questioning DEI policies
The decline of DEI initiatives reflects tensions between three rationales: moral justice logic, business logic and the power activism logic. While these approaches have common objectives, they can sometimes be in opposition and even fuel the rejection of such inclusion policies.
Moral justice considers diversity as an ethical and legal imperative but is often criticized when it is perceived as a constraint. The business case, meanwhile, emphasizes the economic benefits, but can reduce DEI initiatives to a simple question of profitability. Finally, the power activism logic imposes change through external pressure, which can generate resistance.
The rejection of DEI policies often results from these tensions, especially when they are amplified by governments, such as in the United States, which accuse the “activism” approach of being ideological. However, as the philosopher Slavoj Žižek asserts, all human action is ideological. This abandonment of DEI thus reinforces a conservative norm under the guise of objectivity, which has repercussions on organizations, which then must choose between aligning themselves with external pressures or following the moral duty to build a more ethical work environment.
Responses from marginalized employees
Faced with this impasse, economic justifications are often put forward: including cost reduction, or a lack of clear indicators on the positive impact of DEI policies. These arguments do not always require tangible proof, as DEI has become a difficult “monster to tame” while conservative ideologies seem easy. This rejection is often based on simplified narratives pitting diversity against merit, thus reinforcing adherence to a status quo that is presented as natural and neutral.
The problem is that this gradual rolling back of DEI policies impacts different groups in the workplace, such as women, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and LGBTQIA+ employees. Together, these groups can represent a significant proportion of a company’s workforce. This decline is therefore worrying, as it risks further marginalizing historically excluded groups.
How should we react?
In this context, previous research, including some that I have conducted, shows that employees can react in different ways:
- Continue the fight: some employees will continue to advocate for improving the work environment for marginalized groups. This constant struggle will not disappear with the decline of DEI policies. In addition to those employees directly concerned, “allies” can play a key role, especially when non-marginalized employees in positions of power actively support those colleagues who are in vulnerable situations.
- Complying and adapting: for various reasons, many employees do not have the luxury of directly opposing their organization. In these cases, they tend to accept changes without expressing resistance and, sometimes, adopt the behaviors of the dominant group to better integrate. For example, gay men may adjust their expressions, their style of dress, or even conceal their sexual orientation to avoid stigmatization.
- Leaving the organization for more inclusive companies: finally, employees who are dissatisfied with the suspension of DEI initiatives may choose to leave their current employer to join a company that is more committed to inclusion. Although understandable, this approach risks further accentuating polarization in society. Despite the current challenges, the work is a place where different social groups coexist, and the gradual disappearance of this diversity could have negative long-term repercussions.
Threat to business competitiveness
Without diversity policies, discrimination returns and opportunities become scarce. The loss of protection and support programs reinforces a sense of isolation and injustice among minority groups. However, this phenomenon is not limited to marginalized employees: it influences the overall work dynamics and internal cohesion of companies. Moreover, since diversity is a key factor in innovation and attracting talent, the elimination of DEI initiatives risks weakening the competitiveness of the companies concerned.
Consumers, but also investors, who are increasingly attentive to societal commitments, could also turn away from companies deemed to be giving up DEI efforts. This negative spiral would be terrible for companies, employees and society. At the same time, it is avoidable.
Rethinking diversity in business
In a polarized society where ideology prevails, it is essential to look within organizations and find ways to highlight moral issues as well as the potential results of DEI actions. So, the main challenge is to rally internal support, especially from those who are not always convinced by the facts. If indicators and studies were enough, we would not see such moves in some companies in the United States. It is therefore essential to dissociate DEI from a strong ideological connotation.
An effective approach to circumvent this situation is to strengthen a bottom-up dynamic: companies can rely on their employees who “continue the fight”. These individuals are ready to help their organizations identify the specific problems in their work environment. Training that is too general and indicators that are disconnected from the reality of the teams do not have the necessary impact to be convincing.
Furthermore, drawing inspiration from environmental movements would make it possible to concretely illustrate the positive effects of DEI policies on employee well-being and organizational performance. These movements have been able to mobilize opinion by highlighting the immediate (and even visual) consequences of polluting practices on local communities. Applying this logic to DEI initiatives would demonstrate how an inclusive work environment benefits everyone. The emotional impact of contextualized testimonies can be much more effective in raising awareness and changing attitudes. In this way, the debate moves away from ideological considerations and refocuses on the main objective: creating a more inclusive work environment that benefits everyone and is profitable for companies.
Lucas Amaral, Associate Professor, IÉSEG School of Management
This article is translated version of an article originally published in French on The Conversation France. Read the original article.
