{"id":10127,"date":"2025-02-24T13:20:01","date_gmt":"2025-02-24T12:20:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/insights.ieseg.fr\/?p=10127"},"modified":"2025-02-24T13:20:03","modified_gmt":"2025-02-24T12:20:03","slug":"dei-how-can-we-fight-for-diversity-in-business","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/insights.ieseg.fr\/en\/resource-center\/management-society\/dei-how-can-we-fight-for-diversity-in-business\/","title":{"rendered":"How can we fight for diversity in business in the era of Trumpism?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

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?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

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<\/a> and cultural tensions are redefining strategic priorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Companies such as Ford, Walmart, Meta, Amazon and McDonald’s<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A context of questioning DEI policies<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The decline of DEI initiatives reflects tensions between three rationales<\/a>: 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cactivism\u201d approach of being ideological. However, as the philosopher Slavoj \u017di\u017eek<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Responses from marginalized employees<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a> policies. These arguments do not always require tangible proof, as DEI has become a difficult \u201cmonster to tame<\/a>\u201d while conservative ideologies seem easy. This rejection is often based on simplified narratives pitting diversity against merit<\/a>, thus reinforcing adherence to a status quo that is presented as natural and neutral.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How should we react?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In this context, previous research<\/a>, including some that I have conducted<\/a>, shows that employees can react in different ways:<\/p>\n\n\n\n