Last month, Apple’s shareholders rejected efforts to align the iPhone maker with Trump’s broader campaign to dismantle corporate diversity initiatives, voting against a proposal to roll back its DE&I programs. Apple remains an outlier in Silicon Valley, resisting conservative pressure to scale back DE&I initiatives, even as an increasing number of major corporations quietly abandon or dilute their commitments.
To keep DE&I efforts sustainable without getting caught in a political crossfire, I believe a fundamental shift in approach is needed. Having led DE&I initiatives at a global industrial company, I’ve seen firsthand what works – and what sparks resistance. 
Instead of allowing DE&I to become a cultural flashpoint, we must reposition it as a value-driven, data-backed strategy – one that is seamlessly integrated into business objectives rather than framed as a social or ideological stance.
Since Trump’s election win in November, more than 200 major US companies have removed references to DE&I from their annual reports, according to the Financial Times, due to presumed fears of federal investigations and political backlash. 
Shortly after taking office in January, Trump moved to restrict workplace diversity initiatives, issuing executive orders that barred federal agencies from implementing DE&I programs and compelled government contractors to prove compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
Since then, scores of S&P 500 firms have reduced or eliminated DE&I mentions, the FT said, with many shifting their language toward more neutral terms like “inclusion” and “belonging”. Executives now face heightened scrutiny over supplier diversity programs and initiatives targeting specific demographics, such as women’s mentoring schemes. 
“When grounded in strategic priorities, diversity becomes an operational asset rather than an ideological stance.”
Companies that frame DE&I as a business imperative rather than a social cause will find it easier to maintain support across diverse stakeholders. 
Instead of moralizing DE&I, organizations should clearly articulate how it supports their specific business model. The rationale will vary by sector. In consulting, for example, the ability to attract and retain top talent is often the most compelling starting point. For B2C companies, reflecting the diversity of the customer base within the workforce can sharpen cultural insight and responsiveness – critical for interpreting consumer needs.
In tech, where Millennial and Gen Z employees dominate, building an inclusive culture is increasingly central to the employee value proposition and can fuel innovation by ensuring diverse perspectives are not just present but heard. When grounded in these strategic priorities, diversity becomes an operational asset rather than an ideological stance.
In the face of external pressures, some firms, such as Citi, KPMG, Goldman Sachs, and Disney, have abandoned targets or rolled back DE&I pledges, while others like Apple and Costco have doubled down on their diversity commitments.
Costco shareholders recently voted to uphold the discount retailer’s DE&I policies, signaling ongoing corporate support despite growing opposition. Cisco’s leadership has also taken a firm stance, arguing that diversity is not just a social good but a key driver of business performance. “You cannot argue with the fact that a diverse workforce is better,” Chuck Robbins, chief executive of Cisco, said in January. “There’s too much business value.”
Yet, even as some companies defend their diversity efforts, DE&I commitments across corporate America are increasingly seen as a liability, with businesses wary of regulatory scrutiny and political backlash. This has forced organizations to take a more calculated approach.
By grounding our efforts in evidence and outcomes rather than moral appeals, we avoided political pushback and made inclusion a business advantage.
At the industrial firm where I work, when we started our LGBTQ+ program, securing leadership buy-in was only the first step. The real challenge was embedding inclusion into the fabric of our industrial conglomerate’s culture, in a way that felt organic rather than imposed. This meant not only setting top-down commitments but also fostering engagement from the ground up. 
This approach has built empathy and awareness across the organization while steadily proving the business case for inclusion. We followed a phased, structured strategy – beginning with leadership alignment, appointing an executive sponsor, and setting a clear tone from the top.
Year one focused on awareness: why DE&I matters, what peers were doing, and what the data showed. In year two, we moved to action, launching a reverse mentoring program that paired senior leaders with LGBTQ+ colleagues from different regions, revealing lived experiences and highlighting areas for change. By year three, we embedded DE&I into company policy – updating the code of conduct, making benefits inclusive, and aligning leadership around equity.
By grounding our efforts in evidence and outcomes rather than moral appeals, we avoided political pushback and made inclusion a business advantage. The further DE&I is from being framed as a political stance, the more likely it is to gain broad acceptance as a corporate best practice.
Positioning it around inclusion – ensuring that all employees can contribute fully without reducing the conversation to quotas or preferential treatment – helps embed it within business strategy, without provoking ideological resistance. 
But for DE&I to remain sustainable in an increasingly polarized climate, it must be anchored in measurable outcomes. A structured, data-driven approach not only reinforces its credibility but also allows businesses to track progress, refine strategies, and demonstrate real impact.
Many companies struggle with quantifying the benefits of diversity and inclusion because the impact is often indirect, long-term, and influenced by multiple variables. 
Inclusion performance can be measured in two ways. One approach focuses on representation – tracking the percentage of minority employees in leadership or assessing hiring and promotion trends. While this method provides visibility, it can also be controversial if seen as enforcing quotas rather than fostering genuine inclusion. 
The second approach centers on enablers – policies and programs that create a more inclusive work environment without mandating specific demographic outcomes. For example, companies can evaluate the accessibility of leadership development initiatives, measure participation in mentorship programs, as well as how inclusive the company’s employee policies and, recruitment practices are, how many people join the Employee Resource Groups, and having role models at all levels of the organization.
These indirect indicators often offer a more holistic way to drive meaningful progress, without sparking political resistance, since they can apply to all minorities. A well-balanced combination of direct and indirect KPIs can offer a more accurate and nuanced view of a company’s progress on inclusion.
Rather than focusing on identity-based targets, organizations should stress meritocracy and access to opportunity.
For DE&I efforts to have lasting credibility, they must be embedded into corporate governance structures rather than treated as stand-alone initiatives. This requires leadership to set a clear direction while also fostering grassroots momentum throughout the organization. 
Behavioral insights and change management strategies – such as using nudges, signals, or subtle interventions to influence behavior, and normalizing inclusive practices – can help create an environment where diversity is seen as an organic part of business operations, rather than an externally imposed mandate. 
On top of that, the way DE&I is communicated plays a big role in how it is perceived. Many leaders make the mistake of presenting diversity as something to be achieved. Rather than focusing on identity-based targets, organizations should stress meritocracy and access to opportunity. A commitment to fairness – ensuring equal access to career development and advancement – resonates more broadly than prescriptive diversity mandates. 
However, achieving this level of fairness requires updating policies to ensure all minority groups have access to the tools and support they need to thrive.
This shift in framing is already evident in corporate messaging, as companies move away from traditional DE&I language. Morgan Stanley, for example, underscored this approach in its latest annual filing, stating: “Meritocracy is at the heart of Morgan Stanley’s talent development.”
Encouraging allyship and identifying areas where different groups share common challenges can further strengthen workplace cohesion, ensuring that inclusion is not perceived as a zero-sum game, but to build a stronger, more unified workforce.
For multinational companies, the trick will be ensuring compliance with different frameworks while managing risks in politically sensitive markets. 
Beyond internal workforce dynamics, the financial impact of abandoning DE&I initiatives is another factor companies must consider. Research has consistently shown that diverse workplaces lead to greater innovation, stronger financial performance, and better employee retention. 
Companies that scale back DE&I initiatives risk alienating key talent, particularly younger workers. According to US jobs site Glassdoor, 76% of job seekers say a diverse workforce is an important factor when evaluating offers. Rolling back DE&I efforts could create long-term recruitment and retention challenges, making it harder for companies to attract top talent.
In parallel, employees are becoming more vigilant on issues like sustainability, where the risk of being seen as a “greenwasher” – or, in the case of DE&I, a “pinkwasher” – is increasingly close at hand.
On a global scale, the political and regulatory environments vary. While the US has seen a pushback against DE&I, Europe continues to promote corporate diversity reporting and gender balance in leadership. For example, the EU’s Women on Boards Directive, which took effect in 2022, requires large publicly listed companies to ensure that at least 40% of non-executive director positions – or 33% of all board seats – are held by women by 2026. 
Similarly, Germany passed a law in 2021 mandating minimum gender representation on executive boards of large companies, and France has expanded corporate gender quotas beyond boards to senior management teams. 
These regulations contrast sharply with the US, where DE&I programs are increasingly scrutinized. DE&I programs have been a fixture in corporate America for decades, but they gained significant traction in 2020 in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, which spurred widespread calls for racial equity and corporate accountability. But the backlash is now in full swing.
For multinational companies, the trick will be ensuring compliance with different frameworks while managing risks in politically sensitive markets. 
Ultimately, the goal is not to abandon diversity efforts but to integrate them more seamlessly into business strategy. When DE&I is tied to measurable business outcomes like talent retention, market expansion, and innovation, it moves from being a divisive issue to a clear driver of success.
Business schools have a responsibility to develop leaders who can navigate complexity without compromising on values. As corporations pull back from DE&I commitments under political pressure, David Bach argues that now is...
Take our quiz to see if you're well-placed to implement new European rules on boardroom equality....
Audio available
New EU legislation requires stronger female representation on corporate boards. Here are ways to navigate the transition....
Audio available
Widespread bias and lack of inclusivity across the tech world deters women from pursuing careers in the sector. This is a significant business risk. Here are some practical actions every reader can...
Explore first person business intelligence from top minds curated for a global executive audience