A recent TikTok clip shows a lady, with a child at her hip, yelling at the cashiers at a well-known supermarket in Canada. She is berating the staff for hiring only members of a certain immigrant nationality, and ignoring other qualified applicants. The disgruntled lady is white.
On social media, videos abound of the many faces of racism and reverse racism. This is just one manifestation of the diversity backlash that is becoming increasingly common in North America.
What exactly is diversity backlash? The World Economic Forum (WEF) defines it as certain people feeling aggrieved, insisting that they are losing opportunities because they don’t fall into certain groups. WEF goes on to say that handling this takes leadership and courage, and an awareness of the bigger picture.
Is the backlash justified?
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is usually seen as part of the social category of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) policies.
In the United States, political campaigns (the Republican party is on a nationwide witch hunt against any institution embracing ESG principles) to the public voicing their displeasure – the backlash is snowballing. In fact, Florida recently banned ESG investments; this includes consideration of ESG in investment decisions.
This is quite different to the rush to show unity and equality just three years ago. George Floyd’s death in 2020 brought Americans of all types and kinds together. It was the start of a great movement where corporates rushed to invest in DEI programs. That year saw an estimated 7.5BN USD spent on such initiatives. It sent ripples the world over and changes, seen as positive at the time, were happily adopted.
How the tables have now turned. The US corporate sector is taking measures to use a spate of layoffs due to the economic downtown to disproportionately let go of DEI roles. Companies such as Amazon, NIke, Intel and Twitter are among the giants who have slashed their DEI roles, though on paper they say they remain committed to DEI initiatives.
Critics argue that DEI policies are giving way to companies claiming success on matters that are not relevant to investor returns. Responding to climate change issues, treating employees well, positive investor relationships are not part of business performance. Which is why it is increasingly being looked down upon, now that focus has once again been redirected to shareholder profits.
It was 1976 Nobel Peace Prize Winner Milton Friedman who is credited with popularizing the notion that companies should consider it their only duty to maximize profits. This theory is now back in the forefront, thanks to the increasing backlash against ESG policies.
Is this a uniquely American phenomenon? It might seem so to a keen observer.
In Europe, good performance in ESG is seen as a contributing factor for corporate success, a part of best business practice. The same rings true for many other nations that have opted for these measures.
There is also a clear disconnect between public statements made by large companies and their willingness to actually follow through on them. Companies have been accused of talking about DEI policies only if it was profitable to do so or good for their company image to be seen doing so.
Even if corporations were happy to tow the DEI line for the sake of brand image, it did bring in many benefits to disadvantaged people – those who were often overlooked despite their qualifications just because of their skin colour, race, nationality, gender, disability and so on.
Unfortunately, policies brought in just to tick a conformity box does not bring in lasting change.
True, positive change requires real desire for change. Many years for results to show, and real effort to keep improving. Until we see the need for change, just namesake policies and campaigns will only result in actions and reactions that will not benefit anyone. For the sake of human progress, let’s hope a lesson will be learnt from all this and efforts will continue to create a just and equitable society.
(AK)