The current legal and regulatory landscape around DEI is certainly testing organizational agility and stamina. At the present time, I think companies are watching the legal volley around the issues and approaching it with caution, despite often believing and wanting to further the underlying intention of supporting greater representation, fairness and cultures of belonging.

In direct response to the question, organizations that have reduced their DEI initiatives have experienced pushback from consumers and employees alike. Sales, employee retention, reputation and supplier relationships have been negatively impacted by many of the companies that have aggressively moved away from DEI practices.

For organizations whose mission, vision and values are tightly aligned to inclusion, representation and fairness, DEI practices are more critical to them and their customer base. Eliminating or changing these practices has more significant implications.

DEI’s purpose is obviously threefold: ensure a workforce represented by individuals with various backgrounds, a focus on fairness with organizational practices, and creation of an environment where everyone feels respected, valued and empowered.

While underrepresented is often interpreted by race, it more often includes gender, individuals with disabilities, veterans and those who have served in our armed forces, as well as their spouses, LGBTQ, lower socioeconomic and/or educational backgrounds or certain age groups.

DEI is expansive and recognizes that human nature is flawed and biased and seeks to put structures in place that minimize those tendencies so everyone has a fair and equal opportunity. It is not designed to punish certain people who are more deserving or qualified than others, but rather, expand opportunities so everyone who is (or could be) qualified has an equal opportunity to be seen.

Tampering down on DEI practices risks stifling current and future talent and undermining a company’s own ability to compete and achieve higher levels of performance both individually and as organizations.

Ultimately, without focus and emphasis, we revert to old patterns of underrepresentation and we know that often leads to lower business performance. We also know from current research that most employees want diversity, equity and inclusion in their workplaces.

While there might be disagreement around specific practices, employees and leaders desire cultures that embrace diversity, fairness and belonging (call it what you will). Turnover, engagement, innovative thinking, and toxic workplace behavior, are all at risk with declining emphasis on these efforts.

I also think it is important that we continue to understand the difference between DEI and affirmative action. While there are some areas of overlap, most companies we work with (many who operate across the globe) are maintaining DEI efforts (although they might be calling them something different) and more closely examining affirmative action strategies, which often.

What is often more interesting to me is looking at those organizations that have elected not to move away from DEI practices.

They are staying within the law by eliminating quotas and race-based preferences, but they are maintaining (and growing) a commitment to language, DEI-specific programs, employee resource groups, inclusive hiring practices and benefits packages, and community engagement, which fosters diversity and inclusion.