Once embraced as a moral imperative and business imperative in the wake of the 2020 protests, diversity, equity and inclusion or DEI programs are now under intense political and regulatory scrutiny.
Major companies from Alphabet to Walmart are scaling back these initiatives, even as the Trump administration condemns DEI by federal contractors and activist pressures mount against it. In this volatile environment, many leaders are exploring an alternative approach: decision making frameworks grounded in evidence-based, merit-driven processes.
Over the last few months, DEI initiatives have increasingly become a lightning rod for controversy. A growing list of U.S. companies, including Target, Meta, Amazon, McDonald’s and Ford, are retreating from their DEI commitments in response to mounting legal and political pressures.
For example, Tractor Supply eliminated several DEI roles and abandoned sponsorship of events like gay pride month following vocal criticism from conservative circles. Similarly, Walmart phased out supplier programs specifically designed to support minority-owned businesses. Such moves highlight the growing political and cultural divide over how companies should address diversity and inclusion in the workplace.
Federal government actions have only accelerated the trend. In his second term, Trump has signed a series of executive orders aimed at dismantling DEI initiatives within federal agencies. These orders, which have placed DEI staff on administrative leave and even compiled watchlists of federal employees engaged in equity efforts, have created an atmosphere of uncertainty. When even government policies become subject to ideological battles, corporate leaders are increasingly wary of investing in programs that may attract controversy or legal challenges.
In response, many organizations have experimented with rebranding their DEI initiatives, replacing terms like diversity, equity and inclusion with alternatives such as “belonging” or “culture-building.” But these rebranding efforts often fall short. Critics view them as cosmetic changes that do not address the fundamental concerns regarding fairness or meritocracy. DEI supporters, for their part, sometimes oppose rebranding as a capitulation to political pressure, leading to internal dissent and decreased morale. The result is a delicate balancing act whereby companies can please no one.
An emerging solution is to shift the focus from identity-based programs to structured, science-based decision making frameworks. These frameworks emphasize objective criteria, measurable outcomes and transparent processes to foster an environment where fairness and inclusion are embedded in everyday business practices. By concentrating on decision-making processes, organizations can achieve many of the same benefits promised by DEI — such as improved hiring practices, fairer promotions, and more collaborative teamwork — without attracting the same level of controversy.
For example, structured hiring practices — where standardized interview questions and scoring rubrics replace subjective judgments — have been shown to double the predictive validity of job performance compared to unstructured interviews. Similarly, implementing evidence-based promotion policies tied to measurable achievements ensures that advancement is based on merit rather than personal bias.
Even collaborative decision making processes that actively seek input from diverse perspectives can help companies avoid groupthink and drive innovation. These practices not only reduce the impact of unconscious bias but also align closely with the strategic goals of improving productivity and financial performance.
Recent research supports this approach. Research from McKinsey has consistently demonstrated that companies with diverse leadership teams are significantly more likely to outperform their peers. Companies with diverse teams achieve better innovation, according to a Deloitte report. By grounding decisions in objective, data-driven frameworks, companies can sidestep the ideological debates surrounding DEI while still capturing the benefits of diverse viewpoints and inclusive practices.
This focus on outcomes rather than optics is particularly attractive in today’s environment, where investors and market analysts are increasingly scrutinizing corporate governance and operational efficiency.
Moreover, embedding decision-making frameworks into the organizational DNA offers a long-term, scalable solution. Unlike one-off DEI training sessions that may fade into the background, these frameworks are designed to be integrated into everyday operations. From performance reviews and resource allocation to conflict resolution, a structured approach to decision-making can help ensure that fairness and inclusivity are not just buzzwords, but fundamental principles guiding the company’s trajectory.
Adopting such frameworks also helps companies navigate the turbulent political landscape by focusing on universal values like fairness, objectivity, and merit. This approach minimizes the risk of alienating key stakeholder groups while maintaining the support of employees who have long championed inclusive practices. Leaders who invest in training and regularly measure outcomes—such as employee engagement, retention rates, and diversity in leadership—can ensure that these processes remain dynamic and responsive to both internal needs and external pressures.
As corporate America continues to grapple with the fallout from the DEI debate, decision-making frameworks represent a promising path forward. They offer a way to reconcile the need for fairness and inclusion with the realities of a divided political landscape, ensuring that companies remain competitive and resilient.
By shifting the focus from identity politics to objective, evidence-based practices, organizations can build a stronger foundation for long-term success — one decision at a time.
___________
The Hill
