Source: French to English Tester Published on: 2026-04-27
Source: The Conversation – France (in French)– By Salomée Ruel, Professor, Léonard de Vinci Pole
Since the election of Donald Trump, some companies have been reconsidering their diversity-equity-inclusion policies. Some question the cost of these policies, others their efficiency. But what do these costs and benefits really entail?
While some companies are scaling back their diversity-equity-inclusion (DEI) commitments (in the United States,Goldman Sachsfor example contemplates removing the origin or gender from the selection criteria for its directors), others, such asColgate Palmolive, publicly defend them.
This movement is part of a “DEIbacklash» : since 2023, political pressures and shareholder proposals have been increasing todeletecertain devices. This sequence raises a very operational question: does DEI really improve performance?
A purely HR-related topic?
DEI is often discussed as an HR or political topic. In operations and logistics management, it is also a matter of reliability, problem-solving, and adaptability: in a crisis, a company depends on the quality of its relationships with its teams and suppliers, who can be diverse. But what is the reality?
Also to read:
How to fight for diversity in the company in the era of Trumpism?
To go beyond slogans, in arecent research, we combined a statistical analysis of data from large American companies (across all sectors) with ten interviews with DEI practitioners and logistics and operations professionals in order to understand why the results in terms of DEI are so nuanced.
We have brought together two databases: “diversity & inclusion” evaluations left by employees onGlassdoorand financial and operational data on Fortune 500 companies. The data covers the period from 2020 to 2024. The analyses show that when the perception of DEI is better, accounting profitability (ROA) is slightly lower the following year. Moreover, the results do not show a statistically robust association with stock market valuation or with innovation (number of patents).
A short-term signal
When looking over two or three years, the negative effect on ROA disappears: the signal is therefore short-term. The data do not confirm the existence of an immediate “jackpot” of DEI on financial and operational indicators. They rather suggest costs and frictions at the start, while the benefits, if they exist, may be more diffuse or captured by indicators other than accounting results.
The interviews help to understand these results. They reveal two simultaneous realities:
-
DEI can improve operations,
-
but a poorly designed DEI or one designed to “look good” can create counterproductive effects.
Several interviewees describe benefits on the operations and logistics management side, notably through the diversity of suppliers and teams. Let’s take three examples. Regarding supplier resilience, an interviewee recounts that, in the midst of the Covid crisis, a company seeking protective equipment found “a company owned by a minority that guaranteed us an uninterrupted supply.” In other words, suppliers who are often smaller, sometimes overlooked by the usual panels, can be agile when standard channels become saturated.
About the negotiation, a managersupply chainnote:
“We are getting better deals now […] in our negotiation teams, there is a better balance between men and women and more collaborative ways of negotiating.”
Here, the idea is not that a genre “negotiates better,” but that diversity can change interaction styles, with effects on the quality of agreements.
A capacity to access new networks
Finally, regarding the topic of disability inclusion, a manager explains having struggled for a long time to “do something impactful” until working with an organization “led and entirely composed of people with disabilities.” The result: “Immediately, we noticed an increase in the representation of people with disabilities within our workforce.”
The lever here is not a speech, but a capacity to access networks and candidates that the company did not reach, while the field of operations andlogistics struggling to recruitemployees. These examples converge: DEI creates value when it is embedded in processes (sourcing, contracts, daily management), not when it remains a task to “look good” on a To-Do List.
Nevertheless, the interviews also shed light on the reasons for the short-term negative signal on profitability. Because, on the ground, DEI can quickly run into a series of very concrete pitfalls. First, there is the cost of implementation. Integrating DEI into processes (recruitment, training, supplier relations, individualized support) requires resources and managerial energy. One interviewee sums up the tension bluntly: “Compromises around DEI have always been made at the expense of savings.”
Ineffective DEI facade
Then, the internal dynamic can become tense when some employees feel sidelined when DEI policies are implemented. One participant mentions “a period […] when certain groups of people felt forgotten,” in favor of actions supporting the integration of people from minorities. In his example, experienced white men who see themselves as having becomepersona non grata. These perceptions feed resistance, demotivation, and daily friction. However, these frictions end up being reflected in short-term financial results.
Finally, one last pitfall often recurs, that of superficial DEI. When the company favors what is simplest and most visible, without addressing the rules of career management, evaluation, or allocation of opportunities, inertia remains. As one consultant puts it:
“They often do what is easiest to do […] None of this works, but it gives a good image of the company.”
In this case, the expected benefits in terms of loyalty, innovation, and decision quality remain largely out of reach.
In view of these results, the question may not be so much “should we do DEI?” but rather “what exactly are we talking about when we talk about DEI?” Our statistical analyses show a rather short-term negative financial effect that does not persist. Then, our interviews reveal a more qualitative reality: operational benefits exist, but they are neither automatic, nor free, nor guaranteed.
Beyond the binary debate
This is also what makes the current sequence (between withdrawals and public defenses) difficult to interpret. An announcement of a “retreat” can sometimes reflect a cautious arbitration in the face of legal or political constraints; it can also conceal the discreet abandonment of initiatives that were nevertheless useful on the ground. Conversely, “maintaining DEI” can mean profound process changes… or just a better-controlled communication effort.
Rather than a binary debate, our results mainly invite us to look at the facts: is DEI reflected in recruitment practices, in how people are integrated and advanced, in the relationship with suppliers, in the teams’ ability to solve problems without burning out? It is in these concrete areas that impact is determined. It is also there that initial costs can be offset, or conversely accumulate.
At heart, if DEI may seem like a short-term expense, it is perhaps because it is a transformation like any other: it only produces effects when it becomes part of routines, and it disappoints when it remains superficial. This gap between appearance and practice also explains why the American news is so difficult to decipher: behind “DEI,” some companies are genuinely changing their ways of operating, while others are merely shifting the dial or changing the vocabulary.
Salomée Ruel does not work for, advise, own shares in, receive funds from any organization that could benefit from this article, and has declared no other affiliation than her research organization.
–ref. Diversity-equity-inclusion: no immediate jackpot for companies –https://theconversation.com/diversity-equity-inclusion-no-instant-jackpot-for-companies-277763