Diversity & Inclusion in the 21st century and Why It’s Dividing the World

President Donald Trump’s dismantling of American Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs is happening at breakneck speed. His Executive Orders label DEI policies as "illegal and immoral forms of discrimination”. HEC scholars Matteo Winkler and Marcelle Laliberté scrutinize this shift of narrative which is challenging certain constitutional rights. They share their research on this seismic shift which, they say could undermine the very essence of American - and by ricochet, European – societies and their notion of equal rights.

WINKLER: We have observed a significant shift in the narrative surrounding DEI in the United States. Up until January, DEI programs were widely understood as efforts to prevent discrimination against minorities and individuals from underprivileged backgrounds - people who have historically been excluded from positions of power in corporate environments. Now, that narrative has been turned on its head. Recent executive orders suggest the opposite: that DEI programs themselves are discriminatory and must be dismantled.

This shift stems from a landmark 2023 U.S. Supreme Court case involving Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The case challenged the use of race as one of many factors in college admissions. The Court ruled that this practice was discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. Although the ruling technically applies only to public institutions and not private companies, the decision has been co-opted by far-right and conservative groups to argue that all DEI initiatives - especially those that incorporate concepts like equity, diversity, and inclusion in corporate settings - are illegal.

This is a destructive and disruptive narrative, and it marks a dramatic departure from prior understanding. It’s a recent development, but one with broad implications. As such, it requires serious attention and analysis from the academic community. 

LALIBERTE: In our research, we imagined you’re steering a global organization across rapidly shifting waters. In the United States, there’s a political tide pushing back against diversity efforts. Meanwhile, in Europe, regulations require detailed reporting of pay gaps. In the Middle East, leaders are striving to integrate global DEI standards into their local contexts. It can feel like navigating a stormy sea without a solid map.

That’s why we developed CADENCE - a seven-step journey designed to harmonize these different layers and keep you on course. We begin with Compliance, which serves as your foundational anchor for meeting legal or industry requirements. Then there’s Alignment to ensure leaders and employees row in the same direction. Deployment spreads DEI initiatives organization-wide, rather than leaving them siloed. Evaluation sets the measurable milestones, so you’re not adrift but steering toward real outcomes. Next is Normalization, weaving DEI into daily operations so it becomes second nature. Catalyzing encourages innovation and inclusive practices, and finally, Endgame is where DEI is more than a program - it’s a source of long-term resilience and performance.

By applying CADENCE at the macro (regulatory), meso (sectoral and organizational), and micro (team/individual) levels, we help leaders at all levels adapt these values to their unique local context. Even as currents shift - whether political, cultural, or legal - this model ensures diversity isn’t just a line item but the compass guiding how your business continues to perform and innovate. 

LALIBERTE: Sure. An easy example that comes to mind is the Santander Group. This multinational announced in its press releases that it will not link executive bonuses to diversity targets in countries where diversity is politically contentious.. However, in other regions, it will continue to tie performance measures to diversity goals for its executives... That’s a prime example of answering the question: ‘How do I adjust as an international organization while maintaining my value systems around diversity, equity and inclusion?’

WINKLER: When your company engages in transnational, cross-border economic activity, it is virtually impossible to fully insulate what happens between one entity and another. In our recent work, Marcelle and I have observed several strategies companies are using to navigate this complexity. We’ve identified three main approaches: 
First, some companies create an internal firewall. In practice, this means they rename and reshape their policies in certain countries, but essentially continue implementing similar practices as in other regions. It’s a way to adapt superficially while maintaining continuity.

Second, we identified what we call “cultural divergence.” This approach involves adapting to local norms while still maintaining a broader dialogue on values. For example, in countries like Uganda or Kenya, companies may promote gender equality, but cannot legally implement LGBTQIA+ policies due to local laws that pose serious risks to their operations, and sometimes to individual safety. At the same time, these companies continue to advance LGBTQIA+ policies in their home markets without jeopardizing their international activities.

Third, we’ve seen cases of full retreat. Unfortunately, some companies—like Target - have chosen to discontinue their DEI efforts altogether. We believe this is a deeply short-sighted decision. DEI isn’t just about appearances; it’s about opening doors to talent from backgrounds that are often excluded from economic opportunity. Companies that are more inclusive tend to attract a broader, richer talent pool. Eliminating DEI efforts undermines a company’s core mission: to grow and succeed. If you stop attracting talent, you not only weaken your own organization but also contribute to a more impoverished society. Sadly, this is the direction some are heading.