The practical justification for corporate diversity, equity and inclusion programs — as opposed to the more idealistic one — has always been pretty straightforward: Hiring for diversity is just good business. However, it is now clear that this is not the case. Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) might not be bad for business, but it is not good, either.
DEI can mean many different things, but the most controversial aspect of it entails companies going out of their way to hire women, and members of ethnic and racial minorities for board positions and in senior roles. The rationale is that increasing gender and ethnic diversity brings in a wider range of points of view and personal experiences, which leads to better decisionmaking, as more aspects of a problem are considered. Therefore, more diverse hiring increases profits and benefits shareholders. There is a small library of studies from consulting firms, the financial industry and academic centers showing that more diverse leadership improves performance and profitability.
However, there are reasons to be skeptical of that evidence and the argument it supports. Very few of those studies have been subject to peer review, and few could be replicated. Besides which, many are published by businesses that also make money from DEI initiatives.
More rigorous research from academia does not find any correlation, or even a negative one, between profitability/share price and more diverse boards or workforces. The academics behind that research do not mince words: As one Harvard professor said: “These reports are not academic studies; rather, they are marketing materials crafted to attract paying clients.”
Among the criticisms are that the industry studies lack rigor, use poorly specified models, make elementary errors (such as not measuring profitability or stock returns properly) or infer causation when even correlation is thin or nonexistent.
That does not mean all DEI initiatives should be scrapped. One of the biggest critics of the DEI-is-good-for-business literature is London Business School finance professor Alex Edmans — and he supports some aspects of DEI.
The problem is that diversity of race and gender might not be a good proxy for diversity of thought, he said.
DEI can also be associated with sales growth and profitability as long as it is defined not in a narrow demographic sense, but as a way to make employees feel welcome, included and heard, he added.
Yes, those things are also an indication of a well-run company. And the perception of quota-based hiring can undermine the perception of fairness, which Edmans’ work shows employees also value. Still, his and others’ research shows that simply hiring a more diverse staff, or putting more women or members of minorities in leadership roles, does not by itself make a company more profitable.
Now that DEI is under more scrutiny, preserving what was well-intentioned about it requires an honest assessment of its purpose and its results. US President Donald Trump is trying to end DEI not only in the US government, but also in the private sector, which is divided on whether to continue its efforts.
The business case for DEI is weak, so the question of what companies should do is one of values. For some, diversity in hiring is an important way to right past wrongs, while others point out that white men still dominate key roles. The counterargument is that DEI hiring practices are another form of discrimination.
Both sides have a point and it is hard to be agnostic on the issue. The best we can hope for is that any company which continues its DEI efforts — as well as any company that abandons them — be clear-eyed about what it hopes to achieve.
Allison Schrager is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering economics. A senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, she is author of An Economist Walks Into a Brothel: And Other Unexpected Places to Understand Risk.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS