16724: Worth Less, More Or Less.

Inspired by the Trial for #ClinicalEquality campaign from FCB Health New York.

16723: Worth Less Shows More Bias.

 

MM+M spotlighted the latest patronizing propaganda from FCB Health New York’s Trial for #ClinicalEquality campaign, an initiative designed to expose the racial and ethnic bias in clinical trials.

 

As pointed out in a previous post, the revelation that people of color receive unequal treatment from the US healthcare system is hardly surprising—in fact, it’s common knowledge—and arguably offensive coming from a White advertising agency likely fishing for awards versus advocating for justice.

 

To compound the cultural cluelessness, the new advertisements feature AI-rendered images of Black patients. So, in addition to using an executional method that has displayed bias, FCB Health deprived talent of color from the opportunity to receive payment and recognition for appearing in a national campaign. Surely the hardest-working man in Black advertising could have been tapped.

 

In short, the advertising stunt presented parallel prejudice: unequal representation in clinical trials and underrepresentation in commercial concepts.

 

AI portraits highlight the lack of diversity in clinical research

 

The Worth Less campaign is the latest initiative from FCB Health New York’s Trial for #ClinicalEquality.

 

By John Newton

 

The initial inspiration for the Trial for #ClinicalEquality, a longstanding initiative from IPG Health’s FCB Health New York, struck seven years ago. In the course of looking at clinical trial data intended to support a creative campaign, the agency realized they didn’t reflect the people it hoped to reach.

 

“It wasn’t an isolated incident,” noted IPG Health chief medical officer Dr. Sommer Bazuro. “We needed data to reflect, first, the racial groups within the overall population and, second, the disease incidence and mortality rates for that specific population.”

 

Since then, the Trial for #ClinicalEquality has highlighted the costs of a lack of diversity in clinical trials — to both individuals and society broadly. One study, for instance, found that there were no Native American participants in diabetes clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from March 2000 to March 2020.

 

The lack of diversity undermines public trust in scientific research and results in lower-quality data. Also, financial costs accrue due to health disparities that could be reduced with trials that are more reflective of the populations impacted by certain diseases.

 

Worth Less, the initiative’s latest campaign, features 15 portrait-like images that were created using generative AI licensed from Adobe Stock. Its overarching goal is to call attention to the ethnic minority groups impacted by clinical inequality.

 

The campaign’s name is designed to be read two ways, asking whether the lives of patients of color are worthless as well as whether they are worth less than other patients’ lives. The photo captions highlight the wider implications of failing to include patients from certain demographic groups in clinical trials with statistics: “1% of clinical trial participants are Asian, yet chronic hepatitis B affects them the most” and “2% of patients in dementia clinical trials are Black, yet they experience this disease at the second highest rate.”

 

Bazuro believes that many patients and physicians simply assume that clinical trials are reflective of the communities impacted by specific conditions or diseases.

 

“Most people, even those who have been in healthcare for years, don’t realize that it’s not happening,” she says. “They don’t know that when their physicians talk to them about medicines, that they cannot be 100% confident that someone who has their particular background was included. That’s something that troubles physicians.”

 

The Worth Less messaging centers on the financial implications of non-diverse trials. Bazuro explained that the perceived greater expense of diverse clinical trials is a common concern — but that the societal costs of lower-quality data, mistrust of the healthcare system and disparate outcomes need to be considered as well.

 

“We know how the world works: If you can’t fund it, it’s not getting done,” added FCB Health New York chief creative officer Kathleen Nanda. “That’s just the reality of business and, very often, health is a business.”

 

The campaign website includes a host of statistics, including one explaining that, from 2003 to 2006, medical expenses could have been reduced by $230 billion if inequalities faced by patients of color had been eliminated.

 

“We want people to understand the urgency of data equality and clinical equality and to take action,” Nanda said. “We want this problem to be seen and to be fixed by a bunch of brilliant different minds. It’s not just what we are doing; it’s what our community is doing that we’re really, really excited about.”

16722: An Award-Winning Merger Of Exclusivity + Systemic Racism…?

MediaPost reported Ascential—parent company of the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity—is considering a $1.5 billion acquisition offer from UK-based Informa.

 

There’s something appropriate about an enterprise tied to Adland—where mergers and acquisitions are common occurrences for White advertising agencies and holding companies—now undergoing the process too.

 

Based on their respective websites, both companies appear to be run by White men and White women—so there’s a corporate and cultural fit. Don’t expect either place, however, to land a Glass Lion or other patronizing trophy for performative DEIBA+ achievements.

 

Indeed, any such prize for Ascential or Informa would likely constitute a scam award.

 

Cannes Lions Operator Ascential Weighing $1.5B Bid

 

By Joe Mandese

 

Ascential plc, the parent company of the Cannes Lions festival and other assets relevant to the ad industry, is weighing a $1.5 billion acquisition offer from British publishing company Informa plc.

 

“Following recent movement in Ascential’s share price, the board of Ascential confirms that it has received a conditional proposal from Informa PLC regarding a possible cash offer for the entire issued and to be issued share capital of Ascential at 568 pence per Ascential share,” Ascential said in a regulatory statement, adding that the current proposal follows “a number of approaches by Informa to Ascential in recent months.”

 

The statement goes on to say Ascential’s board is “minded to recommend” Informa’s most recent proposal.

 

Ascential, which recently sold its Flywheel Digital commerce assets to Omnicom for nearly a billion dollars, also is in the process of selling agency technology startup Hudson MX, which it has said it is discussing with multiple potential bidders.

16721: Gra-pee-ti…?

Is this bladder cancer awareness campaign promoting urinating on brick walls? Is it targeting an urban audience? The concept deserves to be pissed on.

16720: Cross-Gender Still Beats Cross-Cultural…

 

More About Advertising spotlighted a recruitment stunt by AnalogFolk that wonders if prominent White men in Adland would have enjoyed the same success had they been White women. Probably not—but their female versions would have been waaaaay more successful than if they were Black or Brown.

 

If John Hegarty was a woman… AnalogFolk’s cross-gender recruitment experiment

 

By Emma Hall

 

If these famous advertising blokes had been born women, would they have reached the same heights? AnalogFolk is having fun with a serious question using images of some of our best-known creative leaders — all male, of course — in she/her mode.

 

“Would Jane Hegarty have been allowed to zag?” “Nelly Leonard: why is she so uncommon?” “Would anyone listen to Aurora Sutherland?” As part of its own search for a new creative leader, the agency is building an open source talent pool of female creatives which they will make available for everyone across the industry to use and share, with the aim of helping to change the status quo.

 

Senior women tend to get an outsized share of airtime in media and at events. Of course it’s right to raise their profile as role models, but let’s not forget the real statistics: only 17% of ECDs in advertising are women (D&AD 2024), and DE&I progress is stalling or coming to a halt, according to Campaign’s latest research.

 

Last year the same agency created a tongue-in-cheek guidebook for working class people trying to make it in a middle class industry. Social mobility in advertising is another area of painfully slow progress, but it’s good to know that people are still trying.

16719: Accenture Acquiring Omnicom For A Song. (Alt Title: Omnicom’s Swan Song.)

 

More About Advertising speculated Accenture Song is seeking to acquire some or all of Omnicom’s White advertising agencies. This would signal an Adland apocalypse, upsetting an exclusive ecosystem where iconic agency brands are already being erased—accelerating a creative cancellation.

 

Of course, the dearth of true diversity—ie, systemic racism—in the field would not be affected at all.

 

Is Accenture Song eyeing a deal for Omnicom’s creative agencies?

 

By Stephen Foster

 

Cannes Lions is supposed to trigger deals – or put the seal on them at the Eden Roc – and an enticing thought to surface from France (a touch belatedly) is Accenture Song buying some or even all of US rival Omnicom’s creative agencies.

 

Accenture Song (formerly Accenture Interactive) is a collection of tech-based agencies, headlined by Droga5. It also includes the former Karmarama in the UK and The Monkeys in Australia although such agencies are by no means the biggest part. And Accenture Song is big, with revenues of $18bn which puts it on a par with WPP and ahead of Publicis (Accenture’s total revenue is around $70bn.)

 

Omnicom has long been built on its stellar line-up of global creative networks: BBDO, DDB and TBWA. Latterly though its emphasis has been on media and tech. Last year it bought commerce and retail media specialist Flywheel from Cannes Lions owner Ascential for $835m, its biggest acquisition.

 

Omnicom is still helmed by John Wren who, more than a decade ago, agreed a merger deal with Maurice Levy’s Publicis that would have created the world’s biggest marcoms company. This foundered for pretty obvious cultural reasons (much to the delight of then WPP boss Sir Martin Sorrell) but it indicates that Wren, whose long tenure at Omnicom may be nearing a close, is not averse to transformational deals.

 

None of the ad holding companies are making the money out of creative they used to. Back in 1990 Sorrell’s WPP thought Y&R (now disappeared into VML) was worth $4.4bn. That’s nearly half today’s valuation of the whole of WPP.

 

David Droga, now fortified by consigliere Annette King from Publicis and before that Ogilvy, clearly thinks Accenture Song’s tech, consultancy and financial resources can propel it to clear first place in the global creative stakes. Accenture has steered clear of media agencies as it has too much media consultancy business.

 

Even one of Omnicom’s creative networks would be a major statement (DDB now helmed by the UK’s adam&eveDDB may be the most likely.) All of them would be a shape-shifting exercise.

16718: FOXy Ladies & Fools.

 

16717: ANA Ethics Code Of Marketing Best Practices For Worst Perpetrators.

The ANA published ANA Ethics Code of Marketing Best Practices, which is described as follows:

 

The ANA Ethics Code of Best Marketing Practices is a framework of high-level principles, guidelines, resources and examples of ethical marketing and advertising best practices applicable to all entities engaged in marketing, advertising, and fundraising. The Code has been shaped by your peers on the ANA Ethics Code Steering Committee and is designed to be a resource to guide the industry towards ethical business practices with the overarching goal of rebuilding and maintaining consumer trust.

 

Our vision is to advance an accountable and ethical marketing ecosystem for brand growth through a central Code of Ethics, alongside complementary efforts that help implement the spirit of that code, managed by the Center for Ethical Marketing and ANA's leadership as a force for responsible growth. The Code is voluntary and matched with a foundational self-regulatory program to help educate companies on implementing acceptable industry standard practices. These efforts stave off regulation at the state and federal levels. It serves as the baseline of best practices for our industry through ethical accountability and elevates ANA and its members as leaders in this area.

 

The document includes a section titled, “Diversity and Inclusion Marketing Principles,” which poses numerous issues warranting examination.

 

First, did the ANA also deliberately decide to delete the E—ie, Equity—from DEI?

 

Second, was the D&I section delegated to committees of color and/or ERGs within the ANA?

 

Third, given that the ANA has almost annually admitted its membership does a lousy job of embracing multicultural marketing and supporting non-White vendors—ie, perpetuating systemic racism in Adland—what’s the value of best practices targeting the worst perpetrators?

 

Fourth, what’s the point of a pseudo manifesto on DEIBA+ from an organization that has no power, authority, or desire to mandate its recommendations? In short, ANA Ethics Code of Marketing Best Practices is nothing more than patronizing propaganda—a performative PR heat shield.

 

16716: SHRM SMH SH*T.

Digiday Media’s Worklife and Fast Company reported on the decision by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) to delete the E from its DEI strategy, and even reorder the remaining letters to I&D—emphasizing inclusion ahead of diversity.

 

According to Fast Company, the SHRM CEO explained the decision as follows: “We’re going to lead with inclusion, because we need a world where inclusion is front and center. And that means inclusion for all, not some people. Everyone has a right to feel that they belong in the workplace and that they are included.”

 

Worklife also quoted the SHRM CEO as follows: “I’ve concluded that I think what happened is the full definition of inclusion must encompass equity. Fairness, equity, decency, civility, and belonging are inherently virtues of inclusivity.”

 

Adland will undoubtedly embrace the opportunity to further diminish racial and ethnic equity. Indeed, the systemically racist industry has in recent years prioritized equity, extending it—in descending order—to other groups including White women, White LGBTQIA+, White people with disabilities, White neurodiverse individuals, Old White Guys and Gals, White conservatives, White people without degrees, and White house pets.

 

Yes, the ruling majority at White advertising agencies will declare the full definition of inclusion encompasses equity. But equity will be awarded in unequal portions—and the exclusive will define inclusivity.

 

:::::

 

Worklife Content

 

‘A deeply unequal act:’ HR execs alarmed by SHRM’s decision to drop the ‘E’ from ‘DE&I’

 

By Cloey Callahan

 

HR professionals have reacted in horror at the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM)’s decision to drop the word “equity” from its diversity, equity, and inclusion strategy.

 

The decision, announced by the primary national trade group for PR professionals on Jul. 10., follows a widespread rollback of DE&I programs across corporate organizations, in the last year or so.

 

The SHRM claimed the change was prompted by numerous surveys with employers and staff which showed that the word equity caused more confusion than diversity and inclusion. But the move has caused uproar in the HR community, with people turning to social platforms to air their disappointment. Some HR execs have canceled their SHRM memberships, while others withdrew speaker proposals from SHRM’s Inclusion Conference in November. A petition opposing SHRM’s decision was also signed by hundreds.

 

“By removing the very element that addresses systemic disparities, SHRM is sidestepping the uncomfortable but necessary work,” said Amira K.S.Barger, executive vp, health communications and head of DE&I communications and advisory at Edelman. Others have called it a “glaring betrayal” which will weaken DEI initiatives and stunt progress.

 

WorkLife recently compiled a state of DE&I by the numbers, helping show just how uncertain businesses are about how to approach the topic. For example, more than a third of business executives said their organization is facing uncertainty regarding how to move ahead with their DEI programming in the wake of increased challenges to corporate diversity programs, according to Littler.

 

But the SHRM news felt like a nail in the coffin for most HR executives, especially ones who have been approaching their roles progressively. SHRM is the leading society for HR professionals, and after that organization made a clear statement, HR leaders were left wondering what to do next.

 

“SHRM knew there would be disagreement with our decision to lead with inclusion and diversity,” said SHRM president and CHRO Johnny C. Taylor, Jr. in a statement to WorkLife. “We welcome differing points of view and we value diversity of opinion. We are encouraged that we’ve received significant interest from HR and other business professionals who have become SHRM members and have registered for Inclusion24 in Denver this past week because they understand our steadfast commitment to equity principles while we lead with inclusion and diversity.”

 

WorkLife spoke with Taylor last week following the announcement. “The fact that we are not using the full array of letters in the various acronyms that have evolved over time does not mean we don’t think belonging and accessibility matter, we do,” said Taylor in that interview. “I’ve concluded that I think what happened is the full definition of inclusion must encompass equity. Fairness, equity, decency, civility, and belonging are inherently virtues of inclusivity.”

 

We asked a range of people leaders to share their perspectives.

 

Answers were edited for clarity and flow.

 

“I find SHRM’s decision to remove ‘equity’ from DE&I troubling. Given the organization’s influence across the HR community, their decision could have ripple effects across the business world.” – Jennifer Risi, founder and president of The Sway Effect.

 

“SHRM’s decision to remove equity from its approach to DE&I sends the wrong signal to companies and leaders. Equity is essential to the success, productivity, and DNA of a successful modern workplace. By taking it out of the equation, SHRM is essentially telling companies that equity doesn’t matter; it’s communicating that we should focus on hiring diverse people, but not treating them fairly or addressing the imbalances that they are experiencing. We need to do better for our people, and HR organizations need to lead the charge in making sure we are celebrating and investing in diversity and inclusion, but making sure that equity is never pushed to the side.” – Sarah Reynolds, CMO of HiBob.

 

“SHRM’s efforts to acquiesce exemplify what I coined the ‘Red Rover Effect’ – a common pattern where initial solidarity from well-intentioned institutions and individuals turns to apathy when they encounter discomfort and the daunting magnitude of the task ahead. By removing the very element that addresses systemic disparities, SHRM is sidestepping the uncomfortable but necessary work. This move not only weakens DEI initiatives but also hinders genuine progress.” – Amira K.S. Barger, executive vp, health communications and head of DE&I communications and advisory at Edelman.

 

“SHRM’s decision to remove ‘equity’ from DEI initiatives is concerning. It undermines the need to address underlying disparities and will risk the progress being made in workplace inclusion efforts. It is time for HR professionals to look at more progressive human resources organizations that take a bold approach towards HR’s role in building an equitable world.” – Rashim Mogha, CEO of eWOW.

 

“SHRM’s claim of ‘Better Workplaces. Better World’ seems questionable in light of this move. I have decided to withdraw my SHRM Inclusion Conference speaker proposal due to this decision, which I find misaligned with my values. It’s heartening to witness many individuals with SHRM credentials distancing themselves from the organization. If equity and justice are not the end goal in your DEI framework, I don’t see the relevance.” – Nika White, CEO and founder of Nika White Consulting.

 

“It is profoundly disheartening to witness the SHRM actively downplaying, and possibly plotting to scrap, their commitment to equity. As a staunch advocate for truly inclusive, diverse, and equitable workplaces, I view SHRM’s recent pivot not just as misguided, but as a glaring betrayal of everything human resources stands for the comfort of those whose organizations who wield power, privilege, and choose performative measures over systemic change. SHRM’s shift appears to be a political maneuver, a capitulation to external pressures that have no place in the realm of human-centered advocacy. By sidelining equity, SHRM is effectively choosing to minimize advocacy for those who are marginalized the most. This is not just disappointing; it’s unacceptable. As such, I am canceling my SHRM membership. We need human resource organizations that fight for the equity of humans with vigor, not ones that withdraw in times of challenge.” – Rocki Howard, HR advisor to Textio.

 

“I’m a little wary of how much a name change can realistically bring about SHRM’s stated objective of addressing ‘the current shortcomings of DE&I programs.’ To my mind, the mention of ‘societal backlash and increasing polarization’ suggests that this is just a re-branding to make it more digestible and less provocative to those who oppose the concept of equity — which won’t address any actual problems of implementation. I see this move as potentially being a distraction.” – Caroline Fox, global DE&I strategy lead at Tenth Revolution Group.

 

“Despite SHRM’s best intentions, this sends the wrong message as removing the emphasis on equity only perpetuates the structural and institutional biases against underrepresented groups.” – Neil Costa, founder and CEO of HireClix.

 

“SHRM, understandably, wants to focus on inclusion because it’s the most actionable part of DEI. Equity is hard to define, hard to deliver. It’s also expensive. For all those reasons, few organizations know how to make it more than a word. But not knowing isn’t reason enough for not doing it. And taking the word out of the work takes accountability and awareness with it. Equity is how organizations get ROI on I&D. Equity is how they sustain all those efforts they’re standing and expending resources for, equity is not fair people, but fair systems. How can an organization prioritize systemic change if it doesn’t even name the thing it’s trying to change?” – Janet M. Stovall, global head of diversity, equity, and inclusion at the NeuroLeadership Institute.

 

“SHRM’s decision ultimately shows us that DEI as an acronym isn’t working. In the organization’s eyes, it’s too complex and needs to be simplified; in my mind, it’s too simple for people to understand what DEI initiatives seek to achieve. However, making this statement in the current climate feels like a misstep, considering the incendiary language being used by DEI critics like Elon Musk and those trying to introduce ‘MEI’ as a replacement. By HR professionals dropping the term DEI, it somewhat endorses the semantics of that group, which is growing ever louder. Changing an acronym is not going to make the noise go away.” – Emma Obanye, CEO of OneTech.

 

“Ultimately, the goal should be to create meaningful change rather than simply adhering to acronyms. Our experience of delivering company-wide initiatives has taught us that it’s about bringing people with you and good implementation. Whether we call it DEI, I&D, or something else, the focus should remain on tangible actions that result in inclusive environments, celebrate diversity, and promote fairness in opportunities and outcomes.” – Tim Mart, co-founder of Know You More.

 

“I think the push-back against DE&I could be an indicator of people being generally overwhelmed with the volume and level of detail of information they’re constantly confronted with. And given it’s difficult to tie to ROI, it’s understandable that brands then pull the plug on their DE&I programs because they just see it as cost rather than creating value. But that’s not true. It’s more that brands just need to do the right thing AND do it right.” – Ralf Waterfield, director of sustainability, Pearlfisher.

 

“The effectiveness of this new direction will depend on how SHRM communicates and implements it and whether employee engagement and experience are kept at the forefront. There is significant potential for more nuanced and effective HR practices, but there must be strong frameworks and goals in place. Without these, there could be confusion and inconsistency in how organizations achieve diversity and inclusion.” – Dan Buckley, CEO of Cognexo.

 

“I believe it’s a bad philosophy under the guise of good business. Many enterprise organizations have been walking back their commitments to DEI, which were often performative, since 2021 and have been loud about it since 2022. I have no doubt this pivot is about retaining corporate relationships/revenue and as a hedge to the upcoming election. I think SHRM taking the position as a more palatable partner ‘for all,’ as opposed to being a steadfast advocate of the work itself, is a valid consideration for most businesses, but not for one that’s historically been entrusted to be the industry’s leader and voice. SHRM’s place amongst HR professionals has been eroding for a decade. Corporate revenue aside, they’re still a member-based organization and I’m hopeful they have a strong enough strategy to withstand and repair the fractures they’ve caused amongst their members with this change.” – Chris Hagood, CEO at AstutEdge.

 

“The irony is SHRM taking equity out of its semantics is a move to make DE&I more palatable to those who are offended by the idea of making work fairer. That is a deeply unequal act, which shows that they were never practicing equity in the first place. Not every voice can carry the same weight, when it’s been unequal for some for so long. You can’t pander to the ones who have been privileged and still achieve equity. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. SHRM is an HR lobby, not an DE&I lobby. HR’s role is to support companies, not the humans. And who runs the companies, by and large? It’s successful branding that coined the term Human Resources.” – Marisa Thomas, CMO, Good-Loop.

 

:::::

 

Fast Company Content

 

SHRM, a leading HR organization, is no longer focusing on ‘equity’ in its DEI approach

 

The group’s switch to the acronym ‘I&D’—which stands for inclusion and diversity, but no longer equity—has sparked strong pushback from some HR and DEI experts.

 

By Pavithra Mohan

 

This week, SHRM, a leading organization for HR professionals, announced that it would no longer be using the term “equity.” In a LinkedIn post, the organization—formerly known as the Society for Human Resource Management—shared that it would now use the acronym “I&D,” which stands for inclusion and diversity, stripping away the “equity” portion of “IE&D.”

 

SHRM noted that while its “commitment to advancing equity remains steadfast,” the organization believed that leading with inclusion would catalyze “holistic change” in the workplace and beyond. On LinkedIn, SHRM also quoted president and CEO Johnny Taylor, who had introduced the change during the organization’s recent annual conference: “We’re going to lead with inclusion, because we need a world where inclusion is front and center. And that means inclusion for all, not some people. Everyone has a right to feel that they belong in the workplace and that they are included.”

 

To outside observers, this might seem like a minor distinction, just a matter of semantics. But the decision was met with immediate criticism from HR professionals and DEI experts across social media—many of whom said it was a mistake—and a step backwards, for SHRM to distance itself from the language of equity.

 

“I find SHRM’s decision to remove ‘Equity’ from DEI deeply troubling,” one HR executive and SHRM member wrote on LinkedIn. “Incorporating equity into HR processes is not just important; it’s essential. Without it, can we genuinely claim to be advancing DEI(B) work?” An HR consultant said she would likely distance herself from the organization going forward, despite years of being a “card-carrying member.”

 

Others claimed that the move was disappointing but not much of a surprise, citing the costs associated with SHRM’s certification program—which is often a requirement or preference for HR positions—and arguing many of its resources were not particularly helpful or up-to-date.

 

In an interview with Fast Company, Taylor claimed the change to I&D was part of a broader evolution and had grown out of conversations with workers and HR experts who expressed confusion over what the “E” in DEI terminology represented. “We started hearing this noise about the E that had become a big deal,” he said. “It wasn’t that people were anti-equity. There was confusion around: What did it mean? We couldn’t get agreement even amongst DEI professionals. We would hear this from HR professionals and frankly employees, who would say: Is it equal opportunity, or is it equal outcome?” It had become a “divisive issue” in trainings, according to Taylor. “Ultimately, our efforts are intended to unify people and not divide them,” he added. When it comes to inclusion and diversity, however, he believes there is “universal or near universal agreement” on what those terms mean.

 

Taylor expressed surprised at the vociferous pushback on LinkedIn, though he argued the response had been somewhat split. He also claimed nobody in the SHRM network had canceled their membership yet, though he noted that could change in the coming months. “There’s a chance that people will not join [or renew], but there’s also a chance that we will increase memberships,” he said. (He added that SHRM’s membership and certification fees were on par with market rates, and that the majority of member dues were footed by companies.)

 

Many critics also saw SHRM’s decision as yet another instance of an organization walking back its commitment to the work of diversity, equity, and inclusion amid a wave of anti-DEI sentiment. SHRM acknowledged that backdrop in its LinkedIn post, albeit without pointing the blame at politicians and business leaders who have helped stoke it. “By emphasizing inclusion-first, we aim to address the current shortcomings of DE&I programs, which have led to societal backlash and increasing polarization,” the post read.

 

Taylor told Fast Company that if SHRM was in fact capitulating to anti-DEI crusaders, the organization would have scrapped those initiatives altogether. “I think some of the comments suggested that we were under pressure on politics or from groups who were anti-DEI,” he said. “If that were the motivator here, we would have killed this whole thing. Like, why talk about it at all?”

 

Still, the outcry over SHRM’s decision seems to underscore the precarity of DEI efforts in the workplace. Since the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action in 2023, corporate DEI initiatives have faced lawsuits and legal attacks from conservative activists. As Fast Company has previously reported, companies had already quietly disinvested from DEI work prior to the ruling. Over the last year, however, major corporate players have dropped language like “anti-racist” from their regulatory filings and altered policies that tied compensation to DEI metrics.

 

Meanwhile, anti-DEI business leaders like Elon Musk have embraced a new acronym—MEI, which stands for merit, excellence, and intelligence—in an effort to undermine DEI principles. Given its influence in the HR industry—and the fact that DEI roles are often situated within the HR department—SHRM’s decision could have ripple effects across the business world.