Dear Target, Walmart, and Retail Giants: A Business Case for Keeping Your DEI Promises The High-Stakes Game of Corporate Values
Let's talk about the $100 billion question: When is a promise not just a promise? When it's a public commitment made during a national reckoning on race.
In the summer of 2020, as America watched George Floyd's life slip away under a police officer's knee, retail giants made bold declarations. You weren't just selling another seasonal collection—you were selling your moral compass. "We will be part of the solution," you proclaimed, with multi-year DEI commitments backed by impressive press releases and heartfelt CEO statements.
Fast forward to today's retreat from these commitments. This isn't just a policy pivot—it's a masterclass in how NOT to manage stakeholders.
Stakeholder Management 101: Know Who Butters Your Bread
The first rule any business school teaches about stakeholder management? Know who truly matters to your bottom line.
When Target and Walmart decided to scale back DEI initiatives, they failed to answer a fundamental question: Who actually fills your cash registers day after day?
This wasn't an ordinary marketing misstep. You didn't just promise a slightly improved shopping experience or a marginally better product. You promised dignity. You promised representation. You promised to stand on the right side of history.
And then you flinched.
The False Equivalency Trap
"But Budweiser did it!" is not the compelling business justification you think it is. Anheuser-Busch (Bud Light) never built its brand identity around diversity. Your customers—especially those who drive your profits—expected more from you.
Had you bothered to run a proper weighted stakeholder analysis, the results would have been illuminating. The numbers don't lie: your primary customer base isn't defined by MAGA rallies or fringe activist lawsuits.
The Delicious Irony of Anti-DEI Arguments
Here's where it gets absurdly circular: the stockholder lawsuits against DEI, spearheaded by Edward Blum and his nonprofit, American Alliance for Equal Rights, argue that DEI investments pose "a risk to financial performance" because... abandoning them would cause backlash and hurt performance.
Let that sink in. "Stop doing what's good for business, because if you stop doing it, it will be bad for business."
The Avalanche You Don't See Coming
Your retreat opens a Pandora's box of liability. If anti-DEI activists can sue claiming that the there was a lack of transparency in how DEI could hurt performance, what stops pro-DEI shareholders from suing when abandoning these initiatives tanks your stock?
Where's your business case showing how retreating from DEI improves performance? Where are the projections demonstrating greater profitability through less diversity? I would argue these don't exist for companies like Target, because if they had done their due diligence regarding stakeholder analysis and risk impact, the data would have pointed in the opposite direction.
The Bottom Line Hasn't Changed
Customer is still King—specifically, the customers who fill your stores daily and drive your profits quarter after quarter.
The lesson? When you stake your corporate identity on moral principles, the most expensive decision you can make is to abandon them when they're most needed.
The merchandise in your stores may be on clearance, but your values shouldn't be.
Check out this great article backed by lots of data for more insight!
