“If you don’t kiss the ring with Trump, […] he’ll trash you.” – Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
With tweets deleted and perspectives changed, the election of Donald J Trump has “accelerated a cultural shift” in boardrooms and halls of power. Major companies have decided to roll back on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives under mounting “conservative pressure”.
The focus of this article is not to decry, or support, or even comment on those changes ideologically; rather, I want to rant about one clear observation: economic interests are the true driver of change in large corporations.
It has always been about shareholder value, not values! When billions are at stake, it ultimately boils down to the dollar, and one would be naive to assume otherwise.
In the wake of the unjust and unlawful murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, and the prevailing public sentiment that followed, the number of corporate DEI initiatives surged. A LinkedIn analysis found chief diversity and inclusion officers roles grew by 168.9% between 2019-2022.
While I by no means doubt the sincerity of most hands-on participants in these efforts, and their genuine desire to enact much needed change, the sail and mast of those mega corporations do not change course due to some sudden awakening in the consciousness.
Companies had an economic incentive to jump “on the DEI bandwagon.” The wealth of research showing the benefits of diversity in the workplace was unfortunately overshadowed with increasingly performative initiatives.
If those initiatives were wholly based on unflinching ideals and a moral imperative, isn’t it curious to see how the changing of the guard in the White House prompted such a retreat? Would this still be the case if Kamala Harris won back in November? Or if some of those companies weren’t targeted by conservative boycotts and pressure?
I don’t think so. And that’s because corporate behaviour, much like political strategy, is rarely driven by ideology alone. Instead, it responds to the material conditions of the moment.
To further explain what truly drives change, I turn to my limited understanding of Marx’s historical materialism. While I am by no means the biggest fan of his ideology (it just didn’t work!), one would be daft and dogmatic not to recognise that he had some valuable observations.
To oversimplify, historical materialism argues that history and social change are primarily driven by material conditions - specifically, economic structures and social relations -rather than by abstract ideas or moral values. The surge in corporate DEI policies did not arise from an ideological awakening but from shifts in the economic base: public sentiment, employee expectations, and investor incentives created a profitable environment for performative initiatives.
However, as those conditions changed - due to conservative pushback, shifting political power, and financial risks - companies recalibrated to protect their interests. This reflects the core of historical materialism: the economic base determines the cultural and political superstructure. Material conditions take primacy over ideals. Unlike idealism, which might suggest that companies acted out of a newfound ethical commitment, historical materialism can help explain why some of those firms reversed course when the material incentives disappeared.
I am reminded by Marx’s rallying revolutionary cry that transformed the world:
“WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!
– TO MAXIMISE SHAREHOLDER VALUE!”
Okay, maybe I added that second part; but as the proud shareholder of 1 × 10⁻⁹⁹⁹ shares in the US market – it is in my economic interest to advocate for such statements and narratives (my point all along)!
I will go ahead and digress even further (as previously mentioned, this is indeed a rant), and extend this line of thought to the international stage and halls of power – it is once again primarily all about interests. Realpolitik describes the pragmatic approach of conducting politics based ultimately on national interest. Moral, ethical, and ideological obligations are not irrelevant, but they are not what move the needle.
Of course, there are exceptions and more complexities to account for. But on a general basis, I find it far more sensible to assume that the actions of states and mega corporations are primarily driven by interests and not some moral imperative.
Well now I believe it is in the interest of everyone (myself included) that I bring this rant that came to be, while watching Trump’s inauguration, to an end. Looking ahead, major corporations will continue to pivot in response to shifting economic incentives. The ideological trend may change, but the underlying motive remains constant: shareholder value above all.
Godspeed!
Comments