Walk through any corporate website today and you’ll see the same language: diversity, inclusion, equality, sustainability, community.
Modern corporations don’t just sell products. They sell virtue.
Logos change colour for Pride Month. Annual reports include polished diversity charts. CEOs speak about racial equity and responsible capitalism. On the surface, it appears that large companies have evolved into moral institutions.
But beneath the messaging lies a simpler structure: public corporations are built to maximise shareholder value. And when “doing the right thing” conveniently protects revenue, brand value, recruiting, or investor confidence, corporate morality starts to look suspiciously like a business strategy.
Diversity in Messaging vs. Diversity in Leadership
After 2020, many companies issued sweeping commitments to improve diversity. Yet research suggests messaging surged faster than measurable internal change.
A Stanford Graduate School of Business study found that while companies increased public DEI communication after controversies, those increases were not linked to meaningful changes in hiring outcomes—what the researchers describe as a gap between what companies say and what they do.1
That gap is why people talk about “DEI washing”: a glossy public commitment that doesn’t translate into structural change where it matters most—leadership, pay, promotions, and power.
When Pressure Changes the Narrative
The real test of corporate conviction is what happens when values collide with risk.
In 2024–2025, Reuters reported that several major U.S. retailers publicly rolled back parts of their DEI initiatives under political and legal pressure, while continuing some DEI-related support quietly (employee groups, internal sponsorships, etc.).2
This isn’t necessarily proof that every inclusion effort is fake. But it does show something important: corporate “values” are often adjustable when the cost-benefit equation changes.
When Actions Clash With Stated Values
Sometimes the mismatch isn’t subtle—it ends up in court.
Goldman Sachs agreed in 2023 to pay $215 million to settle a class action alleging widespread gender bias in pay and promotions.3 That settlement sits awkwardly beside any public positioning about empowering women.
In February 2026, AT&T was sued by New York City pension funds after it excluded a shareholder proposal seeking disclosure of workforce diversity breakdowns (race, ethnicity, gender). The plaintiffs argued the company improperly blocked a vote that would increase transparency.4
And then there’s what critics call “rainbow capitalism”: companies that loudly celebrate Pride in marketing while, at times, supporting political choices that undermine LGBTQ+ rights. The concept isn’t that every Pride campaign is bad; it’s that corporate participation can become appropriation—community symbolism repackaged as consumer strategy.5
ESG as Commercial Strategy
Even ESG—environmental, social and governance—can become part of the product shelf.
BlackRock has been a lightning rod in the ESG culture war. Reuters has reported on political criticism and the firm adjusting its approach to ESG shareholder resolutions, including trimming support for some ESG proposals.6 Meanwhile, BlackRock’s own communications to investors frame its focus around clients and shareholders and the long-term positioning of the firm.7
This doesn’t “prove” ESG is meaningless. It shows something more mundane and more important: in the corporate world, values are often expressed through the lens of material risk, market access, and investor expectations.
The Hidden Engine
Here’s the uncomfortable part: profit isn’t the scandal. Pretending profit isn’t the priority often is.
Public companies increasingly present themselves as moral leaders first and economic actors second. The profit motive becomes the quiet layer beneath a louder narrative of purpose.
Ironically, a company that plainly says:
“Our purpose is to maximise lawful returns for shareholders.”
may be more honest than one that frames itself as a social reformer while quietly adjusting commitments whenever profits, politics, or legal risk demand it.
This isn’t an argument against capitalism. It’s an argument for transparency.
Why It Matters
When corporate messaging diverges from corporate governance:
- Employees lose trust.
- Consumers become sceptical.
- Public institutions weaken as private branding fills the space where accountability should sit.
Corporate virtue is easy in advertising. It’s harder in boardrooms and proxy statements.
Until those two spaces align, scepticism isn’t cynicism. It’s accountability.
Sources
- Stanford News, “After DEI controversies, companies talk up diversity” (Aug 29, 2025).
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2025/08/dei-washing-controversies-diversity-hiring-study
↩ - Reuters, “US retailers publicly scrap some ‘DEI’ initiatives while quietly supporting others” (Mar 6, 2025).
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-retailers-publicly-scrap-some-dei-initiatives-while-quietly-supporting-others-2025-03-06/
↩ - Reuters, “Goldman Sachs to pay $215 mln to end gender bias lawsuit” (May 9, 2023).
https://www.reuters.com/business/goldman-pay-215-mln-settle-gender-discrimination-lawsuit-bloomberg-news-2023-05-09/
↩ - Reuters, “AT&T sued by New York City pension funds for excluding diversity proposal” (Feb 17, 2026).
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/att-sued-by-new-york-city-pension-funds-excluding-diversity-proposal-2026-02-17/
↩ - Wikipedia, “Rainbow capitalism” (accessed Feb 21, 2026).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_capitalism
↩ - Reuters, “BlackRock trims support for some ESG resolutions in AGM season” (Aug 21, 2024).
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/blackrock-trims-support-some-esg-resolutions-agm-season-2024-08-21/
↩ - BlackRock, Larry Fink, “2025 Chairman’s Letter to Investors” (accessed Feb 21, 2026).
https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-annual-chairmans-letter
↩
