Is business limiting its own progress by resisting the demands placed upon it?

Can true progress in sustainability and diversity come from the emerging generations?

Over the weekend, Meta and Amazon announced they are cutting their diversity programmes, citing legal and political risks. Walmart and McDonald’s have made similar decisions, signalling a broader corporate retreat from D&I initiatives.

In Italy, the State Railway Company is unable to implement long-overdue board changes due to gender quota regulations. Other companies, rather than addressing the root cause, have—in some cases—expanded their boards to meet quota requirements without replacing existing members. Now, there is growing discussion about rolling back these regulations altogether.

And the issue runs even deeper. Several major financial firms, including JP Morgan and BlackRock, have also scaled back their D&I efforts, reinforcing the trend.

Many argue that this retreat is tied to Trump’s potential return to office, and while that may play a role, the shift began well before this election cycle. Corporations typically anticipate political shifts rather than react to them, suggesting that cost pressures at the board level are the primary driver. Sustainability initiatives are facing similar scrutiny, indicating a broader corporate recalibration of priorities.

This raises the uncomfortable question: Are businesses being short-sighted in how they respond to external pressures, demands, and expectations?

To be fair, sustainability has gained stronger investor backing than diversity. Yet, investment in people is still one of the first areas where costs are cut.

L&D budgets have been steadily reduced over the past two decades, leaving many talented individuals feeling unsupported in their professional development. This is especially striking given the strong commitments to workforce investment voiced after the pandemic. Yet businesses have endured eight challenging years, with the next two expected to bring even greater difficulties.

D&I, in particular, faces an uphill battle compared to sustainability. Too often, it is seen as a “nice to have” rather than a business necessity, despite widespread skill shortages and high-potential talent waiting to be engaged. Unfortunately, the business case for D&I still struggles to resonate at leadership levels.

Yet the data is clear. A McKinsey report found that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity at the executive level were 25% more likely to achieve above-average profitability—a compelling economic argument for continued investment in D&I, and perhaps something for that railway company to consider. ?

So, what can be done?

This debate feels like a recurring cycle, year after year. Some argue that a lack of commitment to D&I can damage a company’s reputation, alienate potential customers, and weaken its ability to attract and retain top talent. In today’s socially conscious market, consumers and employees increasingly expect companies to take a stand on social issues.

But is this actually true? If Meta and Amazon are scaling back their D&I efforts, they have likely weighed the risks and determined that the business impact is minimal. If there were real financial consequences, would they be making such a move?

As is often the case, real change will not come from corporate policies—it will come through role models and action. One of the defining successes of the 1980s economic boom was its ability to empower young talent, giving them a genuine sense of opportunity. In response, they worked hard, took risks, and proved their value—demonstrating that when people believe in opportunities, they rise to meet them.

True transformation will only happen when the visible success of younger talent—across all backgrounds—becomes undeniable.

EP’s Commitment to Talent Empowerment

EP remains committed to supporting and advocating for young talent. Rightly or wrongly, we have always believed that investing in the next generation builds positive workplace cultures and removes internal barriers. The irony is that the strongest argument for D&I is not just moral—it is economic. Increased productivity and profitability should be reason enough to shift the corporate mindset—yet, time and again, companies fail to recognise the long-term value. Perhaps, with enough visible success stories, the conversation will finally change.

?

Written by Chris Sheppardson, EP Business in Hospitality