The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) published a policy brief, Navigating the Pushback against Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: A Business and Human Rights Analysis (June 2026). The report draws on international human rights law and standards, as well as theoretical and empirical evidence to reaffirm the human rights rationale and the business case for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
Human Level’s Take:
- The operational context in which DEI policies, programmes and actions are situated has been drastically changing since the mid-2020s. In recent years, companies have faced mounting legal, political and commercial pressure to roll back diversity commitments, in particular following January 2025 US executive orders.
- While some companies have reportedly significantly rolled back or terminated their DEI programmes, others have publicly stood in support of their DEI commitments despite the challenges they face. Some companies have also chosen to adjust DEI terminology in response to political pressure, while maintaining substantive commitments — a distinction the brief treats as significant for upholding human rights responsibilities.
- Some companies’ retreats from DEI commitments have proven to be costly. For example, Target’s decision to scale back its DEI programme reportedly triggered a 40-day consumer boycott, a share price fall of 12% and a shareholder lawsuit.
- Against this backdrop, the business case for DEI stands firm. Data cited in the brief from McKinsey and BCG links diverse leadership to stronger profitability and innovation revenue, while Harvard Business Review research links diverse teams more broadly to increased market share growth.
- OHCHR frames non-discrimination as a human rights due diligence (HRDD) priority. As the brief notes, navigating this evolving operational landscape is complex for companies present in multiple jurisdictions; they may find themselves weighing compliance with national legislation against their responsibility to respect international human rights.
- For companies caught between anti-DEI regulation and human rights commitments, OHCHR points to concrete recommendations, including clarifying the scope of conflicting rules, documenting efforts to uphold human rights principles and using corporate influence, including legal challenges, to help shape the policy environment for better DEI practices.
Some key takeaways:
- A widening backlash with real financial consequences: The brief traces the anti-DEI backlash from its intensification in 2023 to the January 2025 US executive orders 14173 and 14151, which directed federal agencies to eliminate "illegal" DEI practices and extended pressure to private companies, including through embassy letters asking European suppliers to certify they did not operate DEI programmes. The US Government’s anti-DEI measures have had significant effects on business policies and practices, leading to regulatory uncertainty, mounting legal, political and commercial pressure, and complex compliance-related challenges. Multiple multinational companies are reported to have significantly rolled back or terminated DEI programmes. Others have maintained public-facing commitments or rebranded their DEI efforts to eliminate particular terminology, while maintaining substantive commitments. The negative impact of complete DEI reversals on companies is documented and has proven to be costly, with companies exposing themselves to social, legal and reputational risks, particularly in light of increasing public scrutiny over business conduct. As an example, the brief notes the case study of Target, which reportedly recorded a 40-day consumer boycott, the loss of a partnership, a 12% share price fall, a 7.9% decline in store traffic, and a shareholder class-action lawsuit alleging investors were defrauded about DEI-related risks.
- The business and human rights case for DEI remains well evidenced: The brief grounds DEI in international human rights law, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and instruments addressing race, gender and disability discrimination. In particular, non-discrimination is a human rights due diligence (HRDD) priority, and "temporary special measures" or affirmative action are recognised under international law as legitimate tools to redress structural inequality, rather than as discriminatory in themselves. Alongside the legal rationale, OHCHR cites a body of business research: a Boston Consulting Group study found companies with above-average leadership diversity report 19% higher revenue from innovation, while McKinsey's 2023 analysis found top-quartile gender-diverse executive teams were 39% more likely to outperform on profitability than bottom-quartile peers, up from 15% in 2015, with ethnic diversity showing a similar 39% outperformance. A 2013 Harvard Business Review study found companies with "2-D diversity" (combining both inherent and acquired diverse traits) were 45% more likely to report market share growth and 70% more likely to report capturing new markets. The brief also references Goldman Sachs' 2020 policy of declining to take companies public without gender-diverse board representation, and public statements of continued commitment from companies across a range of sectors.
- How can companies navigate this pushback?: Particularly for those operating across jurisdictions, the brief sets out several ways companies can maintain their human rights responsibilities amid regulatory uncertainty. It highlights ensuring human rights policy commitments explicitly reference equality and non-discrimination standards regardless of DEI terminology, and conducting HRDD that prioritises risks to individuals and groups facing heightened vulnerability or structural inequality, with corrective action implemented where companies contribute to discrimination. Companies that choose to rebrand or adjust DEI efforts in response to political pressure can continue to prioritise substantive action to address structural and intersectional discrimination, regardless of changes in terminology or messaging. UN Human Rights also points to the use of individual and collective corporate influence to shape government policy, including legal challenges to regulations that restrict companies' ability to meet international human rights standards, citing US lawsuits against the 2025 executive orders as an example. Where domestic law conflicts with human rights responsibilities, the brief recommends clarifying the scope of the conflict with relevant authorities and communicating efforts to uphold human rights principles to shareholders and the public.
