In a recent development that may signal a notable shift in corporate governance within the agri-food sector, both Molson Coors and John Deere announced the termination of their existing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs this summer. In place of these initiatives, they have opted for what they describe as a “more comprehensive approach.”
This move reflects a broader global discussion in boardrooms about whether ‘wokeness’ is a sustainable long-term business strategy.
In the past, DEI efforts have been championed as essential to cultivating an inclusive workplace and boosting company performance. The logic has been straightforward: diverse teams are often more innovative and more adept at addressing the needs of a varied customer base.
The value of a diverse workforce and management team is particularly recognized in the food sector, traditionally dominated by white males.
However, the recent strategic pivot by American companies Molson Coors and John Deere suggests a shift towards an inclusivity model that diverges from the conventional DEI framework.
The term “woke,” often used pejoratively, has come to symbolize activism focused on defending the rights of minority and marginalized groups, drawing on ideas from fields like critical race theory to advocate for social justice. However, its frequent use has diminished its original meaning and impact.
Molson Coors’ adoption of a “more comprehensive approach” suggests they are weaving inclusivity into their overall business practices rather than treating it as a separate effort. This could represent a more integrated and effective way of embedding inclusivity throughout the company’s operations, arguably more effective than standalone initiatives.
This strategic shift raises an important question: Does an overt focus on ‘wokeness’ undermine financial sustainability, especially when revenues are under pressure? The implication is that diversity and inclusion programs may offer diminishing returns if they aren’t well integrated into the company’s core operations or fail to engage all stakeholders. Both companies seem to have recognized this misalignment and are now moving toward a model that balances inclusivity with improved financial performance and shareholder value.
While public sectors and educational institutions can persist with DEI initiatives without risking insolvency, private corporations may face existential financial pressures if they do so.
Critics may see this shift as a regression in addressing systemic inequities within these corporations. Without dedicated DEI initiatives, there is concern that underrepresentation, bias, exclusion, and racism could resurface or worsen. Molson Coors and John Deere must now demonstrate that their revamped strategies are not superficial changes but genuine efforts to integrate inclusivity into their corporate ethos – a process that will take decades.
Both companies now must demonstrate that their revised approach is not just a cost-saving measure but a sustainable strategy that can enhance corporate culture, improve employee morale, and meet the needs of a diverse global market. They need to prove that inclusivity can be synonymous with profitability, not merely an adjunct or a regulatory compliance issue but a core business principle that aligns with profitability.
Other corporations observing these changes will be eager to determine whether this strategic refinement leads to increased competitiveness and market leadership. This could establish a new benchmark for how businesses incorporate social values into their operational models, shifting from a narrow focus on ‘wokeness’ to a broader, possibly more enduring understanding of inclusivity and equity in the corporate landscape.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a Canadian professor and researcher specializing in food distribution and policy, is a senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.
The commentaries offered on SaskToday.ca are intended to provide thought-provoking material for our readers. The opinions expressed are those of the authors. Contributors' articles or letters do not necessarily reflect the opinion of any SaskToday.ca staff.
