As CEO, Lütke positions Shopify as a positive force in society, enabling individuals and small businesses to trade globally. But success breeds challenges – and tough choices. In 2017, Shopify was criticized for hosting an online store for Breitbart, the right-wing news channel that has promulgated racist and sexist tropes. Lütke defended his client’s free speech rights, calling commerce “a powerful form of expression.” 

As social tensions rose over the years, Lütke seemingly grew less tolerant. In 2021, a noose emoji that had been uploaded to the company’s internal Slack channel sparked a heated debate among staff – until Lütke cut off the conversation, arguing that such talk represents “victimhood thinking” and “threatens” the effective workplace. 

Donald Trump’s election win in November marked a turning point for businesses that have struggled with diversity and freedom of speech, which now felt free to follow Trump’s lead. Shopify, which powers 12% of U.S. e-commerce, met the moment in mid-January by closing its four-year-old support program for Indigenous entrepreneurs. At the same time, members of Shopify’s equitable commerce team left the company, without explanation. Days later, Shopify shuttered a similar program, its ambitious One Million Black Businesses initiative, intended to help a million Black-owned businesses in Canada and the United States launch, grow and scale up by 2030. On February 1, Shopify abruptly shut down the Slack channel that enabled program participants to stay in touch with each other. (Shopify did not comment on the closures, and its former head of equitable commerce did not respond to queries from Corporate Knights.) 

Lütke’s X account documents his shift toward right-wing politics, with standard promotional content about Shopify, artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency increasingly giving way to endorsing Trump’s tariff threats, conservative culture-war talking points, and DOGE’s chainsaw approach to slashing the size of government.

But opposition is mounting. In late February, nearly 400 Canadian tech leaders signed an open letter condemning Shopify’s cutbacks. The signees urged other tech companies to continue to protect equity and inclusion: “The future of our industry – and our country – depends on defending what makes us different.”

The post How Shopify went from Canada’s tech darling to anti-DEI appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The next day, the president extended his purge into the private sector. A second executive order compelled government agencies to certify that organizations receiving grants or contracts do not operate DEI programs. The directive also warned private companies and colleges against maintaining “illegal DEI programs,” presumably referring to a 2023 Supreme Court decision that found colleges’ race-based admissions programs unconstitutional.

Even as the American Civil Liberties Union protested that DEI policies “helped dismantle entrenched race and sex segregation in high-paying industries,” thousands of civil servants were losing their jobs, and companies such as Google, Walmart and McDonald’s started erasing formal DEI policies. 

But some companies stood strong. Delta Airlines said DEI values “are critical to our business.” Soap-maker Lush introduced three new bath bombs: Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. 

The most prominent stalwart was probably Seattle retail giant Costco Wholesale, whose board voted down a proposal from a right-wing think tank to research the “risks” of maintaining its DEI program. The board said “our commitment to an enterprise rooted in respect and inclusion is appropriate and necessary.”

With its motto “Do the right thing,” America’s third-largest retailer has always been an outlier. Founder James Sinegal believes businesses succeed by doing well by their employees. “We’re proud that Costco pays the highest wages among our peers, that we provide benefit and health-care packages that are second to none, and that we’ve grown our business by promoting from within,” he said in 2012.

Three days after Trump’s executive order, chair Tony E. James said Costco’s commitment to inclusion “has never included quotas or systematic preferences, nor does it mean compromising merit. The demands of our business and our steadfast commitment to serve our members mean that we cannot afford to do anything but hire and promote the most qualified individuals.”

Four days later, 19 Republican state attorneys-general wrote a warning letter chastising Costco for “doubling down” on DEI in defiance of federal and state laws. While this story isn’t over, Costco’s stance earned it a 22% increase in online traffic on February 28, the day of a consumer boycott in support of DEI. That day, competitors Walmart, Amazon and Target all saw traffic declines.

The post Fighting back against anti-DEI attacks brings rewards. Just look at Costco. appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The CEOs have become unlikely defenders of diversity and inclusion at a time when corporate DEI policies are being treated as fodder by a militant White House under Donald Trump, as well as Republican-led states and conservative shareholder groups.

Speaking in a television interview with CNBC, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, the largest bank in the United States by assets, had one message for activist investors planning anti-DEI actions: “Bring them on.”

Dimon – who last year described himself as a “full-throated, red-blooded, patriotic, unwoke, capitalist CEO” – said the bank will continue to include marginalized groups in its business because they’re good for the bottom line. “We’re going to continue to reach out to the Black community, the Hispanic community, the LGBT community, the veterans’ community,” he said.

In a separate interview, David Solomon, CEO of Goldman Sachs, said DEI policies are important to keep the bank in sync with the diversity of its client base. “We continue to stay focused on talking to our clients and doing the things we’ve always done.”

That two pillars of American finance have emerged as defenders of DEI – which the U.S. right has blamed for everything from plane crashes to wildfires – seems at odds with the broad movement away from environmental, social and governance policies, which embrace action on climate and social justice issues.

On February 11, proxy voting adviser Institutional Shareholder Services said it will stop considering gender, racial and ethnic diversity of U.S. company boards, a long-standing measure of good governance. Last month, JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs joined four other major U.S. banks to leave the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, the global coalition pushing banks on climate policies. And as recently as last summer, Trump mused about appointing Dimon as his Treasury secretary.

Yet, Dimon and Solomon appear to be speaking for a wider segment of the banking and investment industry. From their position as universal investors – institutions that invest in large swaths of the economy – there is a strong business case for major banks and asset managers to support DEI to expand their pool of qualified staff, borrowers and investee companies.

Costco slaps down anti-DEI shareholder activism

In a further sign of the gap between politics and good business practice, Costco shareholders voted a near-unanimous 98% against an investor resolution condemning the retail giant’s DEI policies. The resolution was from the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), a conservative think tank and activist investor. It argued that DEI holds litigation, reputational and financial threats to the company and is a risk to its investors.

Costco’s board issued a vigorous and direct response to the motion. It expressed confidence that the company’s DEI policies are not only fully lawful, but are good for its relationships with customers, suppliers and employees and have helped to boost investor returns. Conservative shareholder groups like NCPPR are “inflicting burdens on companies with their challenges to longstanding diversity programs,” the board wrote.

It’s not known how large asset managers such as BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard, which collectively hold about 20% of Costco’s stock, voted on the resolution. However analysts say it’s safe to assume that these companies, the three largest asset managers in the world, voted with the Costco board against NCPPR.

RELATED

Just because Trump wants to kill DEI doesn’t mean CEOs should

More women in senior management is better for the bottom line

This French energy-solutions powerhouse is the world’s most sustainable company of 2025

Costco’s staunch defence of diversity and inclusion stands in contrast with many other companies that are rolling back portions of their DEI programs or cancelling them completely, including Walmart, Amazon, Meta, McDonald’s, Boeing, Molson Coors, Lowes and Ford. Many of these retreats have been in response to a campaign by conservative social media activist Robby Starbuck, who has amassed a large following based on corporate anti-DEI activity.

Trump has tapped into this movement and last month signed three anti-DEI executive orders covering the federal public service and private companies. The private company order ominously instructs federal agencies to compile a list of the “most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners.” As well, 10 Republican state attorneys general have recently threatened regulatory action against major U.S. banks for “unlawful race- and sex-based quotas” and green energy investments.

While some DEI actions such as hiring quotas could be seen as a form of illegal discrimination, a recent article in the highly respected National Law Review argues strongly that corporate DEI programs are lawful under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. “[DEI] programs operate to create a more fulsome collection of qualified job candidates and to build professional communities focused on collective success and individual opportunity,” the article states. “As long as an employer does that, it may continue its DEI efforts.”

Alison Taylor, professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, told the industry publication Retail Dive that Costco’s defence of its DEI policies provides support for other companies to stand up to conservative attacks. “Other companies may follow through because Costco gives them a bit of top cover,” she said. “I think it gives a license and opens up a space to say there’s a different way to handle this.”

Anti-DEI resolutions will be on the agenda at a number of company annual meetings this spring, including tech giant Apple (February 25), Goldman Sachs (April 24) and JPMorgan (May 19).

If these resolutions and others are overwhelmingly voted down, similar to the result at Costco, it will send a strong message that the financial industry won’t support DEI attacks on U.S. corporations, a major source of its loan and investment profit.

Eugene Ellmen writes on sustainable business and finance. He is a former executive director of the Canadian Social Investment Organization (now the Responsible Investment Association).

The post The anti-DEI movement confronts an unlikely opponent: big banks appeared first on Corporate Knights.

By early summer, conservative activists were targeting companies like Tractor Supply and John Deere for supporting Pride festivities and climate policies, pressuring them to roll back DEI initiatives. A domino effect followed: Harley-Davidson, Lowe’s, Ford, Toyota and Molson Coors pulled back as well. By November, Boeing had dissolved its global DEI department entirely.

This retreat comes as Donald Trump begins his second term as president of the United States, and he’s made his intentions on the topic clear: to purge DEI programs from federal agencies, calling them “anti-white racism.” With the 2023 Supreme Court’s decision to strike down affirmative action in U.S. colleges already fuelling anxieties, companies are bracing for what’s to come.

The rise and fall of DEI programs

As quickly as corporate DEI policies rose to prominence, the scaffolding of modern, resilient leadership has started fraying at the seams. What was once a surge of commitment to equity is now under relentless attack, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

It’s a sharp pivot from 2020, a year when DEI surged into the corporate spotlight. Following the murder of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police, the Black Lives Matter movement reignited a global reckoning on racial injustice. Alongside the rise of the #MeToo movement, companies across industries made bold commitments to equity. DEI roles were created at record levels, boards diversified, and women and racialized leaders began stepping into long-overdue positions of power.

For many DEI professionals, the promise of change faded fast. As one former DEI executive in a communications agency tells Corporate Knights, asking not to be named,“We were hired to lead change, but it quickly became clear that leadership wanted optics, not transformation. You can’t drive systemic change when you’re treated like a checkbox.”

This performative approach – treating DEI as a PR move rather than a foundational pillar in corporate strategy – permeated corporate culture, leaving companies exposed. When the backlash hit, those commitments crumbled under pressure, revealing just how fragile their so-called progress really was.

The anti-equity movement has been emboldened by figures like Robby Starbuck, labelled by The New York Times as the “anti-DEI agitator that big companies fear the most.” His mission is explicit: “I won’t rest until we eliminate leftism from corporate America.” Starbuck, a former music-video director turned conservative activist, and others portray DEI not as a corrective framework but as a divisive ideology, rallying around a call for “neutrality.”

We will continue to focus on increasing representation.

– Dawn Jones, chief diversity and inclusion officer, Intel

But let’s be clear: neutrality is a privilege. It upholds the existing system of exclusion and inequality, allowing companies to disengage from meaningful change under the guise of impartiality.

The narrative shift has been amplified by the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action. The court’s decision, which interprets the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, applies specifically to public and private colleges that receive federal funds. It doesn’t apply to private and public corporations.

Race-based employment decisions, like reserving hiring slots for racialized candidates, were already illegal under Title VII. of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law that prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, colour, religion, sex or national origin. In states like California, where Proposition 209 has banned race-based affirmative action in state university admission, state hiring and state congracting for nearly three decades, companies have continued their DEI programs without legal challenges.

What’s changed isn’t the legality of DEI – it’s the story being told about it. By retreating from DEI, companies aren’t avoiding legal headaches; they’re choosing a side. They’re aligning with a status quo built on exclusion, sending a message that inclusion is expendable when it’s inconvenient.

But the economy itself isn’t leaning toward exclusion; it’s hurtling away from it. Gen Z – poised to become the largest working demographic – prioritizes DEI so strongly that one in two won’t work at a company without diverse leadership, and 68% believe employers aren’t doing enough to foster diversity, according to ManpowerGroup, a multinational recruitment agency.

DEI isn’t about optics – it’s about survival

CEOs who treat DEI as window dressing – a splash of colour for their press releases and LinkedIn feeds – are fundamentally missing the point. In today’s polarized market, DEI isn’t a political statement; it’s a business survival strategy.

The data is clear: companies that invest in DEI outperform their peers in innovation, customer loyalty and market relevance. A 2015 McKinsey report on 366 public companies found that those in the top quartile for ethnic and racial diversity in management were 35% more likely to have financial returns above their industry mean. But DEI works only when it’s embedded into the foundation of an organization. When it’s treated as an afterthought, it collapses under the weight of scrutiny.

True resilience demands more than lip service. It’s more than one-off initiatives or employee resource groups tucked into a dusty corner of the HR department. Resilience comes from a culture of inclusion that runs so deep it holds firm through economic downturns, political headwinds and shareholder pressures. Companies that understand this know that a successful DEI strategy isn’t cosmetic; it’s rooted in long-term commitment and integrated into every aspect of the business.

RELATED

More women in senior management is better for the bottom line

The rise of the chief sustainability officer

What Trump’s comeback tells us about why democracies are faltering

In a landscape where many are retreating from DEI, some companies have stood as beacons of resilience. Intel first launched a US$300-million Diversity in Technology initiative in 2015 aimed at doubling the number of women and underrepresented communities in technical roles. Despite cutting 15% of its workforce in August, Intel retained its vaunted commitment to DEI and continued to prioritize an inclusive culture.

“We will continue to focus on increasing representation,” the company’s chief diversity and inclusion officer, Dawn Jones, said in September. (Whether that commitment holds now that Intel forced out its CEO in December remains to be seen.)

Outside of the United States, where DEI is less contentious, South Africa’s Investec Bank as well as Vitasoy, Unilever and StarHub have been recognized by Corporate Knights’ 2025 Global 100 ranking for their racially diverse leadership, demonstrating that embedding DEI into corporate strategies drives innovation and sustainable growth.

This isn’t about “virtue signalling” or appeasing critics. Real DEI work – transformative DEI work – upends traditional corporate structures and power balances. It’s uncomfortable by design, made to challenge ingrained biases, to question privilege and to open doors where they’ve historically been closed. Leaders committed to this work know that resistance is part of the journey.

Here’s how corporate leaders can establish a DEI framework that lasts:

1. Make DEI part of the business, not just the brand

DEI shouldn’t just be a side hustle for HR and marketing departments. It has to be integral to how your company operates. Heineken’s Women in Sales program offers a compelling example. Sales isn’t a peripheral department – it drives revenue and growth. Despite 24% of women in the overall company, only 9% of the senior sales roles were occupied by women in 2020. By increasing women senior managers in sales from 9% in 2020 to 19% in 2022, Heineken began aligning its leadership with the shifting demographics of its consumers, as women begin to outnumber men as alcohol consumers.

2. Build enduring DEI infrastructure

DEI efforts fall apart when they lack accountability and follow-through. Real progress requires systems to track and measure impact. Set goals for diversity in hiring and promotions and regularly assess whether you’re meeting them. Ongoing training – tailored to challenge biases and promote equity – is key. A company’s commitment to DEI can’t stop at entry-level hires; it has to be a ladder, not a revolving door.

3. Dig deep to make real gains

In a world where visibility can make you a target, DEI doesn’t need to be loud to be effective. Dig into internal issues that drive inequity: pay gaps, lack of diversity in leadership, inequitable promotion practices or a toxic workplace culture. Real benefits are the initiatives that directly improve employees’ lives: fair wages, comprehensive healthcare, flexible working options and robust support for mental health and well-being. These aren’t social media wins; they’re the hard-won gains that position you for lasting relevance.

As we 2025 begins, the call for DEI isn’t fading into the background. The question isn’t whether DEI is worth the risk; it’s whether your company can afford to ignore it. Real leadership won’t be measured by who avoids backlash or sidesteps discomfort. It will be measured by who builds for the future while others retreat to the past.

Shilpa Tiwari is an ESG consultant and the founder of No Women No Spice. She lives in Tanzania and Toronto. 

The post Just because Trump wants to kill DEI doesn’t mean CEOs should appeared first on Corporate Knights.

A recent look at the sustainability programs cropping up at colleges and universities across North America raises two questions: Do those classes include everyone who could or should be there? And what steps can institutions of higher learning take to address these structural inequities? 

When we at Diversity in Sustainability completed our State of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Sustainability report in 2021, it was clear that sustainability professionals are a privileged group. Sixty-two percent hold a master’s degree (that drops to between 5% and 13% among the general population in the United States, Canada and United Kingdom). Three-quarters come from a middle-class or higher level of social mobility. And while research showed that younger sustainability practitioners are more ethnically diverse compared to more seasoned professionals, we also know that many communities of colour are pushed to the social and economic margins, which can make accessing higher education in these fields difficult.  

Our recent research looks into how some schools are trying to attract more racially diverse students by taking alternative approaches. Arizona State University is working with environmentally focused high school teachers to build relationships with potential enrollees. Ontario’s Trent University and the Yellowknives Dene First Nation recently introduced an Indigenous Environmental Students & Sciences diploma for Dene students in the Northwest Territories that blends Western science with Dene Traditional Knowledge.  

Admissions departments are also considering a wider set of extenuating factors that could affect a student’s application, asking students how they have overcome adversity, along with adjusting testing requirements, since privileged students score higher on standardized tests thanks to multiple retakes and additional academic support. More and more schools such as Johns Hopkins University and the University of California system have eliminated legacy admissions, known to give preference to the most privileged.    

Among faculty, professors are expanding the syllabi beyond Western authors and guest speakers. “Elevating BIPOC voices is essential to sustainability innovation, and we actively incorporate their expertise and lived experiences into our work,” says Kimberley Smith with the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. “We believe these diverse perspectives will drive the transformative change needed within the higher-ed sector.”

RELATED:

How Big Oil has infiltrated universities and shaped climate research

New degree is training the next generation of leaders in animal ethics and sustainability

New degree woos next generation of green financial experts

Still, barriers persist, and many racialized youth say that they simply can’t afford pricey tuition for sustainability programs. There are ways around it: the University of Toronto’s Master of Science in Sustainability Management program has an internship program where close to 100% of interns are paid, lowering barriers for students financially while allowing them to gain experience. The Yale School of the Environment’s Three Cairns Scholars program offers tuition and non-tuition support for qualified students from the Global South who are focused on climate solutions.  

Bottom line: cultivating a diverse community in sustainability takes a village, and schools have an important role to play as the entry point into the profession. Creating a sustainability sector that’s accessible to communities of colour will be critical if we’re serious about a just transition toward a future that benefits more than a select few. 

Heather Mak is co-founder of Diversity in Sustainability. 

The post University sustainability programs are trying to make classrooms more diverse appeared first on Corporate Knights.

A comprehensive study in 2020 exposed the harsh reality of Black representation on Canadian corporate boards: Out of 1,639 board positions across eight major Canadian cities, only 0.8% were occupied by Black directors.

According to the report, in Toronto, where the Black community makes up 7.5% of the population, Black people hold a mere 0.3% of corporate board seats.

These statistics become even more disheartening when compared to the representation of Black women on corporate boards. As of 2020, although women held about 21.5% of directorship positions in Toronto Stock Exchange companies, Black women held less than 0.8% of these positions.

The numbers paint a clear picture: there need to be continued efforts to enhance diversity and inclusion within Canadian corporate boardrooms.

There are measures Canada can take to crack the concrete ceiling, including establishing racial diversity quotas specifically for Black women, collecting disaggregated racial diversity data, providing mentorship opportunities and raising awareness of unconscious bias among recruiters. These are all critical steps toward achieving equitable and inclusive corporate governance in Canada.

The problem with the term ‘visible minorities’

The term “visible minorities” is quite a broad category that obscures the representation of Black women, making it difficult to ascertain how and to what extent they are actually represented.

In 2018, significant amendments were made to the Canada Business Corporations Act, which regulates Canadian business corporations at the federal level.

These changes came into effect in 2020 and require companies to report on the inclusion of four equity-seeking groups: women, visible minorities, Indigenous people and persons with disabilities. The goal of these amendments is to improve the diversity at board and senior management levels.

In October 2023, reporting based on this requirement revealed that 10.2% of corporate board members were visible minorities, 0.7% were persons with disabilities, 0.9% were Indigenous people and 28.5% were women.

While mandatory disclosure of representation across these equity-seeking groups — each grappling with their unique challenges — is a commendable step towards transparency, we also need to ask a critical question: “Who are the women being appointed to these boards?”

Anti-Black racism is a distinct issue

About seven years ago, the United Nations Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent visited Canada and emphasized the need to address the unique challenges faced by Black people due to a history of enslavement, racial segregation and marginalization.

It is important to recognize that anti-Black racism is a distinct issue that demands dedicated attention, going beyond the scope of current social justice frameworks. What particularly sets Black women apart is how they face overlapping discrimination based on race and gender.

Black women often grapple with the “angry Black woman syndrome” stereotype that characterizes them as “combative, easily angered, overly aggressive, and difficult to work with,” despite their undeniable competence.

This stereotype does not bode well for a candidate’s perceived interpersonal skills and their ability to contribute effectively to boards, or to even secure mentors. Consequently, even when Black women are highly qualified, they face systemic biases that hinder their progress.

Making corporate diversity real for Black women

Canada’s approach to fostering diversity on corporate boards has largely taken the form of “comply or explain” diversity rules and disclosures, where companies either follow the rules or explain why they don’t.

However, these measures are clearly not working, as they have not effectively addressed the under-representation of Black women at the corporate level. What we need are specific quotas set by both corporations and governments dedicated to the inclusion of Black women. We also need to collect detailed data on the racial distribution of corporate boards, rather than relying on broad categorizations of “visible minorities.”

Even still, quotas and racial diversity data are not enough; we must combat the deeply ingrained racism entrenched in recruitment processes to ensure that Black women are not mere tokens, but have meaningful roles and opportunities to influence decisions.

Achieving this requires heightened awareness of biases and continuous anti-racism training for recruiters and board members. It also requires establishing and supporting organizations dedicated to providing specialized training, mentorship and coaching sessions tailored to helping Black women succeed in these positions.

Racial justice movements like Black Lives Matter have shone a spotlight on systemic racism across various facets of society, including the issue of diversity on corporate boards. Current measures to enhance gender parity and racial representation often overlook the unique challenges faced by Black women, resulting in their continued under-representation, or even absence, from corporate boards.

For authentic inclusivity and equity to blossom, we must cultivate a corporate culture that robustly champions, supports and amplifies the voices and contributions of Black women.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post There are still not enough Black women in corporate boardrooms appeared first on Corporate Knights.

In one fell swoop, a supermajority of judges voting to limit the consideration of race in admissions processes undid years of work to address the persistent racial inequalities baked into our societies.   

But the decision has sparked another crucial debate, casting a long shadow over current efforts to enhance workplace diversity and, by extension, representation. Already, experts have warned of the chill effect the Supreme Court’s decision may have on diversity programs across the corporate landscape. 

Affirmative action acknowledges that historical and systemic disadvantages have hindered the progress and opportunities of racialized groups. By recognizing the impact of race on one’s experiences in various contexts, including the workplace, affirmative action plays a vital role in the journey to equity and justice. Affirmative action is not a tool for reverse discrimination but rather a means to create a more equitable and just society. 

Limiting the consideration of race in admissions and hiring processes perpetuates the fallacy of a colourblind society. As Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her dissent, “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces, ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat, but deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.” 

This is the same Ketanji Brown Jackson who was told by her high school guidance counsellor that Harvard University was too high a goal. The same Ketanji Brown Jackson who then went on to graduate from Harvard magna cum laude and later became editor of the Harvard Law Review. Jackson’s story is a testament to the challenges faced by racialized people, particularly racialized women, in securing employment and advancing in their careers. Racialized people are likely to endure more rigorous interview processes, heightened scrutiny of their qualifications, and pay inequities that persist throughout their entire careers. When they do move into executive positions, they encounter additional obstacles as they use their roles to challenge systemic barriers to make space for equitable allocation of opportunities. 

Roanne Weyermars, vp of communications public affairs and EDI at Coast Capital Savings, astutely points out that while the ruling has triggered a flurry of statements from corporations pledging steadfast commitment to championing diversity, equity, and inclusion “we have also very recently seen a flurry of diversity leaders and roles being eliminated – I continue to see this in my social media feed.” 

In Canada, while we pride ourselves on our immigration policy and the diversity it makes way for, we must confront the reality that systemic racism persists within our borders.  

To truly advance workplace diversity and inclusion, commitment does not stop after an inspirational press release. We must move beyond relying solely on legal rulings to take proactive measures. Re-examine diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts in your organization in light of the outcomes you aim to achieve; reaffirm the process and data you’ll use to get there; and recommit to carry you through these efforts. In other words, the way forward in this moment is to design DEI initiatives that are not simply window dressing. Consider:  

• sharing power with those most excluded by the status quo to jointly build a better organization 
• bringing the practice of DEI down to the level of everyday operations  
• treating DEI-related change work with the same gravitas and importance as any other organizational improvement 
• measuring what matters: the outcomes of diversity, equity and inclusion, rather than simply good intentions or vanity metrics 
• translating and integrating DEI into your core mission, purpose and values Beyond the walls of the organization, we must address the broader societal structures that perpetuate inequality and advocate for systemic change.

The Supreme Court’s ruling serves as a stark reminder that we have a long way to go in dismantling these entrenched systems. Weyermars emphasizes that “it’s important to understand that not everyone is starting from the same place and that different individuals and groups are facing significant and overlapping barriers to opportunities like education and employment that many of us take for granted.  A better, more inclusive future requires systems to uphold and create the conditions for deep, lasting change. Corporate leaders who have a high degree of influence over systems, policies and cultural norms are well-positioned to influence change in their workplaces and bring DEI commitments into reality.” 

The Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action in the United States represents a significant setback in our collective efforts to combat systemic racism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissenting voice resonates deeply with the consequences of the ruling: “Today, this court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress,” she wrote, adding that the decision “cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter.” It underscores the fact that deeming race irrelevant in law does not erase the enduring impact of racial inequality in our society.  

Shilpa Tiwari is the co-founder of Isenzo, a boutique firm that takes a systems approach to ESG.

The post How to drive workplace diversity after Supreme Court affirmative action ruling appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Complex overlapping forces, such as the pandemic, war, migration and energy scarcity, are transforming the world in as yet unknown ways. Today’s leaders need to be collaborative, communicative and agile to be effective in this landscape – soft skills are now essential skills to thrive.

But too many of today’s corporate leaders continue to cling to leadership practices from a bygone era, leaning into archetypes that are ill suited to addressing the world we live in today – highly networked, and rapidly evolving.

Henry Ford and John Rockefeller were influential figures in shaping modern management of big business in the 1910s. This first wave of corporate leaders operated their companies with an autocratic style, viewing lower-level managers and workers as extensions of their own will.

In today’s fast-changing world, the contributions of employees are indispensable, and relying predominantly on top-down decision-making processes results in long delays or inaction. Instead, there is a growing trend toward distributed leadership models that catalyze and empower collective action rather than control and direct it. These people are systems leaders and can drive change.

Systems leadership combines familiar skills such as subject expertise, strategy, program management, coalition-building and collaboration in new and different ways to create systemic transformation that leads to tangible change. It’s a leadership model that acknowledges the complexity of modern society and the interconnectedness of various systems. It allows leaders to identify the root causes of problems and work toward sustainable solutions that address multiple issues at once.

Take Kate Bingham, for example. She left her job as a venture capitalist in July 2020 to head the U.K.’s Vaccine Taskforce, realizing quickly that “we had one shot to get it right and no time.” Without a playbook to guide her, she ordered vaccines from seven developers instead of the EU’s vaccine-buying group, with no certainty that even one of them would work. Bypassing established contracting procedures, she struck “creative” deals, as the government later reported. She was, of course, criticized – but her approach enabled Britain to secure large vaccine supplies and get people vaccinated.

Under Satya Nadella’s leadership, Microsoft has undergone a transformation from a traditional software company to a cloud-based technology leader. One of the hallmarks of Nadella’s leadership style is his focus on empowering employees to take risks and innovate. He has emphasized the importance of creating a culture of learning, where employees are encouraged to experiment and learn from failure. This approach has led to the development of innovative products and services, such as Microsoft Teams, which became a vital tool for remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Microsoft has achieved record growth and profitability, with the company’s stock price increasing more than 500% since Nadella became CEO in 2014.

Too many of today’s corporate leaders continue to cling to leadership practices from a bygone era, leaning into archetypes that are ill suited to addressing the world we live in today.

In the past, business leaders focused solely on serving shareholders and the bottom line. Since they were often making up the rules for nascent industries that didn’t have them, the pioneering bosses relied on decisiveness and self-confidence to plot their course through uncharted waters. And, of course, they had an impact. Ford is credited with developing the modern assembly line and mass-production techniques. He is also known for his commitment to paying his workers a living wage, which he believed would increase their productivity and loyalty to the company. Rockefeller was able to dominate the oil industry and become one of the most powerful men in America. However, his ruthless tactics were controversial  and ultimately led to increased government regulation of business practices.

In the 1980s and 1990s, it was General Electric CEO Jack Welch who put his indelible stamp on how to lead. He took the company from one that only sold appliances and light bulbs to a booming multinational corporation with multiple product lines. Business schools were erected teaching the “Welch Way.” However, the toxic results-oriented culture he created at GE contributed to its eventual downfall. In recent years, many have questioned Welch’s strategy, leadership style and legacy. Was he really a CEO that today’s emerging business leaders should emulate?

Today, having a high-performing, profitable company isn’t enough. In the boardroom, there’s a broader set of concerns that includes sustainability; climate change; equity, diversity and inclusion; and an overall commitment to responsible leadership.

While there is recognition from global corporate leaders that many of the forces we are facing have far-reaching impacts, they continue to be viewed through a predominantly business-oriented lens. The environment, for example, continues to be treated like an external variable that has the potential to affect the bottom line, rather than a resource that has value beyond quarterly reports. The pyramid-style hierarchies with the Welches of the world at the top need to be replaced by leadership models that feature flexible, flatter hierarchies that revolve around shared leadership built on a clear mission and purpose.

Leaders who can navigate complex landscapes with flexibility and creativity are much more likely to succeed than those who cling to outdated models of leadership. Doing this sounds simple and obvious, yet most find it difficult. We are experts at denying or minimizing a new reality: it isn’t all that significant, we tell ourselves, or it isn’t new, and besides, it won’t last very long, and then the comfortable status quo will resume.

Leaders who can navigate complex landscapes with flexibility and creativity are much more likely to succeed.

In times of heightened uncertainty, “leaders that embrace a consistent application of values stand out,” says Narinder Dhami of New Power Labs, a platform to flow capital more equitably. We may not know what lies ahead, but a leader creates trust and a sense of safety by behaving fairly and consistently connecting their actions to values. And because they are confronting new realities, they are also open to pivots and detours if necessary.

Mike McInerney, a former HR executive in corporate Canada and now co-founder of Rapid Alignment, argues that principle-based leaders “create greater, more trusting and communicative relationships that are required to move organizations forward when they are facing turbulent times.”

Traditional models of leadership are no longer sufficient to navigate the rapidly changing world we live in. As such, we must continue to identify and learn from leaders who have moved us through chaos with humanity. Leaders like Jacinda Ardern, the former prime minister of New Zealand, who showed the world that leading with compassion can deliver results. Ardern’s leadership style played a critical role in promoting healing and unity after 51 people were killed by a white supremacist at two mosques. Her focus on compassion, inclusivity and decisive action helped to build trust and confidence in her leadership, and her response to the crisis has been widely praised, both domestically and internationally. Her leadership style also highlights the importance of transparency and communication in times of crisis.

Systems leaders apply an unusual combination of skills and attributes. Like many of today’s leaders, they are smart, ambitious visionaries, with highly developed management and execution skills. But what sets them apart is how they use their “soft skills,” such as compassion and communication, to create inclusive environments where innovation and creativity thrive. These leaders don’t try to place complex issues in silos but take a networked approach and play the long game, placing an emphasis on creating trust, because business moves at the speed of trust.

Shilpa Tiwari is the co-founder of Isenzo, a boutique firm that takes a systems approach to ESG. 

The post Time to move beyond the autocratic CEO appeared first on Corporate Knights.

These were always obstacles for women who run their own businesses, long before COVID-19, especially women with small businesses and the self-employed. But the pandemic exacerbated them. 

A recent survey of 147 women entrepreneurs in Ontario by the non-profit PARO Centre for Women’s Enterprise shows that the pandemic added to the burden on women entrepreneurs, slowing their business growth and taking a toll on their mental health.  

Besides coping with pandemic-related restrictions, staffing shortages, supply chain issues and inflationary pressures familiar to most businesses, women entrepreneurs have had additional obstacles. These include gender biases when it comes to obtaining financial support for their businesses, having fewer mentors and networking opportunities than male entrepreneurs, a shortage of affordable childcare and eldercare options, which often falls on women’s shoulders, and lack of access to mental health services. 

The challenges for women entrepreneurs in rural and remote areas are even greater due to isolation, lack of proper infrastructure, unreliable internet, and lack of access to all health care services.  

Finding solutions to these problems is not just important for women entrepreneurs; it is essential for the country’s economic growth.  

Studies show women-owned businesses contribute over $150 billion to Canada’s economy and employ over 1.5 million people. Creating a climate in which women entrepreneurs can more fully participate in the economy and thrive benefits everyone.  

To foster this environment, governments at every level must eliminate systemic gender biases embedded in their policies and practices, especially around financial support for small businesses. The PARO survey revealed that the pandemic made it difficult for almost 30% of female entrepreneur respondents to meet their financial obligations. About 5% said they lost their business altogether. 

While the federal government provided financial supports to businesses during the first two years of the pandemic, many women entrepreneurs were not eligible for the supports or were reluctant to sign up for loan programs that would result in more debt.  

The federal government has also developed support programs specifically for women in business – a great first step. However, many women entrepreneurs are excluded from these programs because they do not include micro businesses (those with fewer than 20 employees) or solo-preneurs (self-employed workers), which are the main business models for women entrepreneurs. 

The federal government must design support programs that specifically target micro-businesses and solo-preneurs, enabling women entrepreneurs to obtain financing more easily.  

Governments must also champion women-centred organizations that mentor women entrepreneurs, provide networking opportunities for them – and, importantly, financial support.  

Women entrepreneurs often face systemic barriers when they apply for loans or grants through traditional lending institutions, which sometimes still view women-owned businesses as a ‘hobby’ or a ‘side hustle,’ and either reject a woman’s application or attach overly stringent terms to the financing.  

Government policy changes must also address the specific barriers that Indigenous women entrepreneurs face.  

Indigenous people in Canada start businesses at a rate that is nine times higher than non-Indigenous Canadians, with women driving much of the growth. However, Indigenous women face significant obstacles, including racism, poverty, violence, and a lack of infrastructure, adequate health care and educational opportunities.  

Policies and programs to address these issues are essential, as are better access to grants and non-repayable loans, mentoring, training and networking opportunities designed for Indigenous women. 

High costs and wait lists for childcare also continue to be a major roadblock for women entrepreneurs, despite the introduction of $10-a-day childcare policies. Governments must encourage more childcare centres to register under these programs, allowing for more childcare spaces at affordable rates.  

Policies and programs to help with eldercare responsibilities must also be developed. 

Access to mental health supports is also essential. Many women responding to the PARO survey said they experienced anxiety and depression during the pandemic due to financial stress, isolation, caring for children and/or elderly family members, and worrying about how they would maintain their business.  

The federal government needs to work with municipal and provincial governments to ensure that timely and accessible mental health services are available to all Canadians, especially those living in rural, remote, and Northern communities where services are often sparse.  

Women entrepreneurs are resilient and determined, but they need a more inclusive environment to reach their full potential. Governments need to act now to eliminate the obstacles impeding women business owners. Our economy will reap the rewards. 

Rosalind Lockyer is founder and CEO of PARO Centre for Women’s Enterprise-Ontario, PARO Canada, and board member for Women’s Enterprise Organizations of Canada. 

The post Are governments doing enough to end obstacles for women entrepreneurs? appeared first on Corporate Knights.

While COVID-19 affected everyone, it did not affect everyone equally. The pandemic exposed many aspects of inequality, including socioeconomic inequality, accessibility and gender inequality.

The pandemic destroyed the momentum towards more emancipatory gender relations by disproportionately harming women and gender diverse people, according to the United Nations and Canadian Human Rights Commission.

As the world reopens after the global catastrophe, I join in on the urgent call to reset “normal” in a more emancipatory way. There is an opportunity to capitalize on the potential offered by the pandemic to rebuild our professional, business and personal lives.

To echo Winston Churchill’s words from the Second World War: we cannot “let a good crisis go to waste.” We will waste the COVID-19 crisis if we don’t address the inequalities — specifically the gender inequalities — the pandemic both exacerbated and revealed.

Burden of unpaid labour

Women do an unequal share of unpaid labour in Canada, as they do around the world.

The term “silent partner” has been used to refer to the unpaid work spouses — usually wives — do behind the scenes to support the paid careers of their husbands and male co-parents.

Another term, “double shift,” has been used to refer to women’s combined paid an unpaid labour, as has been documented by Statistics Canada.

Usually, unpaid and paid labour was done sequentially, with a double shift of unpaid work occurring before and after the paid workday. This second shift grows longer as time passes.

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated this by creating a context where both paid and unpaid work occurred simultaneously.

The pandemic compounded the impossibility of women’s professional lives — especially those of professionals and academics, like myself, who are mothers. It also made women’s unpaid work more visible than it had ever been before. Speaking figuratively as well as literally, no digital Zoom background could hide this reality.

Potential for change on gender inequality

As the lockdowns progressed, businesses and governments began to acknowledge the unpaid care labour done largely by women in unprecedented ways, as myself and other authors discussed in this anthology of feminist writing about the pandemic.

The Canadian government, for example, has announced a plan to bring $10-a-day child care to every province and territory by 2026.

The pandemic also demonstrated how changeable and contingent things are: we stopped doing many normal activities, creating space for possibility and changing the future of how certain things, like work, are done.

Although hybrid work has become widely practiced around the world, there has been little or no change to the accommodations offered in relation to unpaid work.

Hybrid work, while beneficial, is no panacea for those with caregiving roles whose care work can be made invisible by hybrid work itself.

Resetting normal

As we mark International Women’s Day, we remain in a limitless space of possibility resulting from the pandemic, but we won’t remain here for long.

While we are still re-establishing norms, we need to work within businesses, governments, and our own personal lives to reset — not replicate — gender relations, doing as the Canadian Women’s Foundation recommends and building gender equality into our new normal.

It is not enough to return to the way things were because social and gender inequality was already rampant in Canada before the pandemic.

We must undertake policy actions to subsidize childcare, ensure flexible work schedules, identify opportunities to promote equitable health care, close gender wage gaps, normalize male parental leave, and provide mental health support for employees.

As gender consultants Stephenie Foster and Susan Markham wrote of gender equity and the pandemic:

“We can use this as an opportunity to reimagine a different future, one that values gender equality, women’s participation and women’s leadership. Women must be part of COVID-19 response and recovery planning and decision making. We must value the unseen work done by women.”

The radical shifts that result from crises like the pandemic invite us not to just restore old patterns when the calamity has passed, but to learn from them and move meaningfully forward. We urgently need to make meaningful change now, before the potential for us to learn from the lessons offered by the pandemic disappears.

Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich is an academic co-director of the Desautels Centre at Robson Hall Law School, University of Manitoba and an adjunct professor at Carleton University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post The time to act on gender inequality in the workplace is now appeared first on Corporate Knights.