DEI Is a Risk Management Strategy — And Refusing It Is Riskier Than You Think

Elyse Rylander
32 minutes ago
6 min read

Introduction: This Moment Requires More Than Good Intentions

Over the past fifteen years working in outdoor education, youth programs, and national organizational systems, I’ve watched the language of equity evolve, fracture, expand, and realign more times than I can count. We’ve moved from multiculturalism to diversity, from D&I to DEI to DEIJ, from inclusivity to belonging, from equity to access — and we’re not done.

But one thing remains constant:

Organizations don’t succeed because they choose the perfect terminology. They succeed because they build systems that produce measurable outcomes — not just good intentions or positive feelings.

And in our current political, legal, and cultural climate, this matters more than ever. DEI work is no longer simply “doing the right thing.” It’s a core component of risk management. And right now, the greater risk lies in disengagement, avoidance, or relying solely on rhetoric without data- driven accountability.

This blog outlines what organizations stand to gain — and what they risk losing — depending on how they choose to show up in this moment.

Why Engaging in DEI Still Matters — And Why It Needs to Evolve

DEI Isn’t Going Away — But How We Talk About It Might

Evolving language is appropriate and often strategically necessary. Words become politically loaded, legally vulnerable, or so overused they lose meaning. What matters most is not whether an organization uses DEI, FAIR, Access & Belonging, or some other framework — but whether the terms are:

Clearly defined
Understood internally
Aligned with mission and values
Capable of producing real, measurable outcomes

When language drifts into vagueness, or becomes symbolic instead of operational, it stops being effective. Conversely, when language evolves with intention and definition, it creates clarity, cohesion, and organizational momentum.

This moment calls for organizations to be precise, grounded, and accountable — not performative.

Imagine an organization that decides to evolve its equity language from “DEI” to “Access & Belonging.”

At first, staff express concern that the shift might signal a retreat from equity commitments. To address this, leadership does not simply change terminology. Instead, they clearly define what “access” and “belonging” mean in practice — connecting each term to concrete expectations around hiring, program participation, decision-making, and staff support.

The organization also identifies a small set of shared metrics: who is able to participate, where barriers persist, how staff experience psychological safety, and whether policies are applied consistently.

Over time, the result is not less accountability, but more. Staff report greater clarity about priorities, fewer disagreements about intent versus impact, and increased confidence applying the framework in real decisions. Culture survey results show stronger alignment with organizational values — not because people feel reassured by the language, but because they can see how it translates into action.

Engaging in DEI: What It Protects You From

1. Loss of Clarity and Organizational Drift

DEI done well anchors decisions — hiring, program design, partnerships, policy — to measurable goals. It gives teams a shared vocabulary for identifying inequities and addressing them systematically.

In 2022 I supported a large organization within the cycling industry as it was grappling with a decision to rename two of its bicycle models sighting cultural appropriation. By utilizing the organization’s specific definition of inclusion, the Marketing and Sales teams were able to create alignment and understanding on the need to update one model’s name. The team also used this definition to guide its approach to reaching out to the impacted community from which the other name came, which resulted in an event collaboration and opportunity to deepen a relationship between the community and the company.

Without that grounding, organizations drift toward inconsistency, bias in decision-making, and siloed practices. That inconsistency is itself a risk to mission fidelity.

2. Reputational Exposure

Whether an organization uses DEI language or shifts to something more locally acceptable, the absence of an equity strategy is what creates reputational fragility.

CASE STUDY: In 2025, Target faced a months-long boycott and financial consequences after visibly scaling back its DEI commitments. Because the retreat was framed as a broad rollback without a clearly articulated new strategy or transparent outcome metrics, the company struggled to manage reputational risk.

As this case study illustrates, organizations that can show:

their framework,
their definitions,
their metrics,
and their outcomes

…have a stronger shield against external scrutiny and political volatility.

3. Operational Risk & Staff Culture Concerns

A lack of shared clarity around inclusion leads to preventable harm:

elevated conflict,
turnover,
low psychological safety,
and uneven support for staff and participants.

When equity is not systematized, people default to personal judgment — which increases liability and inconsistency.

Operational Risk Example: In the late 2010s and early 2020s, Starbucks faced notable internal conflict and reputational challenges tied to workplace inclusion and employee experience. Much of the tension stemmed from unclear expectations and inconsistent responses to bias incidents, which put pressure on individual managers and left staff uncertain about norms and support. When Starbucks responded by developing clearly articulated inclusion practices — including standardized protocols for handling bias, mandatory training, and centralized definitions — it helped create shared expectations across teams, reducing conflict, improving communication, and strengthening psychological safety for employees.

4. Data Blindness

Organizations that engage in DEI work collect better data about:

who can access their programs,
who succeeds,
who leaves,
and who thrives or struggles.

This isn’t “identity politics.” It’s operational intelligence.

The Risks of NOT Engaging in DEI (or its evolved forms)

1. Decisions Based on Feelings Rather Than Outcomes

Stepping away from DEI because it feels “too political” or “too risky” often leads organizations back toward:

intuition instead of evidence,
intention instead of impact,
and comfort instead of accountability.

Without equity frameworks, organizations lose the ability to measure whether their program or workplace actually works for the people they serve.

2. Unrealistic Belief That Doing Nothing Is Neutral

Neutrality is a myth. In the current climate, silence is interpreted as:

indifference,
fear,
or, at worst, alignment with regressive rhetoric.

Organizations that withdraw from equity work may reduce noise in the short term, but they create bigger risks in the long run — eroded trust, weakened partnerships, and diminishing relevance.

Micro-example:In one organization, leadership paused its DEI committee without establishing a clear alternative framework or timeline. While intended to reduce controversy, the pause created confusion and mistrust among staff. Exit interviews the following year cited concerns about organizational values and fairness, contributing to increased turnover and reduced morale.

3. Outdated Language That Stops Matching Reality

When language stagnates, it can:

confuse staff,
misrepresent commitment,
or fail to meet legal and reputational expectations.

Evolving language is not a retreat — it’s adjusting the sail without abandoning the destination.

The risk isn’t evolution. The risk is abandoning clarity.

DEI as Risk Management: Why Data Matters More Than Ever

This political moment demands discipline — not defensiveness.

Organizations need to:

track participation,
monitor access trends,
evaluate staff culture,
measure progress,
and use data to guide decisions.

Not because funders expect it. Not because it looks good in a report. But because without data, inclusion becomes guesswork.

Data transforms DEI from a values statement into an operational discipline.

Example:

By analyzing three years of participation and demographic data, one program discovered that transportation barriers were preventing students from certain communities from attending programs consistently. Using this insight, the program implemented a targeted transportation stipend and flexible pickup options. Within a year, participation from those student groups increased by over 15%, demonstrating how data-driven adjustments can create measurable equity outcomes while reducing organizational risk.

It is the difference between saying:

“We believe in equitable access.”

and being able to say:

“We increased participation among underrepresented groups by 15% because we removed financial and logistical barriers.”

One is aspirational. The other is actionable.