By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Target’s cofounder’s daughters, Anne and Lucy Dayton, publicly criticized the company’s recent rollback of its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, arguing that this decision contradicts the company’s founding principles of customer focus and community well-being. They expressed concern over businesses succumbing to political pressure, asserting that ethical business models are not inherently illegal. This action follows Target’s decision to end programs supporting Black employees and businesses, a move mirroring similar cutbacks by other major corporations. Target declined to respond to the criticism.
Read the original article here
The daughters of Target’s late cofounder, Anne and Lucy Dayton, have expressed deep concern over the company’s recent retreat from Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. They view this pullback as a capitulation to pressure from the current administration, a move they believe undermines the very principles that have contributed to Target’s success. The sisters argue that it’s not illegal for a company to build its business model around its ethical and business values, implying that Target’s actions demonstrate a lack of conviction in its previously stated commitments.
This concern is echoed by many consumers who feel betrayed by Target’s decision. Many express that they are reconsidering their shopping habits and are seeking alternatives, citing the company’s perceived abandonment of its DEI values as the primary reason. For some, this has meant a shift towards supporting local businesses and independent sellers, demonstrating a tangible impact on Target’s customer base. The financial implications are significant, as some customers report spending thousands of dollars monthly at Target and are now actively avoiding the retailer.
The Dayton sisters’ alarm stems from the belief that prioritizing DEI is not merely a matter of social responsibility but also a sound business strategy. They likely perceive that a diverse and inclusive workforce fosters innovation, better serves a diverse customer base, and ultimately contributes to profitability. This argument highlights the disconnect between short-term gains from appeasing certain segments of the population and the long-term potential losses stemming from alienating another significant portion of their customer base, namely the LGBTQ+ community and other minority groups.
The perception that DEI is purely a “woke” initiative or another form of government overreach is countered by the observation that the financial benefits of DEI are clear. A diverse and inclusive hiring process helps mitigate unconscious and conscious biases that could otherwise lead to suboptimal hiring decisions. This doesn’t mean prioritizing less-qualified candidates, but rather ensuring that qualified candidates from all backgrounds have a fair opportunity.
Numerous commenters express frustration with the argument that DEI is unprofitable. Evidence suggests that companies with strong DEI programs often see improved financial performance and greater adaptability to changing market conditions. The belief that companies only embraced DEI for the sake of appearances or to align with ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investing trends misses the potential for long-term sustainable growth that a truly inclusive approach fosters.
The rapid abandonment of DEI initiatives by several major corporations underscores the perception that these efforts were driven primarily by pressure from financial institutions and investors focused on ESG criteria. With ESG falling out of favor, it seems that some companies have deemed it more expedient to retreat, suggesting a lack of genuine commitment to DEI beyond the financial incentives.
Target’s history is cited as evidence that the company’s recent actions are not wholly surprising. Some claim that Target has always primarily sought profit maximization, regardless of ethical considerations. Past controversies, including accusations of wage manipulation to avoid healthcare benefits, and the inconsistent application of its values-based marketing campaigns (e.g., Pride Month merchandise) further fuel skepticism towards the company’s commitment to ethical principles.
Conversely, there is a counter-argument that focusing on DEI isn’t about hiring unqualified individuals to fill quotas. Instead, it’s about ensuring fair and unbiased processes that allow all qualified candidates a level playing field. This perspective emphasizes the business benefits of diversity, suggesting that varied perspectives and experiences lead to more innovative solutions and improved strategic decision-making. The effectiveness of DEI programs is linked to creating an inclusive environment that encourages participation and idea generation from all team members, leading to better outcomes for the entire organization.
The Dayton sisters’ concern is, therefore, not solely about corporate ethics but also about the potential long-term implications for Target’s profitability and reputation. Their apprehension underscores a broader discussion about the role of corporations in society and the potential consequences of prioritizing short-term gains over long-term values. The actions of companies like Target in response to political pressure serve as a reminder that corporate values are often fluid and dependent on perceived financial incentives. Ultimately, the success of DEI initiatives hinges on genuine commitment and integration into core business strategy, rather than merely reacting to external pressures or trends.