Posted on 07/24/2024 11:19:24 AM PDT by John Robinson
Hastily edited machine transcription of the video. I may touch this up over time, it needs links to the various pages the narrator mentions.
That's not the purpose of the video, despite the fact I consider them grifters of the highest order. However, if I can provide a complete overview to the best of my ability for anyone who wants to understand these topics better, the negative consequences of that grift, shall we say, may get blunted. Which is probably a very good thing in today's political climate.
To put it simply, we do not need more division right now. We need accuracy and critical thinking, which is currently, regrettably, in very short supply. With that said, let's officially get started. The real truth about DEI and BRIDGE, which is a term you're probably going to hear quite a bit more often soon enough. In a world where these topics are typically discussed with overcharged emotional baggage and inaccurate assumptions.
First, we need definitions. At the top of the pyramid, the very top, is ESG, which stands for Environmental, Social, and Governance. ESG is effectively a screening mechanism for investments, where companies participating are expected to make ESG reports, which include everything from greenhouse gas emissions to labor practices. Or even Workforce Diversity, which feeds into our next term.
Underneath ESG, particularly inside the social arm of the framework, is DEI, standing for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, which is an acronym that rose to prominence and swept across Western society for the past couple of decades, climaxing around 2020, I believe, at the height of civil unrest in America.
DEI refers to practices and policies intended to increase the amount of cultural diversity in a given workplace, often through incentive programs or additional hiring practices specifically for that purpose, according to BuiltIn, which is a tech startup community that I'll come back to and reference later on.
(Quoting BuiltIn) "DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion is an ethos that recognizes the value of diverse voices and emphasizes inclusivity and employee wellbeing as central facets of success. To bring those values to life, companies must implement programs and initiatives. that actively make their offices more diverse, equitable, and inclusive spaces."
Hopefully that about sums it up nicely. Lastly, for definitions, as an extension of DEI, we have BRIDGE, which stands for Benchmarking, Race, Inclusion, and Diversity in Global Engagement, and is, quote, "an institutional survey that explores diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, DEIA, Metrics, Structures, and Practices at the Organizational Level across U.S. Registered Organizations in the International Development and Humanitarian Sector."
Just to recap, so we're all on the same page here. ESG takes place at what's called the investment level, at the very top. DEI takes place at a company level, under the social arm of ESG. And BRIDGE is, quote, from their own website, "a comprehensive DEI framework to help companies identify, deconstruct, and rethink their own structural gaps that contribute to inequities."
ESG at the top, DEI down below, and BRIDGE as a tool in the execution of DEI initiatives. That's a very basic roadmap. Shout out to everyone who made it this far in the video, I greatly appreciate you. Now we can move on to the more interesting stuff.
BRIDGE, as an organization, has a board of directors, with an executive committee and basic members from all over corporate America.
There's some very big names here that people like to reference, but the gist of it is that this group is extremely, extremely well connected. Sephora, Discover, NBC Universal. Conde Nast, which for anyone who doesn't know is a massive media conglomerate that owns publications like Ars Technica, GQ, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Vogue, or even Wired.
All of these brands, and many more, are represented in the Bridge Board of Directors, including a company called McKinsey & Co. Bear with me here, because McKinsey & Co. is a global management consulting firm that is largely responsible for the rise of corporate DEI initiatives across the professional world.
See, pretty much all of it traces back to a particular research paper of theirs from 2015 called "Diversity Matters", which despite being relatively unknown, especially to the vocal critics of ESG or DEI or soon to be BRIDGE, is actually the inception point for pretty much the entire corporate America DEI craze.
In 2015, shortly after the initial paper came out, the Wall Street Journal posted about its findings even, saying, quote, "A new study of 366 public companies in the U. S., Canada, U. K., Brazil, Mexico, and Chile by McKinsey & Co., a major management consultancy, found a statistically significant relationship between companies with women and minorities in their upper ranks and better financial performance as measured by earnings before interest and tax, or EBIT."
Also, according to Notre Dame University, in a write up titled "History of DEI, the evolution of diversity training programs", quote, "a McKinsey report highlighted that companies with high racial and ethnic diversity are more likely to have financial returns above their industry medians. This business case for diversity prompted more companies to integrate DEI strategies into their operations. From talent acquisition to customer engagement."
And to really hammer the point home here, remember the tech startup community that I mentioned earlier when quoting the definition of DEI called BuiltIn? That very same article from March of this year, 2024, in a section called "Improved Business Outcomes", cites a Forbes article claiming that "firms displaying culturally and ethnically diverse executive teams are 33 percent more likely to lead their industries in profitability."
The thing is, if you go check the article they cited, they being Forbes in this case, the actual research that they're referring to is the very same work from McKinsey &Co. Way back in 2015. This time an expansion of it actually that includes over a thousand companies, not just the initial 366.
My point here, for anyone who's not able to follow along so far, is to showcase that incredibly divisive topics, ESG, DEI, and soon, BRIDGE, have been almost exclusively built around the idea that more diverse companies are somehow more profitable.
But what if I told you that the entire initial premise was wrong, and that the research was completely inverted, in a way that proves absolutely nothing? Let's read an actual section of the research paper, the one that seems to have started off all of this, called "Diversity Matters." "Analysis of the data from the group of 366 companies revealed a statistically significant connection between diversity and financial performance. The companies in the top quartile for gender diversity were 15 percent more likely to have financial returns that were above their national industry median. And the companies in the top quartile for racial slash ethnic diversity were 35 percent more likely to have financial returns above their national industry median. (Exhibit 1.) This correlation does not prove that the relationship is causal, that greater gender and ethnic diversity in corporate leadership automatically translates into more profit. But rather indicates the companies that commit to diverse leadership are more successful. The existence of the relationship is statistically significant and consistently present in the data."
Just to be very, very clear, that's big. That's massive and huge. Claiming that companies with increased executive diversity are 35 percent more likely to have financial returns above their national industry mean. is enormous. And taking this research on its face, it becomes abundantly clear why so many different companies began aggressively promoting DEI initiatives.
Doubling or tripling or quadrupling down on the idea of increasing diversity by any means necessary. However, this is where things start to fall apart and where the entire house of cards comes crashing down very rapidly. ESG and DEI don't work to be clear. I'm not saying that diversity is a bad thing.
Don't get it twisted here. I'm saying that increasing diversity alone does not create a 35% higher likelihood of increased financial returns. First, for ESG, at the top level, the investor side of things, the entire ethos is just smoke and mirrors. According to research from Vox.EU, which looked at ESG fund performance and investment returns, quote, "As a final piece of evidence, we calculate the hypothetical returns a fund would earn based on the disclosed portfolio and compare them to its realized returns. In Figure 2, we observe that in the 10 days leading up to disclosure, funds tend to underperform the portfolio they are about to disclose. In Figure 3, funds tend to underperform the portfolio they are about to disclose. This observation is consistent with the idea that during this period, they incur meaningful transaction costs as they adjust their portfolio to include more environmentally friendly and sustainable assets. However, following the disclosure event, we notice a shift in performance dynamics funds begin to outperform the portfolio that they have just disclosed. Indicating that they are now holding higher paying assets than the ones they have recently made public. This trend is in line with the hypothesis that after the disclosure event, funds might replace some ESG assets with higher yielding, but less sustainable assets."
To simplify that because a lot of it's boring. I know ESG funds are not even holding assets that conform to their own ideology. These investment portfolios are most likely rearranging their assets before and after disclosure events. Selling off stock in better earning companies so that their assets on paper, at least, at the specific time of disclosure will better reflect the ideology of the fund.
Just smoke and mirrors. Second, DEI, with regards to that famous paper from McKinsey, is just completely backwards. Over the years, many academic publications have tried and failed to replicate McKinsey's findings, but an excellent summary comes from Econ Journal Watch conducted by Jeremiah Green and John R.M. Hand. From the conclusion, "our findings lead us to two main conclusions and an emphasis. First, we conclude that caution is warranted in relying on McKinsey's findings to support the view that U. S. publicly traded firms can deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial slash ethnic diversity of their executives. Not only because we are unable to replicate the same statistically reliable association between firm financial performance and executive race slash ethnic diversity as they report, but also because the structure of McKinsey's tests are such that by measuring firm financial performance over the four to five years leading up to the year in which they judge the race slash ethnicity of firms executives, the default direction of causality that McKinsey capture in the positive correlation they report is that better firm financial performance causes firms to diversify the racial slash ethnic composition of their executives, not the reverse."
Simplified, and all of you are troopers who made it this far because I know that this is ridiculously dry and a lot of it's hard to understand, but I appreciate you. Again, Simplified. Successful companies are not successful because they are diverse. Successful companies become more diverse in the process of growth and achievement.
McKinsey had it backwards. The real problem here is that correlation does not equal causation. A phrase that most people have probably heard of before in their life. And a fact that McKinsey rightly acknowledges in their own paper, but that hasn't stopped them, and pretty much everyone else who ever discusses the concept of ESG and DEI favorably, and soon to be BRIDGE as well, from heavily insinuating that correlation in this particular case does equal causation, resulting in a very widespread misunderstanding that scientific research has been established backing the idea that increased diversity through force of policy somehow increases the likelihood of outperforming industry average revenue targets.
No such scientific research exists. The stone cold truth of the situation is that ESG and DEI do not work. Investment portfolios structured around ESG hide the fact that they're not making enough money by holding approved assets alone, while companies exploring the effects of DEI are waking up to the fact that it has no financial benefit to them.
If you want evidence of all this, try Microsoft as an example, who recently laid off their DEI team entirely, circulating an internal email that read, quote, "True systems change work associated with DEI programs everywhere are no longer business critical or smart as they were in 2020."
How about Zoom, who dismantled their programs as well, despite remaining committed to the concept of DEI?
Google and Facebook also cut their teams associated with, in the case of Google, improving representation of underrepresented groups in leadership by 30 percent by 2025. Saying, quote, "Our commitment to DEI remains at the center of who we are as a company," and yet these initiatives, across the board, have been slashed by as much as 90 percent in some cases.
Corporate America, specifically publicly traded companies governed by stockholders that have a fiduciary responsibility to make more money perpetually, do not care about the concept of diversity. They never have, and never will. They care about the idea that diversity could push their financial performance higher, or give them a realistically better shot at achieving financial results, which McKinsey strongly insinuated in 2015, doubling down multiple additional times over the subsequent years.
However, after implementing these programs and dialing them up during times of civil unrest in particular, these companies are witnessing reality, as they see in real time that the programs do not have a financial benefit associated with them.
There's nothing wrong with the concepts of diversity, equity, or inclusion. So. Anyone watching this who wants to somehow use this video as a demonstration that diversity is therefore a bad thing, don't do it, because it isn't, okay? That's not what this is about. But those concepts are not a causal factor behind higher revenue.
As a result, corporate America is backing away from the concept of ESG. They're backing away from the concept of DEI. And that process obviously won't be instantaneous. There's a number of consulting companies and diversity focused initiatives still actively pushing for these things. Because they make a great deal of money off of advising about them.
But you can't influence the tides of the ocean with a large bucket. And the bedrock imperative of these companies, for better or for worse, is to earn more money. Which DEI, in its current form, does not help them do. Meanwhile, these topics in general have become a rhetorical battleground between internet denizens who mostly have no idea what the concepts even are, let alone where they came from.
One side screams about how DEI is the driving force behind the total collapse of video games and any other industry that I'm a part of, and the other yells about how anyone who doesn't agree with them is a racist or a bigot. When in reality, it's most likely just a bureaucratic corporate initiative born from a misrepresented research paper formed under a misidentified expectation that forcefully increasing diversity will somehow improve financial prospects.
Which isn't true, and will cause these initiatives to evaporate just as fast as they initially sprung up. Which we see happening already, as companies realize the mistake. The truth about DEI is a lot less scary than some people seem to believe. It's a lot less organized, or conspiratorial, at least in my personal opinion.
Because it's really just a simple explanation of a claim about how doing this thing will make you earn more. And now that a bunch of companies are actually doing it, they're realizing, Hey, wait a second. No, it doesn't make us earn more. So they're stopping. The video's kind of boring, I know that. It's just a bunch of raw information because people need more information in today's day and age and a lot less sensationalism.
And I'm guilty of that too. A lot of people have sensationalist headlines and titles and video content and, Oh my gosh, the world is ending. Again, I'm guilty of it myself. But I'm trying to go down the route of just providing information. That's much more interesting to me than sensationalist grifting, which I see a lot of on social media lately.
So yeah, that's it. That's what this video is. Just an attempt at raw information. That's it, that's the truth about DEI, where it came from, how it grew, and probably where it's headed.
If you want to support the channel, check out the links down below. It would be very much appreciated for anyone who wants to subscribe monthly to look at locals and Patreon.
You get nothing for it, it just keeps the content coming. Also a special VPN discount link, right? Virtual Private Network, it's great, everybody should have one. Uh, yeah, that's it, I'll cut it there and stop rambling. As always, thank you all for watching, question everything, and have a nice night.
Shareholders should sue to “claw back” losses.
Has anyone ever noticed that the left never pushes for ideological diversity in the workplace?
Diversity apparently is only a strength when it puts their voters into positions.
The private sector is ditching DEI, but government can’t let go
New York Post ^ | July 23, 2024 | Glenn H. Reynolds
Posted on 7/24/2024, 7:13:09 AM by george76
Is DEI DIE-ing?
We can hope. And with the sudden resignation Tuesday of disgraced former US Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, it’s starting to look like it.
more.....
This in turn suggests that other kinds of diversity—for example, in age, sexual orientation, and experience (such as a global mind-set and cultural fluency)—are also likely to bring some level of competitive advantage for companies that can attract and retain such diverse talent.
THIS IS MY FEAR. There is no disincentive, only incentives, for government infested by Leftists to ramp this garbage up. And we know, if the shoe was on the other foot, if the Leftists had a majority white, male footprint, and the right was the gay rainbow people, government would never take this on.
DEI was nothing but a bunch of Abusive Thieves
Peak DEI _correlates_ to being tied to the trans agenda. Getting corporate training that you’re, somehow, committing a transgression by not using ‘preferred pro-nouns’ isn’t going to sit well.
Some of this stuff is vomit inducing. It’s also lost on HR that the training has an underlying theme, that the transgressors are all white males...leaving you feeling harassed by the training. It’s seems designed to make white men feel bad about being white men.
It’s just Marxism in a different wrapping.
Aye, it is exactly Marxist, or specifically, Marxist Critique—oppressed/oppressor nonsense, hence normative white males are the baddies. Then it naturally evolves into the maximal trash fire of Queer Theory before society self-immolates. But, at least where money talks, this should die, as it’s generally a loser.
"There's a number of consulting companies and diversity focused initiatives still actively pushing for these things. Because they make a great deal of money off of advising about them."
Where McKinsey and co are involved you can bet the farm there is an answer being ginned up in search of a patsy to "help with their problems". I have seen them at work three times before. Their ability to retell what your people tell them and then get paid a hell of a lot of money for it is masterful.
“It’s also lost on HR that the training has an underlying theme, that the transgressors are all white males...leaving you feeling harassed by the training. It’s seems designed to make white men feel bad about being white men.”
Retirement mercifully got me out of that infuriating BS, but the underlying theme wasn’t lost on our HR dept. The training was always conducted by the regional head of HR (female, of course), augmented by at least two 220 lb angry black lesbians with crewcuts. They knew what they were doing.
Seems like the Rats enlisted a DEI assassin....
It’s the great irony of DEI training provided by HR, HR itself is the *least* diverse department in almost every company - all women.
Seems like a whole lot of words just to say DEI is the worst racist policy since Affirmative Action.
Hire the best for the job while being 100% color blind. So simple even a DEI hire like Kamel can understand it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.