In today’s corporate landscape, executives are grappling with mounting pressure to either uphold or abandon diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This pressure comes from various quarters, including boards, employees, regulators, and consumers. Amidst this turmoil, a crucial question often goes unasked: Is inclusion a moral imperative?
As marketing scholars specializing in consumer ethics and corporate responsibility, we have dedicated years to studying how companies treat their customers and what this treatment reveals about their values. Our recent research, published in the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing contends that inclusion is fundamentally about ethics, not just strategy. We explore this through three of the oldest traditions in moral philosophy.
Navigating Political and Financial Pressures
Just a few years ago, many companies were eager to demonstrate their commitment to diversity. They hired more broadly, tackled workplace discrimination, ran diverse ad campaigns, and designed products for previously ignored demographics. However, this trend has seen a sharp reversal. Faced with federal investigations, loss of government contracts, and lawsuits challenging diversity-conscious hiring, many companies have abandoned DEI programs or renamed initiatives to avoid political scrutiny.
Beyond political and legal pressures, some companies have retreated to an economic argument, asserting that their primary obligation is to maximize profits. They view inclusion programs as distractions or liabilities unless they clearly boost the This perspective treats inclusion as a strategic bet that can be placed or withdrawn based on political and economic returns. However, it overlooks the moral dimension of business decisions.
Businesses are not merely economic machines; they are integral parts of society, making choices that impact real people’s lives. This makes them moral actors as well. The ethical implications of inclusion cannot be ignored.
The Philosophical Foundations of Inclusion
The Duty to Respect All Individuals
The first philosophical tradition we examine is deontological ethics associated with the 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant. The core idea of deontology is that some actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. People possess inherent dignity and must be treated as ends in themselves, never merely as means to someone else’s goals.
In the marketplace, this means companies have a duty to respect the rights of every person they interact with. A bank denying loans based on race, a tech platform designing its interface only for hearing users, or a retailer stocking clothing only in small sizes—these are not just poor business decisions; they are moral failures. Kant’s categorical imperative suggests that rules worth following would still make sense if everyone adhered to them. A world where companies ignore the needs of disabled consumers or hire only from narrow demographics would be one many would consider unjust.
Inclusion is not always straightforward. For example, a mobile app designed to be affordable for low-bandwidth rural users might have to sacrifice features that blind users need. Kant’s point is not that inclusion is free of conflict but that the commitment to consider all people can be universally applied. Some actions are simply right or wrong, regardless of their cost.
The Virtue of Inclusive Character
The second philosophical tradition is virtue ethics rooted in the teachings of Aristotle. Unlike deontology, which focuses on duties, virtue ethics emphasizes character virtues such as fairness, courage, and wisdom. It asks not what rules to follow but what kind of person or organization one should be.
Consider Target, which spent years running inclusive campaigns, stocking gender-neutral children’s clothing, expanding its Pride collection, and featuring diverse families in its advertising. In recent years, facing backlash, Target pulled back Pride merchandise and scaled back diversity commitments. Critics argued that if inclusion disappears the moment it becomes costly, it was never a value but a marketing strategy.
Inclusion practiced only when convenient is not inclusion but performance. Performance, unlike character, is fragile. A company that practices inclusion consistently embeds it as part of its organizational character, leading to more satisfied employees, sustained customer loyalty, and the ability to weather political controversy.
The Utility of Inclusive Practices
The third philosophical tradition is utilitarianism developed by John Stuart Mill in the 19th century. It holds that the right action is the one that produces the greatest At first glance, this might seem to work against inclusion. If the majority is already well served, why divert resources toward a smaller group?
However, this reading misses an important aspect of how welfare works. Benefits follow the law of diminishing returns. Adding a tenth feature to a product that already meets a consumer’s needs produces far less new value than giving an excluded group access to the product for the first time. The biggest gains come from bringing new people in.
Moreover, inclusive services for a minority often produce spillover benefits for other consumers. When Netflix added closed captions, it was primarily an accessibility measure for deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers. Surveys found that a significant share of hearing viewers also use captions regularly, such as in noisy environments or while learning a new language. When cities introduced curb cuts—small ramps at intersections originally designed for wheelchair users—cyclists, delivery workers, and parents with strollers all benefited. Audiobooks, invented for blind people, are now a US$9 billion global industry, driven overwhelmingly by listeners who can see.
In a corporate boardroom, the utilitarian argument is often the most familiar language: showing the aggregate benefit, identifying the spillovers, and demonstrating that addressing underserved needs is not charity but good allocation of effort.
Convergence of Ethical Frameworks
Deontology, virtue ethics, and utilitarianism approach morality from different starting points. One focuses on duties, one on character, and one on outcomes. Yet, they converge on the same conclusion: Inclusion is an ethical obligation. This convergence matters because different audiences respond to different arguments. A legal team may be most persuaded by the language of duties and rights. Employees and consumers who care about corporate character may respond more to the virtue ethics framing. Policy discussions and investor presentations often run on utilitarian logic.
Managers who understand all three frameworks can meet each audience on its own terms. The deeper point is that companies treating inclusion as something to adopt when convenient and abandon when threatened misconstrue their actions. They are not just managing a policy; they are making a moral choice. And moral choices, these three traditions remind us, do not bend to whoever holds power at a given moment.
