This article was originally published on The Conversation, an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. Disclosure information is available on the original site.
___
Authors: Jordan Foster, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Sociology, McMaster University; and David Pettinicchio, Associate Professor, Sociology, University of Toronto
United States President Donald Trump and his administration have set their sights on the “tyranny of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion policies,” firing federal staff and purging public institutions like the Smithsonian of their commitments to racial history.
Although many of Trump’s executive orders have focused on the federal government, some firms and private businesses have followed suit, rolling back their own commitments to DEI. For example, META and Amazon cut back their DEI efforts while some major retailers have severed ties with Black-owned businesses.
Figures located within the fashion and beauty industry have also floundered in their commitments to DEI, investing in brief and uneven surges in racial representation on the runway and the inclusion of older models, trans models and models with disabilities.
Industry leaders like Teen Vogue positioned models with disabilities on its cover, while brands like Aerie and Victoria Secret invested in more varied representations of beauty in their advertisements. Others however, took steps forward, then back.
In 2021, we wrote about Victoria’s Secret’s efforts, arguing that the brand had learned that diversity sells. At the time, we noted how brands were encouraging one another to join the “inclusion revolution” — a movement Victoria’s Secret abandoned soon after.
Had we got it wrong? We weren’t the only ones with questions.
Backtracking on DEI?
In 2023, British columnist Barbara Ellen noted: “For some gloaters, this is confirmation of ‘go woke, go broke,’ but the truth could be more complicated.” She went on to ask: “Is it really wokery that has scuppered Victoria’s Secret’s empowerment reboot, or is this more a corporate cautionary tale about the perils of ‘faking it?’”
That same year, Vogue reported on the myriad ways “fashion backtracked on diversity,” drawing attention to “growing fatigue” surrounding DEI initiatives and what many perceived as insincere and performative gestures made in the name of diversity and inclusion.
Since then, some within the fashion and beauty landscape have held firm to their commitments, while others have reneged on their promise to reflect on and represent consumer diversity. Why?
In our ongoing work examining the rise (and fall?) of DEI in fashion and beauty, we’ve collected survey data from those who work inside the industry as well as everyday consumers.
In looking at our data, we’ve found that certainly, some consumers do not support DEI efforts. These tend to be people who generally express attitudes aligned with those of the current U.S government.
But we also found many more individuals who broadly like the idea of increased diversity in fashion and beauty. Sure, they expressed their fair share of skepticism toward brands that are overly “performative” in their demonstrations, but most want to see diverse figures and faces who look like them.
Some brands may abandon DEI efforts, but we venture to guess that more brands will either continue on and stay quiet about their efforts for now, or reimagine their campaigns in the months and years to come.
What could these campaigns look like? And what can brands do to insulate their efforts from attack?
Capturing diversity and inclusion
In our recently published study, we discuss the challenges that accompany DEI within the beauty industry, particularly focusing on how DEI efforts are evolving amid longstanding barriers.
We focused on the beauty brands Benefit Cosmetics, Sephora and Dove, which have all made strides by featuring models with disabilities, racialized models and fuller-figured models in their online campaigns.
While these advertising campaigns had their merits, we also noticed a significant under-representation of some forms of diversity in advertisements and campaign images. For example, models above the age of 55 and models with a visible disability were almost completely absent from representations of beauty online.
Additionally, images were often altered to remove visible differences around race and disability or they were featured in ways that minimized markers of difference. This editing tends to hide what makes these individuals unique — the aspects of their appearance that may challenge society’s standard views of beauty.
Savvy consumers are well-attuned to and perceptive of what they view in both traditional and online media, often questioning whether a brand’s DEI efforts are meaningful or purely profit-driven. They ask, for example, whether brands are simply capitalizing on current societal trends and critique companies they feel do not go far enough in promoting real inclusivity.
The brands that do invest in what appear to be sincere and authentic strives toward diversity and inclusivity see returns, outperforming their market competitors while courting new consumers. Those who divest from DEI efforts, or act uncritically, risk losing their market share.
What next?
What can fashion and beauty brands do in response? For one, they can invest in sustained and consistent efforts to showcase diversity and inclusion. They can recruit models who embody differences across a range of markers and characteristics, and they can spend less time editing and “perfecting” the figures and faces they select from.
Yet, diversity and inclusion needs to move beyond representation and toward more varied product formulations, shade ranges and accessible beauty tools.
While there may be folks who continue to be critical of DEI campaigns because they think brands bought into being “woke” (and now are paying a price for it), many more are eager for greater and better representation.
Consumers remain critical of insincere or superficial efforts, asking for real engagement with matters of diversity and inclusion. This includes representations that break the mould and push the boundaries surrounding who is (and isn’t) considered beautiful.
This also means that if we want to know about why diversity and inclusion “fails,” we can’t just focus on those who are “anti-woke” nor should we focus solely on Trump’s politics.
To safeguard against retrenchment, we need to understand why diversity and inclusion campaigns cease to resonate with those consumers who support DEI. Without their support, inclusion and diversity efforts lose legitimacy making them more susceptible to reversal.
___
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
___
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Disclosure information is available on the original site. Read the original article: https://theconversation.com/lessons-from-the-fashion-industry-why-some-dei-efforts-fail-to-resonate-with-consumers-255091
Jordan Foster, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Sociology, McMaster University; and David Pettinicchio, Associate Professor, Sociology, University of Toronto, The Conversation
