DEI, correlation is not causation

Proponents of DEI are fond of saying that companies that engage in DEI are more successful (read Money) than companies that do not. Therefore, all companies should engage in DEI in order to stay competitive and be successful.

Claiming that one thing leads to a positive or negative result in another area (correlation) is a logical fallacy. I ate a cookie and the next day won the lottery, therefore eating cookies wins you lotteries. I took a picture of a sunset and a minute later got attacked by a bear (and lived to tell about it), therefore taking pictures of sunsets leads to bear attacks.

Big companies are usually more successful than smaller ones, for a lot of reasons. Big companies also have more money at their disposal, and hiring a DEI at the officer level to send out directives and organize online training and such is no real hardship, as it would be for a smaller company. And this could very well account for the difference in success between a company engaging in DEI practices, including hiring a DEI officer, and one that does not.

So now a lot of big companies are ditching DEI. And to be fair, there could be some backlash to a company who ditches it, by those consumers who feel betrayed, and this could show up in the company's bottom line. This could be shown as proof that DEI makes companies successful. But in the long run, that backlash will die down. And companies that do not have to rely directly on putting on a good face for individual consumers, but only on the good will of their business to business customers will not take a hit.

But look at Amazon. They have invaded so many aspects of our lives, and they have ditched DEI. If any company should worry about their image with the individual customer, it's them. Yet it's clear that Bezos doesn't think it will matter.