Recently, there has been significant pressure on DEI initiatives, which in turn has led to a worldwide reaction and re-evaluation. In response, many organizations are quietly re‑badging or relocating their DEI teams, hoping to protect the underlying work while reducing risk. There are a variety of reasons this may be happening; in many cases, it is a defensive reaction, but notably, within this wave of change, I also see an opportunity to embrace new messaging and alignment.

Why Companies Are Renaming Diversity Functions

There are four primary motivations behind the trend of renaming DEI functions, each reflecting a broader shift in how organizations wish to position their inclusion work:

1. Using Plain, Relatable Language

Much of the language that abounds in the DEI space has become jargonistic (though I would note that this is no different from any other workplace specialty function). Some organizations are opting for names that center on more straightforward and relatable language—like fairness, opportunity and access—to make their work more approachable and less susceptible to being misrepresented.

For example, PepsiCo has just dropped its current DEI approach and adopted a new “Inclusion for Growth” strategy. This move signals the end of the company’s five-year DEI strategy and reflects a shift toward aligning inclusion efforts more closely with business growth objectives. Coca-Cola, in contrast, has reaffirmed its commitments to DEI and kept the same language and aspirational goals.

The potential risks here are that these terms may obscure the focus on inclusion and representation for marginalized identities and can attract criticism.

2. Avoiding Charged Language

The reality is that certain terms like “diversity” and “equity” have become contentious in some environments. Different companies have different appetites for risk, and some are choosing names that sidestep political connotations, especially those that may hint at or suggest any form of preferential treatment (whether real or imagined).

JPMorgan Chase renamed Diversity, Equity and Inclusion to Diversity, Opportunity and Inclusion—a move that I believe is quite simply about avoiding the word “equity” and its connotations in some circles. Bank of America recently removed references to “diversity” in favor of terms like “talent” and “opportunity” in its annual report.

The truth is that even seemingly neutral terms like “inclusion” may still trigger resistance (it is on the list of key words the current U.S. presidential administration has flagged as problematic), and the avoidance of more specific terms can make it difficult for organizations to argue they are doing the right thing when it comes to marginalized groups.

3. Focusing On Outcomes, Not Identity Inputs

Rather than highlighting identity categories, some companies are reframing DEI around measurable and universally beneficial workplace outcomes like fairness, voice and impact. This has the benefit of being strategically framed and a useful foundation on which to build a coalition, but it has drawbacks as well.

A now-infamous example of this is Target, which, among other changes, renamed Supplier Diversity to Supplier Engagement. The consumer backlash, in the form of a boycott, has been intense and represents the risks that renaming presents. Outcome framing can read as cosmetic if representation metrics quietly disappear.

4. Aligning With Other Business Goals

Another approach is to embed what was once a separate DEI function within broader corporate departments like Human Resources (and more specifically, places like Leadership, Engagement, Culture or Corporate Responsibility). This is motivated by the idea that greater diversity or inclusion are not ends in and of themselves, but are factors, inputs or components of a larger objective.

Examples of this are Citi, which renamed its DEI team “Talent Management and Engagement,” and Meta, which disbanded its DEI team and moved its CDO into a role focused on engagement and accessibility.

One pitfall of this approach is that absorption is often interpreted as downgrading; it will require extensive communication efforts to tackle skepticism.

5 Recommendations For Business Leaders Considering Renaming

Renaming DEI-related initiatives isn’t a cosmetic exercise: it’s a strategic decision that can affect credibility, stakeholder engagement and impact. For organizations considering a name change, here are five evidence-based recommendations to guide the process:

1. Clarify Your Why

Clarify the purpose before you touch the sign on the door. Is the goal to broaden appeal, reduce resistance or refocus on outcomes?

Tip: Listening sessions across regions help reveal how existing language lands with staff and customers. And of course, make sure you seek appropriate legal advice.

2. Know The Risks

Every rebrand creates narrative space; critics will fill it if you don’t. Scenario plan how regulators, employee resource groups and politicians might read the move.

Tip: Ensure you have analyzed your stakeholder landscape to understand potential negative responses to the change.

3. Keep The Substance, Even If The Name Changes

Research shows that clarity and consistency matter more than buzzwords. A shift in language should not dilute your strategic goals or reduce accountability for results.

Tip: Pair the name change with a clearly communicated road map and (new) metrics for success.

4. Consider Regional Sensitivities

In global companies, a single naming strategy may not suit every market. While the U.S. may now require a softened lexicon, regions like Australia or parts of Africa may welcome (or even require) more explicit commitments to gender, racial and social equity.

Tip: Empower local leaders to adapt naming conventions within a global framework of shared values.

5. Don’t Let Naming Be The Endgame

A name can open doors, but only sustained action builds trust. Whether you call it DEI, People and Culture or Inclusive Impact, ensure that resourcing, leadership backing and transparent measurement remain in place.

Tip: Ensure you have an outcomes focus and measurable strategy for the work, whatever you decide to call it in the end.

Renaming a DEI function is not a cosmetic flourish; it is a strategic signal read by investors, regulators, job seekers and advocacy groups.