What the Decline of Cause-Based Business Initiatives Means for HR

The pendulum has reached the peak of its arc and is reversing course, with a wide variety of organizations recently dropping corporate social responsibility (CSR) business initiatives, notably those related to inclusion and diversity (I&D) and sustainability. 

Each new announcement of a pivot away from a CSR program generates fresh headlines. But this trend has been building steam for a while. A review of coverage datelines shows that many businesses began taking steps to divest themselves of cause-centric commitments over the past year. Whether prompted by new directions in the winds of social change, economic forecasts, cost optimization, government action, the natural end of a trend cycle, and/or a host of other factors, there is no denying that business priorities are shifting.  

Changes to I&D policies and programs obviously impact HR departments, whether they’re made to comply with recent executive orders or for some other reason. But withdrawal from other types of initiatives, such as carbon footprint reduction pledges and corporate giving programs, can also require HR’s involvement to manage employee reactions and help leadership convey cohesive messaging to internal and external audiences alike.  

An Awkward Business Fit? 

Whether they’re categorized as CSR activities, ESG (environmental, social, and governance) programs and policies, or socially responsible practices, “Cause- or purpose-based initiatives rose from a point of view that the cause was the end-all, be-all to an organization, and actions ensued without regard to a business context or to business results,” reflected SHRM Chief Commercial Officer Nick Schacht, SHRM-SCP. He was quick to note that because businesses operate within a social construct, it would be short-sighted for them not to act on predominant causes in society today; he also mentioned how such issues and trends that drive purpose-centric business initiatives affect all organizations in all sectors, whether they have 20 employees or 200,000.  

“But organizations shouldn’t take on a cause and address it in such a way that is divorced from a business context. They have to be able to exist together,” continued Schacht. “And if the needs of the purpose begin to outweigh the needs of the business, that becomes a problem.” 

Schacht pointed to I&D programs as an example: “These have the potential to advance the needs and purpose of the business. We are becoming a more diverse society, and we need to build more diverse workforce cultures to reflect that, or we will doom the business. But we can’t take on diversity programs that have the potential to become divisive and exclusive.” 

SHRM Chief Data & Analytics Officer Alex Alonso, Ph.D., SHRM-SCP, offered a similar perspective on some of the struggles businesses face in choosing to remain engaged in ESG initiatives. “The original focus of ESG was twofold: corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability,” he said. But over time, especially after the 2008-09 financial crisis, understanding how these are aligned with core business and governance imperatives — and with each other — became a murkier proposition. “Add to that, ESG became a big blanket discipline. Too many causes that might be aligned were being crammed into one area. No one cause gets real airtime, and the overall intents are lost.” 

Evaluating the Shift 

The headings of CSR and ESG were umbrella terms for initiatives that had little to do with one another on the surface. The rise and fall of individual causes resist a simple narrative. Organizations may move away from supporting one cause to preserve another or look for ways to advance a goal that reduces their exposure to legal risk or cost pressures. 

Take, for example, the exodus of Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and other Wall Street institutions from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, a coalition that aimed to use lending and investments to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050. Legal threats contending that such a coalition had antitrust implications were reportedly a factor in their collective withdrawal, with several of the companies publicly declaring to remain individually committed to decarbonization efforts and target deadlines.  

Now, consider a hypothetical small business that decides to cancel its in-house recycling collection contract as a cost-cutting measure made pragmatic in the face of declining markets for recycled materials or perhaps due to a shift in available local programs. Such an organization could still continue supporting other green efforts, such as discouraging single-use product packaging and adding timers and motion sensors to office lighting.  

These situations are very different, but they respond to similar pressures. Both demonstrate a pivot away from specific conservation-minded initiatives. In both cases, actions were taken with an eye on business realities. Both sets of actions are likely to be criticized by cause proponents, despite stated intentions by the businesses to continue showing support for other environment-focused initiatives. 

Managing the Message 

According to Schacht, “changing the vocabulary” around these actions lies at the heart of what organizations — with the aid of HR teams — should address to mitigate the fallout among internal and external audiences. “If these initiatives contribute positively to the business, organizations will continue to do them, regardless of whether or how they are talking about it,” he said. “Too many companies are making the mistake of saying what they’re not going to do any longer, rather than focusing on what they stand for and what they are committed to doing.” 

Schacht pointed to how McDonald’s, in its early January 2025 press statement, put its decision to “sunset” a number of I&D initiatives into context, affirming the fast-food giant’s ongoing commitment to I&D principles while touting its success toward related objectives. One of these objectives was to meet its goal to spend 25% of its purchase dollars with diverse-owned suppliers three years ahead of schedule. McDonald’s made its decision to change its I&D practices and policies before the White House executive orders, but with the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action in mind, it is now assessing “the shifting legal landscape to anticipate how this ruling may impact corporations such as McDonald’s.” To this end, the company is “retiring setting aspirational representational goals and instead keeping our focus on continuing to embed inclusion practices that grow our business into our everyday process and operations,” said the company. This includes retiring the company’s Supply Chain’s Mutual Commitment to DEI pledge “in favor of a more integrated discussion with suppliers about inclusion as it relates to business performance.” 

“They are evolving their approach,” observed Schacht. “They met goals from the previous initiative, so it’s appropriate for them to assess the current climate and see what they need to remain committed. They don’t need to use the same vocabulary about ‘DEI.’ ” Indeed, the company is putting some distance between itself and the term “diversity.” Its corporate team will now be known as the Global Inclusion Team. Schacht also noted that in looking at the executive order and the Supreme Court ruling, the aim is to eliminate practices that might be “illegal and discriminatory,” he said. “That certainly doesn’t apply to all I&D programming.”  

The McDonald’s statement should earn a gold star for exemplifying how best to handle this hot-button issue. It demonstrated the balance of commitment to the underlying purpose with transparency and logic, without hyperbole.  

After the release of the executive order on DEI, both business and consumer media were initially filled with stories about companies that were “quietly” changing their webpages to erase I&D program and policy language. Today, there seems to be a decided change in strategy by corporate America, with more businesses being highly intentional about the language they use to convey changes in their policies.  

Alonso agreed these changes are part of a more complex realignment than some headlines suggest, particularly around I&D programs. In a SHRM video titled HR Trends for 2025: Companies Rethink Approach to I&D, Alonso called the shifts a “much more nuanced transition” rather than an abandonment of an organization’s commitment to create more inclusive workplaces. 

HR Threads the Needle 

HR leaders have a responsibility to help manage shifts away from cause-centric policies and programs by reaffirming organizational culture priorities, providing forums for conversation across the organizational chart, and ensuring delivery of timely, straightforward internal communications. As a linchpin in such transitions, HR teams are well positioned to assist an organization in maintaining trust and credibility with employees.  

A 2023 SHRM study, The Intersection of ESG and HR, found that 75% of HR executives believe ESG strategies positively impact employee engagement and talent recruitment. The move away from ESG and CSR initiatives creates an imperative for HR to take a leading role in managing an organization’s transition from a purpose-driven initiative. 

“HR can and should be a voice and source of expertise to ensure alignment,” said Schacht. He wasspeaking not only of messaging but also of a comprehensive understanding of the distinctions of “illegal and discriminatory,” as well as an articulation about how the purpose or cause aligns with an organization’s business objectives, mission, and value statements. 

Listening Is Critical 

When managing a transition away from purpose-driven business initiatives, HR professionals are likely to encounter a few roadblocks where different stakeholders may prove harder to reach. Schacht identified three kinds of reactions to look out for: outside the organization, inside the organization, and within yourself.  

Outside of the organization, be aware of the context that drives the rhetoric from both supporters and opponents of the cause in question. “Listen to these voices with the intent of trying to understand legitimate concerns,” he advised.  

Within the organization, there are also likely to be differing opinions. Initial reactions might include disappointment and distrust. Seek to understand the source of these attitudes, said Schacht. “Perhaps there are concerns being driven by someone like a chief diversity officer who is feeling threatened.”  

Conversely, you may encounter approval and relief. HR teams need to be aware of how a shift away from a cause-centric program might create a schism in the workforce, noted Alonso. Another reaction category may emerge: Some employees may show signs of cause-based fatigue. “Look for little markers of those who are feeling pressured to agree or disagree,” he said.  

Finally, “It’s also important to recognize your own subconscious or conscious bias in how you look at the world and how this policy change impacts that,” said Schacht. “Be very aware about whether your worldview is getting in the way of how you navigate this issue.”  

According to Schacht, the chief approach in managing each of these roadblocks is to remember this guiding principle for HR professionals: Your job is to support employees who fall along all points in a spectrum, he said. “Look for commonalities; keep the conversations focused on coming together to achieve common goals. Also, remember to keep the focus on policy and not politics.”