After a backlash against DEI programs by conservative activists, a majority of executives in a new survey said that their companies have changed how the initiatives are described with reduced emphasis on racial diversity.

Among more than 60 executives, slightly above 50 percent said their firms adjusted terminology, with another 20 percent considering similar changes, according to a survey by the Conference Board. In many cases, companies are dropping “equity” from descriptions because it’s seen as the most controversial term, said Andrew Jones, a senior researcher at the Conference Board’s ESG Center and co-author of the study.

Companies are “trying to minimize the exposure to scrutiny, to legal challenge, to backlash, to salacious headlines,” Jones said in an interview. They are “shifting focus from talking about specific demographic groups, particularly around race.”

Corporate America expanded diversity, equity and inclusion programs in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd, a Black man, by police sparked calls for increased opportunities for minorities. Conservative groups have argued that hiring targets and training programs discriminated against White workers. Companies such as Toyota Motor Corp. and Ford Motor Co. have modified DEI initiatives after being attacked.

The June 2023 US Supreme Court ruling that forbids affirmative action at universities is also prompting many companies to preemptively review their policies. More than 60 percent of the executives said the decision had a negative impact on their DEI efforts, according to the data, which was pulled from an April survey and a March roundtable discussion.

It’s unclear whether companies that have altered terminology also changed how the programs are run, or if they are mainly trying to avoid controversy.

“We do see the fundamental work continuing, with the recognition that the inclusive workplace does have real business benefits,” Jones said. “But if you’re no longer focusing on specific groups, you’re kind of saying it’s fine air for everyone. Is that a positive development? Or does that actually slow down the vital progress?”