Breaking news

Victoria’s Secret Dials Back DEI, Joining Growing Corporate Pushback Against Diversity Programs

In a shift that reflects a broader trend among major corporations, Victoria’s Secret is rebranding its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives to focus on “inclusion and belonging,” according to a company memo obtained by Forbes. This move, aligning with recent political winds, marks the lingerie giant’s response to increasing pressure from conservative forces, including President Donald Trump’s efforts to dismantle DEI measures across the corporate landscape.

The Shift In Focus: A Changing Corporate Climate

As of March 5, Victoria’s Secret is also reconsidering its supplier diversity goals, while halting its previously committed targets for promoting Black employees. These changes are part of a broader reevaluation coming after the company’s intense focus on DEI through the 2020s. This era of investment followed a workplace harassment scandal and a public backlash over its lack of body diversity in advertising.

The move reflects a wider corporate rethinking, with companies reassessing the role of DEI programs in light of the shifting political environment. Trump’s stance has made it a key issue in his second presidential run, influencing major businesses to reconsider their DEI commitments.

A March Of Corporate Retreats

Victoria’s Secret is far from alone in re-evaluating its DEI initiatives. In February, a string of companies, from financial institutions like Goldman Sachs and State Street to entertainment giants such as Warner Bros. Discovery, made similar moves. These companies, once at the forefront of corporate social responsibility, are now scaling back or rebranding their DEI efforts.

  • Goldman Sachs removed DEI language from its annual filings, citing legal developments in the U.S.
  • Warner Bros. Discovery renamed its DEI programs to just “inclusion” and halted participation in external diversity surveys.
  • State Street, known for its “Fearless Girl” statue, dropped its diversity goals for board representation, aligning with global protocols and local laws.

These are just a few examples of how the political and legal landscape is forcing a reevaluation of corporate DEI efforts.

A Polarized Debate: Businesses Under Pressure

Some companies, like Apple, are attempting to strike a balance, acknowledging the changing legal environment while reaffirming their commitment to diversity. Apple shareholders recently rejected a proposal to eliminate DEI initiatives, but CEO Tim Cook noted that adjustments may be necessary to align with evolving laws.

Meanwhile, Costco and Delta Airlines have firmly rejected calls to abandon DEI, with Costco’s shareholders overwhelmingly voting to continue the company’s commitment to inclusion. Delta’s executive vice president emphasized that diversity remains integral to their business strategy.

The Legal And Political Pushback

Much of this corporate retraction is driven by external pressure from conservative factions, particularly following Trump’s executive orders aimed at curtailing DEI initiatives in federal agencies and private companies with government contracts.

The Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, has led efforts to curb what it calls “dangerous” DEI programs, signaling that the landscape could shift further if more businesses respond to political and legal pressures. This has led to increased scrutiny of companies that continue to maintain robust DEI frameworks, with some industry giants facing backlash for their commitment to diversity goals.

Will Corporate America Return To DEI?

While some companies are halting DEI goals, many others are doubling down, insisting that diversity remains a crucial element of business success. Companies like Deutsche Bank, Cisco, and the NFL are vocal about the ongoing business value of diversity, and Coca-Cola has even warned that abandoning DEI could harm business performance. The question remains whether the tide will fully turn in favor of a post-DEI corporate world or if those businesses that remain committed to diversity will prove that these programs aren’t just a passing trend.

As this debate unfolds, one thing is clear: corporate America is at a crossroads, and the outcome will likely shape the future of DEI programs in the years to come.

ECB Moves to Ease Rules for Smaller Banks Without Weakening Supervision

The European Central Bank is preparing a significant broadening of proportionality in banking supervision, a move that could bring roughly 150 additional smaller institutions into a lighter regulatory framework, according to ECB Executive Board member Frank Elderson.

In a post on the ECB’s supervision blog, Elderson, who also serves as vice-chair of the Supervisory Board, said the goal is to reduce the regulatory burden on small and non-complex institutions while preserving the safeguards that support financial stability.

A More Flexible Approach To Supervision

Rather than creating a separate rulebook for smaller lenders, the ECB’s proposals would expand the existing framework for small and non-complex institutions, or SNCIs, by broadening eligibility and easing the frequency and intensity of certain supervisory tasks.

Elderson argued that Europe’s varied banking sector is a strategic strength. Smaller, locally focused banks, he said, play a critical role in financing households and small and medium-sized enterprises, which in turn supports innovation, employment and investment across the region.

“These institutions play an important role in financing households and small and medium-sized enterprises, helping innovative ideas become successful products and supporting jobs and investment across the region,” Elderson wrote.

He added that a banking system combining different business models, sizes and areas of expertise is better positioned to meet the financing needs of the European economy and, by extension, support competitiveness.

Why Proportionality Matters

The ECB’s approach rests on a simple principle: regulatory requirements should be calibrated to a bank’s size, complexity and risk profile.

At the same time, Elderson cautioned that smaller banks are not insulated from the pressures facing the wider financial system. He pointed to geopolitical risk, cyber resilience in the era of advanced artificial intelligence, digitalisation and climate- and nature-related risks.

“Depositors in smaller banks should be just as confident that their savings are safe and their bank is well managed, resilient and subject to robust risk management standards as those in larger institutions,” he wrote.

The central bank believes a more targeted framework would allow smaller lenders to devote more resources to the risks that matter most, while trimming compliance work that adds cost without materially improving resilience.

A Wider Definition Of Small Banks

The most consequential proposal would broaden the definition of what qualifies as a small bank.

Today, the SNCI framework covers 75% of all less significant institutions under European banking supervision, representing more than 1,400 entities as of December 2025.

Under the ECB’s proposal, national authorities would be able to lift the current €5 billion total-assets threshold for SNCI status to as much as €10 billion, depending on the size and structure of domestic banking sectors.

The ECB also wants the definition of “non-complex” to better reflect how banks operate in practice. Elderson noted that some institutions, especially in smaller member states, fail to qualify as SNCIs because of technical features in their recovery and resolution arrangements, even when they are not complex from a resolution standpoint.

Taken together, the changes could result in as many as 85% of less significant institutions being classified as SNCIs, bringing about 150 additional banks into the lighter framework.

The ECB also wants the SNCI label to be used more consistently in future European banking legislation, with new and amended rules spelling out more clearly how they apply to smaller and non-complex institutions.

Less Frequent Supervisory Reviews

The changes would not stop at classification. The ECB is also proposing a more selective approach to supervision itself.

The Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process, or SREP, could be carried out less frequently for some institutions. Elderson said certain banks might go two to three years without a full SREP if their risk profile justifies that approach.

That flexibility would remain subject to supervisory judgment, meaning banks could still face more frequent scrutiny if their risk warrants it.

“Where risks are low, some supervisory assessments will in practice be carried out even less frequently, reducing the burden on banks without undermining supervisory effectiveness,” Elderson wrote.

The ECB is also seeking to reduce the burden of stress testing. Bottom-up stress tests, in which banks run their own projections and submit them to supervisors, would be used only selectively for SNCIs. Supervisors would rely more heavily on top-down exercises, with projections carried out centrally.

That shift could meaningfully reduce the workload for nearly 1,000 SNCIs that are still subject to bottom-up stress tests.

Reporting Could Be Cut Dramatically

Reporting is another area targeted for simplification.

The ECB said its systems have already been adapted to support a materiality threshold for reporting resubmissions once the relevant legislative changes are in place.

A new SNCI category is also set to be introduced into the ECB’s FINREP regulation from 2027, beginning with a public consultation.

Under the proposed revisions, the volume of financial reporting required from SNCIs could fall from around 13,500 data points to roughly 700.

Updates to the European Banking Authority’s technical standards on supervisory reporting are also expected to remove redundant templates, eliminate overlaps and exempt SNCIs from certain reporting requirements.

More Flexibility On Governance

The ECB is also pushing for a more proportionate approach to governance requirements.

Supervisors would make greater use of existing flexibility to reflect a bank’s risk profile and operational complexity.

That could allow certain committees to be merged, including nomination and remuneration committees, while functions such as risk management and compliance could also be combined where appropriate.

The proposals would also create more room for flexibility around pay rules, including possible exemptions from requirements to defer variable remuneration or pay it in financial instruments.

Periodic independent reviews of remuneration policies could also be outsourced and applied in line with the sophistication of a bank’s internal stress-testing framework.

Why Smaller Markets Stand To Benefit

The proposals may be especially relevant to smaller European banking markets, even though the ECB has not identified which national authorities would choose to raise the €5 billion threshold.

Cyprus, for example, has a relatively small banking market and its domestic institutions fall under the European banking supervision framework. Any decision to apply the higher SNCI threshold would therefore depend on the applicable rules and supervisory assessment.

Elderson was explicit that the changes should not be read as a weakening of core safeguards.

“Proportionality should not be mistaken for reducing prudential standards for smaller banks,” he wrote. “The aim is not to lower standards, but to achieve them in a more efficient and proportionate manner.”

The ECB also said any simpler regime for smaller banks must be matched by a credible, flexible and efficient crisis management framework.

In Elderson’s view, trimming administrative overhead would free up scarce resources for risk management, customer service, investment in competitiveness and operational efficiency.

“By reducing undue complexity and the administrative burden for small and non-complex banks, these measures can support the competitiveness of Europe’s diverse banking sector, without compromising resilience,” he wrote.

What Comes Next

The ECB is preparing to implement the simplification measures within its authority. It will also work with European institutions on changes that require action beyond the central bank, including initiatives under development through the European Banking Authority.

For Elderson, the proposals are part of a broader push to streamline European banking supervision, not just for smaller institutions but across the system as a whole.

“Our goal is clear: to make our supervision more efficient, more effective and more risk-based, while continuing to preserve banks’ resilience,” he wrote.

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties
Uol
eCredo
Aretilaw firm

Become a Speaker

Become a Speaker

Become a Partner

Subscribe for our weekly newsletter