As major corporations scale back their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in response to new restrictions under the Trump administration, McKinsey & Company is taking a different approach. The global consulting giant has reaffirmed its commitment to workplace diversity—while adapting its language to comply with evolving regulations.

McKinsey describes its hiring and promotion approach as a “diverse meritocracy,” signaling that while it remains dedicated to fostering diversity, it does not enforce formal quotas or targets. This contrasts with companies like Accenture and Google, which have recently abandoned their DEI targets to align with government restrictions.

McKinsey’s global managing partner, Bob Sternfels, reassured employees last week that the firm’s commitment to diversity remains unchanged. In an internal email described to The Australian Financial Review, Sternfels emphasized that McKinsey continues to believe in the value of diversity.

A company spokeswoman clarified that McKinsey assesses staff “in a meritocratic system regardless of tenure, role, or background.” This positioning allows the firm to sidestep the new government rules without significantly altering its hiring and promotion strategies.

The Trump administration has tightened regulations on DEI programs for companies working with the U.S. government, placing consulting firms in a difficult position. While McKinsey does not appear to violate these restrictions, it remains under scrutiny given its history of advising clients on diversity strategies.

McKinsey has been one of the strongest corporate advocates for diversity in leadership. Its research on DEI has influenced policies across industries, encouraging organizations to set formal targets and quotas to build diverse teams. The firm’s reports have argued that greater diversity leads to improved financial performance, shaping hiring strategies worldwide.

However, some critics, including academic researchers, have questioned the validity of McKinsey’s findings, arguing that they have struggled to replicate the firm’s strong correlations between leadership diversity and profitability.

Ruth Medd, founder of Women on Boards, points to an apparent contradiction in McKinsey’s stance. “There is a conflict between wanting to promote more women in leadership and not having formal targets. Maybe they didn’t have numerical quotas, but they clearly had the aim of increasing female representation,” she said.

Despite its continued advocacy for diversity, McKinsey’s own leadership remains male-dominated. Women make up nearly 30% of its 50-strong partnership, lagging behind competitors like Deloitte, EY, and PwC, where female partners account for 33%. KPMG leads the industry with 36% female partners, according to The Australian Financial Review’s Top 100 Accounting Firms ranking.

In contrast, Accenture has moved away from diversity targets altogether, citing compliance with new government regulations. Google has similarly removed DEI hiring goals and stopped recognizing cultural observances like Pride Month.

While McKinsey’s “diverse meritocracy” approach allows it to maintain its DEI values without violating new policies, the broader corporate retreat from DEI raises questions about the future of workplace diversity efforts. Whether McKinsey’s strategy will satisfy both regulators and diversity advocates remains to be seen.

For now, the firm is walking a fine line—continuing to champion diversity in theory while avoiding commitments that could invite political or legal challenges.