We need to talk about how the beauty industry celebrates its own diversity initiatives while systematically underfunding the people those initiatives are supposedly designed to help.
The latest executive reshuffles at major retailers and brands tell a familiar story. A company announces a new chief diversity officer. Press releases flow. LinkedIn posts bloom. The beauty world applauds itself for "doing the work." And then, quietly, nothing changes in the ways that actually matter: budget allocation, product development timelines, and real decision-making power.
This isn't cynicism. This is pattern recognition.
The beauty industry has become remarkably skilled at creating visible positions that suggest structural change while protecting the existing power structures that determine where money actually flows. A new executive of color in a newly created role sounds progressive. But if that person lacks control over product allocation, manufacturing partnerships, or marketing budgets, they're essentially managing optics rather than operations.
Consider how beauty companies have responded to calls for more inclusive shade ranges. Many launched dedicated "inclusive lines" rather than overhauling their core offerings. The message, whether intentional or not, is clear: diversity is a product category, not a foundational principle. You can buy inclusion as a separate item. It doesn't need to fundamentally change how we operate.
The incentives here reward visibility over substance. Companies get credit for hiring diverse leaders without necessarily shifting decision-making power to those leaders. They launch inclusive products without ensuring those products receive equivalent marketing spend or retail shelf space. They create chief diversity officer positions while keeping the chief financial officer's office segregated by background and perspective.
Who benefits from this approach? Not consumers seeking genuine representation. Not the talented professionals hired into these newly created roles, many of whom inherit impossible mandates: fix centuries of exclusion on a limited budget and timeline. The real beneficiaries are the corporations themselves, which get to claim progress without disrupting profitability or the existing hierarchy.
The beauty industry isn't unique in this regard, but it's particularly frustrating here because the industry is literally built on the premise of making people feel seen and beautiful. That messaging rings hollow when institutional decisions suggest that seeing and celebrating diversity is a marketing opportunity rather than a core value.
This creates a perverse incentive structure. Companies that genuinely invest in inclusive product development, manufacturing, and leadership development without immediately commodifying that work don't get the same media attention or social credit as companies that create flashy new roles or limited-edition "diversity" collections. So why would they? The reward system punishes patience and thoroughness while celebrating performative change.
What would real change look like? Diverse leadership in positions with genuine budget authority. Inclusive shade ranges that are the standard, not special editions. Marketing spend that reflects actual consumer demographics rather than aspirational corporate messaging. Pipeline development that actively recruits from communities the industry has historically ignored.
These changes are harder to announce. They take longer to implement. They require uncomfortable conversations about why certain decision-makers have always looked a particular way. They disrupt existing relationships and supply chains.
But they're the only changes that actually matter.
Readers of beauty media should notice who's being hired into which positions, and more importantly, what authority those positions actually hold. Pay attention to which brands launch inclusive lines while their core products remain limited. Notice which executives of color lead strategy versus which ones manage the diversity portfolio.
The beauty industry wants credit for change without doing the work of actual transformation. We shouldn't let it off that easy.