Target’s decision to scale back its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives earlier this year continues to send ripples through its business operations, with foot traffic declining for the eleventh consecutive week. The retailer finds itself navigating the complex interplay between corporate policy, consumer activism, and financial performance in an increasingly polarized marketplace.

The Boycott Effect

The retail giant’s traffic slump began immediately following the announcement of its DEI dismantling, with foot traffic falling 5.7% year-over-year for the week beginning March 17. This downward trend has persisted despite efforts from Target’s leadership to mitigate the impact.

The boycott, initially launched as a 40-day “fast” during Lent (March 5 to April 17) by Reverend Jamal Bryant of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church near Atlanta, reportedly garnered more than 200,000 participants. Bloomberg analysts note that we’re “entering a new era of consumer boycotts,” with some retailers feeling more pain than others as consumers increasingly vote with their wallets.

Corporate Response

In recent weeks, Target CEO Brian Cornell has taken more direct action, meeting with prominent civil rights leader Reverend Al Sharpton in New York on April 17. This meeting, which Target requested, represents one of the company’s most visible efforts to address the backlash and potentially prevent further boycott actions.

There have been some signs of reconciliation. After meeting with Cornell, Bryant announced that Target agreed to honor its pledge to spend $2 billion with Black-owned businesses—a commitment initially made in 2021. However, Bryant indicated that this concession alone wasn’t sufficient, calling for the boycott to continue while urging Cornell to attend a town hall to address community concerns.

Business Impact

The financial consequences of the boycott are becoming increasingly apparent. Some Black-owned brands featured in Target stores have reported significant impacts, with Play Pits founder Chantel Powell noting that her store sales are down 30% compared to 2024, though she has seen an increase in direct website sales as “people are being more intentional about where they spend their dollars.”

The controversy comes at a particularly challenging time for Target, which was already facing pressure from tariffs and changing consumer spending patterns. Cornell recently acknowledged that Trump’s tariffs on Mexico may force the company to raise prices on fruits and vegetables, creating a perfect storm of challenges for the retailer.

Broader Industry Implications

The Target situation has sent ripples throughout the retail industry, with many major corporations reportedly reassessing their own DEI strategies. According to industry analysts, companies like Walmart, Amazon, and Google are closely watching the Target fallout to inform their own diversity policies and communications.

Target’s experience highlights the challenges companies face when navigating DEI policies in today’s polarized environment. On one hand, the company responded to pressure from the Trump administration, which on its first day in office signed an executive order calling for an end to DEI initiatives in the federal government. On the other hand, Target now faces significant backlash from consumers who view the rollback as abandoning commitments to marginalized communities.

Looking Forward

As Target approaches the release of its next quarterly earnings report, investors and analysts will be looking for clear signals about whether the company can reverse its foot traffic decline and rebuild trust with concerned consumers.

Industry analysts suggest that Target faces three potential paths forward: reaffirming DEI commitments to mitigate consumer backlash (while risking further scrutiny from conservative groups), maintaining its current neutral stance and hoping the controversy fades, or reversing course by reinstating some DEI programs to repair public trust.

For now, the retailer remains caught between competing pressures, serving as a case study for other corporations navigating the evolving landscape of corporate social responsibility in a politically divided era.