Reason #8: Let's Talk ✨ Political Risk ✨

Let’s talk about the elephant in the boardroom: tying your ERG program to business outcomes isn’t just risky from a structure or burnout standpoint—it’s politically risky. Especially right now.

We’re in a climate where anything even remotely associated with DEI gets side-eyed. Companies are scrambling to rebrand everything. DEI departments are being renamed under the guise of “People Strategy” or “Organizational Effectiveness.” It’s a game of corporate camouflage: same work, new label.

And now? Some companies are trying to do the same with ERGs. But here’s where it gets ironic. The label they’re choosing to “distance” ERGs from DEI is… Business Resource Group. That’s wild.

You’re trying to hide the DEI connection—so you rename it to something that’s already DEI associated and tie it even closer to the business? If your goal was to keep things low-risk, you’ve just done the opposite. You’ve told the world (and your critics): “This isn’t just an employee group—it’s a business initiative.” (which, to be fair it is, but an internal brand building initiative aka employee engagement, which isn’t what most people think when they think “Business”).

You’ve repositioned it right in the crosshairs.

Folks like Robby Starbuck and similar figures don’t usually come for “employee engagement.” That doesn’t stir the pot. But commerce? Emotional brand decisions tied to identity? That’s the kind of thing that gets them riled up.

Because let’s be honest—most people, even inside the company, barely understand what ERGs are for in the first place (a-whole-nother topic). So when backlash hits, that “supports the business” statement often feels like a catch-all attempt to justify their existence. Not necessarily because that’s what ERGs are designed to do, but because it sounds strategic enough to pacify critics.

Maybe it’s a move to calm internal employees who feel excluded. Maybe it’s a PR line to reassure stakeholders who don’t understand belonging work. Maybe it’s just a panic response—say the thing that sounds most defensible.

But “supporting the business” is a vague, bloated phrase. It can mean anything from increasing retention, to boosting morale, to driving consumer insights. And when that lack of clarity meets external scrutiny? The program becomes vulnerable.

Just look at what happened with Bud Light. That wasn’t an ERG-led campaign. That was a decision made by the Marketing Team. But it didn’t matter. People still tied it back to DEI. They used the moment to criticize inclusive efforts more broadly.

And if a trained marketing officer can spark national controversy…what do you think might happen if an untrained volunteer ERG lead tries to influence a brand campaign?

And that’s the real danger. ERG leads aren’t brand strategists. They’re not hired, trained, or paid to make business calls. They’re not political consultants. They’re passionate employees who care about belonging and community. And now, you’ve thrown them into high-stakes territory with zero protection and no clear boundaries.

You can say “we have parameters,” but let’s be honest—there’s no policy document in the world that covers every possibility. ERG leads will make well-intentioned moves. Sometimes, they’ll overstep. And when they do, the fallout won’t just be internal—it could be legal, political, and reputational.

You’ve rebranded their role without rewriting the job description, without offering training, without a safety net.

And for what?

Just because someone didn’t know how to explain the value of ERGs without reaching for a commerce narrative? Just because someone didn’t have the language or the strategy to articulate community value?

You’re putting volunteer employees in the line of fire to make up for a failure in framing.

So no—stating that ERGs “support the business” isn’t automatically safer or smarter. It just adds more ambiguity to an already misunderstood space. And when things go sideways, ambiguity is the first thing to get weaponized.

Even more ironic? The very people attacking DEI don’t typically attack ERGs.

They might not get it—but they’re also not actively targeting it. In fact, I’ve actually seen them treat it as a win when a company responds by saying their ERGs are strictly internal-facing and open to all employees.

(P.S. It’s honestly kind of funny, because you can tell they don’t actually know the difference between an ERG and a BRG. Which just proves my point: that whole rebrand is mostly artificial. It might help hold the line in the short term, but let’s not pretend it’s a real shield.)

The real thing they seem to celebrate? When companies shift from private membership to open-to-all groups. My guess is, they think that means it’s no longer identity-centered. Of course, it is still identity-centered—it just means everyone is welcome to engage. But to them, it probably feels less like self-segregation and more like community building.

All that to say: these groups aren’t attacking the concept of ERGs. They’re attacking what they perceive as exclusion or political overreach. And when ERGs stay focused on community and connection? They mostly stay out of the crosshairs.

Why? Because when ERGs are framed around employee engagement and development, they’re harder to attack. And that’s exactly why most companies—even the ones scaling DEI back—still kept their ERGs.

So again, I ask: why shift the positioning now? Why shift them to doing DEI work as untrained volunteers in a time where DEI is being attacked - relying solely on lived experience?

Why move from the safety of internal connection to the battlefield of public commerce?

Why set your ERGs up for scrutiny, politicization, and backlash—especially when your own leaders won’t even defend them with a business value narrative in the heat of controversy?

If anything, the few times I’ve seen ERGs targeted, it’s because they were perceived as influencing brand or policy decisions—not because they hosted a fireside chat or mentorship mixer.

Wild how some people act like employee engagement and development still isn’t enough—even though there are entire departments dedicated to that full-time, with actual budgets. Meanwhile, they expect unpaid ERG leaders to somehow do more, with less, and without the title or support.

This isn’t the time to be ambitious with our ERG positioning. Commerce and politics? That’s not the lane right now. Not for ERGs.

And especially not for the volunteers who keep them running.