Strategic ambiguity or strategic clarity? Project to study corporate DEI responses – Scholar Q&A with Alan Abitbol

In recent years, companies have faced growing expectations to speak out on social issues. Now, many are rethinking how they communicate their stances. A recent executive order restricting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives has many companies examining existing programs and messaging strategies. Scholars Alan Abitbol, University of Tampa, and Kelly Vibber, University of Dayton, are focusing on how Fortune 500 companies use strategic ambiguity or strategic clarity when they take (or avoid) a stance on DEI. In this Q&A, Abitbol shares the origins of their Page Center project, why this moment offers a unique lens on corporate social advocacy and how the findings could help practitioners craft more effective, ethical corporate statements. The project is part of the Page Center’s 2026 Call on Social Responsibility, Advocacy, and Activism in an Age of Political and Cultural Polarization.

Talk about your collaboration and how this project came together.

Dr. Vibber and I have been working together for a while. A lot of Dr. Vibber’s main research is on areas like corporate diplomacy and international public relations, while my research stream often fits within corporate social advocacy and corporate social responsibility. When we saw the Page Center research call, we knew our research fit, but we had to figure out how. We wanted to find a recent change in policy that we could work with, and Trump’s DEI executive order in 2025 was one that we felt had some legs. So, we took a deep dive into how companies were responding, and what we saw was that there was a disparity between companies that were pulling back their DEI initiatives and companies that were strongly holding firm.

Can you share a couple of examples?

One is Target, which became kind of famous for this. They pulled back but were extremely vague about how. The tagline with their new initiative was ‘belonging to the bullseye.’ What does that even mean? Other companies, like Delta, stood firm, and they were super strong in their language. They said they were not going to change what they were doing.

What is your plan for the project?

We are still piecing some parts together, but our project has two phases. The first thing we want to do is do a deep dive content analysis. We want to build an understanding of how companies responded to the DEI executive order and ultimately examine the language in the messaging of a large sample of Fortune 500 companies. We want to know if they’re being strategically ambiguous or the opposite of that, which is called strategic clarity. Are they pulling back? Are they standing firm?

And then, with what we learn from that content analysis, we will start our second phase, which will be an experiment looking at these types of messages and how the language used will impact stakeholders' perceptions on things like reputation, relationships with the companies, behavioral intentions, and perceptions of authenticity.

What are some practical takeaways you hope professionals will gain from this research?

We feel like this study will be able to provide guidance for practitioners when they are drafting these types of statements. We think it’ll help them understand how the language they use impacts them from an organizational perspective. The main questions are: Did the company know the audience that they were building these stances for? What language was used in these types of stances? That would be the practical insight, identifying what language works and for which audiences. Because what you’re saying matters. Word choice does matter.

Tell us how this grant and the Page Center support of this project help you and Kelly reach your research goals.

This call, and really the support that the Page Center, gives us a chance to really investigate this at different angles. Obviously, the financial support, but also the Research Roundtables and the feedback that came out of those meetings. Just having that face time with actual practitioners, the board members who've been and are working in this world is interesting. The Page Center has the guiding principles and understanding that allow us to focus on our research while promoting the importance of ethics.