Fact check: Valve has become massively successful without embracing DEI programs, while Ubisoft is on the brink of bankruptcy after embracing DEI programs.

1. Summary of the results

The original statement makes claims that cannot be substantiated by the available sources. While there is data about DEI trends and Ubisoft's financial situation, the direct causation suggested in the statement is not supported by evidence. Specifically:

• Ubisoft generated €2.2 billion in revenue in 2023, showing only a 6.8% decline, and maintains strong profit margins ^[1] - far from bankruptcy
• Ubisoft has actually exceeded its DEI goals, reaching their women hiring targets ahead of schedule ^[2]
• No specific data about Valve's success or DEI policies is provided in any of the sources

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements are omitted:

• Broader DEI landscape: While some companies are reducing DEI efforts, 94% still use DEI language in sustainability reports, and 80% of companies maintain their DEI goals ^[3]
• Financial context: Ubisoft receives significant Canadian government subsidies and tax credits ^[4], suggesting their financial strategy is more complex than portrayed
• Industry trends: There has been a general decline in DEI leadership roles from 56% to 41% ^[5], indicating this is an industry-wide shift rather than a company-specific issue
• Research suggests DEI can actually lead to higher stock prices and employee engagement ^[6]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The statement contains several misleading elements:

• It creates a false causation between DEI programs and financial performance, while ignoring that companies like Ubisoft are actually using DEI strategically to attract ESG funding ^[7]
• The statement ignores that 47 organizations have cut DEI initiatives ^[8], yet there's no evidence linking these cuts to improved financial performance
• The narrative benefits anti-DEI activists and companies looking to justify cost-cutting measures, while potentially harming:
• Companies seeking ESG investments
• Organizations working toward workplace diversity
• Employee resource groups and diversity initiatives that have shown positive results

The statement appears to cherry-pick information to create a narrative that isn't supported by the broader context and available data.