As far as being progressive, the company has a great deal to learn. As of May 2019, there was one Black woman employed in the HQ office. I'd like that to have struck the people in leadership as odd and wildly troubling, but the lack of diversity was not ever addressed in any of the larger, company meetings. Comments were made by customers about the lack of diversity. And, in response, a template was created to address customers who wrote in with "political/controversial opinions." This was a rather interesting take since pointing out a lack of diversity is neither political or controversial-- it is either false or it is true. The template was 2-3 sentences long. To compare it to another template, the template about being vegan was a few, dense paragraphs. The template for political views, of course, pontificated that the company cares about all people regardless of their abilities or backgrounds. Despite that claim, there still isn't a significant representation of darker skinned people, overweight people, trans people or physically disabled people on their social media channels nor are those populations proportionately represented in their offices. To be fair, On is not unique and several retailers have been under fire for their non-equitable business practices. So On is merely one in a million and they are not the inventors of systemic racism or of gas lighting tactics. But that is exactly why I was so disappointed...I genuinely, at one time, believed they were interested in true cultural progress where all body types really are represented both on their marketing materials AND, more importantly, in their offices.
