It doesn't really matter if the business strongly supports or opposes a particular set of diversity and inclusiveness goals from a fiduciary perspective, but it sure does matter if the business keeps losing money or missing targets because it is embroiled in scandals, paying out settlements to staff that have suffered discrimination, or being hauled in front of regulators to air their dirty laundry.
One would hope that being a decent place to work, and treating people fairly would be enough of an incentive, but for everyone else, there are risk management processes designed to have repeatable processes to identify business risks, escalate them to leadership, and presumably either accept the risk, or steer the project towards a solution that has a more acceptable risk profile.
But Google added the review because they found that, in general, the average software engineer does not have the background or technical experience to make an educated guess on that topic.
There was that time when Google Photos started labeling black people as gorillas[1] in uploaded pictures. I suspect the training data for their classifiers "accidentally exclude[d] certain people": diversity & inclusion review would have avoided that kerfuffle.
1. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/07/01/google-apolog...
[0] http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/12/22/hp.webcams/index.html [1] https://www.pcworld.com/article/504514/is_microsoft_kinect_r...
e.g how? could you provide some examples e.g two?
there's a lot of talk about this stuff when it comes to MAGMA, yet docs still use some auto-generated translations which suck.