From the article:
"My point is that a diversity of gender, melanin enhancement or sexuality isn't actually a requirement to be able to make a product that a diverse world wants to buy."
That sounds plausible. Anyway, it is also irrelevant.
In corporate experience terms, I once worked for a company that insisted on diversity well before it was fashionable. I remember counting the people sat around the dinner table once: 19 people, 23 nationalities, 30-odd languages spoken. This was a random work location, not especially diverse.
Did that make the company produce better products? Probably not. But it did cause the company to have an impressive grasp of nearly any market on Earth in which we operated or could operate, and the local knowledge and contacts to keep things going smooth. It also gave us a unique experience and understanding of cultural and practical differences and, crucially, commonalities. However, the most important advantage was extrinsic: they didn't do it because they had to but because they could, and it showed what could indeed be done, dispelling stereotypes, and disproving preconceptions.
It also provided for some cheap fun on occasion, such as when we had a Norwegian Inuit and a fair-skinned Filipino in my team, and people kept confusing them both.