logo
DEI is winning with Costco, Apple and Levi's shareholders

DEI is winning with Costco, Apple and Levi's shareholders

Yahoo02-05-2025

Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) has been losing with corporate America, with one big exception: the people who actually own the companies.
This year, investors at some of America's biggest companies — Costco, Apple, Levi's, John Deere, Goldman Sachs and others — have overwhelmingly voted against proposals targeting DEI programs. The proposals include requiring companies to scrap their DEI policies entirely or remove diversity goals from executive pay packages and audit the legal risks of pursuing DEI. Two conservative think tanks, the National Center for Public Policy Research and the National Legal and Policy Center, have brought most of the proposals.
The near-unanimous shareholder votes show two things — large and small investors alike do not want companies' boards of directors and management to bend to activist shareholders, and investors believe maintaining DEI programs is good for business.
The rejections of anti-DEI proposals 'reveal that the investor community doesn't think that having a tough stance on DEI makes financial sense,' said Matteo Gatti, a professor of law at Rutgers University who studies corporate governance. 'Investors are saying they don't want ideological shareholders to drive business.'
DEI in the workplace is generally a mix of employee training, resource networks and recruiting practices. The goals are to advance representation of different races, genders and classes, people with disabilities, veterans and other groups. But opponents like Elon Musk, the Tesla and X CEO and close advisor to President Donald Trump, say DEI represents 'reverse racism.'
From Target to Meta, dozens of companies have modified or rolled back their diversity programs in recent months under pressure from the Trump administration, right-wing activists such Robby Starbuck and conservative legal groups. But shareholder votes are a rare area where DEI opponents are losing.
It's no surprise. Large institutional investors, such as BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, are the top shareholders of most companies. They typically oppose outside shareholder resolutions, siding with company management in around 90% of the votes.
'Just because DEI is falling out of the political winds doesn't mean the votes have changed,' said Jon Solorzano, a partner at Vinson & Elkins who advises companies on environmental, social and governance issues.
Winning a shareholder vote is not the sole purpose of conservative groups bringing the proposals.
Anti-DEI resolutions are an inexpensive way for activist shareholders to draw media attention, gin up financial and political support for the groups bringing the resolutions and keep up pressure on companies over their DEI policies, Gatti said.
'Part of it is to get people to pay attention,' he said.
Win or lose, the proposals may add momentum for banning shareholder votes on climate, social and political issues in companies' proxy statements. A proxy statement precedes a meeting where investors vote on nominees for board of directors, executive compensation packages and other business issues. The Business Roundtable, an influential business lobbying group, called for reforms to the proxy process last week, claiming activist investors have increasingly used it to 'promote public policy agendas unrelated to company performance.'
Conservative groups say anti-DEI shareholder proposals give them leverage to negotiate with companies and seek changes. For example, the National Legal and Policy Center withdrew an anti-DEI shareholder proposal at PepsiCo after PepsiCo said it would end its goals for minority representation in managerial roles.
'We think that the work we've done with shareholder proposals elevates the conversation and puts companies on the defensive,' said Luke Perlot, the associate director of the National Legal and Policy Center's Corporate Integrity Project. Shareholder proposals are 'one of the most effective tools' of the group's corporate activism work.
Opponents of DEI are taking a page from DEI advocates.
Shareholder proposals urging companies to improve DEI policies surged in 2020 and 2021, but have dwindled in recent years. Investors and companies have become fatigued with following through on their DEI commitments, and pressure has increased on companies to steer clear of social issues.
Meanwhile, anti-DEI shareholder proposals have grown, part of a broader campaign on the right to crack down on DEI.
Shareholder proposals opposing DEI accounted for only 7% of all DEI-related proposals in 2022. In 2024, that accelerated to 23%. As of April 1, approximately 40% of proposals around DEI oppose DEI efforts, according to a recent report by The Conference Board.
But these anti-DEI proposals have received little investor support, averaging less than 2% of shareholder support.
'Institutional investors and proxy advisors consistently oppose these resolutions, viewing them as misaligned with corporate governance best practices and investor priorities,' the Conference Board said in the report. 'The proposals also originate from a small group of activists rather than mainstream investor coalitions, further limiting their appeal.'
In Costco's case, the proposal galvanized public support of Costco for sticking up for DEI.
More than 98% of Costco shareholders voted down a proposal brought by the National Center for Public Policy Research that would have required the company to evaluate and issue a report on the financial risks of maintaining its diversity and inclusion goals.
Costco's management opposed the proposal. The company said its DEI efforts help it attract and retain a wide range of employees and improve merchandise and services in stores.
'Among other things, a diverse group of employees helps bring originality and creativity to our merchandise offerings, promoting the 'treasure hunt' that our customers value,' Costco said in its proxy statement to investors.
Most institutional shareholders like BlackRock and Vanguard still believe having a diverse workforce and customer base are good for business, said Atinuke Adediran, an associate professor of law at Fordham University who studies corporate governance and racial diversity.
'The rhetoric has been DEI is dead, but you have large, multinational shareholders upholding what companies are doing on DEI,' she said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content

Hamilton Spectator

time22 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content

OTTAWA - Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association—Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. 'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said. 'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.' In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. 'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said. 'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.' A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. 'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said. 'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.' The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.' 'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 8, 2025.

Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content

OTTAWA — Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be "equitable." It said the contribution requirement is "inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues." Apple also said the regulator "acted prematurely" and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was "equitable." It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association—Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. It said in court documents that none of the streamers "has any connection to news production" and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. "What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money," it said. "That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production." In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. "While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services," the broadcasters said. "For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade." A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. "The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants," the office of the attorney general said. "Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters." The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve "an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden." "This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament" and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 8, 2025. Anja Karadeglija, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Speculation Swirls Around Mystery Tesla Model
Speculation Swirls Around Mystery Tesla Model

Forbes

timean hour ago

  • Forbes

Speculation Swirls Around Mystery Tesla Model

MELBOURNE, VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA - 2025/04/04: Tesla Model Y set for reveal during media launch of ... More Melbourne Motor Show 2025. (Photo by Alexander Bogatyrev/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images) A new Tesla model – possibly a minimalist version of an existing model – is slated to begin production this month, fueling speculation about what exactly it is. Tesla executives have been pretty clear about timing. 'We're still focused on bringing cheaper models to market soon. The start of production is still planned for June,' said Tesla chief financial officer Vaibhav Taneja during the first quarter earnings conference call on April 22. A June 2 Reuters story claims to confirm that the so-called $25,000 'Model 2' was canceled by CEO Elon Musk. This comes more than a year after Musk denied the original April 2024 Reuters report about cancellation of the project, saying at that time that 'Reuters is lying." The Model 2 – nomenclature used by analysts to designate a low-cost Tesla – was supposed to be a revolutionary low-cost vehicle that used Tesla's latest and greatest manufacturing technology to reduce production costs. Signs now point to a less radical design based on existing platforms. Reuters now reports that something much less ambitious called E41 is planned but claims it is delayed until later this year or early next year. That timing would seem to contradict what Tesla's CFO said (above) in the Q1 earning conference call, though Lars Moravy, VP Vehicle Engineering at Tesla, did mention that the 'ramp maybe -- might be a little slower than we had hoped initially" when referring to the future affordable models. Last week, a Model Y in camo wrap at the Tesla Fremont, Calif. factory sparked speculation that Tesla was about to start production of a new stripped down Model Y. But pushback on social media claimed that it was simply the unannounced Performance version of the Juniper Model Y. And camo-wrapped Model Ys have appeared elsewhere that appear to be the Performance version. That didn't stop speculation that the Fremont images appear to show different proportions than the standard Tesla Model Y, possibly shorter or more compact, which would be in line with a stripped down model. Unsupervised robotaxis will hit roads in Austin in June, Elon Musk said in an interview with CNBC. Unsupervised means the car has no human driver – like Waymo's robotaxi service. 'We have thousands of cars that are being tested,' Musk said, adding that initial deployment will be very small but Musk expects that "we will probably be at 1,000 within a few months" then expand to other cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles. That event could also host new vehicles. Tesla has already demonstrated the radical-looking Cybercab. And it's probably not a coincidence that Tesla is also scheduled to start production of the new unannounced affordable model in June. That upcoming model is expected to use a mixed-platform approach, combining components from Tesla's next-generation platform and existing Model 3/Y architecture. The new affordable Tesla is expected to be autonomous-capable and FSD compliant.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store