Attempts to kill DEI have inadvertently made corporate diversity stronger

Yahoo

01-07-2025

Andrew Behar is CEO of As You Sow, a nonprofit promoting environmental and social corporate responsibility.
DEI is everywhere these days. Perhaps you attended Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training at work or heard the loaded term 'DEI hire' on cable news. Advocates argue diversity initiatives dismantle systemic biases that keep the best workers from being hired and promoted. Critics say these programs are discriminatory and leave white workers behind. Executives and board directors have had to walk a fine line, but ultimately, they report to shareholders. As this year's proxy voting season approached, the business community wondered: Would investors vote to dismantle or defend DEI?
The answer was unequivocal. Over 20 shareholder resolutions were filed this year asking iconic companies to end DEI programs, including at Visa, Deere, Boeing, Goldman Sachs, Levi's, American Express, Coca-Cola, Berkshire Hathaway, McDonalds, Amazon, Netflix, Walmart, Alphabet, American Airlines, Caterpillar, Best Buy, and Mastercard. Across these annual meetings, over $9.8 trillion in share value voted with management to continue DEI policies and programs.
Proposals from one serial anti-DEI filer asked companies to 'terminate all DEI policies and programs that grant or deny employment or advancement opportunities based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics.' On the surface, few would argue that opportunity should not be based on race or sex, but the underlying intent of anti-DEI resolutions was to exploit racist and misogynistic tropes with little regard for the business.
Apple CEO Tim Cook, known for measured statements, reminded shareholders that innovation thrives on diverse perspectives: 'Our strength has always come from hiring the very best people and then providing a culture of collaboration, one where people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives come together to innovate and create something magical.' The anti-DEI proposal presented at Apple was overwhelmingly defeated by 98% of shareholders.
At Disney, executives stood firm against anti-DEI proposals that sought to withdraw the company from diversity benchmarks. The message from Disney leadership was clear: Diverse voices and stories are not a political statement—they are core to the magic that captivates global audiences. Disney's shareholders agreed, rejecting the proposal with nearly 99% opposition.
Across Pfizer, Goldman Sachs, Costco, and other major corporations, the trend could not have been more obvious: Anti-DEI proposals 'landed with a notable thud' as shareholders stood firm with management with an average 98% votes against ending diversity programs. The votes were extraordinary considering a group of conservative attorneys general threatened shareholders that voting against anti-DEI resolutions could be illegal.
The near-unanimous votes reflected deep shareholder trust in the boards and executives who defended DEI publicly and forcefully. When investors have near-unanimous alignment with management—including the assertion that diversity programs drive growth, innovation, and long-term value—executives and the board have the strongest possible mandate to cement DEI as a corporate imperative.
Far from being swayed by political theater, shareholders sided decisively with the evidence. For example, the Diversity Dividend report from my organization, As You Sow, analyzed 1,641 U.S. companies over five years (2016–2022.) Results showed a statistically significant correlation between diverse management teams and superior financial outcomes, including enterprise value growth rate, free cash flow per share, return on invested capital, and 10-year total revenue compound annual growth rate. Results were so conclusive that investors would have been in breach of their fiduciary duty if they supported proposals to end DEI.
For these financial reasons, high-profile business leaders have publicly supported diversity programs despite potential political backlash. Costco, for instance, effectively defended its DEI programs, resulting in stable growth and improved employee morale. Conversely, Target, which relented to DEI criticism from social media activists, experienced drops in employee satisfaction and weaker sales. As a general rule, companies that followed legal advice not to capitulate to DEI attacks saw higher reputation scores in 2025.
In my recent Fortune op-ed, I argued that beneath the heated rhetoric, both proponents and critics actually agree on a fundamental point: Meritocracy should rule. No serious advocate for diversity programs argues against hiring the best candidate for the job. Rather, the debate hinges on whether the playing field is truly level. DEI initiatives aim to remove unseen barriers and unconscious bias, ensuring meritocracy functions as intended.
Thanks to well-funded anti-DEI crusaders, a once-obscure acronym for corporate diversity programs is now part of the cultural lexicon. In targeting companies with lawsuits, executive orders, legislation, and shareholder resolutions, the politically motivated campaign hell-bent on stopping the erosion of white dominance forced C-suites and boardrooms across America to articulate—sometimes for the first time—why diversity is essential to financial performance.
The 2025 proxy season affirmed diversity as an essential business principle grounded in business data, immune to fleeting political pressures. The dramatic confrontations that played out at over 20 companies solidified DEI's place in the corporate world. For investors, executives, and employees alike, the message was loud and unmistakable: Corporate diversity programs aren't going away—they are stronger than ever.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com