Latest news with #AndrewBehar
Yahoo
01-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Attempts to kill DEI have inadvertently made corporate diversity stronger
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 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
Yahoo
05-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Major insurer sparks backlash with bold move to silence shareholder vote: 'A harbinger of what's to come'
Yet another big corporation is facing backlash for allegedly putting profits over people and the environment. The Travelers Companies, better known as simply Travelers Insurance, is under fire after being accused of attempting to block shareholder efforts to gain transparency about how the insurer's decisions pertaining to the effects of increasing global temperatures are impacting both customers and its long-term business health, according to Insurance Newsnet. Travelers is an insurance company that provides coverage to millions of Americans but is now being criticized for how its decisions may be leaving vulnerable customers in the dust. Shareholders have filed a proposal urging Travelers to disclose how rising insurance premiums and coverage cuts affect its profits and customer base. According to the shareholder advocate group As You Sow, Travelers has continued to stay profitable even with disasters like wildfires and hurricanes sharply increasing rates or pulling out of high-risk markets altogether. While such disasters have always happened periodically, scientists say the rates of the ones influenced by heat — such as increasing dry conditions that can lead to fires, or warm ocean temperatures that can lead to hurricanes — have increased as global temperatures have risen. Instead of allowing shareholders to vote on the proposal at its 2025 annual meeting, Travelers appealed to the Securities and Exchange Commission to reject it. The company claims the request "micromanages" its business and is too complex for shareholders to evaluate. Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Saw, isn't buying it. "Rather than address these material questions, Travelers asked the SEC to silence its own investors," said Behar. "How the SEC will decide is unknown and may be a harbinger of what's to come for responsible investors given the new administration's recent actions to curtail shareholder rights," Behar added. Travelers is far from alone in facing scrutiny from everyday Americans. Insurance premiums across the U.S. rose by 34% between 2017 and 2023, outpacing inflation and leaving millions of homeowners without affordable coverage, particularly in disaster-prone states like Florida. Do you think America is in a housing crisis? Definitely Not sure No way Only in some cities Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. A recent report from First Street warned that climate-related risks could erase nearly $1.5 trillion in U.S. home values. This issue reflects how global overheating, driven by burning dirty fuels like coal, oil, and gas, fuels more severe storms, fires, and flooding. As these disasters intensify, insurance companies raise rates or exit markets entirely, leaving families unprotected and vulnerable. This story boils down to a lack of transparency. Customers and investors alike are left in the dark about whether short-term profits are coming at the expense of long-term stability and community well-being. Many organizations are working to ultimately address the root cause: transitioning away from polluting energy sources. Companies like EnergySage are helping homeowners adopt affordable solar energy, reducing reliance on dirty fuels and managing costs. You can also learn more about critical issues in this area and better understand how everyday choices — from electrifying your home to supporting sustainable policies — can play a small role in helping to slow global overheating and protect communities. In most cases, these decisions save money anyway. Beyond that, if you live in a vulnerable area, it may be a good investment to explore wildfire-proofing your property or making it more resilient against hurricanes so that you are less reliant on insurance protections in the first place. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Reuters
03-04-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Shareholder activists dial back on resolutions
April 3 (Reuters) - Sustainability-minded shareholder activists filed fewer resolutions for corporate annual meetings this year, but battles still loom on topics like corporate diversity efforts. Investors pressing companies on environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters filed a total of 355 shareholder proposals as of Feb 21, down from 536 of them filed at the same point in 2024 and 542 filed at the same point in 2023, according to a new report from shareholder activist group As You Sow. Make sense of the latest ESG trends affecting companies and governments with the Reuters Sustainable Switch newsletter. Sign up here. Activists I spoke with cited a number of reasons for the decline including a sense that big investors would not support their measures, and concerns that Republican regulators might not let their resolutions go to a vote in the first place. Another factor: companies are wary of public battles and have seemed willing to make changes to avoid unwanted attention, said Andrew Behar, As You Sow's CEO. "Companies were more willing to have things not escalate," he said in an interview, confirming his sense of things from February. Behar said his group also decided not to file some resolutions seeking more specific DEI data from companies, lest the measures expose the firms to possible retaliation by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration. He has targeted corporate DEI policies. "We own the companies, we don't want them to fail," Behar said. "If we're engaging a co and they have a good business reason to say that right now they can't give us what we're asking for, then we're not going to ask for it," he said. It's not like the pro-ESG activists are giving up, however. As You Sow's report flagged a number of resolutions filed at companies that had dialed back their diversity, equity and inclusion efforts last year. At Ford, (F.N), opens new tab for instance, Mercy Investment Services called on the board to report on the research and analysis it did before changing its DEI policies last summer. Maxwell Homans, Mercy shareholder advocacy associate, said via e-mail that "As investors, we wanted clarity on these changes and on the decision process, such as research into the business case for these changes and whether employees and stakeholders were consulted before implementing them. We believe stakeholders, including their consumers/the public, also have the right to know." Ford in its proxy recommended votes against the proposal, saying it had made only common sense changes such as revamping its employee resource groups. "Ford remains committed to operating in ways that best serve our diverse customers and the diverse communities where we live and work," the automaker said in its proxy. "Given that our values and core practices remain unwavering, and that we believe our existing disclosures are responsive to our investors' core areas of interest, the Board of Directors does not believe that preparing the requested report on the Company's DEI strategy beyond what the Company already reports is an effective use of Company resources at this time," Ford said.
Yahoo
24-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
America's foremost DEI shareholder activist warns that anti-diversity groups are forcing companies to underperform
The great corporate DEI rollback is well underway, as a slew of companies—including Citigroup and Pepsi—have made changes to their diversity and inclusion programs. But Andrew Behar, CEO of the shareholder activist group As You Sow, believes the rhetoric around DEI retreats we've seen so far obscures a larger truth: 'Companies are actually holding strong.' In a recent interview with Fortune, Behar explained that his group has spent months meeting with the heads of businesses caught in the crosshairs of DEI critics determined to blame everything from wildfires to plane crashes on diversity efforts. As You Sow has also proposed pro-DEI resolutions at companies like John Deere, Berkshire Hathaway, and Ford. Based on his conversations with CEOs, Behar says he isn't particularly worried about conservative activists winning over the executives of multinational companies. 'Anyone who's looking at the data, which the companies are, comes to the conclusion that greater diversity leads to financial outperformance,' he said. For the past three decades, As You Sow has been using shareholder resolutions and direct engagement with companies to push for climate policies, and, more recently, social justice initiatives. But As You Sow is not alone in this pursuit, Behar is quick to point out. One of his group's allies, Nia Impact Capital, recently compelled Tesla to audit the company's method for recruiting and retaining talent in light of accusations of racial discrimination, despite Tesla CEO Elon Musk's much-publicized stance against DEI. This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity. Have you been taken by surprise by recent anti-DEI fervor? I've been surprised by the relentlessness of this administration to force companies to underperform. How did we get here? Let me give you a little background. Around 2018, a group of shareholders came together and said, 'We're finding that companies with greater diversity in their management teams are outperforming financially.' We started taking a look at that, and we ended up writing a letter with 3,000 companies, representing $4 trillion of assets, signing on to say, 'We think that disclosure of your diversity, equity, and inclusion information is material. We need it to make buy-sell decisions, and to know how to weight our portfolios.' That was the start of this. We met with hundreds of companies and they pretty much all agreed. We're talking about companies like [Northrop] Grumman. I remember meeting a 30-year ex-Navy guy who is working at Grumman and saying, 'Yeah, we've got to have greater diversity. It's why we perform so well.' In any case, some of the companies were more resistant, so we filed some shareholder resolutions. Then there was this whole anti-ESG crusade, which grew out of the backlash to the 1619 Project and critical race theory. It's a desperate attempt to hold the patriarchy in power. Along came these third-rate bloggers giving a nasty look at a company and going, 'You're too woke,' and the companies reacting. What do you think of Robby Starbuck, the Tennessee-based online conservative influencer who has claimed credit for forcing companies to drop DEI? He is not a shareholder activist, but his online campaigns have boosted the anti-DEI movement. He has no business threatening companies when their shareholders, the people who the board reports to, have spent years working with the company to get them on track for financial outperformance. For example, Lowe's had a 58% shareholder vote in favor of gender pay equality just a few years ago. Probably about $80 billion worth of shares voted for that. Then some blogger in Tennessee says, 'I don't like this.' And suddenly the company goes, 'Oh, we're going to ignore the people we report to and go with this guy.' So shareholders are troubled. We would like to understand the metrics by which the board came to that decision. To see them reverse it, without any consultation, without any methodology, without any frankly, data, that's troubling to us. We have to ask who's really in charge, and whether we've got the right board of directors there. What's your plan for pushing back against the anti-DEI groups? We are sitting down with the companies. For the most part, we find their basic tenet is: We need to do things that are going to be good for all stakeholders, especially for financial outperformance. But they made some adjustments to keep anti-DEI activists at bay. We had three conversations with Ford last week, just because they're trying to figure it out. They want to sell their pickup trucks, but they also want to continue to have a diverse employee base, because they know that it leads to financial outperformance, so it's tough for them. But we believe that management teams should be able to hire and promote people based on merit. We are really into meritocracy. What we find is that there are obstructions to people, to women and to people of color, that we're trying to remove. So I just want to be clear about that. It's not just a blanket, 'Andy loves DEI.' What sorts of responses do you expect to see from large companies on these issues? I think Costco is a really important moment, where 98% of shareholders agreed with management and voted against an anti-DEI resolution. But these anti-DEI resolutions have never gotten more than 2%, because they're bad for business. The other side is trying to use big government to manipulate market forces, which is never going to work. The anti-DEI groups are trying to inject politics where it doesn't belong. This is about business and about the U.S. being competitive in the global markets. I understand they're isolationists, and they're going to try to pull us out of all the global markets, but multinationals have a lot of power, and I don't think they're going to stand for it. Why do these groups keep proposing anti-DEI resolutions? They want press coverage? They want the press coverage. They also want to throw sand in the gears of capitalism. This is an anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, anti-democracy crusade that is being waged to try to suppress information and suppress shareholders from having the disclosure and the information they need to make good fiduciary decisions. Ford and Lowe's did not respond to a request for comment. Robby Starbuck told Fortune, 'I'm in touch with the actual people businesses need to walk into their stores. Conservative consumers trust me and listen when I call out a brand for bad behavior.' This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
