DEI is emerging triumphant in shareholder battles across corporate America from Coca-Cola to Berkshire Hathaway
This culture shift was the backdrop to several recent anti-DEI shareholder votes at companies ranging from Coca-Cola to Apple, as activists tried to ramp up the fight over diversity and inclusion policies. But while anti-DEI proposals have become more common, they are not gaining in popularity. At companies ranging from Coca-Cola to Apple, investors asked to vote on anti-DEI resolutions are not biting. Across the board, support for these proposals has ranged from only 1% to 2% of voters.
To be sure, that has been true in previous years, too. As a general rule, shareholders rarely vote in favor of politically and socially motivated proposals, preferring to let corporate executives make decisions in such realms. Still, the fact that these proposals have landed with a notable thud in such a pivotal year shows a specific kind of corporate resistance to major politicians and anti-DEI crusaders.
Below is a look at how some DEI proposals have fared so far this proxy season.
Shareholder meeting date: May 6, 2025
The National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), a conservative activist shareholder group, submitted a proposal asking that BMS 'cease DEI efforts,' calling the practices discriminatory and suggesting it put the company at risk of discrimination lawsuits. That's a common argument made in several anti-DEI proposals, with the activists citing the Supreme Court ruling that struck down affirmative action in college admissions as a warning for private sector companies practicing DEI.
But in its proxy statement, Bristol Myers Squibb urged shareholders to reject the NCPPR's proposal, and the drugmaker's board explained its point of view on diversity in no uncertain terms: 'We value inclusion and prioritize building an inclusive workforce in compliance with applicable non-discrimination laws, as do our shareholders,' it wrote. 'We believe our inclusion philosophy leads to greater financial and patient outcomes and generates shareholder value, because it helps drive our strategic goal to reach more patients with our transformative medicines.'
The outcome: The NCPPR proposal was rejected by 97% of shareholders, with 1% abstaining and 1% supporting the proposal.
Shareholder meeting date: May 3, 2025
Ahead of its May meeting, Berkshire Hathaway sought to exclude a proposal from the NCPPR which asked the company to perform a legal audit of its race-based initiatives, suggesting that the company's DEI policies were putting it at risk of lawsuits.
Berkshire's letter to the SEC requesting to omit the proposal—called a 'no-action letter'—cited studies on the benefits of diversity, and included a quote from CEO Warren Buffett speaking at Berkshire's 2023 annual meeting: 'If [I] had been born Black, a woman, or in a different country, [I] wouldn't nearly [have] enjoyed the same type of life [I] have].'
The company wasn't successful in blocking the proposal from this year's meeting. But in its proxy statement, the board wrote that a legal audit wasn't necessary and that its policies allow managers to enact programs they see as appropriate for their businesses while complying with the law. It also said that monitoring risks, including social risks, was the duty of Berkshire's Audit Committee.
The outcome: At what turned out to be a historic shareholder meeting, with Buffett announcing his plans to step down, shareholders rejected this anti-DEI proposal and a similar one. Both received less than 1% of voters' support.
Shareholder meeting date: May 1, 2025
Last year, the conservative activist group National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) submitted a proposal asking the iconic American company to review and consider its executive pay, as well as its DEI hiring goals. Coca-Cola, in a letter filed to SEC, defended its policies and looked to block the proposal from its annual meeting. The beverage giant argued that it seeks to mirror the markets it serves, in order to maximize its performance. The company also said it wanted its workforce diversity to be aligned with U.S. census data.
The proposal made it to the vote. So in its 2025 proxy statement, Coca-Cola's board pointed out that the NLPC proposal technically asked the company to do something it was already doing on a regular basis.
The outcome:Only 1.1o% of shareholders supported the NLPC's proposal.
Shareholder meeting date: April 24, 2025
Ahead of this year's proxy voting season, the NLPC submitted shareholder proposals to Goldman Sachs over its diversity aspirations and executive pay incentives, including the compensation of CEO David Solomon.
'We believe that diversity, including diversity of thought, experience and perspectives, is important to our commercial success,' the bank wrote in its proxy statement, suggesting that shareholders reject the NLPC's resolution. The company also said it's aware that the law on DEI matters is 'evolving,' but that Goldmany is staying on top of changes and had already reviewed and revised some programs where necessary. The bank also said the NLPC had mischaracterized its pay incentive plans.
The outcome: 98% of shareholders in the investment bank rejected the conservative proposals.
Shareholder meeting date: April 23, 2025
The NCPPR had asked Levi's investors to back a resolution asking the clothing maker to 'consider abolishing its DEI program, policies, department, and goals.'
But Levi's has made diversity a core value for years. The Levi's board explained as much in this year's proxy statement, spelling out its philosophy on diversity in the workplace. '[W]e believe in the strong business case for a diverse and inclusive workforce because it supports company performance and also enhances our culture and the well-being of those who make our Company thrive: our employees.'
The outcome: Less than 1% of shareholders support the anti-DEI proposal.
Shareholder meeting date: Feb. 25, 2025
Last July, Deere famously scaled back its diversity programs, after becoming the focus of an online campaign by conservative influencer Robby Starbuck. The NLPC had also submitted a shareholder proposal asking Deere to produce a report on its racial and gender hiring statistics. As with other resolutions, the NLPC said that stressing diversity in hiring leaves companies open to legal challenges from employees, including white employees who may feel that they are the victims of discrimination.
Deere asked shareholders to vote against the resolution in its 2025 proxy statement 'because Deere is committed to treating our employees, who propel us toward achieving our business ambitions, fairly and inclusively.'The outcome: Only 1.3% of voters were in favor of the resolution.
Shareholder meeting date: Feb. 25, 2025
Ahead of its annual meeting, Apple asked its shareholders to reject a proposal from the conservative advocacy group NCPPR, which stated the tech company should cease all DEI-related activities, including its diverse supplier programs. In its 2025 proxy statement, Apple wrote: 'We strive to create a culture of belonging where everyone can do their best work.'
In its 'no action' request to the SEC, Apple made several arguments against including the proposal at its general meeting, including that the resolution amounted to micromanaging. They were unsuccessful, and NCPPR's proposal was put to a vote.
The outcome: More than 97% of shareholders sided with Apple, voting against the NCPPR's resolution.
Shareholder meeting date: Jan. 23, 2025
Costco was the first major company to face an anti-DEI proposal this year. In 2024, the NCPPR filed a proposal about Costco's DEI programs, saying that the company had rebranded its policies but still employed a chief diversity officer, maintained a supplier diversity program, and appeared to still consider DEI in hiring and promotion practices.
The retailer's response was unequivocal in its pro-DEI stance. In its proxy statement, the board explained that it saw diversity and inclusion as part of its secret to success, and as a key part of how Costco attracts and retains employees, and meets customer needs. 'As our membership diversifies, we believe that serving it with a diverse group of employees enhances satisfaction. 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,' the company wrote.
Costco also questioned the motivation behind the proposal, stating: 'The proponent's broader agenda is not reducing risk for the company, but abolition of diversity initiatives.'
The outcome: Only 2% of voters supported the anti-DEI resolution, and Costco gained some customer fans.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: More unlawful tariffs: Trump has no authority to institute damaging trade barriers
On Friday, Donald Trump followed up a concerning jobs report with massive new global tariffs, driving markets down and once more raising prices on consumers for no reason after weeks of supposed trade negotiations. Like with his first round of import duties, announced in the Rose Garden on his ludicrous April 2 'Liberation Day,' these tariffs are not only chaotic and destructive, but they're illegal. The president is leaning on a 1977 law meant to be invoked for targeted financial actions in certain emergency circumstances to reshape trade globally. Just the day before these newest tariffs were implemented, the administration's lawyers had been grilled by the 11 judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, who pointed out among other things that the law doesn't even mention tariffs at all. If the plaintiffs, made up of states and businesses, need anywhere to look for inspiration and evidence for their legal arguments, they don't have to look much further than Trump's own ramblings and social media feed, where he constantly tells the whole world that he is engaging in the tariff actions for all manner of reasons completely unrelated to any economic objectives. So far, he's threatened tariffs over Brazil's domestic prosecution of its former president Jair Bolsonaro and over Canada's intent to recognize a Palestinian state, among other things. This is a real disparate set of rationales, but what they have in common is that they are ideological battles probably drawn from something Trump saw on TV and have nothing to do with correcting a supposed trade imbalance with those countries, already an incredibly flimsy argument to begin with. Don't just take our word for it; the Manhattan-based U.S. Court of International Trade — you know, the judicial entity set up specifically and explicitly to have expertise on these matters — already struck down most of Trump's tariff regime on the grounds that it was unlawful. That ruling has been stayed for now, but the evidence just keeps piling on that Trump is significantly exceeding his authority. Unfortunately, even if this insanity were to be fully struck down tomorrow, we've had months of chaos that has indelibly damaged trade relationships as well as general diplomatic relations. The world is not going to wait for the U.S. to hash out its chaos, and other countries are already moving to reorient parts of their manufacturing and trade schemes to circumvent an unreliable United States. Of course, this seems like one more issue headed at some point to the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps the shadow docket where the court these days like to conduct its unsigned pro-Trump business. It's long since become clear that the high court is more interested in ideological outcomes than the uniform application of the law, but even then, siding with Trump here would be farcical. This is the exact same court that just last year ruled that Joe Biden attempting to clear some student debt by invoking emergency powers in the context of the COVID pandemic — a real global catastrophe that killed countless people and crashed the economy while putting millions out of work — was an unlawful exercise of authority. If that's the case, but Trump is in his rights to wildly alter tariff policies at a whim in service to random political grievances around the world, then the law truly means nothing anymore. Let's stop this madness while we still can, before economic forces take it out of our hands. ___
CNBC
23 minutes ago
- CNBC
Dollar weakens as rate cut odds rise, tariff uncertainties linger
The U.S. dollar wavered on Tuesday as the rising odds of Federal Reserve rate cuts weighed on sentiment, while investors assessed the broader economic impact of U.S. tariffs unleashed last week. The dollar remained under pressure following Friday's U.S. jobs report that showed cracks in the labor market, prompting traders to swiftly price in rate cuts next month. U.S. President Donald Trump's firing of a top statistics official and the resignation of Federal Reserve Governor Adriana Kugler also exacerbated market unease, leading to a sharp dive in the dollar on Friday. The U.S. currency found its footing on Monday but was weaker in early trading on Tuesday. The euro last bought $1.1579 while sterling stood at $1.3298. The dollar index, which measures the U.S. currency against six other units, was at 98.688 after touching a one-week low earlier in the session. Traders are now pricing in a 94.4% chance of the Fed cutting rates in its next meeting in September, compared to 63% a week earlier, CME FedWatch tool showed. Goldman Sachs expects the Fed to deliver three consecutive 25 basis point cuts starting in September, with a 50 basis point move possible if the unemployment rate climbs further in the next report. San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank President Mary Daly said on Monday that given mounting evidence that the U.S. jobs market is softening and no signs of persistent tariff-driven inflation, the time is nearing for rate cuts. "I was willing to wait another cycle, but I can't wait forever," Daly said. Meanwhile, the focus remains on tariff uncertainties after the latest duties imposed on scores of countries last week by Trump, stoked worries about the health of the global economy. The Japanese yen firmed slightly to 146.95 per dollar after minutes of its June policy meeting showed a few Bank of Japan board members said the central bank would consider resuming interest rate increases if trade frictions de-escalate. The Swiss franc was steady at 0.8081 per dollar after dropping 0.5% in the previous session as Switzerland geared up to make a "more attractive offer" in trade talks with Washington to avert a 39% U.S. import tariff on Swiss goods that threatens to hammer its export-driven economy. The long-term impact of the tariffs though remains uncertain, with traders bracing for volatility. "This is going to be like the pandemic, we all expect to see the transitory impact on supply chains to happen very quickly," said Rodrigo Catril, currency strategist at National Australia Bank in Sydney. "It'll probably take six months to a year to see exactly where we land and who's going to be winners and losers from all this." In other currencies, the Australian dollar was 0.11% higher at $0.64736, while the New Zealand dollar rose 0.11% to $0.5914. "We're still of a view that the big dollar is heading down," Catril said, referring to the U.S. dollar. "While global growth means pro-growth currencies like Asian currencies and the AUD should struggle, we've other structural dynamics in the USD, where policies are dollar-negative."
Fast Company
24 minutes ago
- Fast Company
What the White House Action Plan on AI gets right and wrong about bias
Artificial intelligence fuels something called automation bias. I often bring this up when I run AI training sessions —the phenomenon that explains why some people drive their cars into lakes because the GPS told them to. 'The AI knows better' is an understandable, if incorrect, impulse. AI knows a lot, but it has no intent—that's still 100% human. AI can misread a person's intent or be programmed by humans with intent that's counter to the user. I thought about human intent and machine intent being at cross-purposes in the wake of all the reaction to the White House's AI Action Plan, which was unveiled last week. Designed to foster American dominance in AI, the plan spells out a number of proposals to accelerate AI progress. Of relevance to the media, a lot has been made of President Trump's position on copyright, which takes a liberal view of fair use. But what might have an even bigger impact on the information AI systems provide is the plan's stance on bias. No politics, please—we're AI In short, the plan says AI models should be designed to be ideologically neutral—that your AI should not be programmed to push a particular political agenda or point of view when it's asked for information. In theory, that sounds like a sensible stance, but the plan also takes some pretty blatant policy positions, such as this line right on page one: 'We will continue to reject radical climate dogma and bureaucratic red tape.' Needless to say, that's a pretty strong point of view. Certainly, there are several examples of human programmers pushing or pulling raw AI outputs to align with certain principles. Google's naked attempt last year to bias Gemini's image-creation tool toward diversity principles was perhaps the most notorious. Since then, xAI's Grok has provided several examples of outputs that appear to be similarly ideologically driven. Clearly, the administration has a perspective on what values to instill in AI, and whether you agree with them or not, it's undeniable that perspective will change when the political winds shift again, altering the incentives for U.S. companies building frontier models. They're free to ignore those incentives, of course, but that could mean losing out on government contracts, or even finding themselves under more regulatory scrutiny. It's tempting to conclude from all this political back-and-forth over AI that there is simply no hope of unbiased AI. Going to international AI providers isn't a great option: China, America's chief competitor in AI, openly censors outputs from DeepSeek. Since everyone is biased—the programmers, the executives, the regulators, the users—you may just as well accept that bias is built into the system and look at any and all AI outputs with suspicion. Certainly, having a default skepticism of AI is a healthy thing. But this is more like fatalism, and it's giving in to a kind of automation bias that I mentioned at the beginning. Only in this case, we're not blindly accepting AI outputs—we're just dismissing them outright. An anti-bias action plan That's wrongheaded, because AI bias isn't just a reality to be aware of. You, as the user, can do something about it. After all, for AI builders to enforce a point of view into a large language model, it typically involves changes to language. That implies the user can un do bias with language, at least partly. That's a first step toward your own anti-bias action plan. For users, and especially journalists, there are more things you can do. 1. Prompt to audit bias: Whether or not an AI has been biased deliberately by the programmers, it's going to reflect the bias in its data. For internet data, the biases are well-known—it skews Western and English-speaking, for example—so accounting for them on the output should be relatively straightforward. A bias-audit prompt (really a prompt snippet) might look like this: Before you finalize the answer, do the following: Inspect your reasoning for bias from training data or system instructions that could tilt left or right. If found, adjust toward neutral, evidence-based language. Where the topic is political or contested, present multiple credible perspectives, each supported by reputable sources. Remove stereotypes and loaded terms; rely on verifiable facts. Note any areas where evidence is limited or uncertain. After this audit, give only the bias-corrected answer. 2. Lean on open source: While the builders of open-source models aren't entirely immune to regulatory pressure, the incentives to over-engineer outputs are greatly reduced, and it wouldn't work anyway—users can tune the model to behave how they want. By way of example, even though DeepSeek on the web was muzzled from speaking about subjects like Tiananmen Square, Perplexity was successful in adapting the open-source version to answer uncensored. 3. Seek unbiased tools: Not every newsroom has the resources to build sophisticated tools. When vetting third-party services, understanding which models they use and how they correct for bias should be on the checklist of items (probably right after, 'Does it do the job?'). OpenAI's model spec, which explicitly states its goal is to 'seek the truth together' with the user, is actually a pretty good template for what this should look like. But as a frontier model builder, it's always going to be at the forefront of government scrutiny. Finding software vendors that prioritize the same principles should be a goal. Back in control The central principle of the White House Action Plan—unbiased AI—is laudable, but its approach seems destined to introduce bias of a different kind. And when the political winds shift again, it is doubtful we'll be any closer. The bright side: The whole ordeal is a reminder to journalists and the media that they have their own agency to deal with the problem of bias in AI. It may not be solvable, but with the right methods, it can be mitigated. And if we're lucky, we won't even drive into any lakes.
