President Trump’s DEI-related executive orders, and the implications they have on the private and corporate sectors, have caused disruption to longstanding employment practices. There have been concerns raised around the legality and risks of collecting and sharing data on a company’s workforce and utilizing that data to strengthen its human capital management strategies as it relates to its diverse staff. The concerns being raised may feel like new additions to the corporate reporting landscape; however, they are similar to what we heard from 2018 to 2020 around the EEO-1 disclosure form (a government-mandated form showing a company’s demographic workforce data by sex, race, and ethnicity).

At that time, the concern was about spurious lawsuits, and now, the concern remains spurious lawsuits. The main thing that has changed is the constituency that companies believe may bring these suits. Companies now must also reassess what the appropriate response is to the Trump administration’s dissenting views on the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

The corporate sector remains obligated to ensure that societally entrenched discrimination does not hinder its ability to source diverse talent – diverse in thinking, experience, background, and demographic. Quantitative data is sought so that investors can assess and compare the effectiveness of companies’ efforts to ensure meritocratic workplaces. A Whistle Stop/As You Sow report analyzing 1,641 companies over five years showed a statistically significant positive correlation of greater diversity to eight key metrics of financial outperformance.

Companies have been responsive to this interest from investors – an interest that politics have not changed. Russell 1000 companies have increased disclosure of promotion, recruitment, and retention rates by 76% in the last two years. EEO-1 disclosure has seen a sharp and steady increase over the last five years from 57 companies disclosing data in 2020 to 444 disclosing in 2024.

One company caught between its own business rationale that calls for strong inclusion practices and the current political environment that misunderstands (or, perhaps, misrepresents) inclusion initiatives as affirmative action is Deere & Co (John Deere). After it announced an ambiguous and inconsistent shift in policies and practices regarding its workplace diversity strategy in the summer of 2024, shareholders filed a proposal requesting stronger diversity data.

After months of conversations with the company and a successful no action win at the SEC allowing the proposal to proceed, this same proposal was withdrawn. However, an anti-DEI proposal on the ballot went to vote where an overwhelming 98% of shareholders voted against it. The astounding lack of support from shareholders signals that the anti-DEI efforts are not representative of the company’s active investors. Support for similar anti-DEI proposals this year at Costco (98% against) and Apple (99% against) as well as over the last few years have also garnered a similar lack of support.

Public sentiment for diverse and representative workforces remains high, with 80% of people believing that it is important for the organizations they work for to be inclusive. Only time will tell what the regulatory environment around these topics will look like, but public opinion continues to reflect the world people wish to live in and the future they hope to have.