US companies are coming under increasing pressure from investors to publicly disclose information about diversity among employees in the wake of nationwide protests against racial discrimination.
Many executives have pledged to champion equality in response to the Black Lives Matter demonstrations across the US and beyond.
The goal of global investors increasingly focused on social and governance issues is to gain a common metric on racial diversity to compare companies and hold them to account on their pledges, building on a drive to improve gender equality.
The good news, they say, is that US firms with more than 100 employees already gather such data for the federal government annually via a form known as the EEO-1, along with gender information.
However, the information is confidential and companies are not required to publicly release it, with some arguing it does not accurately capture the structure of their businesses.
Only 32 companies in the Russell 1000 make the information public, according to researcher Just Capital, either via the form itself or through detailed summaries.
“The EEO-1 is not the holy grail, but it’s an excellent starting point,” said John Streur, chief executive of Calvert Research and Management, an investment firm pressing executives to publicly disclose the data.
Once firms began releasing information, it would create competition to improve diversity, he said.
This was echoed by Mirza Baig, global head of governance at London-based Aviva Investors, part of insurer Aviva.
“We think it’s inevitable that those data points will be disclosed and we think companies should get ahead of it,” he said.
Companies that file the EEO-1 form, to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), record the number of workers they have of each race and gender across 10 job categories, including senior officials, sales workers and technicians.
The latest filings are for 2018, as the deadline for last year was deferred to next year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The data reveal some very unequal pictures. For instance, of 290 executives and top leaders at Uber Technologies, one of the companies to publicly release the information, seven were black and nine were Hispanic or Latino in the payroll period covering the last two weeks of 2018.
Both figures represented only about a 3 percent share of top positions, well below the two groups’ proportion of the US population, of about 13 percent and 19 percent respectively.
At Bank of America Corp, in another example, black people held 5 percent of 4,197 top-level roles as of last year, and Hispanic or Latino people held another 4 percent.
The figures are broadly in line with aggregated EEOC data showing that of the roughly 900,000 people holding those top jobs across the country, about 3 percent were black and 4 percent were Hispanic in 2018.
Firms that disclose the data, like Uber and Bank of America, show a more serious effort to improve minority representation, said Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, a University of Massachusetts professor who studies workplace diversity.
“Transparency is a prerequisite for both goal-setting and accountability,” he added.
An Uber spokeswoman said the company “is committed to investing in long-term strategies to create a sustainable pipeline of talent from historically underrepresented communities.”
Bank of America says on its Web site it is “focused on attracting, retaining and developing diverse talent.”
There has been a marked shift in attitudes since the protests sparked by the death of George Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on May 25.
Companies have collectively pledged hundreds of millions of dollars and to remake their own workforce profiles.
However, firms voicing support for racial equality should back up their talk by releasing their EEO-1 data, New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer says in letters being sent to 67 firms in the S&P 100.
“We’re asking companies that condemned racism to walk the walk,” said Stringer, who oversees about US$206 billion in retirement assets.
Activist investors say efforts to make diversity data public are gathering momentum, partly since this can be easier than reforms like adding social metrics to CEO pay programs or naming new board members.
For instance, at cybersecurity company Fortinet’s annual meeting on June 19 — the “Juneteenth” holiday marking the end of slavery in 1865 — 70 percent of shares voted backed a resolution to report on its workforce diversity.
Kristin Hull, chief executive of resolution sponsor Nia Impact Capital, said the vote tally — a record high among similar resolutions at US firms according to the Sustainable Investments Institute — reflected the current discussion about race in corporate America.
A Fortinet spokesman said it planned to release its EEO-1 data.
However to date, most companies have shied away from public disclosure of EEO-1 data. Executives say privately they worry about legal liability, bad publicity and attracting rivals’ recruiters if they employ many minorities.
Some argue the form’s categories such as “craft workers” or “laborers” are not relevant to their businesses.
Even some of the advocates do not give out their data.
“We have not historically published the EEO-1 forms, but we are reviewing that approach,” Calvert parent Eaton Vance Corp spokeswoman Robyn Tice said.
Some companies do disclose data, but on their own terms.
Just Capital counted 204 companies that disclosed some information on the gender and ethnicity of their employees as of August last year, often in non-standard ways.
In a report on its Web site, for example, Starbucks states that 17.5 percent of its executives ranked at senior vice president or higher are “people of color.”
A Starbucks spokeswoman said it was reviewing whether to release its EEO-1 data publicly.
Others disclose little data currently, like Snapchat parent Snap.
Snap chief executive Evan Spiegel said in a CNBC interview on June 11 that, while it was working on providing more details, it was worried that disclosures “have actually normalized the current composition of the tech workforce,” which has few minorities.
A Snap spokeswoman said the company planned to disclose a breakdown of its employees by race and gender as the EEO-1 form outlined, but would likely use different job categories that better matched its workforce.
It also plans to show additional data such as hiring rates, she said.
Streur mentioned Home Depot as an example of a company that could expect more pressure to release its full EEO-1 data.
Nearly every year since 2005, shareholder activists have put a resolution on the idea to a vote at the retailer’s annual meeting — an uncommonly long run.
The company has opposed the resolutions. In its notice for this year’s meeting, held on May 21, it said that it began releasing certain diversity data annually in 2018.
In 2018, 48 percent of shares cast backed a resolution calling for the EEO-1-level disclosure.
A similar resolution got 36 percent support at this year’s meeting, held four days before Floyd’s death.
A Home Depot spokeswoman said it was “committed to diversity and equal opportunity.”
She cited a company diversity report, which states minorities made up 44 percent of its workforce in 2018.
American Century’s Sustainable Equity Fund was one backer of the resolution this year, fund vice president Guillaume Mascotto said.
He said the national conversation about race would make more shareholders likely to back calls for disclosure in the future.
“More and more investors, especially those that have a long-term horizon are going to want to see how companies are approaching this,” he said.
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
RSS