Skip to content
Such minimal support for anti-DEI proposals across several categories indicates that shareholder interest in this issue appears to be waning.
As proxy season winds down, support for anti-DEI shareholder resolutions appears to be losing momentum. Most anti-DEI resolutions that reached shareholder votes failed for the second year in a row. While proposals remain to be voted on in the coming months, board members should be aware that the threat of anti-DEI shareholder pressure is on the decline. Recent data shows that anti-DEI proposal submissions are decreasing and support from shareholders is minimal.
As of May 31, 2026, there were 43 anti-DEI shareholder resolutions filed in the United States, according to data from the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance report. At that time, 22 resolutions were voted on with an average support of 1 percent. This equates to approximately 99% of shareholders voting against most anti-DEI proposals, a result that has remained consistent over the past two years. Such minimal support for anti-DEI proposals across several categories indicates that shareholder interest in this issue appears to be waning.
Andrew Behar, As You Sow CEO, The company, a shareholder that champions environmental and social corporate responsibility, believes its tendency to vote against anti-DEI-focused proposals is a call to action.
“In our view, boards that bow to outside political pressure and discontinue hiring and promotion policies in defiance of 99% of shareholders are in breach of their duty to shareholders, and directors should expect a vote of no confidence at the next election. We will closely monitor each company whose shareholders have voted in favor of DEI and work to ensure the board follows through on its policies,” the company said in a press release.
Two years after there was significant pressure on boards to revise or eliminate diversity policies, shareholders appear to be sending a message that they are not in favor of completely dismantling DEI initiatives at most companies. As shareholders consider this issue, board members may want to consider:
Review your DEI policy for alignment with shareholders. If your company is working on DEI policies, make sure those policies do not violate the law and are in line with shareholder support. Don't assume that shareholders will support the policy every year. Challenges to DEI policies will continue, so you should continually review your position to mitigate unforeseen risks.
Examine the successes and failures of anti-DEI proposals. Boards need to understand why shareholders vote on some anti-DEI measures and not others. How is each proposal written? What changes are being requested? How popular are these proposals? How have specific companies responded to anti-DEI proposals? Analyzing the voting results on anti-DEI proposals can help boards prepare similar proposals at their own companies.
Prepare an approved statement on how board members should respond when asked about DEI policies. Companies must create one statement on DEI that all boards of directors refer to. If the board is not unified, additional anti-DEI proposals will likely be submitted. Additionally, there is a possibility that certain members may be subject to dismissal as the board election approaches.
Array
(
[data_type] => boolean
[data] => False
[template] => /home/ka26lne/public_html/wp-content/themes/hello-elementor/index.php
)
Array
(
[data_type] => boolean
[data] => False
[template] => /home/ka26lne/public_html/wp-content/themes/hello-elementor/index.php
)
Array
(
[data_type] => array
[data] => Array
(
[ID] => 15192
[key] => field_62ffbcd2ee33a
[label] => State Select
[name] => ce_profile_shipping_address_state_select
[aria-label] =>
[prefix] => acf
[type] => select
[value] =>
[menu_order] => 14
[instructions] =>
[required] => 0
[id] =>
[class] =>
[conditional_logic] => 0
[parent] => 15171
[wrapper] => Array
(
[width] =>
[class] =>
[id] =>
)
[relevanssi_exclude] => 0
[hide_admin] => 0
[choices] => Array
(
[AL] => Alabama
[AK] => Alaska
[AZ] => Arizona
[AR] => Arkansas
[CA] => California
[CO] => Colorado
[CT] => Connecticut
[DE] => Delaware
[DC] => District of Columbia
[FL] => Florida
[GA] => Georgia
[HI] => Hawaii
[ID] => Idaho
[IL] => Illinois
[IN] => Indiana
[IA] => Iowa
[KS] => Kansas
[KY] => Kentucky
[LA] => Louisiana
[ME] => Maine
[MD] => Maryland
[MA] => Massachusetts
[MI] => Michigan
[MN] => Minnesota
[MS] => Mississippi
[MO] => Missouri
[MT] => Montana
[NE] => Nebraska
[NV] => Nevada
[NH] => New Hampshire
[NJ] => New Jersey
[NM] => New Mexico
[NY] => New York
[NC] => North Carolina
[ND] => North Dakota
[OH] => Ohio
[OK] => Oklahoma
[OR] => Oregon
[PA] => Pennsylvania
[RI] => Rhode Island
[SC] => South Carolina
[SD] => South Dakota
[TN] => Tennessee
[TX] => Texas
[UT] => Utah
[VT] => Vermont
[VA] => Virginia
[WA] => Washington
[WV] => West Virginia
[WI] => Wisconsin
[WY] => Wyoming
[AA] => Armed Forces (AA)
[AE] => Armed Forces (AE)
[AP] => Armed Forces (AP)
)
[default_value] =>
[return_format] => value
[multiple] => 0
[allow_null] => 1
[allow_in_bindings] => 1
[ui] => 0
[ajax] => 0
[placeholder] =>
[create_options] => 0
[save_options] => 0
[_name] => ce_profile_shipping_address_state_select
[_valid] => 1
)
[template] => /home/ka26lne/public_html/wp-content/themes/hello-elementor/index.php
)
