$13 Trillion on Corporate DEI

Originally published by Effenus Henderson on LinkedIn.

“Capitalism Embraces Inclusion: Why $13 Trillion in Corporate Capital Just Said NO to Anti‑DEI”

In a striking repudiation of anti-DEI efforts, shareholders of 30 major corporations collectively worth more than $13 trillion voted overwhelmingly to reject all proposals aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in 2025. Despite aggressive campaigns from conservative activists and organizations like Project 2025, the Free Enterprise Project (FEP), and figures like Robby Starbuck and the Heritage Foundation, shareholders aligned with board recommendations, voting down every anti-DEI resolution—most by margins of 98% to 99%.

Companies such as Apple, Costco, Walmart, Boeing, Goldman Sachs, Merck, McDonald’s, and lululemon not only rejected the proposals but doubled down on their commitment to DEI, with CEOs defending these initiatives as business imperatives tied to workforce performance, market competitiveness, and customer engagement.

CEOs like Doug McMillon (Walmart), Rob Davis (Merck), Tarang Amin (e.l.f. Beauty), and Ron Vachris (Costco)openly asserted that inclusive strategies are central to organizational identity and long-term success. These leaders publicly dismissed external pressures—including threats from 19 Republican attorneys general—and emphasized DEI’s impact on brand loyalty, employee retention, and bottom-line performance.

Notably, the free-market logic invoked by anti-DEI critics collapsed under the weight of actual shareholder behavior. Rather than being "communist" or "anti-capitalist," DEI is increasingly recognized by investors as a risk management and value creation strategy.

Why Those Who Push Back May Get Pushed Out: This wave of unanimous votes signals a paradigm shift in corporate governance: DEI is no longer just a values issue—it’s a fiduciary issue. Boards that fail to defend inclusion may lose credibility, investor confidence, and leadership standing. Executives who align with regressive ideologies risk being viewed as liabilities rather than assets in a global economy that prizes agility, diversity of thought, and inclusive innovation.

In short, pushing back on DEI may be a fast track to irrelevance—or even dismissal—as stakeholders assert that inclusion is not optional, but existential.

Key Takeaways for Leaders and Change Agents:

• Boards and shareholders are showing resolve in supporting DEI against political pressure.

• Fiduciary duty and strategic advantage are now intertwined with inclusion.

• Companies that remain silent or backpedal risk brand erosion, talent loss, and investor exit.

• Defenders of DEI are no longer isolated—they’re being publicly celebrated, awarded, and backed by institutional capital.

Bottom Line: In 2025, the market isn’t just tolerating DEI—it’s demanding it. Anti-DEI pushback isn’t just out of touch—it’s outvoted.

🔍 Expanded Recap & Insights:

• Shareholder Sentiment: In 2025, shareholders of 30 major corporations, representing a combined market value of $13 trillion (including 29 U.S. firms and Canada’s Lululemon), unequivocally rejected all anti-DEI proposals—some under the label “Cease DEI efforts”—with voting margins of 98–99% 

• Influence of Conservative Campaigns: Figures like Robby Starbuck (Project 2025, Heritage Foundation) and Stefan Padfield (Free Enterprise Project, National Center for Public Policy Research) led aggressive anti-DEI shareholder campaigns. Despite their efforts, boards and shareholders united in defense of inclusion 

• CEO & Board Defenses of DEI: At company AGMs, leaders like Merck’s Rob Davis (99–1 vote), Southern Company’s Chris Womack (98–2), Walmart’s Doug McMillon, and Costco’s Ron Vachris publicly endorsed DEI as core to values, strategy, and performance, even in the face of legal and political pushback 

• Continued Corporate Resilience: Costco, under pressure from 19 Republican state attorneys general demanding DEI rollback, maintained its stance. Its board affirmed DEI’s essential role in employee recruitment, retention, and overall 

• DEI as Fiduciary Strategy: Experts note that defying anti-DEI measures by such overwhelming margins isn’t just symbolic—it’s a fundamental fiduciary stand. As corporate governance professionals stated, these margins reflect a “chasm”—not nuance.

Source: https://www.thequeenzone.com/shareholders-of-companies-worth-13-trillion-vote-unanimously-to-defeat-anti-dei-proposals/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

🛡️ Implications: Why Anti‑DEI Pushback May Lead to Push‑Outs

Investor Confidence

Firms ignoring DEI risk alienating long-term institutional shareholders who tie it to risk management, innovation, and brand strength.Board CredibilityBoards and executives opposing DEI may be deemed misaligned with market expectations and fiduciary duty.

Talent & Culture Impact

Inclusion influences workforce performance and morale. Opposing it signals strategic complacency.

Reputational Risk:

Public reversal on DEI invites consumer and media scrutiny. Remaining firm positions companies as authentic and credible.

In essence, DEI resistance is no longer just “unpopular”—it's a strategic liability. Stakeholders have declared it's non-negotiable.

📝 Why It Matters to You as a DEI Leader

• This shareholder mandate strengthens your voice and authority on inclusion initiatives.

• It aligns your DEI work with shareholder value and governance best practices—not merely ethics or compliance.

• These results offer powerful leverage in advocating for DEI budget, strategic priorities, and board-level support.

✅ Key Takeaways

1. Market Momentum: Stakeholders literally voted with their capital, affirming DEI as a core business requirement.

2. Leadership Support: CEOs and boards are publicly defending inclusion, reinforcing its alignment with growth and performance.

3. Resistance = Risk: Opposing DEI may result in reputational and financial risks—and even leadership reassessments.

4. Data-Driven Narrative: With nearly 100% rejection margins, the business case for DEI has moved from moral imperative to strategic imperative.

Bottom line: DEI isn’t just safe—it’s profitable. And opponents aren’t just losing votes; they risk losing credibility, investment, and leadership as stakeholders reinforce inclusion as non-negotiable.