THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. | Racial Equity Audit at THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.

Status
Withdrawn
AGM date
Resolution details
Company ticker
GS
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Diversity, equity & inclusion (DEI)
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Financials
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Service Employees International Union has filed the following resolution. This will be updated in the lead filer field as soon as possible.

That shareholders of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (Goldman) urge the Board of Directors to oversee an independent racial equity audit analyzing Goldman’s impacts on nonwhite stakeholders and communities of color. Input from civil rights organizations, employees, and customers should be considered in determining the specific matters to be analyzed. A report on the audit, prepared atreasonable cost and omitting confidential and proprietary information, should be publicly disclosed on Goldman’s website.
Supporting statement
High-profile police killings of black people—most recently George Floyd—have galvanized the movement for racial justice. That movement, together with the disproportionate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, have focused the attention of media, the public and policy makers on systemic racism, racialized violence and inequities in employment, health care, and the criminal justice system. Goldman touts its $10 million Fund for Racial Equity, which will support organizations addressing racial injustice, and the $17 million it deployed to organizations supporting [COVID-19] relief efforts in communities of color.1 But Goldman’s own diversity and inclusion record is subpar. According to its EEO-1 report, while Black workers make up 6.8% of Goldman’s U.S. workforce; only 3.2% of senior managers and 3.1% of lower level managers are Black.2 A viral June 2020 email from a Black managing director stated: [W]hile our firm expresses a commitment to equality and social justice up top, [junior colleagues] don’t necessarily see commitment and support from their direct managers.3 Goldman’s proxy voting is misaligned with its stated commitment to racial equity. Of the 18 asset managers with assets under management of at least $1 trillion, Goldman was one of only five that voted against every racial equity audit proposal in 2021. Goldman also voted to reelect the nominating committee chairs at 87% of S&P 500 companies with all-white boards. Goldman underwrites municipal bonds which proceeds pay police brutality settlements. Goldman was lead underwriter for a 2017 Chicago offering that allocated $225 million and for settlements and judgments and a 2020 refunding bond intended to plug a huge hole in the Chicago budget,4 including a $90 million increase in the amount appropriated for settlements and judgments of various claims, including police brutality claims.5 One report characterized these bonds as a transfer of wealth from over-policed communities of color to Wall Street and wealthy investors.6 Goldman’s philanthropy fund has donated to the Los Angeles, New York City, Houston and other police foundations,7 and Goldman Sachs Asset Management co-chaired the New York City police foundation’s 2019 annual gala.8 Police foundations buy equipment for police departments, including surveillancetechnology that has been used to target communities of color and nonviolent protestors. We urge Goldman to assess its behavior through a racial equity lens to identify how it contributes to systemic racism, and how it could begin to help dismantle it.

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.