Resolution askConduct due diligence, audit or risk/impact assessment
ESG sub-theme- Diversity, equity & inclusion (DEI)
Type of voteShareholder proposal
Company sectorHealth Care
Company HQ countryUnited States
Resolved clauseResolved: Shareholders of the Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (‘‘the Company’’) request that the Board of Directors
commission an audit analyzing the impacts of the Company's Diversity, Equity & Inclusion policies on civil rights,
non-discrimination and returns to merit, and the impacts of those issues on the Company's business. The audit may, in the
Board's discretion, be conducted by an independent and unbiased third party with input from civil rights organizations,
public-interest litigation groups, employees and shareholders of a wide spectrum of viewpoints and perspectives. A report
on the audit, prepared at reasonable cost and omitting confidential or proprietary information, should be publicly
disclosed on the Company's website.
Supporting statementSupporting Statement:
As a company that conducted human experiments on Guatemalans,1
BMS is in no position to lecture any of its employees,
suppliers or other so-called ‘‘stakeholder’’ on the principles of ‘‘Diversity, Equity & Inclusion’’ (DEI).
Under the guise of ESG, many companies — including Bank of America, American Express, Verizon, Pfizer, CVS and BMS
itself2 — have adopted DEI programs, trainings and officers that seek to establish racial and social ‘‘equity.’’ But in
practice, what ‘‘equity’’ really means is the distribution of pay and authority on the basis of race, sex, orientation and
ethnicity rather than by merit.3
Where adopted, such programs have raised significant objections, including the concern that the programs and practices
themselves are deeply racist, sexist, otherwise discriminatory and potentially in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.4
And that by devaluing merit, corporations have sacrificed employee competence, moral and productivity to the altar of
‘‘diversity.’’
These practices create massive reputational, legal and financial risk. If the Company is, in the name of so-called ‘‘equity,’’
committing illegal or unconscionable discrimination against employees deemed ‘‘non-diverse,’’ then the Company will
suffer in myriad ways — all of them both unforgivable and avoidable.
In developing the audit and report, the Company should consult civil-rights and public-interest law groups, but it must not
compound error with bias by relying only on left-leaning organizations. It must consult groups across the spectrum of
viewpoints, including right-leaning civil-rights groups representing people of color — such as the Woodson Centers5
or
Project 216 — and groups that defend the rights and liberties of all Americans.
Similarly, when including employees in the audit, the Company must allow employees to speak freely and confidentially
without fear of reprisal or disfavor. Too many employers have established company stances that silence employees who
disagree with the company's asserted positions, and then pretended that those who have been empowered by the
companies' partisan positioning represents the true and only voice of all employees. This creates a deeply hostile
workplace for some employees, and is both immoral and likely illegal.