THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. | Racial discrimination audit at THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.

Status
1.79% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
6
Resolution details
Company ticker
GS
Lead filer
National Center for Public Policy
Resolution ask
Conduct due diligence, audit or risk/impact assessment
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
Shareholders request that the Board of Directors oversee an independent racial discrimination audit analyzing Goldman’s legal and reputational risks stemming from its race-based initiatives. A report on the audit, prepared at reasonable cost and omitting confidential or proprietary information, should be publicly disclosed on Goldman’s website.
Whereas clause
WHEREAS:

The US Supreme Court ruled in SFFA v. Harvard that discriminating on the basis of race in college admissions violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.1

Attorneys General of 13 States warned Fortune 100 companies that SFFA implicates corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.2

Prior legal advice regarding the legality of racially discriminatory programs has been called into question post-SFFA.3

The Supreme Court ruled in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protected against discriminatory job transfers4 and lowered the bar for employees to successfully sue their employers for discrimination.5

The website of Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“Goldman”) provides numerous examples of Goldman engaging in arguably unethical and illegal racial discrimination, such as:



1.
Allocating mentorship resources on the basis of race.6



2.
Establishing race-based employee “Inclusion Networks.”7



3.
Committing “$10 billion in direct investment capital and $100 million in philanthropic support” on the basis of race and sex.8

4.
Expressly “aiming to achieve, by 2025, representation in our vice president population of … 7 percent Black professionals in the Americas and the UK.”9



5.
Announcing that “we would only take a company public in the US or Western Europe if it had … two diverse board members.”10
Supporting statement
SUPPORTING STATEMENT:

In 2023, a corporation was successfully sued for a single case of discrimination against a white employee resulting in an award of more than $25 million,11 and the risk of being sued for such discrimination appears only to be rising.12 With reportedly over 40,000 employees,13 even if only a fraction of employees file suit, and only some of those prove successful, the cost to Goldman could reach tens of billions of dollars. And this does not even include non-employee suits, such as from vendors or clients negatively impacted by Goldman’s race-based policies.14

Sensibly, many major companies have rolled back their DEI commitments and are laying off DEI departments.15 Alphabet and Meta cut DEI staff and DEI-related investments;16 Microsoft and Zoom laid off their entire DEI teams;17 Harley Davidson ceased its DEI efforts18 as did Jack Daniels.19 Since Muldrow, John Deere publicly halted DEI-related policies20 after Tractor Supply explicitly stated that it “eliminate[d] DEI roles and retire[d] our current DEI goals.”21 When Tractor Supply was the focus of Robby Starbuck’s anti-DEI campaign for three weeks, which merely exposed the truth about its DEI programs, they lost almost $3 billion in market cap.22

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.