Connect with us

Business

Anti-DEI movement has inadvertently made corporate diversity stronger

Published

on



Andrew Behar is CEO of As You Sow, a nonprofit promoting environmental and social corporate responsibility.

DEI is everywhere these days. Perhaps you attended Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training at work or heard the loaded term “DEI hire” on cable news. Advocates argue diversity initiatives dismantle systemic biases that keep the best workers from being hired and promoted. Critics say these programs are discriminatory and leave white workers behind. Executives and board directors have had to walk a fine line, but ultimately, they report to shareholders. As this year’s proxy voting season approached, the business community wondered: Would investors vote to dismantle or defend DEI? 

The answer was unequivocal. Over 20 shareholder resolutions were filed this year asking iconic companies to end DEI programs, including at Visa, Deere, Boeing, Goldman Sachs, Levi’s, American Express, Coca-Cola, Berkshire Hathaway, McDonalds, Amazon, Netflix, Walmart, Alphabet, American Airlines, Caterpillar, Best Buy, and Mastercard. Across these annual meetings, over $9.8 trillion in share value voted with management to continue DEI policies and programs. 

Proposals from one serial anti-DEI filer asked companies to “terminate all DEI policies and programs that grant or deny employment or advancement opportunities based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics.” On the surface, few would argue that opportunity should not be based on race or sex, but the underlying intent of anti-DEI resolutions was to exploit racist and misogynistic tropes with little regard for the business. 

Defending DEI

Apple CEO Tim Cook, known for measured statements, reminded shareholders that innovation thrives on diverse perspectives: “Our strength has always come from hiring the very best people and then providing a culture of collaboration, one where people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives come together to innovate and create something magical.” The anti-DEI proposal presented at Apple was overwhelmingly defeated by 98% of shareholders. 

At Disney, executives stood firm against anti-DEI proposals that sought to withdraw the company from diversity benchmarks. The message from Disney leadership was clear: Diverse voices and stories are not a political statement—they are core to the magic that captivates global audiences. Disney’s shareholders agreed, rejecting the proposal with nearly 99% opposition. 

Across Pfizer, Goldman Sachs, Costco, and other major corporations, the trend could not have been more obvious: Anti-DEI proposals “landed with a notable thud” as shareholders stood firm with management with an average 98% votes against ending diversity programs. The votes were extraordinary considering a group of conservative attorneys general threatened shareholders that voting against anti-DEI resolutions could be illegal

Driving growth

The near-unanimous votes reflected deep shareholder trust in the boards and executives who defended DEI publicly and forcefully. When investors have near-unanimous alignment with management—including the assertion that diversity programs drive growth, innovation, and long-term value—executives and the board have the strongest possible mandate to cement DEI as a corporate imperative. 

Far from being swayed by political theater, shareholders sided decisively with the evidence. For example, the Diversity Dividend report from my organization, As You Sow, analyzed 1,641 U.S. companies over five years (2016–2022.) Results showed a statistically significant correlation between diverse management teams and superior financial outcomes, including enterprise value growth rate, free cash flow per share, return on invested capital, and 10-year total revenue compound annual growth rate. Results were so conclusive that investors would have been in breach of their fiduciary duty if they supported proposals to end DEI. 

For these financial reasons, high-profile business leaders have publicly supported diversity programs despite potential political backlash. Costco, for instance, effectively defended its DEI programs, resulting in stable growth and improved employee morale. Conversely, Target, which relented to DEI criticism from social media activists, experienced drops in employee satisfaction and weaker sales. As a general rule, companies that followed legal advice not to capitulate to DEI attacks saw higher reputation scores in 2025. 

Diversity on the rise

In my recent Fortune op-ed, I argued that beneath the heated rhetoric, both proponents and critics actually agree on a fundamental point: Meritocracy should rule. No serious advocate for diversity programs argues against hiring the best candidate for the job. Rather, the debate hinges on whether the playing field is truly level. DEI initiatives aim to remove unseen barriers and unconscious bias, ensuring meritocracy functions as intended.  

Thanks to well-funded anti-DEI crusaders, a once-obscure acronym for corporate diversity programs is now part of the cultural lexicon. In targeting companies with lawsuits, executive orders, legislation, and shareholder resolutions, the politically motivated campaign hell-bent on stopping the erosion of white dominance forced C-suites and boardrooms across America to articulate—sometimes for the first time—why diversity is essential to financial performance. 

The 2025 proxy season affirmed diversity as an essential business principle grounded in business data, immune to fleeting political pressures. The dramatic confrontations that played out at over 20 companies solidified DEI’s place in the corporate world. For investors, executives, and employees alike, the message was loud and unmistakable: Corporate diversity programs aren’t going away—they are stronger than ever.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk and Bill Gates are wrong about AI imminently replacing all jobs. ‘That’s not what we’re seeing,’ LinkedIn exec slams

Published

on



The future of work as we know it is hanging by a thread—at least, that’s what many tech leaders consistently say. Elon Musk predicts AI will replace all jobs in less than 20 years. Bill Gates says even those who train to use AI tools may not be safe from its claws. And then there’s Klarna’s CEO, Sebastian Siemiatkowski, who is even warning workers that “tech bros” are sugarcoating just how badly it’s about to impact jobs.

But according to one LinkedIn exec, that’s simply not what the data is showing. 

With hundreds of millions of workers hunting for jobs and employers posting open roles in real time, LinkedIn acts as one of the clearest barometers of what’s actually happening on the ground—and its managing director for EMEA, Sue Duke, is not buying the AI apocalypse narrative.

“That’s not what we’re seeing,” Duke revealed at the Fortune CEO Forum in The Shard in London. When asked about an AI-induced hiring slowdown she insisted that the opposite is actually true. 

“What we’re seeing is that organizations who are adopting and integrating this technology, they’re actually going out and hiring more people to really take advantage of this technology,” Duke explained. 

“They’re going out and looking for more business development people, more technologically savvy people, and more sales people as they realize the business opportunities, the innovation possibilities, and ultimately the growth possibilities of this technology.”

For the millions of job seeking Gen Zers—who keep being told that entry-level jobs are about the get swallowed by AI and that a youth unemployment crisis is well underway—the news will be a welcome surprise.

LinkedIn exec breaks down exactly what employers are looking for from new hires in 2026

For those looking to make the most of the job market’s shift, Duke says there are two key areas to upskill in.

The first, no surprise one, is AI skills. Whether that’s literacy, tooling, prompt-writing, or more technical capabilities, “we continue to see those AI skills being red, red hot in the labor market,” she said. 

With companies racing to integrate automation into products and workflows, that demand isn’t cooling anytime soon—no matter what industry you’re looking to work in. “We see a huge demand for those skills across the board, economy-wide, across all sectors, and tons of companies looking for those,” Duke added.

As AI takes over many administrative tasks, it’s putting the spotlight on job functions that bots can’t do. “Those unique human skills,” Duke said, is the second area of focus for employers. “They remain rock solid, constant at the heart of hiring desires and demands out there. They’re not going away either.”

She called out communication, team building, and problem solving, as some of those human skills that will stand the test of time: “They’re the ones to invest in.”

And ultimately, the skill employers are zeroing in on most isn’t technical at all—it’s adaptability. Bosses know the tools will change faster than job titles. What they want is someone who can change with them.

“The most important thing for job seekers to think about is the mindset that you’re also bringing to the table,” Duke concluded. 

“What employers are really looking for is that growth mindset and understanding that this technology is moving very, very quickly, and we need adaptability. Adaptability is right at the top of those most in-demand skills, so making sure you’re bringing that mindset, bringing that agility with you, that’s going to be hugely important.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump wants more health savings accounts. A catch: they can’t pay insurance premiums

Published

on



With the tax-free money in a health savings account, a person can pay for eyeglasses or medical exams, as well as a $1,700 baby bassinet or a $300 online parenting workshop.

Those same dollars can’t be used, though, to pay for most baby formulas, toothbrushes — or insurance premiums.

President Donald Trump and some Republicans are pitching the accounts as an alternative to expiring enhanced federal subsidies that have lowered insurance premium payments for most Americans with Affordable Care Act coverage. But legal limits on how HSAs can and can’t be used are prompting doubts that expanding their use would benefit the predominantly low-income people who rely on ACA plans.

The Republican proposals come on the heels of a White House-led change to extend HSA eligibility to more ACA enrollees. One group that would almost certainly benefit: a slew of companies selling expensive wellness items that can be purchased with tax-free dollars from the accounts.

There is also deep skepticism, even among conservatives who support the proposals, that the federal government can pull off such a major policy shift in just a few weeks. The enhanced ACA subsidies expire at the end of the year, and Republicans are still debating among themselves whether to simply extend them.

“The plans have been designed. The premiums have been set. Many people have already enrolled and made their selections,” Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the president of the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, warned senators on Nov. 19. “There’s very little that this Congress can do to change the outlook.”

Cassidy’s Plan

With health savings accounts, people who pay high out-of-pocket costs for health insurance are able to set aside money, without paying taxes, for medical expenses.

For decades, Republicans have promoted these accounts as a way for people to save money for major or emergent medical expenses without spending more federal tax dollars on health care.

The latest GOP proposals would build on a change included in Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which makes millions more ACA enrollees eligible for health savings accounts. Starting Jan. 1, those enrolled in Obamacare’s cheapest coverage may open and contribute to HSAs.

Now Republicans are making the case that, in lieu of the pandemic-era enhanced ACA subsidies, patients would be better off being given money to cover some health costs — specifically through deposits to HSAs.

The White House has yet to release a formal proposal, though early reports suggested it could include HSA contributions as well as temporary, more restrictive premium subsidies.

Sen. Bill Cassidy — a Louisiana Republican who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and is facing a potentially tough reelection fight next year — has proposed loading HSAs with federal dollars sent directly to some ACA enrollees.

“The American people want something to pass, so let’s find something to pass,” Cassidy said on Dec. 3, pitching his plan for HSAs again. “Let’s give power to the patient, not profit to the insurance company.”

He has promised a deal can be struck in time for 2026 coverage.

Democrats, whose support Republicans will likely need to pass any health care measure, have widely panned the GOP’s ideas. They are calling instead for an extension of the enhanced subsidies to control premium costs for most of the nearly 24 million Americans enrolled in the ACA marketplace, a larger pool than the 7.3 million people the Trump administration estimates soon will be eligible for HSAs.

HSAs “can be a useful tool for very wealthy people,” said Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. “But I don’t see it as a comprehensive health insurance opportunity.”

Who Can Use HSAs?

The IRS sets restrictions on the use of HSAs, which are typically managed by banks or health insurance companies. For starters, on the ACA marketplace, they are available only to those with the highest-deductible health insurance plans — the bronze and catastrophic plans.

There are limits on how much can be deposited into an account each year. In 2026 it will be $4,400 for a single person and $8,750 for a family.

Flexible spending accounts, or FSAs — which are typically offered through employer coverage — work similarly but have lower savings limits and cannot be rolled over from year to year.

The law that established HSAs prohibits the accounts from being used to pay insurance premiums, meaning that without an overhaul, the GOP’s proposals are unlikely to alleviate the problem at hand: skyrocketing premium payments. Obamacare enrollees who receive subsidies are projected to pay 114% more out-of-pocket for their premiums next year on average, absent congressional action.

Even with the promise of the government depositing cash into an HSA, people may still opt to go without coverage next year once they see those premium costs, said Tom Buchmueller, an economics professor at the University of Michigan who worked in the Biden administration.

“For people who stay in the marketplace, they’re going to be paying a lot more money every month,” he said. “It doesn’t help them pay that monthly premium.”

Others, Buchmueller noted, might be pushed into skimpier insurance coverage. Obamacare bronze plans come with the highest out-of-pocket costs.

An HHS Official’s Interest

Health savings accounts can be used to pay for many routine medical supplies and services, such as medical and dental exams, as well as emergency room visits. In recent years, the government has expanded the list of applicable purchases to include over-the-counter products such as Tylenol and tampons.

Purchases for “general health” are not permissible, such as fees for dance or swim lessons. Food, gym memberships, or supplements are not allowed unless prescribed by a doctor for a medical condition or need.

Americans are investing more into these accounts as their insurance deductibles rise, according to Morningstar. The investment research firm found that assets in HSAs grew from $5 billion 20 years ago to $146 billion last year. President George W. Bush signed the law establishing health savings accounts in 2003, with the White House promising at the time that they would “help more American families get the health care they need at a price they can afford.”

Since then, the accounts have become most common for wealthier, white Americans who are healthy and have employer-sponsored health insurance, according to a report released by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office in September.

Now, even more money is expected to flow into these accounts, because of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Companies are taking notice of the growing market for HSA-approved products, with major retailers such as Amazon, Walmart, and Target developing online storefronts dedicated to devices, medications, and supplies eligible to be purchased with money in the accounts.

Startups have popped up in recent years dedicated to helping people get quick approval from medical providers for various — and sometimes expensive — items, memberships, or fitness or health services.

Truemed — a company co-founded in 2022 by Calley Means, a close ally of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — has emerged as one of the biggest players in this niche space.

A $9,000 red cedar ice bath and a $2,000 hemlock sauna, for example, are available for purchase with HSA funds through Truemed. So, too, is the $1,700 bassinet, designed to automatically respond to the cries of a newborn by gently rocking the baby back to sleep.

Truemed’s executives say its most popular products are its smaller-dollar fitness offerings, which include kettlebells, supplements, treadmills, and gym memberships.

“What we’ve seen at Truemed is that, when given the choice, Americans choose to invest their health care dollars in these kinds of proven lifestyle interventions,” Truemed CEO Justin Mares told KFF Health News.

Means joined the Department of Health and Human Services in November after a stint earlier this year at the White House, where he worked when Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law in July. Truemed’s general counsel, Joe Vladeck, said Means left the company in August.

Asked about Means’ potential to benefit from the law’s expansion of HSAs, HHS spokeswoman Emily Hilliard said in a statement that “Calley Means will not personally benefit financially from this proposal as he will be divesting from his company since he has been hired at HHS as a senior advisor supporting food and nutrition policy.”

Truemed is privately held, not publicly traded, and details of how Means will go about divesting have not been disclosed.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Netflix lines up $59 billion of debt for Warner Bros. deal

Published

on



Netflix Inc. has lined up $59 billion of financing from Wall Street banks to help support its planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc., which would make it one of the largest ever loans of its kind.

Wells Fargo & Co., BNP Paribas SA and HSBC Plc are providing the unsecured bridge loan, according to a statement Friday, a type of financing that is typically replaced with more permanent debt such as corporate bonds.

Under the deal announced Friday, Warner Bros. shareholders will receive $27.75 a share in cash and stock in Netflix. The total equity value of the deal is $72 billion, while the enterprise value of the deal is about $82.7 billion.

Bridge loans are a crucial step for banks in building relationships with companies to win higher-paying mandates down the road. 

A loan of $59 billion would rank among the biggest of its type, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA obtained $75 billion of loans to back its acquisition of SABMiller Plc in 2015, the largest ever bridge financing, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.