DEI Lives at Levi’s: Less than 1% of Shares Voted to Ditch Diversity Programs

Levi Strauss & Co. is used to being a bit of a social lightning rod, having been early to support same-sex marriage, speak out on gun violence and institute paid family leave.

So it’s little surprise that the battle over diversity, equity and inclusion — a cause supercharged by U.S. President Donald Trump’s efforts to dismantle DEI in the government — landed at its annual meeting.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank, formerly submitted a proposal to shareholders calling for the company to “consider abolishing its DEI program, policies, department and goals.”

Shareholders have apparently considered the topic enough.

Investors holding less than 1 percent of Levi’s shares voted in favor of the proposal, according to a company spokesman.

Levi’s board advised shareholders to vote against the proposal.

That has shareholders aligned behind the board, which advised against the proposal, indicating “we believe in the strong business case for a diverse and inclusive workforce.”

Michelle Gass, president and chief executive officer of Levi’s, told WWD earlier this year: “We’ve been committed to diversity and inclusion for literally decades, and it’s the core to who we are. So our commitment remains unchanged. We will do what’s right for our people, for our business. And at the end of the day, building a diverse and inclusive workplace helps us deliver stronger results.”

David Jedrzejek, senior vice president and general counsel, confirmed at the virtual annual meeting that Levi’s did not use quotas or discriminatory policies in its recruitment or promotions.

Stefan Padfield, executive director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project, made his case at the meeting, arguing that DEI programs risk illegal discrimination.

“Rather than promote unity, DEI programs can set the very individuals they claim to be helping up for failure and stigma,” Padfield said. “Imagine what corporations could accomplish if they stop dividing us on the basis of race and sex and instead focused on raising the floor for all Americans in areas such as education, which are at the root of the pipeline problems driving our demographic inequalities.”

DEI programs were broadly embraced by corporate America, especially with the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement following the murder of George Floyd at the hands of police in 2020.

Just as politics whipsawed with the reelection of Trump, many companies also modulated their approach.

The shareholder proposal noted that “Alphabet and Meta cut DEI staff and DEI-related investments; and Microsoft and Zoom laid off their entire DEI teams.”

But Padfield acknowledged he likely had a losing battle at Levi’s, preempting the loss by addressing what he called a “deceptive narrative…that low vote counts for proposals such as this one means shareholders legitimately support DEI.”

“The majority of votes are controlled by institutions and individuals who are subject to conflicts of interest,” Padfield said, pointing to asset managers who have funds focused on environmental, social and governance issues and proxy advisers who consult companies on ESG.

“The proper headline should perhaps read something like, ‘No Trustworthy Shareholders Voted for DEI,’” he said.

That claim could not be substantiated, but failed to recognize that Levi’s and the vast majority of its shareholders are on the same page when it comes to DEI.