The Goldman Sachs Group plans to scrap DEI criteria from the way it evaluates potential board members, a move that aligns with a general pullback on formal diversity initiatives across the corporate US.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the bank will no longer explicitly factor race, gender or sexual orientation into its board selection framework, shifting its focus to professional experience or other qualifications instead.
It marks a clear change in tone from prior years, when many large US companies publicly embraced measurable diversity commitments. Goldman had previously required companies seeking to go public with its help to include at least one diverse board member, before later raising that threshold. That policy was dropped in 2023.
The change at Goldman comes as DEI programs face sustained legal and political pressure from US lawmakers and the public. In 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned board diversity rules adopted by Nasdaq. Those rules would have required most of exchange’s listed companies to disclose board diversity statistics and either include at least one woman and one member of an underrepresented group, else explain why they did not.
The Fifth Circuit held that the SEC lacked the authority under existing law to approve Nasdaq’s rule. The ruling effectively removed a regulatory framework that had pushed many companies to formalize board diversity targets. Without that structure, firms are no longer subject to exchange-level requirements tied to board composition.
Goldman’s shift also follows shareholder pressure. Conservative shareholder group the National Legal and Policy Center submitted a proposal calling for the firm to eliminate DEI-based board criteria. In response, Goldman agreed to remove those parts and the proposal was withdrawn. The decision highlights how boardroom policy is increasingly influenced by ideological debates as well as traditional governance concerns.
The retrenchment is not limited to Goldman. Just last year, State Street also rolled back elements of its board diversity push. Its asset management arm, State Street Global Advisors, had previously set specific standards for the companies in which it invests. At one point, it required boards of certain portfolio companies to have at least 30 percent women and at least one director from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group, or face votes against nominating committee members.
Earlier this year, State Street Global Advisors removed those targets from its proxy voting guidelines. The change was described as taking place amid a broader backlash against DEI initiatives.
Similarly, in its 2025 proxy statement, Uber significantly scaled back the way it discusses DEI and related governance commitments, including dropping past promises to consider diversity in executive and board recruitment and removing a previously dedicated section on its values and diversity. In previous proxy statements, Uber had included explicit language about its commitment to diversity when filling open board seats and assessing candidates for senior leadership roles.
The rollback does not necessarily mean that diversity practices will disappear from boardrooms. Many companies have already broadened the backgrounds represented on their boards over the past decade, while others may continue to pursue diverse candidates without formal quotas or published metrics.
But critics argue that removing formal criteria could slow progress, especially at companies where change has been incremental. Supporters say that boards should prioritize expertise, independence and strategic insight without being bound to demographic targets.
Goldman’s decision will undoubtably influence global capital markets. As one of the most prominent US investment banks moves away from explicit DEI criteria, it may lead to many others asking whether formal diversity benchmarks still have a place in board selection.