Converging on disclosure
This research examines the shifting landscape of corporate racial disclosures, noting a recent trend towards retrenchment. It argues that mandatory disclosure remains politically viable through interest-convergence. While progressives and conservatives disagree on racial equity goals, both can converge on the utility of transparency to monitor or challenge corporate behaviour.
Please login or join for free to read more.
OVERVIEW
Introduction
This research examines a defining tension in corporate governance: the shift in corporate commitments to racial inclusion. In February 2026, Goldman Sachs announced the removal of race, gender identity, and sexual orientation criteria from its board governance considerations. This decision reflects a broader reset as the legal and political environment surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has transformed. The essay builds upon Atinuke Adediran’s book, Disclosureland, which argues that racial progress in corporate America has historically depended on federal intervention rather than voluntary benevolence.
Disclosure and the boundaries of racial progress
The report demonstrates that voluntary corporate commitments, absent regulatory backbone, have proven to be extremely fragile and lack the durability necessary for meaningful long-term change. Historical analysis of the “Plans for Progress” programme in the 1960s reveals that seemingly voluntary commitments were actually driven by Executive Order 10925 and federal contracting power. Contemporary developments show a significant contraction of information; a January 2026 survey found that 85 percent of S&P 100 companies decreased the length of their human capital disclosures in 2025. Reductions were partially driven by firms scaling back diversity-related disclosures, with acronyms like “DEI” and “DE&I” being completely removed from all S&P 100 human capital disclosures in 2025.
Converging on racial disclosures
This section advances the central argument: mandatory corporate racial disclosure is politically and normatively viable because ideological opponents may converge on the importance of transparency itself. Drawing on Derrick Bell’s interest-convergence thesis, the authors contend that both advocates and critics of racial justice initiatives have incentives to demand data. Progressives require information to measure stagnation and enforce accountability, while conservative critics benefit from demographic transparency to articulate claims of “unlawful race-based favouritism” or “reverse discrimination”. This is illustrated by the EEOC’s February 2026 enforcement action against Nike, which sought documentation regarding layoff criteria and tracking of race and ethnicity data to investigate allegations of systemic discrimination against white workers.
Consequences of required corporate racial disclosures
The research argues that corporations are not monolithic; they represent a broad range of ideologies and purposes. Mandatory disclosures illuminate these differences, allowing stakeholders to sort among firms. Transparency serves as a floor for democratic accountability, enabling investors, employees, and consumers to align their support with firms that reflect their values. Corporations wield extraordinary structural power and receive state-granted privileges; the authors argue that these privileges should create corresponding obligations of transparency. Mandatory racial disclosures centre on transparency to leverage interest-convergence while supporting the contemporary system of corporate pluralism.
Additional considerations
Corporate leadership may be the primary objector to providing racial disclosures due to multidirectional risks. Firms face reputational and litigation risks from both sides of the political aisle: from the right if initiatives appear race-conscious, and from the left if disclosures reveal disparities. However, the report suggests that resisting disclosure may be strategically ill-considered. Research indicates that sustained commitments to socially responsible governance and transparency correlate with reduced litigation exposure. One longitudinal study found that a one-unit increase in corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance was associated with approximately a thirteen percent reduction in the number of lawsuits faced by a firm.
Conclusion
The research concludes that corporate racial disclosure requires a floor established by federal mandates. Such a requirement, narrowly framed around specified metrics and standardised categories, may attract broad support because it serves multiple purposes simultaneously. By focusing on standardised, disaggregated workforce metrics rather than ideological labels, a path forward on mandated corporate racial disclosures becomes politically feasible, ensuring that essential facts are available in the public square for all stakeholders to assess firm performance.
