Almost 70 institutional investors have signed a statement led by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) urging the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to continue collecting workforce demographic data and calling on companies to maintain public disclosure of the information even if federal reporting requirements are removed. The intervention follows the EEOC's proposal to rescind requirements for employers to file annual EEO-1 workforce demographic reports.

The debate has rapidly evolved beyond a narrow question of employment reporting. For investors, EEO-1 disclosures have become one of the most widely used sources of standardised workforce data, while efforts to limit access to such information increasingly intersect with broader disputes over shareholder rights, corporate transparency and board oversight. The issue is also emerging at a time when companies and investors face a changing regulatory landscape for shareholder proposals.

Investors challenge EEO-1 rollback

The investor statement argues that ending mandatory EEO-1 reporting would weaken market transparency and reduce investors' ability to make informed decisions. Signed by 67 investors representing more than U$1 trillion in assets under management, the letter includes organisations such as AkademikerPension, Impax Asset Management, Nest and Storebrand Asset Management.

According to the signatories, EEO-1 reports provide a consistent framework for evaluating workforce composition and trends across companies. Investors say the data helps inform assessments of human capital management, discrimination and litigation risks, while also enabling comparisons between issuers that would become more difficult if disclosure became voluntary.

The statement also highlighted the long history of workforce demographic reporting in the US, noting that employers have submitted EEO-1 and related data to the EEOC for more than 60 years. Investors argued that removing the requirement would dismantle an established reporting system relied upon by both regulators and market participants.

“These attempts by the EEOC’s current leadership to upend decades of precedent by ending these disclosure requirements are harmful and short-sighted,” said Nadira Narine, Senior Director of Strategic Initiatives at ICCR, in a statement. “They are part of a broader and alarming pattern in the federal administration to dismantle the achievements of the Civil Rights movement.

“However, investors and companies understand the importance of this data and the value more broadly of efforts to create diverse, dynamic and resilient teams in the workplace. We call on companies to honor and continue this longstanding practice, whether or not the EEOC scraps this requirement.”

Proposal disputes highlight governance risks

The EEO-1 debate is also becoming a shareholder-rights issue, illustrating how workforce disclosure has evolved from a human-capital topic into a governance question.

Earlier this year, shareholders sued AT&T after the company sought to exclude a proposal requesting public disclosure of its Consolidated EEO-1 Report. The company rapidly reversed course, allowing the proposal to proceed to a vote at its 2026 annual meeting in May where it received just short of 28% of votes cast in favour. The episode demonstrated continuing shareholder interest in workforce disclosure despite a wider backlash against DEI-related initiatives.

The dispute may also foreshadow a more contentious environment for shareholder proposals generally. Earlier this month, the SEC announced it would permanently stop responding to Rule 14a-8 ‘no action’ requests, ending a long-standing process through which companies sought regulatory support for excluding shareholder resolutions.

For investors and issuers alike, the change could increase the likelihood that proposal disputes are settled through litigation rather than SEC staff guidance. As a result, disagreements over topics such as workforce disclosure may increasingly become legal and governance matters, raising costs and uncertainty for both sides ahead of future proxy seasons.

The EEOC has defended the proposed reporting change on cost grounds. In announcing the rollback, the Commission said the current reporting regime imposes almost U$275 million in annual compliance costs on employers and roughly U$4 million in administrative costs on the agency. It concluded that the benefits of the reports were outweighed by those burdens.

Part of a wider shift in EEOC priorities

The proposal forms part of a broader shift in EEOC priorities since the start of President Donald Trump's second term in January 2025. In May, the agency highlighted actions it had taken in support of the administration's agenda, including efforts to challenge DEI-related race and sex discrimination initiatives, protect religious freedoms and address what it described as anti-American bias in employment practices.

One of the most closely watched examples involved Nike. In February, the EEOC sought records relating to the company's diversity and inclusion practices, including the use of race and ethnicity data and whether such information influenced executive compensation decisions. The agency later withdrew the subpoena action after receiving information and documents from the company, stating that no dispute remained for the court to resolve.

Nike was one of several companies drawn into the administration's scrutiny of corporate diversity initiatives. Just this week, Deloitte agreed to pay U$21.5 million to resolve Department of Justice allegations that it violated anti-discrimination requirements in federal contracts through race- and sex-based employment practices, while denying liability. The cases illustrate the broader policy environment in which workforce disclosure and DEI-related governance issues are being contested.

What this means for investors

If mandatory EEO-1 reporting ends, investors could lose access to one of the few standardised sources of workforce demographic data available across the US market. While some companies may continue disclosing the information voluntarily, reporting practices are likely to become less consistent, reducing comparability and increasing reliance on direct engagement with issuers.

Regardless of whether the EEOC ultimately proceeds with the rollback, the debate has already expanded beyond workforce disclosure. The growing connection between demographic reporting, shareholder proposal disputes and evolving SEC processes suggests that transparency decisions may increasingly become matters of governance, legal strategy and board accountability, rather than disclosure questions alone.