THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. | Racial equity audit at THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.

Status
11.62% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
8
Resolution details
Company ticker
GS
Lead filer
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Resolution ask
Conduct due diligence, audit or risk/impact assessment
ESG theme
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Diversity, equity & inclusion (DEI)
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Financials
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
RESOLVED that shareholders of Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“Goldman”) urge the Board of Directors to oversee an independent racial equity audit analyzing Goldman’s adverse impacts on nonwhite stakeholders and communities of color and the steps Goldman plans to take to mitigate such impacts. Input from civil rights organizations, employees, and customers should be considered in determining the specific matters to be analyzed. A report on the audit, prepared at reasonable cost and omitting confidential or proprietary information, should be publicly disclosed on Goldman’s website.
Supporting statement
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
High-profile police killings of black people have galvanized the movement for racial justice. That movement, together with the disproportionate impacts of the pandemic, have focused the attention of the media, the public and policy makers on systemic racism, racialized violence and racial inequities.
Goldman touts its $10 million Fund for Racial Equity" and the $17 million it “deployed” to “organizations supporting [COVID-19] relief efforts in communities of color.”1 But Goldman’s own diversity and inclusion record is subpar. According to its EEO-1 report, while Black workers make up 7.4% of Goldman’s U.S. workforce; only 2.9% of senior managers and 3.1% of lower level managers are Black; the proportion of Black senior managers declined between the 2020 and 2021 People Strategy Reports.2 A viral June 2020 email from a Black managing director stated: “[W]hile our firm expresses a commitment to equality and social justice up top, [junior colleagues] don’t necessarily see commitment and support from their direct managers.”3
Goldman’s proxy voting is misaligned with its stated commitment to racial equity. Of 14 large asset managers whose 2022 proxy voting records were analyzed by Majority Action, Goldman opposed more racial equity audit proposals than any manager besides Vanguard.
Goldman underwrites municipal bonds whose proceeds pay police brutality settlements. Goldman was lead underwriter for a 2017 Chicago offering that allocated $225 million for settlements and judgments and a 2020 refunding bond intended to “plug[] a huge hole” in the Chicago budget,4 including a $90 million increase in the amount appropriated for settlements and judgments.5 One report characterized these bonds as “a transfer of wealth from over-policed communities of color to Wall Street and wealthy investors.”6
Goldman’s philanthropy fund has donated to the Los Angeles, New York City, Houston and other police foundations,7 and Goldman Sachs Asset Management co-chaired the New York City police foundation’s 2019 annual gala.8 Police foundations buy equipment for police departments, including surveillance technology that has been used to target communities of color and nonviolent protestors.
We urge Goldman to assess its behavior through a racial equity lens to identify how it contributes to systemic racism, and how it could begin to help dismantle it.
1 https://www.goldmansachs.com/citizenship/fund-for-racial-equity/index.html2 https://www.goldmansachs.com/our-commitments/sustainability/2021-people-strategy- report/multimedia/report.pdf, at 45.3 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-goldman-sachs-race/goldman-sachs-executives-email- making-plea-for-racial-equality-goes-viral-at-firm-idUSKBN23C0864 https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/chicago-eyes-bigger-budget-savings-from-upsized-bond-refunding 5 https://emma.msrb.org/ES1338805-ES1044119-ES1447851.pdf, at 6.6 http://nathancummings.org/wp-content/uploads/PoliceBrutalityBonds-Jun2018-1.pdf, at 7.7 https://policefoundations.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Police-Report-2021_10_05_FINALV3.pdf, at 33.I8 https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1m0xjc8wmn3mf/Color-of-Change-Calls-on-Larry- Fink-to-Stop-Supporting-NYC-Police-Foundation

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation name Declared voting intentions Rationale
Anima Sgr For As an independent racial equity audit would help shareholders better assess the effectiveness of Goldman Sachs' efforts to address the issue of racial inequality for its stakeholders and its management of related risks. Goldman Sachs has provided information on its various efforts aimed at driving progress on the issue of racial and economic inequality on its website, in its People Strategy report, and in its proxy statement. However, the independent audit conducted focused primarily on the company's internal DEI programs, rather than the larger effects of its business practices on systemic racism, such as underwriting municipal bonds that can be used to pay police settlements, and charitable giving to police foundations that can be used to purchase equipment used to surveil communities of color. In addition, there has been a lack of input from "input from civil rights organizations, employees, and customers" to contribute to an independent audit.
Rothschild & co Asset Management For
KBI Global Investors For

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.