Skip to content

16 May, 2025

  • Saved Articles
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
  • Log In
  • Log Out

Board Agenda

  • Governance
  • Strategy
  • Risk
  • Ethics
  • News
  • Insight
    • Categories

      • View all
      • Governance
      • Strategy
      • Risk
      • Ethics
      • Board Expertise
      • finance
      • Technology
    • leadership on AI

      How to get ahead on AI leadership

      The question isn’t how AI will change business—it’s whether leaders can harness it to drive...

    • canada tariffs

      Corporate governance to the fore in Canada

      As Canada responds to the tariff conditions set by the US, companies need to take...

    • AI will transform

      4 ways AI will transform board dynamics

      Opportunities and challenges are arising from the integration of artificial intelligence into corporate governance.

  • Comment
      • View all
    • leadership on AI

      How to get ahead on AI leadership

      The question isn’t how AI will change business—it’s whether leaders can harness it to drive...

    • canada tariffs Corporate governance to the fore in Canada

      As Canada responds to the tariff conditions set by the US, companies need to take...

    • meritocracy Fairness makes for meritocracy

      Favouring actions over persuasion, boards can take small yet extremely effective steps to improve diversity,...

  • Interviews
      • View All Interviews
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars
    • financial sanctions Tariffs chaos drives boardroom focus on resilience

      Business leaders will prioritise the resilience of their organisations in the face of economic upheaval...

    • ai boards Corporate world has a ‘huge appetite’ for artificial intelligence

      AI could change boardrooms to the extent that directors’ duties would change too, a panel...

    • EU non-financial reporting reforms are an ‘opportunity’

      Firms can take advantage of the delayed implementation of CSRD and CSDDD to take stock...

  • Career
  • Resource Centre
      • White Paper Downloads
      • Book Reviews
      • Board & Governance Services
    • Director Reference Guide: Fostering the board-CEO relationship

      This Board Agenda Director Reference Guide on fostering the board-CEO relationship provides practical advice to...

    • Forvis Mazars AI 2025

      Performance Pulse: Are UK businesses prepared for AI?

      Forvis Mazars measured the AI preparedness of more than 300 UK businesses: 97% say they're...

    • Parker review cover

      Improving the Ethnic Diversity of UK Business, Parker Review update 2025

      The 2025 Parker Review update report, supported by EY. Over the past year, significant progress...

  • Events
  • Search by topic
    • Governance
    • Strategy
    • Risk
    • Ethics
    • Regulation
    • ESG
    • Investor Relations
    • Careers
    • Board Expertise
    • finance
    • Technology

New ISS benchmarks increase the pressure for diverse boards

by Elizabeth Saunders

The US ratings agency recommends voting against directors of firms without racially or ethnically diverse board members from 2022. But details are lacking.

Paper faces with different skin tones

Image: Lightspring/Shutterstock

Despite a lack of clear guidelines, Russell 3000 and S&P 1500 boards will need to demonstrate diversity or risk anti-management proxy votes.

In the wake of a turbulent year where racial inequalities in America rocked the nation with ripple effects from Main Street to Wall Street, ISS is making history by becoming the first ESG rating agency to take a hard stance to increase ethnic and racial diversity in publicly traded American companies.

The impact is clear: corporations can no longer merely talk the talk when it comes to diversity and inclusion. Indeed, they have a little more than a year to get their boards looking a lot more like the rest of the country. Or they could reap the repercussions of anti-management proxy votes in 2022.

US corporations have a little more than a year to get their boards looking a lot more like the rest of the country

The fact that ISS is traditionally seen as a middle of the road, usually-pro-management rating agency makes the new benchmark proxy voting policies it released on 12 November 2020 that much more notable. The policies, which will be applied for shareholder meetings taking place on or after 1 February 2021 specifically recommend voting against (or withholding votes from) directors for companies in the Russell 3000 or S&P 1500 “where the board has no apparent racial or ethnically diverse members, and no mitigating factors are identified”.

While ISS is putting more teeth behind its recommendations than usual, it’s not the first time an ESG ratings agency has played a role in influencing board makeup. Gender diversity has been steadily increasing over the past decade as rating firms advocated first for one woman on the board, and now require at least 33% of all board members to be female.

While reports are mixed as to whether or not board diversity improves market performance, gender-diverse boards have been found to consistently deliver other critical benefits, including supporting innovative activity and organisational change.

In most corporations, however, the women elected to the board are white women. Companies that are making progress in one area are further widening the ethnic/racial gap in corporate America at the same time.

Open-ended questions

While the case for ethnic and racial diversity at the board level is increasingly well understood—it’s the only way to ensure boards are representing the ideas and perspectives of the wide range of people their companies serve—the specifics on how to achieve diversity and how to disclose it are still somewhat fuzzy. Because ISS has not provided a framework for ethnic/racial board makeup disclosure, many open-ended questions remain on the table.

The US can look to its neighbours to the north for some insight. In Canada, public companies have been required to disclose the ethnic/racial makeup of its boards for several years. Canadian companies disclose this by designating board members as “visible minorities” and “aboriginal peoples”.

In America, however, things are a bit more complex. One of our greatest qualities as a nation is that we are a melting pot made up of people from all kinds of ethnic and racial backgrounds. Because that melting pot has been mixing for hundreds of years, it begs the question—is classifying someone as “white” or “non-white” really appropriate?

America is a melting pot made up of people from all kinds of ethnic and racial backgrounds… Is classifying someone as “white” or “non-white” really appropriate?

The whole idea of “white passing” complicates this even more. Passing happens when someone who is classified as a member of one racial group is accepted as a member of another based on appearance alone.

You can see the potential problems just waiting to boil over. If ISS will decide who is and who isn’t ethnically or racially diverse based on appearance, that implies that it will not consider “white passing” candidates as diverse, regardless of their background or heritage.

This, in turn, opens the door to tokenism, a problem that many female board directors can attest to personally. As boards have been required to appoint more women, females in these roles often report that other members do not take the time to review their experience or ask for their opinions on important business decisions. Behaviour like this uncovers troublesome assumptions among some who believe that women are only there to check a box, rather than because of their unique qualifications.

We could see this same problem manifest with diversity appointments. If companies must look for and choose clearly diverse candidates based primarily on appearance rather than consider any and every candidate who is qualified for the job, it undermines the very purpose and benefits of the diversity requirements in the first place.

Investors can help build diverse boards

As companies try to navigate the requirements and make changes that will allow them to reap the benefits of diversity at the governing level of their organisations, they are not alone. Investors often can be a source of support. Those with more significant ownership or long-term stakes may be able to recommend qualified candidates who can bring diverse thinking to the table.

Other less supportive activist investors attempting to nominate a winning opposition slate will also be under the same onus as the company to identify diverse candidates.

Traditionally, most activist slates have been very light on diversity, and very strong on alignment with the activist investor’s perspective. Now to win the support of shareholders (and ISS’s own positive recommendation), they will need to look further afield for strong and diverse candidates.

Companies can’t afford to wait

Yes, there are unanswered questions and the formula is far from perfect. But companies cannot afford to wait for more direction and clarify to take action on diverse boards.

ISS will provide a grace period for boards that do not currently have any ethnically/racially diverse members. But that grace period is compressed. Companies will need to disclose by 1 February 2022—about 14 months from now.

It’s up to boards and their investors to work together to build out the standard that ISS has left open-ended

If they do not, or if they cannot demonstrate ethnic and racial diversity, the companies will most likely see an increase in “no” votes during proxy season against one or more directors.

It’s up to boards and their investors to work together over the next year to build out the standard that ISS has left open-ended and decide how they will thoughtfully and purposefully classify their board members as ethnically and racially diverse.

While there is room for interpretation, the end goal should be this: ensure diverse thinking at the highest level of your company by onboarding people with unique backgrounds and perspectives. Then, give equal weight to every voice at your table.

Elizabeth Saunders is a founding partner at financial communications strategy firm Clermont Partners.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Mail

Related Posts

  • US boards slow diversity with poor retirement policies
    August 9, 2022
    boards diversity

    Only 6% of organisations have term limits for directors, and there is reluctance around mandatory retirement policies.

  • Women take 54% of FTSE 350 board roles but fail to win 'top jobs'
    May 30, 2022
    A group of directors in a boardroom

    Just 19% of chair, chief executive, chief financial officer or senior independent director roles went to women in 2021.

  • BLM protests see investors back boards with black directors
    October 4, 2021
    BLM protest in Washington DC

    The recruitment of black directors and the discussion of diversity in company documents both increased following the death of George Floyd.

  • Diversity statements are not all ‘cheap talk’, finds study
    September 22, 2022
    George Floyd diversity

    After the murder of George Floyd, many US companies committed to increasing diversity—and some have backed up their words with action.

For thoughtful journalism, expert insights on corporate governance and an extensive library of reports, guides and tools to help boards and directors navigate the complexities of their roles, subscribe to Board Agenda

Board composition, board diversity, diversity & inclusion, Elizabeth Saunders, ISS, proxy voting, Russell 3000, S&P 1500, US

Search


Follow Us

Boardroom Intelligence

Stay in the know and register for free to receive our essential Boardroom Intelligence Briefing featuring:

  • Top governance headlines, expert opinion & boardroom insights, exclusive whitepapers & strategy guides, delivered to your inbox every week – Sign up here

 

Most Popular

Featured Resources

wef global risks 2025

The Global Risks Report 2025

The 20th edition of the Global Risks Report reveals an increasingly fractured global...
Supply chain management cover

Strategic Oversight in Supply Chain Management: A Guide for Corporate Boards 2025

Supply chains have become complex, interdependent and opaque and—according to research...
OB-Cyber-Security

Cyber Security: What Boards Need to Know

Maintaining firewalls, protecting servers and filtering malicious emails rarely make...

The IA’S Principles Of Remuneration 2024 2025

This guidance from the Investment Association is aimed at assisting remuneration...
Diligent 2024 leadership tech cover

Leadership, decision-making & the role of technology: Business survey 2024

This research report by Board Agenda and Diligent sheds light on how board directors...

Director Reference Guide: Navigating Conflict in the Boardroom

The 'Director Reference Guide' on navigating conflict in the boardroom provides practical...
Nasdaq 2024 governance report cover

Nasdaq 2024 Global Governance Pulse

This Nasdaq survey gathered data from more than 870 board members, executives, and...

Becoming a non-executive director (4th edition)

Board composition is the subject of much debate, while the role of the non-executive...
art & science brainloop new cover

The Art & Science of Creating an Effective Board

Boards are coming under more scrutiny and pressure than ever before from regulators,...
SAA First time NED guide

First Time Guide for Non-Executive Directors

The role of the non-executive director has never been more vital: to advise, support,...

Register Free

By registering you will be able to access one premium article each month, selected partner newsletters and content, plus updates about our events and podcasts. Register


  • Editors & Contributors
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Board & Governance Services
  • Media Marketing Solutions
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Board Director Network
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookies
|

Copyright © 2025 Questor Media Group Ltd.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sitemap