Appointments of women and racial minorities to S&P 500 boards have dropped to their lowest level in more than a decade as federal policy and shifting investor priorities coincide with a measurable pullback from diversity-focused recruitment, according to recent leadership-advisory research and interviews with recruiters, investors and human resources analysts.
Global executive search firm Spencer Stuart released data showing the percentage of new board appointments that were women or racial minorities has fallen after reaching earlier peaks. Of the 364 new independent directors named to S&P 500 boards in the year ended April 30, 40% were women or racial minorities, the lowest share recorded since 2014, when 39% of incoming directors were diverse. Spencer Stuart also reports that diverse directors today occupy 49.3% of seats on S&P 500 boards, marginally under a record of 49.6% reached in 2024 and 2025.
Recruiters and governance specialists who spoke about the data said those historic highs reflected several years of elevated hiring of diverse directors, in part following social movements that reshaped corporate priorities. But they warned that the current pattern of new hires is noticeably less diverse, a shift that could erode recent gains if it persists and a greater share of openings are filled by white men.
Where the decline in diverse appointments is coming from
One observable factor is a renewed emphasis on appointing current and former chief executives to boards. Spencer Stuart reports that CEOs accounted for 37% of new directors this year, the highest proportion in 15 years. Search firms say companies view former and sitting CEOs as well equipped to address complex strategic and operational challenges, but the talent pool of CEOs is less diverse than the broader candidate pool, contributing to the overall decline in diverse appointments.
Data from PeopleReturn, a human resources analytics firm, show a sharp fall in the number of S&P 500 companies that publicly state they use diversity criteria when making board selections. According to figures provided for the current year, 12% of S&P 500 companies now disclose using some form of diversity criteria in board decisions. That is down from 23% in 2025, the year noted as the start of the current presidential term, and from 48% in 2024.
PeopleReturn’s analysis also indicates board diversity across the index peaked at nearly 50% this year. Spencer Stuart and PeopleReturn say their tracking of board members’ race, ethnicity and gender relies on self-identified information supplemented by outside sources and research.
Policy, legal rulings and investor behavior
Observers link the retrenchment in corporate diversity efforts to a series of federal actions and legal developments that have placed DEI initiatives under scrutiny. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been directed by the administration to identify what it describes as illegal DEI practices, and the White House has issued executive orders restricting certain DEI programs among federal contractors and within the federal government. The administration has framed this agenda as restoring merit-based processes, with a spokeswoman saying the president "was resoundingly elected with a mandate to end divisive, racist policies and restore merit and efficiency." The president has also declared "our country will be woke no longer."
The 2023 Supreme Court decision that barred consideration of race in college admissions - though not directly ruling on corporate practices - is credited in interviews with prompting companies to reassess or abandon aspects of their diversity programs amid legal threats. The administration has warned that firms failing to comply with its directives could face substantial fines.
Federal enforcement actions have reached major corporations. In April, IBM agreed to pay $17 million to resolve allegations raised by the Justice Department that the company discriminated against some employees and did not comply with the administration’s orders concerning DEI programs for federal contractors. The Justice Department had alleged IBM prioritized diverse candidates in hiring and linked bonuses to demographic targets in employment decisions. In settlement filings, IBM denied wrongdoing and did not provide comment when contacted.
Investor and market pressure eases
At the same time, several of the largest asset managers that previously pressured companies to diversify boards have moved away from explicit diversity expectations. PeopleReturn’s CEO said a pullback in emphasis on DEI from top investors has reduced the external pressure on corporate leadership to demonstrate board diversity publicly.
Specific changes cited include the removal of language calling for minimum board diversity targets. For example, a leading asset manager that in late 2021 encouraged boards to reach 30% diversity no longer maintains that specific expectation, and a prominent passive manager that in 2022 advocated for gender, racial and ethnic diversity has stripped that language. Another major asset manager removed its expectation in February 2025 that at least 30% of major company boards be women. Representatives of these fund managers declined to comment for this reporting.
Recruiters also say the emphasis on diversity has weakened in C-suite searches. Spencer Stuart data show women and racial minorities constituted roughly 22% of all S&P 500 chief executives last year, down from 23% the prior year.
Corporate practices and responses
Several prominent companies that had championed board diversity have adjusted their policies or recruitment practices. Those cited in interviews include Johnson & Johnson, Goldman Sachs and American Express. In one notable change, Goldman early last year removed its requirement that companies it took public have at least two diverse board members, citing "legal developments" closely following the administration’s initial executive order on diversity initiatives. A Goldman spokesperson said the firm still believes diversity enhances performance and is critical to financial success. Johnson & Johnson and American Express did not respond to requests for comment.
Those who support DEI argue the programs expand opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups and enhance governance and decision-making. Advocates point to the multi-year rise in diverse board representation as evidence of progress. Kristin Hull, chief investment officer of an impact-focused investment firm active in social engagement, said the falloff in appointments reflects a reversion toward more male-dominated leadership, lamenting that "we were making such progress," and adding, "Now the bro culture is alive and well."
Opponents of corporate DEI initiatives frame them differently. Conservative activists who have publicly campaigned for companies to roll back diversity programs say those efforts distracted firms from core business objectives. One activist who has targeted several companies praised the shift away from DEI, arguing firms were focusing on "all the wrong things, and it shows in their earnings."
Shareholder reaction
Despite pressure from some activist investors, shareholder proposals aimed at rolling back corporate DEI efforts have received minimal support at annual meetings. Recent conservative-sponsored proposals addressing DEI reportedly garnered an average of only 1.5% support, a level described as typical for such proposals.
What recruiters and analysts are hearing
More than a dozen boardroom recruiters, investors and human resources analysts interviewed for this coverage described a discernible decline in the currency of diversity as a selection criterion. One headhunter said, "Today we hear more about 'the best person.' There’s less currency for being a person of color than there once was."
That sentiment was echoed by industry participants who note that while aggregate measures of board diversity remain near record levels, the composition of recent appointments suggests a directional change. If the trend toward appointing fewer women and racial minorities continues and more boards prioritize candidates drawn from the CEO ranks, the pace of diversification could slow or reverse.
Implications for markets and sectors
The shift in board recruitment practices could affect several corners of the corporate landscape. Financial institutions and large-cap companies - where investor stewardship and regulatory scrutiny are most intense - have been among the organizations that once actively pursued board diversification. A reduction in diversity emphasis among these firms may alter boardroom debate dynamics and influence oversight of strategy, risk management and regulatory engagement.
Human resources and executive search firms may see changes in demand patterns, with more mandates focused on CEO-like profiles and less on broadening demographic representation. Asset managers that shift away from public diversity expectations could change engagement priorities with portfolio companies, potentially reducing a lever that formerly promoted representative boards.
Data and methodology note
Spencer Stuart and PeopleReturn used a mix of self-identified demographic data supplemented with outside research to track race, ethnicity and gender among board members. Their reports form the statistical basis for the findings described here.
Conclusion
Recent data and industry interviews paint a consistent picture: while the overall percentage of diverse directors on S&P 500 boards remains near historic highs, the slate of newly appointed independent directors is becoming less diverse. That change reflects a combination of factors - greater reliance on CEO hires, federal policy and legal pressures on DEI programs, and a pullback by major investors who previously advocated for explicit diversity metrics. Those dynamics together suggest that sustaining recent boardroom diversity gains will depend on whether corporate recruitment and investor stewardship again prioritize representative leadership amid evolving political and legal constraints.