Amid mounting political and legal pressure, corporate DEI efforts, particularly in life sciences, are largely holding steady, with leadership, boards, and shareholders continuing to frame inclusion as a strategic driver of innovation, performance, and representative clinical research.
In a recent interview with Nancy Levine Stearns, founder of Impactivize, a nonprofit journalism initiative focused on accurate reporting on corporate diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA), Stearns discussed the evolving landscape of corporate diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI) amid intensifying political scrutiny. In addition to founding Impactivize, Stearns is a freelance journalist covering corporate social responsibility, a former executive recruiter, and was ranked the number one environmental, social, and governance (ESG) influencer on Twitter in 2020.1 Stearns has closely tracked how companies are responding to the current anti-DEI movement.2
The following discussion outlines key themes from the interview that are central to understanding corporate diversity initiatives amid the current landscape as well as a subsequent synthesis of corporate diversity imperatives in relation to clinical trial representation efforts.
As political scrutiny of DEI accelerates, corporations find themselves navigating a uniquely high-stakes environment. Despite public narratives suggesting retreat, shareholder behavior tells a different story.
Stearns observed that across 31 cross-industry shareholder meetings in 2025, all 31 companies overwhelmingly rejected anti-DEI shareholder proposals. While public rhetoric suggests that corporations are abandoning DEI, shareholder behavior tells a different story, one that reflects alignment among investors and boards that DEI remains integral to sustainable performance even amid political headwinds.
One of the most notable public responses came from Merck. During a shareholder Q&A, CEO Rob Davis described diversity and inclusion as a “strategic imperative,” stating that the company’s longstanding commitment to DEI enables Merck to fully execute on the scientific method and catalyze innovation across the enterprise.3 For a research-driven organization, this framing directly aligns DEI with the scientific rigor and innovation of drug development.
Stearns characterized the statement as a strong and unequivocal in a climate where many executives remain publicly cautious, making the statement even more remarkable
When asked about the role of leadership accountability in sustaining DEI initiatives amid increasing external pressure, Stearns pointed to Davis’s statement as a clear example of executive leadership at its highest level. “I see Rob Davis’s statement as probably the highest echelon of leadership, because it was bold,” Stearns said.
She emphasized that visible commitment from senior leadership is critical. Stearns also referenced a 2019 essay by Alex Gorsky, former Chairman and CEO of Johnson & Johnson, who underscored the importance of leadership engagement across the organization: “Advancing diversity and inclusion in corporate America depends on leadership at all levels…“ It requires setting the tone at the top that diversity and inclusion is a strategic business imperative,” Gorsky stated.4,5
Together, these perspectives reinforce the idea that DEI sustainability depends not only on policies, but on leaders willing to take responsibility and set the tone from the top.
When asked which industries or companies are currently demonstrating effective DEI practices, Stearns highlighted e.l.f. Beauty as a standout example. Rather than retreating amid political pressure, e.l.f. Beauty has publicly defended inclusion as central to its business model and sustained market share growth, reinforcing its long-term commitment to inclusivity. CEO Tarang Amin has been explicit that the company does not plan to change how it operates in response to external criticism.
“Tarang Amin has not been shy…and they have the results to prove it,” Stearns noted. “So that company really stands out as a leader to me.”
Caution among pharmaceutical executives is understandable. The industry operates under intense regulatory oversight, relies heavily on federal approvals, and is frequently exposed to litigation risk. In this environment, public positioning on DEI carries heightened legal and political implications.
Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), have signaled increased scrutiny of corporate DEI programs. As a result, DEI initiatives across industries may face expanded investigations, enforcement actions, or legal challenges. That scrutiny has been underscored by recent public statements from DOJ leadership. Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, stated, “The goal is clear. Either DEI will end on its own, or we will kill it.”5
This climate helps explain why many CEOs have chosen to limit public commentary, instead choosing quieter strategies by relying on boards, investors, and internal governance structures to sustain DEI efforts. “Most CEOs aren’t going to be bold about diversity and inclusion,” Stearns said. “They are understandably hesitant, given the extent of the government’s attacks.”
Still, most industry leaders appear unwilling to abandon practices they believe drive innovation, trust, and performance. Despite mounting pressure, most companies are not dismantling DEI programs. Instead, they are reframing by embedding DEI principles into broader organizational culture and business objectives. “Leaders are just in a very difficult position,” Stearns shared. “…what appears to me is that they're trying to hold the line—there's a lot of rebranding of DEI.” Rather than standalone DEI functions, initiatives are increasingly described in terms of “belonging,” “engagement,” “affinity groups,” or “culture and performance.” According to Stearns, while the language has changed, the underlying commitments largely remain intact.
“…the headlines have been grabbing like—companies are ditching DEI. That's how I started this project, really, because when I did some research…the headlines were a little bit misleading. In fact, most corporations maintain their commitments even if they're called other things.”
2025 research from Catalyst and the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging confirms that organizations are sustaining DEI values while adjusting execution to mitigate legal and political risk.6 This approach allows companies to remain compliant while preserving practices that leadership and investors view as essential to operational effectiveness.
The business case for DEI remains robust, particularly within research-driven industries such as pharmaceutical development. Stearns mentioned a substantial body of evidence consistently linking workforce diversity and inclusive cultures to stronger financial performance, increased innovation, and improved risk management.
Key findings include:
For life sciences companies, these outcomes translate into competitive advantage. Drug discovery and development depend on complex problem-solving, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and an understanding of diverse patient populations. Diverse scientific teams can generate broader perspectives, more innovative solutions, and stronger commercial outcomes that improve access and better meet patient needs cross-culturally.
As Gorsky articulated, “Extensive research shows that companies that prioritize diversity and inclusion are more successful, profitable, and innovative.”4
Clinical trial diversity is no longer a peripheral consideration. Regulators, clinicians, payers, and patients increasingly expect trial populations to reflect the real-world demographics of those who will ultimately use approved therapies, making organizational commitment to inclusion a prerequisite for equitable research practices. Despite this, clinical operations professionals are concerned that potential policy rollbacks could affect their organization’s ability to meet diversity goals.12
Achieving representative enrollment requires more than operational adjustments at the trial level. Evidence shows that clinical trial diversity is closely tied to broader organizational commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Industry guidance from organizations such as the FDA, ICMJE, and pharmaceutical trade associations has reinforced the importance of workforce diversity and inclusive governance in setting internal policies related to inclusive clinical trial design and recruitment.13 Companies with diverse leadership teams and inclusive cultures consistently outperform peers in innovation and execution, creating the structural conditions necessary to support equitable clinical research4,8,9 by formalizing leadership accountability, embedding inclusion into research strategy, and establishing measurement frameworks across business units.
Major pharmaceutical companies have translated corporate-level DEI commitments into concrete clinical trial diversity initiatives. Examples include expanding site selection into diverse metropolitan communities,14 investing in research staff training,15 and funding clinical research infrastructure at Historically Black Medical Schools.16 These efforts reflect how corporate inclusion strategies are operationalized through clinical development.
Workforce diversity within pharmaceutical companies plays a critical role in building patient trust, an essential factor in recruitment and retention.17 Research shows that the diversity of study teams is directly associated with the diversity of participants enrolled at trial sites,18 and that communities are more likely to engage with research teams that reflect their own backgrounds.19 Trust is further reinforced through sustained engagement and transparency around inclusive policies and practices—practices that are also paramount in the realm of corporate DEI.
As political rhetoric and policy debates intensify around DEI, there is growing concern that erosion of trust could undermine progress in clinical research participation, particularly among Hispanic and sexual and gender-diverse populations.11,20 In this context, corporate DEI commitments serve as both a stabilizing force and an operational enabler, ensuring that inclusive research initiatives remain credible, sustainable, and effective.
Together, the evidence supports three core conclusions:
Looking ahead, the future of corporate DEI remains uncertain amid intensifying legal and political pressure. What is certain is the unrelenting push against DEI. When asked, “If you had a crystal ball, how do you see corporate DEI evolving over the next few years?” Stearns responded, “That is a really, really tough one because…there are going to be lawsuits. There are already lawsuits…given the enormity of the stakes I think it's really just really hard to predict.” Stearns continued on to mention, “…Given the…very clear and obvious and collective business case for DEI that I keep seeing (we see it from shareholders, investors, boards, and CEOs), my hope would be that companies would stand by the business case.”
One of the clearest indicators of DEI’s staying power across the pharmaceutical industry is board behavior. Proxy statements from major companies continue to defend DEI initiatives and urge shareholders to reject anti-DEI proposals, reflecting a clear recognition of their business value. As Stearns emphasized, “DEI initiatives are entirely legal as long as they're implemented within the confines of the law,” a standard most corporations are already meeting.
In that context, Merck’s framing may offer a blueprint: positioning diversity and inclusion not as ideological, but as a strategic business decision rooted in evidence, performance and trust. For life sciences leaders, the challenge is no longer whether DEI belongs in the enterprise, but how clearly it is articulated and integrated as a driver of scientific rigor, operational excellence, and patient trust. In today’s environment, DEI is not a statement of values alone—it is a strategic infrastructure for innovation, trust, and inclusive science.
Rebecca Johnson, PhD, is a clinical research recruitment and inclusion executive and strategist. In her most recent role, Johnson led the clinical trial recruitment and diversity, equity, and inclusion functions at SPARC. Prior to that, she held several leadership positions within IQVIA’s patient recruitment team, including advising pharmaceutical sponsor teams with their efforts to achieve more diverse trial populations. Johnson has a master’s in public health and a PhD in health sciences. Her doctoral dissertation research focused on increasing access to clinical trials for historically underrepresented populations.
1. Impactivize (2025). About the founder.
2. Impactivize (2025). Latest from impactivize.
3. Stearns, N. (2025). [Post]. LinkedIn.
4. Gorsky, A. (2019, April 30). Alex Gorsky: Diversity and inclusion drives innovation and opportunity. Business Roundtable.
5. Impactivize (2025). Trump admin escalates war on DEI despite business imperatives, say CEOs.
6. Pollack, A., Glasgow, D., Bommel, T., Joseph, C., & Yoshino, K. (2025, June 11). Risks of retreat: The enduring inclusion imperative. Catalyst & Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging.
7. As you Sow (2023, November 28). Capturing the diversity benefit: Workforce diversity linked to financial performance. As you Sow.
8. Hunt, D., Yee, L., Prince, S., & Dixon-Fyle, S. (2018, January 18). Delivering through diversity. [Report]. McKinsey & Company.
9. Bourke, J. & Dillon, B. (2018, January). The diversity and inclusion revolution: Eight powerful truths. Deloitte Review, (22)
10. Human Rights Campaign Foundation (2025). The link between LGBTQ+ inclusion and business performance: Examining 15 years of HRC corporate equality index data. [Press Release]. Human Rights Campaign Foundation.
11. Todd, J. (2025, August 26). New data analysis shows LGBTQ+ inclusion linked to long-term business growth. [Press Release]. Human Rights Campaign.
12. Johnson, R. (2025, October). Are clinical trial diversity initiatives at risk of being dismantled? Applied Clinical Trials, 34(4), 5-7.
13. Miller, J., Pelletiers, W., Suttiratana, S., Mensah, M., Schwartz, J., Ramachandran, R., Gross, C., & Ross, J. (2024 July 11). Harnessing policy to promote inclusive medical product evidence: development of a reference standard and structured audit of clinical trial diversity policies. BMJ Medicine, 3:e000920.29, 1-9.
14. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (2024, August 1). Diversity in clinical trials is a scientific imperative.
15. Floersh, H. (2024, May 22). ‘We’re trying to do the right thing.’ GSK sets diversity targets, partners with DEI firm to educate trial staff. Fierce Biotech.
16. Sanofi (2024, October 16). Sanofi commits $18 million to Howard University College of Medicine, Meharry Medical College, and Morehouse School of Medicine to increase diversity in clinical studies. Sanofi US News.
17. Center for Information & Study on Clinical Research Participation (CISCRP). (2023). 2023 perceptions and insights study.
18. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. (2021). New study finds site personnel race and ethnicity highly correlated with diversity of patients enrolled [Impact Report]. Tufts University. 23(6) 1-4.
19. Das, S. (2024, January). Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in clinical trials. International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science, 6(1), 1548-1552.
20. Bravo, L. (2024, December 4). More DEI bans will have dire side effects for public health – clinician diversity may be at risk with the new administration. MEDPAGETODAY.
8 months ago
What’s Next for Clinical Technology?9 months ago
If You Build It ... Will They Come?
