Jennifer McCollum is president and chief executive officer of Catalyst, a global nonprofit focused on advancing women in the workplace. Previously, she served as CEO of Linkage, a leadership development firm, and held leadership roles at CEB, now Gartner, and Korn Ferry. She is the author of “Men at Work: The Roadmap to Gender Partnership.”
Laurie Henneborn is vice president of Research, Insights and Solutions at Catalyst, where she leads research on workplace inclusion and organizational practices. Previously, she was a managing director at Accenture Research, where she led research and thought leadership on workplace equality and inclusion.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held a public hearing on Aug. 11 on its proposal to rescind annual EEO-1 through EEO-6 demographic reporting requirements. The proposal is not final and must still move through the rulemaking process. But the debate exposes a real test for business leaders: whether they valued this data because it drove better decisions or only because the federal government required it.
Employers that treat workforce data merely as a compliance exercise miss its larger value. This information can help leaders understand whether hiring, development, promotion and retention systems are working as intended.
In our work with global employers spanning six decades, we’ve seen leaders confident they were rewarding merit while missing important patterns in their workforce data. For example, they might have hired women at roughly the same rate as men, while missing the fact that fewer women were promoted into senior roles, or that women of color were leaving at a faster rate than their peers. Workforce data can show leaders where the drop begins: perhaps at the first promotion, after a return from leave, or when high-visibility assignments are distributed.
Why demographic data collection matters
This visibility is essential for organizations that value merit and performance, especially now as leaders navigate legal uncertainty around workplace diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and reassess workforce programs. Some organizations are changing language or approach. But reducing measurement can make problems in the talent cycle harder to detect and address.
Catalyst research found that organizations using HR measurement to uncover and respond to gender, racial and ethnic inequities were more likely to report stronger outcomes in customer loyalty, talent attraction, employee engagement and inclusion. These outcomes reinforce that measurement is about more than risk management; it's a business performance tool.
At the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, we found that workforce demographic scorecards, talent reviews, executive sponsorship and board oversight were part of a broader strategy that contributed to a 19% increase in women in executive roles. UPMC has linked greater representation of women across its workforce to agility and innovation, as well as building trust and reducing barriers in healthcare.
Employers still care about inclusive workplaces
A 2026 Catalyst and NYU School of Law Meltzer Center study of more than 2,000 U.S. employees and leaders found continued support for fair workplace practices, even amid heightened scrutiny. Many organizations were adapting this work rather than abandoning it.
So while the legal and cultural environment may have changed, the business case has not. Leaders and employees alike continue to recognize that inclusive workplaces strengthen talent, performance and reputation.
Legal counsel can help define the boundaries while leaders continue the analysis, meaning organizations should use this moment to examine the systems that shape opportunity. The strongest will be those that keep drawing on that information to build retention, performance and trust.
