Resolved clauseRESOLVED: Pfizer publish an annual report, at reasonable expense, analyzing the congruency of political, lobbying, and electioneering expenditures during the preceding year against publicly stated company values and policies, including Pfizer’s stated goal to “end discrimination against women, ensure equal opportunities for leadership and access to reproductive health.” Such a report should identify and explain trends of incongruent expenditures, and state whether the identified incongruencies have or will lead to a change in future expenditures or contributions.
Whereas clauseWHEREAS: Public data collected by OpenSecrets.org show that Pfizer and its corporate PAC rank in the top 1% of political donors.1
Pfizer policy states that “political contributions are made to support the election of candidates, political parties and committees that support public policies important to the industry.”2 Pfizer notes these expenditures “are subject to robust internal procedures designed to align these efforts with [its] public policy priorities, applicable law, and patient-centric agenda.”3
However, Pfizer’s political expenditures appear to be misaligned with the company’s stated values and public policy priorities, threatening the company’s bottom line if it leads to investor action or consumers taking their business elsewhere.
Pfizer listed “Gender Equality” as a Sustainable Development Goal in its ESG report, stating: “We aim to end discrimination against women, ensure equal opportunities for leadership and access to reproductive health.” Yet in 2018, Pfizer was a top contributor to leading efforts by 527 groups seeking to strike down the Affordable Care Act – which has made prescription drugs more accessible for millions – and contributes to PhRMA, which donates to numerous organizations opposing congressional efforts to reform drug pricing. The proponents further estimate that since the beginning of the 2020 election cycle, Pfizer and its employee PACs have donated at least $5 million to politicians and political organizations working to weaken women’s access to reproductive healthcare.
This pattern spending has drawn scrutiny from STAT, Bloomberg News, Huffington Post, The Minnesota Daily, CQ ESG Briefing, Agenda (a Financial Times publication) and Forbes.
Proponents believe Pfizer should establish policies and reporting systems that minimize risk to reputation and brand by addressing possible missteps in corporate electioneering and political spending that contrast with its stated healthcare objectives.
Supporting statementSUPPORTING STATEMENT: Proponents recommend, at management discretion, that Pfizer include in its analysis metrics that illuminate the degree to which political contributions align with stated values and policy priorities year over year, and present such metrics in the aggregate. Proponents further recommend that the report also contain management’s analysis of risks to our company’s brand, reputation, or shareholder value of political spending, including expenditures for electioneering communications, that conflict with publicly stated company values. “Expenditures for electioneering communications” means spending, from the corporate treasury and from the PACs, directly or through a third party, at any time during the year, on printed, internet or broadcast communications, which are reasonably susceptible to interpretation as in support of or opposition to a specific candidate.