PFIZER INC. | Publish a report on corporate contributions at PFIZER INC.

Status
3.79% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
8
Resolution details
Company ticker
PFE
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Governance
ESG sub-theme
  • Lobbying / political engagement
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Health Care
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
RESOLVED: Shareholders request Pfizer list the recipients of corporate contributions to third-party public policy or nonprofit organizations of $5,000 or more on Pfizer's website, along with the amount contributed and any material limitations or monitoring of the contributions.
Whereas clause
WHEREAS: Corporate contributions should enhance the image of Pfizer in the eyes of the public. Increased disclosure of these contributions would serve to create greater goodwill for Pfizer. It would also allow the public to better voice its opinions on our corporate giving strategy. Inevitably, some organizations might be viewed more favorably than others. This could be useful in guiding Pfizer's public policy and philanthropic decision making in the future. Corporate giving should ultimately enhance shareholder value in line with the Company 's fiduciary duty.
Supporting statement
SUPPORTING STATEMENT: While Pfizer currently reports on its political and lobbying contributions, current disclosure is insufficient for shareholders to evaluate the proper use of corporate assets given to third-party public policy organizations and how those assets should be used.
According to Pfizer, “Essential aspects of our business are being challenged by barriers to access, counterfeit medicines, illegal importation, and challenges to intellectual property protection. For this reason, we actively participate in public policy dialogues to explain our perspectives.”1 It goes on to note its “Third Party Funding Criteria” of “think tanks and legislative organizations.”2
Such statements suggest that Pfizer funds groups seeking to prevent the sale of dangerous counterfeit drugs or improve access to life-saving treatments. What it doesn't suggest is Pfizer donating untold sums of money to promote divisive agendas outside its fiduciary remit.
For instance, Pfizer is listed on the Human Rights Campaign's (HRC) website as a “Platinum Partner.”3 The HRC indoctrinates children as young as 5-years-old with radical gender ideology and instruction on sexual orientation by pushing books and lesson plans in schools.4
Pfizer also “generously” funds the HRC's “Healthcare Equality Index”(HEl).5 To earn a perfect HEI score, “hospitals must display LGBT symbols, solicit and use patients' preferred pronouns, and conduct trainings on LGBT issues.”6 They must also “provide the same treatments for gender dysphoria that they provide for other medical conditions-meaning a hospital that uses puberty blockers to treat precocious puberty cannot withhold the drugs from children who say they're transgender.”7
It has become clear that promoting extreme, partisan ideology creates reputational and legal risk. Company bottom-lines, and therefore value to shareholders, decrease when companies engage in overtly political and divisive partnerships. Following Bud Light's similar embrace of partisanship, its revenue fell $395 million in North America when compared to the same time a year ago.8 This is roughly 10 percent of its revenue in the months following its leap into contentious politics.9 Target's market cap fell over $15 billion amid backlash for similar actions.10 And Disney stock fell 44 percent in 2022 — its worst performance in nearly 50 years – amid its decision to pursue extreme partisan agendas.11

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.