Whereas: Compensation and benefits inequities persist across employee gender categories and pose substantial risk to companies and the shareholders that own them. In 2022, shortly before the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade, Amazon announced its intention to reimburse employee travel for abortion. Further, as noted by the 1792 Exchange’s Corporate Bias Rating, Amazon has committed itself to cover costs of “medically necessary care” for employees. As per its partnership with the Human Rights Campaign, Amazon is also committed to covering puberty blockers for employees’ children. Yet, an increasing body of scientific evidence shows harms resulting from such “transition” treatments. Do the Company’s employees victimized by such treatments receive healthcare benefits too? This is an area of direct, significant risk for the company. Amazon is one of the highest-valued retail brands in the world, with an estimated brand value of over $300 billion, a significant proportion of its over $2 trillion valuation 5 . The higher the brand value of a company, the more vulnerable it is to public scandal, scandal that is quickly emerging for companies that have taken non-fiduciary activist positions on issues such as abortion and gender-affirming care. Healthcare organizations like Kaiser Permanente are currently facing high-profile lawsuits 6 over coverage of transition treatments resulting in long-term harm7 to patients, seeking damages worth millions of dollars. Companies that subsidize such treatments could well be next. Given the rapidly-shifting legal landscape surrounding these treatments, evidenced by cases such as United States v. Skrmetti, this risk area is only increasing for companies like Amazon. Shareholders are right to ask Amazon to address the obvious contingent liability and brand damage caused by championing controversial, scientifically dubious, and risk-fraught procedures such as abortion and gender-affirming care, especially when the company is unclear as to its coverage of corresponding areas such as detransition care. Side-taking via healthcare policy is not consistent with Amazon’s fiduciary duty or its responsibility to mitigate significant areas of legal and reputational risk and avoid widespread brand value damage. In its healthcare coverage, as in all corporate policies, Amazon must focus on its fiduciary duty to shareholders, a duty likely violated by engaging in politically divisive rhetoric and/or actions, including through its decisions on healthcare coverage.