Corporations routinely use their platforms to voice support for humanitarian causes and human rights. Unfortunately, many companies provide funds, data, or other resources to advocacy groups leading highly controversial social campaigns — particularly on gender and sexuality— often backing only one side of the debate. Such one-sided giving alienates significant portions of their customers, employees, and shareholders and exposes companies to reputational, market, and legal risk. IBM has a perfect score1 on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. A perfect score from the Human Rights Campaign is a key indicator of a company’s promotion of transgender activism. To get 100 points on its Corporate Equality Index,2 IBM agreed to adopt radical adolescent transgender treatments recommended by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH),3 a group widely criticized for its ideological bias and lack of scientific rigor.4 These treatments include gender transition surgery, cross-sex hormone therapy, menstruation suppression, and puberty blockers. These divisive policies may also alienate IBM employees who have religious or other moral objections to supporting these kinds of radical treatments with their healthcare premiums. HRC also pressures companies to take sides on political engagement. It rewards companies that support legislation like the Equality Act, which would pose serious threats to religious freedom, free speech, and women’s rights.5 This kind of pressure induced corporations like Disney,6 InBev (Bud Light),7 and Target8 into marketing decisions that have significantly and permanently harmed their brand value. Many companies, including John Deere, Jack Daniels, Harley Davidson, Lowes, Home Depot, Ford, and Coors, have already refocused their charitable support in a manner that acknowledges the diverse views held by their customers and employees.9 While IBM is no longer an official partner10 with the Human Right Campaign, its perfect score indicates that many of the divisive stances demanded by its HRC partnership, including covering the provision of puberty blockers to children of employees through IBM’s healthcare plans, are still part of the company’s corporate policy. Given IBM’s stated assertion11 that “diverse perspectives are critical to IBM’s success in the marketplace,” shareholders are right to ask whether the company’s partnerships have led to divisive side-taking in IBM’s policies. As the Good for Business Coalition recently stated, companies should not be at the “forefront of political controversies,” but should focus on “creating economic value through excellence in the provision of goods and services.”12 (1) https://www.hrc.org/resources/corporations/s-p-global-inc. (2) https://reports.hrc.org/corporate-equality-index-2025#scoring-criteria (3) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644 (4) https://adflegal.org/article/leaked-files-reveal-ethical-concerns-pseudoscience-wpath-standards-care/ (5) https://www.heritage.org/religious-liberty/commentary/misguided-fairness-all-act-wouldundermine-religious-liberty (6) https://bowyerresearch.com/docs/Corporate%20Political%20Activism%20and%20Shareholder%20Value.pdf (7) https://www.newsweek.com/anheuser-busch-stock-drops-20-percent-bud-light-sales-struggle-1803680 (8) https://nypost.com/2023/05/28/target-loses-10b-following-boycott-calls-over-lgbtq-friendly-clothing/ (9) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13812241/american-brand-dei-rules-backlash.html (10) https://www.hrc.org/resources/corporations/ibm-corp. (11) https://ibmorg-public.s3.us-east.cloud-object-storage.appdomain.cloud/responsibility/reports-andpolicies/Diversity%20&%20InclusionIBM_Diversity_Inclusion_Report_2020.pdf (12) https://g4bcoalition.com/statement-of-principles/