Resolved clause"Shareholders request that McDonald’s conduct an evaluation and issue a report within the next year, at reasonable expense and excluding proprietary and confidential information, analyzing the benefits, costs, and legal, reputational, competitive, and other relevant risks of the company’s charitable support. "
Supporting statement"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 support alienates significant portions of their customers, employees, and shareholders and exposes companies to reputational, market, and legal risk. One notable example is that of McDonald’s, which has a perfect score1 on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. The Human Rights Campaign is a leading driver in getting companies to promote transgender activism. To get 100 points on its Corporate Equality Index,2 a company ostensibly confirms its coverage of 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. Supporting this activism may alienate McDonald’s employees who have religious or other moral objections to supporting these kinds of radical treatments with their healthcare premiums. Given McDonald’s stated assertion5 that “diversity in our employee pipeline is integral to our success,” questions about whether the company’s charitable partnerships respect diversity of perspective and belief must be answered, and with a mind to business-first political neutrality. Furthermore, a perfect score on the HRC’s Corporate Equality Index implies6 that the company covers highly controversial healthcare practices, including the coverage of “hormone replacement therapies.” This would be a serious concern for any company. McDonald’s, however, has been the subject of previous controversies surrounding politicized branding, including controversies7 over its diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Given the company’s subsequent laudable steps8 back toward political neutrality (including pausing external surveys), the state of the company’s charitable 1https://www.hrc.org/resources/corporations/mcdonalds-corp. 2https://reports.hrc.org/corporate-equality-index-2025#scoring-criteria 3https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644 4https://adflegal.org/article/leaked-files-reveal-ethical-concerns-pseudoscience-wpath-standards-care/ 5https://corporate.mcdonalds.com/content/dam/sites/corp/nfl/pdf/McDonalds_Diversity_Snapshot- 2023-2024.pdf 6https://reports.hrc.org/corporate-equality-index-2025#scoring-criteria 7https://www.axios.com/2025/01/06/mcdonalds-corporate-diversity-starbuck-trump 8https://corporate.mcdonalds.com/corpmcd/our-stories/article/our-commitment-to-inclusion.html partnerships, and particularly what remaining policies may earn the company a high score on activist rating systems point, these concerns are doubly concerning for investors. This is not merely a political or social point. McDonald’s is one of the most recognizable and prominent brands in America. Its brand value9 exceeds $40 billion, roughly 18 percent of its $216 billion market cap.10 Given McDonald’s brand prominence, its previous participation in activist rating systems like the Human Rights Campaign’s index, and the massive risk of public controversy tied to association with such highly controversial groups and ideologies, investors are right to be concerned about what further brand politicization could do to company performance. A transparent, up-to-date, and forward-looking evaluation is necessary. "