“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. One notable example is that of S&P Global, 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 agrees to cover 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 also alienate S&P employees who have religious or other moral objections to supporting these kinds of radical treatments with their healthcare premiums. Given S&P’s stated assertion in its past global DEI report that5 “the diverse characteristics and perspectivesthatourpeoplebringtoS&PGlobalgiveusavitalcompetitiveedge,”questionsaboutwhetherthecompany’scharitablepartnerships respect those diverse viewpoints must be answered, and with a mind to business-first political neutrality. Partnering with HRC does not do so, given the organization’s pressure on companies to take sides in political engagement. 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,” a serious reputational concern for any company aiming for political neutrality and avoidance of public controversy. This isn’t merely a political or social point but a matter of brand value. S&P Global has a FactSet-estimated brand value exceeding $8 billion, more than 5 percent of its more than $150 billion market cap.7 Given S&P’s standing as one of the most high-profile financial information companies in America, and given past controversies over the company’s provision of ESG scores (which sparked backlash8 from red states) investors are right to be concerned about what further brand politicization could do to company performance. Manycompanies, 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 Many have explicitly cut ties with groups such as the Human Rights Campaign as a part of this effort. S&P Global should do the same.