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. 1 2 4 One notable example is that of Cummins, which has a perfect score 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, a company ostensibly confirms its coverage of radical adolescent transgender treatments recommended by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), a group widely criticized for its ideological bias and lack of scientific rigor. These treatments include gender transition surgery, cross-sex hormone therapy, menstruation suppression, and puberty blockers. 3 5 Supporting this activism may alienate Cummins employees who have religious or other moral objections to supporting these kinds of radical treatments with their healthcare premiums. Given Cummins’ stated commitment to “harnessing the diverse perspectives, skills and innovation from every person,” questions about whether the company’s charitable partnerships respect those diverse perspectives must be answered, and with a mind to business-first political neutrality. 6 7 Furthermore, a perfect score on the HRC’s Corporate Equality Index implies that the company covers highly controversial healthcare practices, including the coverage of “hormone replacement therapies.” This would be a serious concern for any company. But given Cummins’ status as a federal contractor, selling power generation systems and engines to government entities, and the Trump administration’s clear stance regarding such practices particularly regarding children, this point is doubly concerning for Cummins investors. Given Cummins’ standing as a major American manufacturing company, its active 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. Many companies, including John Deere, Tractor Supply, and Ford, have already refocused their charitable support in a manner that acknowledges the diverse views held by their customers and employees. Many have explicitly cut ties with groups such as the Human Rights Campaign as a part of this effort. Cummins should do the same. 8 Resolved: Shareholders request that Cummins 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 https://www.hrc.org/resources/corporations/s-p-global-inc. https://reports.hrc.org/corporate-equality-index-2025#scoring-criteria https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644 https://adflegal.org/article/leaked-files-reveal-ethical-concerns-pseudoscience-wpath-standards-care/ https://www.cummins.com/sites/default/files/2024-04/dei-commitment-2024.pdf https://reports.hrc.org/corporate-equality-index-2025#scoring-criteria https://supplier.cummins.com/government-requirements-us https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13812241/american-brand-dei-rules-backlash.html