At Disney’s annual shareholder meeting this week, one thing became abundantly clear: when it comes to corporate alignment with progressive social metrics, the House of Mouse isn’t changing course.
A shareholder proposal that urged Disney to reconsider its participation in the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) Corporate Equality Index—a program that evaluates companies on LGBTQ-related workplace policies—garnered only 1% support. In other words, the proposal didn’t just fail; it barely registered.
Disney’s board had strongly advised investors to reject the measure, arguing it wouldn’t add value to shareholders and reiterating its commitment to transparency through participation in various external surveys.
And the shareholders listened. Despite critiques from groups like the National Center for Public Policy Research—who submitted the proposal and argued that Disney’s entanglement in polarizing political causes has hurt its stock and alienated audiences—the overwhelming majority chose not to intervene.
This moment arrives as a handful of notable companies, including Ford, Harley-Davidson, and Lowe’s, have recently distanced themselves from the HRC’s index.
Their exits reflect a growing corporate unease with aligning too visibly in contentious cultural debates. Yet Disney remains steadfast. The company most recently earned a perfect score of 100 on the HRC index—an endorsement it clearly intends to maintain.
This wasn’t the only shareholder proposal to fall flat. Efforts to impose greater political neutrality on Disney’s advertising practices, demand more transparency around investments in high-carbon companies, and investigate alleged risks of discriminating against ad buyers or sellers based on political or religious views were all rejected.
Every one of Disney’s board members—ranging from CEO Bob Iger to General Motors CEO Mary Barra—was re-elected without issue.
Financially, Disney has reasons to stand firm. Its first-quarter report for fiscal 2025 revealed nearly $25 billion in revenue and a healthy net income of $2.55 billion. While critics argue the company’s public stances on social issues have contributed to periodic brand blowback, the financials suggest that shareholders, at least for now, see little reason to question the strategy.
