As images of lawlessness, rioting, looting and unchecked criminal behavior reemerge in the national conversation, so too do important questions about how our culture has reached such a chaotic place.
One answer lies in the very corporations we rely on every day. When companies shift their focus away from delivering excellence in goods and services, they become vulnerable to activist pressure and distracted by causes that can ultimately undermine long-term success—for customers, employees and shareholders alike.
Lululemon is one such example. A publicly traded company trusted by institutional investors, like so many across the nation, have seen a series of highly questionable decisions prioritizing ideology over sound business practices. The company’s shoplifting policy made national headlines after firing two Georgia employees who verbally and respectfully confronted shoplifters before calling the police. At the same time, Lululemon executives approved more than a quarter-million dollar check to social movements and organizations like Reclaim the Block and Black Lives Matter—groups widely associated with anti-police and pro-looting rhetoric.
When public companies support controversial causes without clearly demonstrating how such decisions serve the long-term interest of their owners, it erodes public trust and investor confidence. It also signals that corporate leadership may be more interested in social signaling than shareholder return. That’s a red flag—not just for Wall Street, but for every American whose pension, retirement account, or college savings fund is invested in these firms.
These decisions carry real consequences — not just for shareholders, but also for the customers who rely on these companies and the employees who work within them.
As Oklahoma State Treasurer, I oversee the state’s Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET), who supports public health initiatives by investing in profitable, publicly traded companies like Lululemon. When corporations adopt policies that put ideology ahead of financial responsibility, state investments—and the citizens who depend on them—are put at risk.
That’s why, in partnership with corporate engagement firm Bowyer Research, my office filed a shareholder resolution asking Lululemon’s board assess and disclose the consequences of supporting groups that undermine business stability.
Rather than allow shareholders to vote, Lululemon attempted to block the resolution by appealing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Thanks to the legal support at First Amendment powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, that attempt failed and shareholders heard the resolution presented at the company’s recent annual meeting.
This victory sets a precedent. It confirms that fiduciary-minded shareholders have not only a right but an obligation to question company policies that stray from financial fundamentals. When a corporation begins making decisions that appear politically charged or ideologically driven, it’s not just a public relations risk, it’s a financial one.
Lululemon isn’t the only one. We’ve also filed shareholder resolutions to end corporate bias and destructive business politicization with Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Netflix and YUM! Brands (KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell). These companies, too, have made decisions that cater to political fringes at the expense of fiduciary duty, often to the detriment of the very shareholders who fund them while endangering public and private investment to please fringe activists with no financial skin in the game.
Public companies don’t belong to political activists—they belong to their shareholders. That’s true for individual investors and for state-directed funds like TSET, whose beneficiaries rely on prudent shareholder-first governance.
Let’s not forget what’s at stake. When a business prioritizes short-term political applause over long-term value creation, every retiree, teacher, firefighter, and state employee whose pension is tied to that business bears the risk. That’s not abstract, it’s real money from real people, and we have a duty to protect it.
Under my watch, you won’t see Oklahoma state dollars used to pressure companies into abandoning their fiduciary duty. That’s not leadership, it’s recklessness. As more companies use their platforms to advance ESG or DEI priorities and muddy the waters on real fiduciary obligations, my office is proud to step in to restore accountability and keep the focus where it belongs: long-term value for shareholders.
We’ve seen the results of unchecked corporate activism—retail theft tolerated, law enforcement vilified, and investor funds diverted toward divisive causes with no clear business justification. It’s time to draw a clear line. We need corporate leaders who understand that good business is good for everyone, regardless of politics.
We hope other funds—and financial entities of all kinds—will recommit to fiduciary responsibility and follow Oklahoma’s lead.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member