Our message to Lockheed Martin: "We want you fighting real wars, not culture wars"

Aerospace giant drops DEI, HRC, and demography-based ERGs and targets in on business.

I wanted to share a brief update on our recent engagement with Lockheed Martin – one that featured two shareholder proposals and resulted in major wins for shareholders and the company alike. Both proposals have since been successfully withdrawn after productive dialogues with Lockheed’s management and board.

What We Asked For: Our proposals tackled two key issues of corporate governance. The first urged Lockheed to evaluate its charitable giving policies to ensure they’re free of political or ideological bias – basically, to confirm the company’s donations and matching programs are viewpoint-neutral and don’t inadvertently exclude faith-based or conservative groups. The second proposal similarly pushed for greater political neutrality in Lockheed’s external partnerships and endorsements, highlighting how outside pressure (like the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index) can steer companies into controversial social positions that may hurt shareholder value.

In both cases, our argument was straightforward: focusing on the core defense mission and avoiding divisive policies isn’t just the right thing to do – it’s good business. We presented evidence that taking one-sided stances (for example, committing to HRC’s criteria, such as covering contentious gender treatments) could alienate employees and the public, put a $10+ billion brand at risk, and even invite legal trouble under emerging regulations. We also noted that many leading companies (from John Deere to Boeing) have recently pulled back from politicized programs, refocusing charitable efforts in ways that respect the diverse values of their employees and customers. We believed Lockheed should do the same, by reviewing its philanthropic criteria and DEI-driven initiatives through a strictly shareholder-value lens.

How Lockheed Responded: The response from Lockheed Martin’s leadership was refreshingly constructive and positive. In fact, this continued a trend from last year’s engagement, when Lockheed agreed to reexamine its DEI-driven hiring and promotion goals. After we raised concerns in 2024 about “diversity quota” policies, the company moved to remove all demographic-based hiring targets and – in a groundbreaking step – suspended its identity-focused Employee Resource Groups. Going forward, rather than segregating employees into different affinity groups, Lockheed shifted to a “One Company” approach, emphasizing unity and merit** over division. Chairman & CEO Jim Taiclet announced in 2025 that “we will not have goals or incentives based on demographic representation” and that all identity-based Business Resource Groups would be phased out immediately in favor of inclusive programs open to all team members. This was a bold move that drew praise (even a few cheers in conservative media) as a win for the company and proof that politically neutral is good for business.

Building on that good faith, our discussions this year focused on Lockheed’s charitable giving standards. Once again, management was open and transparent. They assured us that their vetting process for donations does not rely on partisan “hate group” lists like the SPLC’s, and that they’ve even stepped back from the HRC Corporate Equality Index to avoid any bias or policy commitments contrary to their values. In one meeting, a senior Lockheed executive went so far as to personally log into the company’s giving portal to demonstrate, in real time, that an employee could obtain matching funds for donations to churches, synagogues, and even organizations like Turning Point USA. This level of trust and verification helped assuage our skepticism and showed that Lockheed’s leadership is sincere about ensuring a neutral, inclusive approach to philanthropy.

Given these commitments and follow-through by the company, both proposals were withdrawn before going to a vote – a clear indication that our objectives were met. We consider this a tremendous outcome: it means shareholder engagement prompted real policy changes without a protracted fight. Lockheed’s team deserves credit for their willingness to engage in frank dialogue and make principled adjustments. They’re setting an example for how a company can address investor concerns and proactively align with evolving legal guidance (such as recent executive orders reinforcing merit-based practices) while staying true to its mission. Last but not least, it’s worth noting that Lockheed even thanked us for our balanced approach – recognizing that our goal is to help the company succeed, not to antagonize. It’s not often you hear a corporate giant say “we appreciate you” to shareholder advocates, and it speaks to the rapport we’ve built with them over two years of conversations.

Why This Matters – and a Quick Favor: This success story is a powerful reminder of why we engage in proactive shareholder advocacy. It shows that patient, good-faith engagement can achieve what shouting or shaming often cannot: real improvements that benefit both the company and its investors. Now, we need your help in spreading the word. Far too many institutional investors (those who aren’t yet working with us) still reflexively vote against proposals like these, assuming all “shareholder engagement” is hostile or political. By sharing our Lockheed Martin experience – a win-win where divisive policies were rolled back and the company became stronger – you can help challenge that old thinking. If you have colleagues or friends who care about keeping businesses focused on excellence (and out of the culture wars), please feel free to mention this example. Together, we can show that investing with your interests doesn’t mean antagonizing companies; it means partnering with them for positive change.

Thank you, as always, for your support. It’s making a real difference.

Jerry Bowyer is President of Bowyer Research.