A Christian investor who helped lead a shareholder push for more openness from the sneaker giant says he wants a reason to purchase another pair. His last pair of Nike sneakers is around 10 years old and has holes in them.
“For me, what resonates is forgiveness,” Schwarzenberger told OutKick. “If companies make changes, we need to applaud them.”
The man expressed a desire to resume purchasing the footwear, yet he cannot justify returning to it while Nike continues its activist posture. He added that should the company alter its course, he would be among the first to cheer and join the queue.
The shareholder vote on Proposal 5
At Nike’s annual meeting held Sept. 8, shareholders turned down Proposal 5. Inspire Investing, a faith-based firm where Schwarzenberger serves as portfolio manager and director of corporate engagement, supported the proposal on behalf of its client William C. Cunningham.
The resolution asked Nike to evaluate and issue a report analyzing the “benefits, costs, and legal, reputational, competitive, and other relevant risks” associated with its charitable support.
A verified score of 100 was posted for the proposal’s supporting statement specifically cited Nike’, and it concerns an employee health plan from the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. Inspire argued that the score raises questions about whether Nike’. That plan covers a number of gender-transition procedures for minors, among them surgery, cross-sex hormone therapy, menstruation suppression and puberty blockers.
Nike has not publicly answered whether it provides those benefits to minor dependents, according to Schwarzenberger.
What the HRC score actually shows
The HRC’s 2026 criteria require transgender-inclusive health benefits for full credit. Nike’ public HRC profile makes no mention of the company’s age limits or the specific terms of its dependent coverage.
The proposal referred to Nike’s larger DEI efforts and made the case that the company’s ties to advocacy groups through charitable giving could expose it to legal, reputational and financial dangers.
The board at Nike advised shareholders to turn down the proposal, citing its 2026 proxy statement where it says the company already weighs such risks.
“The company’s current approach to charitable giving, together with our existing disclosures and guidelines, appropriately serves the best interests of our shareholders,” Nike stated.
The firm argued that producing a further report would take up time and resources without adding any extra benefit for investors.
The vote totals and what they mean
OutKick spoke with Schwarzenberger before detailed vote totals were posted. Nike revealed the results through a September 10 SEC filing, which showed the proposal drew less than 1% of votes cast for or against it.
“Most shareholder proposals do not receive majority support, so that was not a surprise,” Schwarzenberger said. “But we were able to make the case to shareholders and raise issues that I think are on the minds of many shareholders.”
Nike has long-term clients invested through Schwarzenberger, and they profit when the company does well rather than when it fails.
He said “We’re long-term investors,” and then “Our primary goal is to earn competitive performance for the investors we serve, and we want companies to do well.”.
Why Inspire questions Nike’s ‘robust’ review
Nike said charitable partnerships are approved only after what it described as a “robust due diligence review.”
“Any time I hear the word robust, it kind of scares me,” Schwarzenberger said. “Are they actually concerned about the end investor?”
Proposal 5 focused heavily on Nike’s relationship with the Human Rights Campaign and its Corporate Equality Index, which evaluates companies on their LGBTQ workplace policies and practices.
The Human Rights Campaign identifies companies with a verified score of 100 on the 2026 Corporate Equality Index as leaders in LGBTQ workplace inclusion, and Nike has achieved that standing.
Inspire’s chief executive described the result as evidence that Nike is following a growing set of corporate demands that he sees as increasingly left-wing. Schwarzenberger made the claim after the score was announced.
“They’re doing all the things that the Human Rights Campaign has asked for,” he said. “It’s really been like a moving treadmill where they’ve upped the ante every single version. The goalposts are always switching.”
A sharp decline in HRC survey participation
The survey saw a steep drop in participation this year. The HRC report states that the count of Fortune 500 firms providing data fell 65%, from 377 companies in 2025 down to 131 in 2026.
HRC stated that a decline in public reporting does not necessarily indicate that the companies altered their underlying workplace policies.
Nike remained a participant.
Schwarzenberger argued that Nike’s continued participation in HRC’s Corporate Equality Index raises questions about whether the company has adequately considered the legal, reputational and financial risks of its partnerships.
“Our ask is simply to provide transparency into what Nike is doing,” he said. “If the company has analyzed the risk of these organizations, then let us see it.”
The timeline of Nike’s stock troubles
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| November 2021 | Nike’s market cap peaks |
| Sept. 8 | Shareholders reject Proposal 5 at annual meeting |
| Sept. 10 | Nike files vote results with SEC |
| Sept. 21 | Nike set to be removed from S&P 100 before trading begins |
The S&P 100 is about to remove Nike from its roster ahead of trading on Sept. 21, ending nearly 18 years of the sneaker giant’s presence among the blue-chip index’s component stocks.
The adjustment is designed to better match the size ranges of the companies within the indexes, according to S&P Dow Jones Indices.
Since its November 2021 peak, the company’s market value has dropped by over $200 billion. The firm has seen newer rivals gain on it, along with product troubles, while sales from Greater China declined 13% on a currency-adjusted basis during fiscal 2026.
Politics is not the whole story
Nike’s political choices can’t be blamed for all of that, Schwarzenberger admitted.
“It is hard to dissect exactly what is causing the share-price decline,” he said. “There are many factors, including China and perhaps some missteps with the company’s approach there and with various campaigns.”
He still believes Nike has made its own recovery harder through positions that offend certain potential customers.
The proposal’s concerns
Inspire laid out a number of particular worries about Nike’s charitable partnerships. The organization asked Nike to look into these points:
- The benefits of its charitable support and partnerships
- The costs of those relationships
- Legal and reputational risks associated with advocacy organizations
- Competitive risks from taking political positions
- Whether employee health plans cover gender-transition procedures for minors
Schwarzenberger said that Nike has not publicly answered the question of whether its health plan covers those procedures for minor dependents.
A rating of 100 on the HRC index indicates the firm satisfies the requirements for health coverage that includes people who identify as transgender. The public record, however, fails to reveal any age restrictions or details about benefits for dependents.
The broader context
The S&P 100 removal is a significant blow. Nike’s troubles have become a talking point in the culture wars.
Schwarzenberger said he would welcome a change.
“If the company can change, I would be the first to applaud them and get in line,” he said.
The worn-out shoes he has been wearing, with holes in them, will need to hold up for just a bit longer.
Source: foxnews.com
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.