By Lina Irawan 
While Cornell’s re-election margin might appear comfortable on the surface, a deeper dive into corporate governance norms reveals the gravity of the situation. In the highly ritualized landscape of shareholder votes, directors typically enjoy overwhelming support, often garnering approval levels of 90% or higher. For instance, the average support for S&P 500 directors during the 2026 proxy season stood at an impressive 96.6%. Against this backdrop, Cornell’s re-election with just 87.2% approval represents a precipitous decline in investor confidence, falling well below industry benchmarks and indicating a clear loss of faith in his continued leadership among a vocal segment of the shareholder base. This is not merely a slight dip; it is a profound indicator that a significant portion of the ownership structure demands fundamental changes to Target’s management and oversight.
Cornell’s standing among shareholders has indeed plummeted with striking speed. For nearly a decade, throughout much of his tenure as CEO, opposition to his re-election never once surpassed 6.3%, reflecting a period of relative stability and investor approval. However, a turning point emerged in 2025, following three consecutive years of declining sales, when shareholder opposition began to creep higher. The critical juncture, however, arrived with the announcement in February that Cornell would step down as CEO, only for the Board to immediately retain him as Executive Chair. This decision appears to have been the catalyst for the dramatic surge in dissent witnessed at this year’s Annual General Meeting (AGM), where opposition increased threefold from a decade ago, escalating from 4.2% in 2016 to a resounding 12.8% in June 2026. This trajectory vividly illustrates a growing disconnect between the Board’s decisions and the expectations of a significant portion of its investors.
For those closely observing the company’s trajectory, the path to this point of shareholder disillusionment is tragically clear. It has been paved by a steady and concerning erosion of Target’s once-distinctive brand identity, stemming from a series of management decisions perceived as missteps. These strategic and operational blunders have repeatedly placed the company at odds with its core customer base and the broader public, undoing years of carefully cultivated goodwill and market differentiation.
Once widely celebrated as an industry vanguard for its unwavering commitment to inclusion and progressive values, Target has, in recent years, been seen by many as succumbing to external political pressures. This perceived capitulation began notably in 2024, when the retailer significantly scaled back its highly anticipated Pride merchandise collection, removing certain items and limiting their availability in specific stores. This move was widely interpreted as a retreat from its long-standing support for the LGBTQ+ community, alienating a crucial demographic that had come to associate Target with genuine allyship. The trend continued into 2025, with reports indicating a broader rollback of its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, a decision that sparked widespread concern among employees, advocates, and customers who viewed these programs as integral to Target’s corporate identity and its commitment to a diverse workforce and customer base.
Most recently, and perhaps most disturbingly, was Target’s muted response to a tragic incident involving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in its home city of Minneapolis. Federal agents were involved in an operation that resulted in the shooting and killing of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, and the detention of two Target employees. The company’s perceived silence or delayed reaction to an event that directly impacted its workforce and the local community, particularly concerning vulnerable populations, further fueled criticism from those who felt Target had abandoned its ethical responsibilities and its stated values of supporting its people and community.
The repercussions of these decisions have been immediate and fierce, manifesting in widespread backlash across various fronts. Black, Latino, LGBTQ+, and progressive shoppers – demographics that represent some of Target’s most loyal and foundational customer segments – have mounted significant boycotts and organized national protests. These actions underscore the profound impact of Target’s perceived abandonment of its inclusive ethos. In a powerful local statement, Twin Cities Pride, the largest LGBTQ+ organization in Minneapolis, notably severed ties with Target, ejecting the retailer from its hometown parade after an 18-year sponsorship, citing the company’s retreat on Pride initiatives. Adding further weight to the critique, the daughters of Target co-founder Bruce Dayton publicly condemned the company’s rollback of DEI programs, eloquently describing it as "a betrayal" of the foundational values upon which the Target brand was built. These highly visible and deeply felt responses highlight how deeply embedded Target’s inclusive image was, and how profoundly its perceived shift has resonated with its stakeholders.
In hindsight, it appears that Brian Cornell fundamentally misjudged the unique qualities that had long distinguished Target from other big-box retailers. For years, customers gravitated towards Target not just for its products, but for the experience: a genuinely welcoming environment for all, a perception that the company thoughtfully balanced profit motives with a commitment to people, and a brand identity that mirrored the progressive values many shoppers believed they shared with the company. By moving away from these core attributes, Cornell’s leadership, or at least the strategic direction under his guidance, inadvertently eroded years of hard-earned goodwill, stripping away the very essence that once fostered deep customer loyalty and affection.
Compounding these strategic and reputational challenges are persistent and growing concerns regarding the everyday consumer experience. Reports indicate a steady decline in in-store standards over recent years. Customers frequently encounter messier aisles, a frustrating prevalence of out-of-stock products, notably longer checkout lines, and a noticeable scarcity of employees available to provide assistance. These operational deficiencies translate directly into tangible frustrations for shoppers: family trips become more time-consuming, essential items are often unavailable, and the once-charming "Tarjay" appeal – that sense of whimsy and elevated shopping experience – has dissipated, replaced by a mundane and often inconvenient reality. The neglect of these fundamental aspects of retail operations directly impacts customer satisfaction and, consequently, repeat business.
The cumulative effect of these internal and external pressures has begun to manifest in broader indicators of corporate health and public perception. For the first time since 2001, Target notably fell off Fortune Magazine’s prestigious World’s Most Admired Companies All-Star list this year, a significant blow to its corporate reputation and a clear sign that its standing among peers and the broader business community has diminished. Internally, the situation is equally dire: nearly half of Target’s workforce reportedly expresses little faith in the retailer’s future, an alarming statistic that portends potential challenges in employee morale, retention, and overall productivity. Instead of directing capital towards critical operational improvements, bolstering employee retention programs, or strengthening its product supply chains – all areas demonstrably suffering – Cornell’s tenure saw years of aggressive stock buybacks. While often intended to boost shareholder value, these buybacks in Target’s case largely failed to generate sustainable returns, effectively diverting resources from the very problems that were eroding the company’s foundation. While the company has recently pivoted away from aggressive share repurchases and has increased investment, it remains ambiguous whether this shift represents a genuine, long-term commitment to sustainable turnaround strategies or merely a temporary tactical adjustment. A true and durable recovery, many argue, necessitates continuous and significant investment in the fundamental in-store experience and operational excellence.
Furthermore, macroeconomic pressures such as persistent inflation and escalating tariff costs have undeniably intensified the challenges faced by Target and the retail sector as a whole. However, the struggles cannot be solely attributed to these external headwinds. Target’s largest rivals have demonstrated a more resilient performance, indicating that effective management and strategic agility can mitigate such challenges. Walmart, for example, continued to attract a substantial number of in-store shoppers even as the e-commerce landscape expanded rapidly, leveraging its robust supply chain and value proposition. Similarly, Costco has consistently excelled, winning on price competitiveness without compromising its durable profit margins, a testament to its efficient membership-based model and strong vendor relationships. In stark contrast, during Brian Cornell’s tenure as CEO, Target’s foot traffic in U.S. stores experienced a significant decrease from 2022 to 2025. This decline was mirrored in its financial performance, with net sales shrinking year-over-year for seven of the last twelve fiscal quarters, painting a clear picture of underperformance relative to its industry peers.
Since Michael Fiddelke assumed the role of CEO, succeeding Cornell, there have been early, albeit cautious, signs that Target’s turnaround efforts are beginning to take hold. Recent reports indicate rising traffic and comparable sales figures, coupled with robust digital growth, prompting management to lift its underlying outlook. These initial positive indicators offer a glimmer of hope for the company’s future. However, the long-term durability and the intrinsic quality of this earnings recovery remain unproven. Concerns persist, particularly in key categories such as apparel and home goods, and analysts note that a significant portion of the improved figures can be attributed to a large, one-time tariff refund, rather than solely organic operational improvements. This mixed picture underscores the fragility of the current recovery and the need for sustained, fundamental changes.
It is against this backdrop of nascent recovery and lingering vulnerabilities that Target’s latest cultural misstep becomes particularly costly and alarming. Just as the company appeared to be regaining some traction with the very customers it had alienated through past, self-inflicted reputational setbacks, it was forced to pull and issue a public apology for a children’s Halloween costume. The costume quickly drew widespread viral comparisons to deeply offensive blackface and minstrel imagery, sparking immediate outrage. Target’s concession that the product was indeed offensive and "should never have been part of our assortment" underscores a persistent failure in its internal review processes and its ability to anticipate and avoid significant brand damage, reinforcing the perception of a company struggling with its core values.
The Board’s decision to retain Brian Cornell as Executive Chairman, rather than opting for an independent chair, fundamentally undermines its assertions of a genuine management reset. This is particularly problematic given that the new CEO, Michael Fiddelke, is a long-standing Target insider with over 20 years at the company, including a prior role as COO. While Fiddelke’s deep institutional knowledge could be an asset, the continued presence of Cornell, the executive most closely associated with the prolonged period of underperformance and strategic missteps, creates an undeniable shadow of influence. We at SOC Investment Group have been unequivocal in our stance: retaining Cornell in such a prominent role, even as a Special Advisor, risks preserving the very dynamics that led to Target’s struggles, thereby potentially hindering Fiddelke’s critical turnaround efforts and casting doubt on the Board’s commitment to truly fresh leadership and independent oversight.
It is imperative that the Board members demonstrate a clear and unambiguous understanding of the profound gravity of the issues currently confronting Target. Merely acknowledging the challenges is no longer sufficient. What is urgently required are concrete actions: greater oversight, enhanced transparency, and a fundamentally improved governance structure. These are no longer mere suggestions for best practices; they represent necessary and immediate next steps to rebuild accountability, restore investor and public trust, and enable the sustainable, long-term growth that the company desperately needs.
The unequivocal results of Target’s annual meeting should serve as a resounding message to the Board: investors are hungry for fresh, unencumbered leadership to help the company regain the significant ground it has lost. If the Board is genuinely committed to rebuilding trust with its shareholders, employees, and customers, the path forward is clear and undeniable: the Board must demand that Brian Cornell step down as Executive Chair immediately, paving the way for truly independent governance and a clear vision for Target’s future.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
