Seems to me there's two separate issues.
First, if it were an abstract situation of "Generic Company spends...", I feel that's the wrong way round of thinking about it. All $6.5M came from Generic Company's marketing budget, complaining about only a relatively small % going to charity should be addressed equally at any other company buying a Superbowl ad who didn't spend any of their Superbowl marketing budget on charitable donations. Obviously there are plenty of bigger conversations to be had about the world at large, wealth equality, poverty, areas that charities address that as a species we should be able to just end as problems, etc. but it's not like this case in as example of a company which was expected to do $6.5M worth of good and wasted $5.5M on advertising. DoorDash never claimed to be a charity, nor (as far as I know) suggested they would give more money to charity to any of their funding sources. Unless we get rid of all marketing, or solve all problems so that no charities need donations, shouldn't we encourage companies to donate more even if it's for promotional motives?
The second point is about DoorDash specifically and their business doings/ethics. Maybe the fact that it's them, not an unnamed random company, means they should be criticised for being hypocritical in their marketing messaging vs. their actions? But that would be equally true or not had they made a charitable donation and only done very cheap, basic marcom around it. But that makes for a less exciting headline.
[1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kArvLb...