Corporate Political Responsibility

This book develops a theory of the corporation as a social and political actor within democratic society. It examines corporate personhood, legal rights, and the firm’s obligations to democratic norms, arguing that corporate power must be balanced by institutional safeguards to preserve accountability and legitimacy in political systems. 

This handbook chapter outlines governance best practices for public company boards, covering fiduciary duties, oversight structures, committee responsibilities, compliance systems, and disclosure obligations. It emphasizes risk oversight, transparency, and evolving regulatory expectations affecting board accountability in complex operating environments. 

This article distinguishes between pro-market policies that enhance competition and pro-business policies that favor incumbents. It argues that government favoritism distorts competition, undermines innovation, and weakens democratic accountability, urging policymakers to prioritize competitive neutrality and institutional integrity over industry capture. 

This article explores governance mechanisms companies are adopting to manage U.S. political risk, including board oversight structures, disclosure reforms, scenario planning, and public-affairs alignment. It highlights how escalating polarization, regulatory volatility, and election-related instability require enhanced governance safeguards to protect enterprise value. 

This article argues that corporate climate transition plans will fail without aligned public affairs strategies. It urges companies to integrate policy engagement, advocacy, and coalition-building into transition delivery, ensuring lobbying and political influence support—rather than undermine—net-zero and sustainability commitments.

This academic article analyzes how political polarization affects corporate nonmarket strategies—such as lobbying, advocacy, and coalition-building—across different stages of the policy life cycle. It shows how polarization changes the risks and payoffs of engagement, complicating firms’ ability to influence policy without triggering backlash or strategic misalignment. 

This guidance helps leaders decide when to engage—or refrain—from responding to controversial social and political issues at work. It offers a framework for assessing relevance, risk, and responsibility, emphasizing the importance of consistency, listening, and clarity to avoid internal polarization while maintaining trust and organizational cohesion. 

This teaching case by Rajat Panwar of Oregon State University, explores the tensions faced by companies such as Singapore’s Olam, in whether to continue to advocacy for farm subsidies that benefit the industry but undermine biodiversity and raise questions about their sustainability commitments. The case challenges students to consider how, even when companies are clear about their interests in nature, taking a public stance is politically sensitive.