This report explores two potential disconnects between corporate cash flows and value creation: Positive externalities where companies are not fully rewarded for the value they create for society, and negative externalities where they do not pay the full costs of production (but "externalize" some costs to society.) 

By offering a simple method for conceptualizing these two types of externalities, the authors show how businesses can be prepared for three forces that will likely drive them toward internalization: regulation, stakeholder pressures, or market realities. This can provide a guide for companies to identify their long-term interests in policies that align business value with societal value. 

This commentary argues that rising authoritarianism represents a material risk to investors by undermining rule of law, regulatory stability, and democratic institutions. It explores how political systems influence capital markets and suggests investors and companies must incorporate governance and democracy risks into investment analysis.

Businesses United in Leading Democracy is a coalition initiative encouraging companies to support democratic participation, civic trust, and institutional resilience through nonpartisan engagement. The initiative promotes collaboration among businesses committed to protecting democratic norms, strengthening civic systems, and encouraging responsible corporate leadership in periods of political polarization and democratic strain. 

The Equitable Bank Standards define a comprehensive framework for banks across five areas: governance, lending and investments, products and services, operational practices, and corporate citizenship. They lay out concrete standards for maximizing positive social and environmental impact while minimizing harm, guiding bankers, regulators, advocates, and customers in assessing whether finance advances equity and community well-being.

This empirical study examines how green energy investment, innovation capacity, and political stability jointly drive sustainable economic growth across OECD countries. It finds that institutional stability and governance quality significantly amplify the economic returns of environmental investment, reinforcing the link between political systems and green competitiveness. 

This report explores how geopolitical fragmentation, shifting alliances, and economic realignment are reshaping corporate sustainability strategies. It argues that companies must redesign governance structures, partnerships, and operating models to remain resilient while balancing sustainability commitments with rising political, regulatory, and market uncertainty across regions and sectors. 

This report by BSR explores how a strategic context defined by fragmentation, geopolitical tension, contested information, and uneven economic and social conditions impacts companies' sustainability strategies. As climate impacts, inequality, and technological disruption accelerate, the report argues that sustainability strategies should be sharper, more resilient, and more closely tied to enterprise priorities. 

The authors also argue that business plays a critical role in safeguarding the stable operating environment and bedrock institutions necessary for its success.

This article examines two methods for pricing carbon – the first based on estimating the “social cost of carbon” for current and future generations, and the second based on mandating limits and using a permit system to meet them. Argues for a fixed limit based on tipping points, and points to the challenges of political coordination required to adopt it, and the potential for technology to make that easier.

This article introduces the Erb Principles for Corporate Political Responsibility (CPR), a framework designed to help companies align political influence with long-term system health, democratic legitimacy, and responsible governance. The principles emphasize legitimacy, responsibility, accountability, and transparency as foundational standards for evaluating lobbying, political engagement, and broader public affairs practices in increasingly polarized environments. 

This article distinguishes between pro-market policies that enhance competition – so businesses that create value are rewarded -- and pro-business policies that favor specific businesses or industries. It argues that government favoritism distorts competition, undermines innovation, reduces opportunity and weakens democratic accountability, urging policymakers to prioritize competitive neutrality and institutional integrity over industry capture. 

Why this resource matters 
It reflects CPR’s Responsibility principle, calling for businesses to “champion   healthy market “rules of the game” that foster competition on the basis of quality, price and long-term value, minimizing costs externalized to other stakeholders and aligning private interests with the broader public good.” 

This report is based on interviews with twenty-nine partners and associates from law firms that responded to 2025-26 Executive Orders and other federal challenges with a wide variety of strategies -- from compliance to lawsuits.  

The focus was on the strategic calculations driving decisions by individual lawyers and law firms, regardless of the strategy they took. The report concludes that fear significantly magnifies perceptions of risk, collective action is critical in responding to pressure, and business leaders have a crucial stake in upholding rule of law, for its own sake and as a cornerstone of the free market system.

This article examines how the global rise of authoritarian capitalism is reshaping the operating environment for multinational firms. It explores tensions between economic opportunity, political stability, human rights, and democratic governance, arguing that businesses increasingly face strategic and ethical dilemmas when operating within systems where state power and market activity are tightly intertwined. 

This article argues that firms are significant political as well as economic actors, with considerable power to shape the rules of the game within which they compete. Fillling in the gap in the prevailing theory of the firm, which ignores the elements of politics and power, Zingales outlines the risk of a “Medici vicious circle,” and how this risk depends on several non-market factors.  He develops a framework for understanding corporate political behavior as endogenous to market systems, emphasizing how firms influence governance structures, competition, and distributional outcomes.