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.

What It Is: A policy hub, led by Director Wren Orey, working to strengthen public trust in elections and ensure secure, fully funded, and continually improved election systems,. that publishes ongoing research, testimony, and explainers on election administration, security, and reform, including advisory groups such as the Task Force on Elections and the Election Workforce Advisory Council.  

Why It Matters: The project spans practical, current questions — like its recent recommendations on the EAC's 2026 Election Administration and Voting Survey — giving business leaders a running, non-partisan source on the current state and any changes in election law and administration. 

How to Use It: Subscribe to BPC's Governance Policy Newsletter or bookmark the hub to track new issue briefs (e.g., the 2026 Midterms: Key Dates and Events) relevant to internal planning around election-year civic engagement. 

What It Is: A curated resource page  offering seven concrete strategies for building a "voter culture" at work, plus links to five vetted digital tools — including: BallotReady, Civic Alliance, Motivote, Time To Vote, and VoteAmerica — that companies can deploy to support employee voter turnout. 

Why It Matters: BFA grounds its case in concrete workplace data: work commitments are consistently cited as a top barrier to voting, while "my employer" ranks among the most trusted institutions, well above government and media. That combination gives Legitimacy to employer-led civic engagement — a trusted messenger removing a documented practical barrier, rather than a company taking a political stance. 

How to Use It: Pick one or two of the five listed tools: and pair with BFA's 7 strategies to build a simple internal civic engagement plan ahead of the midterms. 

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. 

What It Is: A 2024 EconTalk podcast conversation between host Russ Roberts and Yuval Levin (American Enterprise Institute), built around Levin's book American Covenant, arguing that the Constitution's design — competition, federalism, the Electoral College, bicameralism — is meant to let a divided society "act together" without requiring everyone to think alike. 

Why It Matters: Levin's central reframe offers a broad perspective on the U.S. Constitution as incorporating dilemmas that are never fully resolved, where unity means acting together on a case-by-case basis. He argues that constitutional structures deliberately constrain majorities to protect minority interests. Useful in considering the Responsibility Principle and support for constitutional democracy.  

How to Use It: Listen to or read the transcript ahead of internal conversations about polarization or civic-engagement messaging, as a values-neutral primer on why democratic institutions are structured the way they are — useful context before wading into more contested reform debates. 

What It Is: A July 2026 Bipartisan Policy Center report by J.D. Rackey and Lily Kincannon, based on 12 in-depth interviews with Republican and Democratic political operatives (analyzed via qualitative coding), examining how party insiders actually view their role in primaries and which electoral reforms they believe would or wouldn't strengthen political parties. 

Why It Matters: The findings are concrete and counterintuitive: every operative interviewed said party organizations exist to win elections, not to shape ideology, and most were skeptical that reforms like ranked-choice voting or nonpartisan primaries would meaningfully improve trust — favoring instead reforms that strengthen parties' own fundraising and organizing capacity. Useful in considering the Responsibility Principle and support for constitutional democracy.. 

How to Use It: Consider these perspectives in discussions with government-affairs or corporate PAC team about electoral-reform policy priorities or positions. 

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 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 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.

What It Is: An article laying out a structured "nonmarket strategy" framework — analysis, strategy formulation, capacity building, feasibility checks, and implementation — for how companies should engage with regulators, activists, and public opinion alongside their core market strategy. 

Why It Matters: The authors provide detailed cases that show the risks and best practices, that impact a company's social license to operate — arguing that nonmarket engagement isn't a side activity but a core determinant of whether a company's social license to operate holds. 

How to Use It: Use the five-stage framework (analysis, strategy, capacity, feasibility, implementation) as a working checklist when developing or auditing your organization's own nonmarket/public affairs strategy, while also considering safeguards, such as those in our Principled Influence: A Guide to Strengthening Public Affairs Practices in Polarized Environments. 

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.