To better understand how businesses are navigating this toxic political environment, Business for America (BFA) surveyed more than 50 business leaders across the country and sectors, from Fortune 500 executives to small business owners. The report reveals widespread concern about escalating political backlash, highlighting the difficult balance companies face between stakeholder demands and risks like boycotts, speech restrictions, and regulatory threats.

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. 

This article links corporate political responsibility to a company’s broader ability to uphold commitments to customers, employees, investors, and communities—which are critical to building and maintaining trust. It summarizes research that shows that, despite the best of intentions, companies often struggle to keep track of their commitments and coordinate to fulfill them. It goes on to offer seven practical strategies to avoid gaps between word and deed, and help companies sustain critical relationships and reputation. 

This tracker provides an overview of federal and state investigations into corporate ESG practices, highlighting lawsuits over misleading ESG claims by firms like BlackRock, government probes requesting information from asset managers and climate organizations, and legislative efforts aimed at limiting ESG considerations in investing. It offers essential insight into the shifting legal and reputational risks companies face in ESG governance.

This paper warns that companies risk backlash when engaging in political debates beyond their core business. It argues for an explicit commitment to “non-posturing” —which requires focusing on transparency, stakeholder alignment, and voluntary initiatives instead of symbolic activism or reactive statements. 

This playbook sets out practical guidance for companies on how to optimise their indirect “policy footprint”. It covers how to assess and improve associations' alignment and impact, by clarifying their strategic policy priorities, evaluating where to invest in important trade association relationships, and engaging those associations constructively and effectively. 

Provides a framework for boards to manage the reputational, legal, and financial risks of political spending, including misalignment with public commitments, shareholder backlash, and regulatory scrutiny. Emphasizes the need for transparency and alignment with a company’s stated objectives and strategic goals. 

This article argues that companies often over-react to short-term investor pressures—even when investors are well informed—leading firms to underinvest in innovation, resilience, and long-term value creation. It shows how structural incentives and capital-market dynamics can distort strategy and weaken corporate governance, reducing firms’ capacity to act responsibly in broader economic and civic systems.