This report reveals a decline in trust, and how majorities now hold grievances against governments, business and the rich. Historically strong trust in “my employer” is complicated when employees hold grievances.  Argues that business should respond in concert with other actors, investing in local communities, quality information, and job skills.    

A Gallup-Bentley University survey shows that only 38% of U.S. adults believe businesses should take public stances on current events, a decline from 48% the previous year, reflecting a broader trend toward preferring corporate neutrality in political matters. 

This survey reveals that while Americans expect businesses to take a stand on important social issues, they want them to steer clear of political involvement. Respondents call on companies to focus on finding shared values and solutions, rather than engaging in partisan debates. 

This report addresses the impact of increased political polarization and decreased trust in government, which has resulted in policy differences that affect long-term business planning. To take initiative, companies should rethink their approach to PAC giving and lobbying to support bipartisanship, systemic change, and a positive social impact. 

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 article draws on the Erb Principles for Corporate Political Responsibility to guide companies in navgating social outrage—urging them to ground advocacy in core values, engage employees early to build legitimacy, and embed ethical deliberation into everyday operations rather than issuing reactive or superficial statements.

This report engages more deeply with global stakeholder expectations for lobbying disclosure, detailing calls for transparency not only on spending but also on lobbying positions, trade association memberships, and alignment with sustainability goals. It argues that voluntary disclosures remain inconsistent and insufficient, and recommends standardized reporting frameworks to strengthen trust, accountability, and policy coherence. 

Twelve short cases to help business educators spark discussion around management dilemmas related to corporate political responsibility. Each caselet includes a few public articles, possible discussion question and links to relevant Principles for Corporate Political Responsibility. Supports the more in-depth report, Bringing CPR into the Business Classroom, by Gabriel Correa Acosta, also available in this Showcase.

Strine and Lund argue that political spending hurts shareholder interests because it increases risks, is not transparent, and correlates with lower financial performance. They make the case that companies should either end all spending, obtain shareholder consent, or limit expenditures to PACs (which are strictly voluntary and have mandated disclosure).

This CPA report explains how opaque political spending—including through third-party groups—can expose companies to legal, reputational, operational, and financial risks. It underscores the importance of consistent governance and transparency across all political giving, noting that these risks apply regardless of issue or party .

This report reveals that since 2010, U.S. corporations and trade associations have contributed over $1 billion—more than 40% of total funds—to six influential "527" political organizations, significantly impacting state-level elections and policies, often in ways that conflict with their publicly stated values and pose reputational risks. 

A comprehensive evaluation of corporations that gave significant amounts of money to politicians in key swing states that supported or introduced legislation aimed at voter suppression.

Drawing on insights from over 500 directors, NACD highlights five governance dilemmas boards must navigate in 2025—including balancing innovation with risk, long-term strategy with short-term pressures, and engagement vs neutrality on social issues. It also addresses the debate over prioritizing subject-matter expertise versus leadership experience in director recruitment. 

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.

Researchers describe the “double legitimacy” problem. American workers need to invest portions of their income into mutual funds to have economic security, thus becoming Worker Investors. Corporations are unconstrained and can dip into these funds to support their political spending. This paper outlines the Big 4’s political power in resolving the double legitimacy problem, and how their refusal is supporting policies that go against the Worker Investor.

Amid rising political backlash, most companies are recalibrating—not abandoning—their ESG and DEI agendas. This piece highlights a shift toward quieter, stakeholder-focused strategies rooted in authenticity, measurable impact, and alignment with business goals. It notes how terms like “ESG” are being replaced with less politicized language, and how scenario planning and coalition-building are helping leaders navigate polarized environments without losing credibility.

This piece explores how companies can maintain ethical business practices as geopolitical tensions and authoritarianism erode global consensus on anti-corruption and rule of law. The authors argue that compliance systems alone are insufficient and call for stronger values-driven leadership, cross-border ethical alignment, and proactive stakeholder engagement to navigate growing political and moral complexity. 

Eccles draws on a survey of 884 sustainability experts in 72 countries, which finds that NGOs’ go-to tactics—such as boycotts, litigation, and public shaming—are seen as low-impact and risk fueling backlash. It points instead to higher-leverage strategies like policy advocacy, education, and constructive engagement with skeptics as more effective paths forward.

This article explores how political identity is increasingly shaping workplace dynamics and offers a leadership strategy grounded in setting clear norms, proactively addressing tensions, and fostering inclusive dialogue—an approach aligned with Third Side principles of navigating conflict through shared understanding and long-term organizational strength.

Surveys of a national sample of investors revealed that 87% believe companies should adopt a code of conduct for political spending. Additionally, 91% support measures to ensure that political contributions are lawful and consistent with the company’s public policies and objectives.  

This report details the increasing complexity of reputational risks in today’s business environment, highlighting how political, societal, and environmental issues are challenging corporate reputations. It emphasizes the need for boards to adopt adaptive governance strategies and stay ahead of public and regulatory pressures to avoid brand damage. 

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. 

Based on the fact that the assumption that business and politics can and even should be kept separate is no longer realistic, the authors outline steps that effective leaders should take to ensure strategic decisions in the space, which include: (1) develop robust principles to guide strategic choices; (2) address ethical issues early; (3) consistently communicate and implement their choices; (4) engage with and beyond the industry to shape the context; and (5) learn from mistakes to make better choices in the future.

This report uses the UN SDGs to assess U.S. sustainability progress, highlighting where the country is falling short—especially on inequality, climate, and declining trust in institutions. It emphasizes that public expectations are rising, and urges businesses to align with enduring values and evolving customer priorities through transparency, collaboration, and long-term strategy.

This article outlines CEO activism and its influence, risks, and rewards. Authors reference research to assert that CEOs must strategically decide when and how to engage with social and political issues. The included playbook provides insight on how to go about engagement for positive impact. By raising awareness and leveraging economic power, CEOs can embrace transparency and accountability to their company values.

This guide offers companies a research-backed climate communication strategy that emphasizes materiality over morality—framing climate action as a business necessity, not just ethical responsibility. Drawing on extensive surveys and focus groups from the US and abroad, it outlines how to connect with skeptical audiences by stressing the concrete, economic benefits of climate initiatives. 

Interviews with 48 Americans from across ideological and demographic groups reveal broad commonality in wanting fairness and clear expectations of government—such as equal rule enforcement, responsive leadership, transparent decision-making, and dignified public services. At the same time, people diverge on what constitutes fairness, with some emphasizing opportunity, others consistent process, and others tangible outcomes that prove fairness is real. Provides a starting point for stakeholder engagement, and suggests approaches that speak to concerns across the political spectrum. 

A robust overview of current legal landscape for corporate political activity. It highlights the reputational and other risks companies need to manage, and the need for oversight and transparency to govern political spending.