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. 

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. 

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 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. 

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. 

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 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. 

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.