This case examines the challenges multinationals face in pursuing B Corp certification, using Danone as an example. It highlights aligning global operations, governance, and stakeholder engagement with rigorous social and environmental standards, and raises the broader question: What is responsible influence on public policy for companies that have committed to sustainability? 

Outlines steps for companies to implement non-partisan time-off policies for voting, covering legal compliance, leadership support, clear policy creation, and promoting civic engagement through flexible schedules.

Recognizing that climate-related risks are complicated, this brief disaggregates climate risks into three categories (planetary, economic, and financial) to then map those risks to which stakeholders are best positioned to address them. The article explains the importance of this disaggregation to facilitate intended outcomes and avoid unintended consequence. 

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.

The Long-Term Stock Exchange (LTSE) listing standards include expectations that companies will take responsibility for long-term decision-making across strategy, governance, executive compensation, stakeholder engagement, and investor relations. These standards are designed to help businesses build sustainable value over time for all stakeholders, rather than focusing on short-term gains, allowing investors to better assess long-term capital investments.

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 article examines how past negotiations, or precedents, shape current negotiations by guiding strategy and providing tested solutions, while also potentially constraining new thinking. It offers practical insights for managers on how to create, apply, and navigate precedents effectively to influence outcomes.