South Africa: A Case Example of Corporate Political Responsibility in Polarized Times

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).

Using the exodus of companies from Russia due to the war against Ukraine, Bennett argues that, with influential economic power worldwide, multinational companies should consider a new geopolitical corporate responsibility to help support international rules-based order when it is under stress or faces challenges. He explains that this order defines the international community in which nations should respect individual sovereignty and obey the law. 

The article maps out a non-partisan, principled conception of good corporate citizenship drawing on shared assumptions of the right and the left about the place of corporations in our society and the realities of corporate governance. That conception concentrates on how corporations’ own conduct affects the best interests of their stockholders, workers, communities of operation, consumers, taxpayers, and the environment. 

This initiative explores how clear, stable legal systems support freedom, innovation, and economic growth—laying the groundwork for healthy markets and democratic institutions.

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.