What Managers and Companies Can Do

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).

ESRS G1 sets mandatory disclosure requirements on business conduct, covering corporate culture, supplier relationships, anti-corruption and bribery, whistleblower protection, political influence and lobbying, and payment practices, especially toward SMEs. It links governance and conduct to impact, risk, and opportunity management, making companies explain how business behavior supports transparent, sustainable practices for all stakeholders. 

The Equitable Bank Standards define a comprehensive framework for banks across five areas: governance, lending and investments, products and services, operational practices, and corporate citizenship. They lay out concrete standards for maximizing positive social and environmental impact while minimizing harm, guiding bankers, regulators, advocates, and customers in assessing whether finance advances equity and community well-being.

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. 

This brief provides a practical conversation guide for boards and executives to understand, assess, and act on geopolitical risk. Using a “scan–focus–act” framework, it offers structured questions on stakeholder impacts, long-term strategy, enterprise risk management, and governance changes. It reframes geopolitics as a manageable, board-level responsibility central to resilience and long-term value creation.

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.