Political Risk and Corporate Performance: Mapping Impact

This CEO-focused briefing summarizes the Business Breakthrough Barometer’s global findings, highlighting executive insights on transition readiness, policy uncertainty, geopolitical friction, and system transformation. It distills what CEOs see as the barriers and accelerators to achieving net-zero, circularity, and nature-positive systems—and clarifies where business seeks clearer policy, capital signals, and collaborative pathways. 

This Covington client alert reports that shareholder proposals for greater corporate political spending transparency received unusually strong support in 2025, averaging 42% compared to 26% in 2024. The alert highlights rising investor expectations shaped by the CPA-Zicklin Index and warns companies to balance transparency with legitimate confidentiality, emphasizing the governance risks of insufficient disclosure and unexamined political expenditures. 

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.

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 Aspen Business & Society Summit report explores how business leaders can safeguard democracy as political risk rises. It argues that corporate silence or partisanship threatens both markets and legitimacy, urging principled, collective action and authentic corporate voice grounded in values, courage, and preparedness—core dimensions of Corporate Political Responsibility that sustain healthy civic and economic systems.

Paul Rosenburg interviews James Fishkin, the Janet M. Peck Chair in International Communication at Stanford University where he is Professor of Communication, Professor of Political Science (by courtesy) and Director of the Deliberative Democracy Lab. Fishkin recounts a wide range of real-world deliberation experiments—including on energy and climate—that achieved policy progress by integrating representative citizen groups, expert input, and structured facilitation. The interview outlines the design conditions for those breakthroughs, which can be a source of best practices for civil society organizations, and potentially, companies. 

This large-scale study of the political psychology of American democracy explores how identity, belonging, trust, and “human flourishing” shape civic engagement and perceptions of democracy. Findings reveal polarization rooted in disconnection and call for democracy policies that strengthen belonging, civic learning, and local trust—paralleling CPR’s emphasis on legitimacy, accountability, and system stewardship for a resilient democracy. 

This third edition of the Democracy Playbook offers evidence-based best practices for reversing democratic backsliding, to help citizens and stakeholders reclaim good governance, transparency, and the rule of law, and strengthen democratic resilience.  It outlines how the business sector has historically supported these efforts by fighting corruption (Pillar 3) through actions like opposing state capture, supporting anti-corruption laws, and protecting whistleblowers, in addition to making democracy deliver (Pillar 7) through fair wages, labor rights, and investment in underserved communities. It calls on companies to continue this role, emphasizing that democratic stability is essential for reducing risk and sustaining long-term economic opportunity.

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. 

A study by a broad, independent panel of U.S.-based researchers to consider newly available scientific evidence on whether greenhouse gas emissions threaten human health and welfare in the United States, considering actual observed changes and human impacts compared to projected changes and impacts. Illustrates a "third side" perspective in reconsidering open questions, and offered without compensation as part of the National Academies' mission to advise government decision-making.

Majority Action’s white paper warns that unchecked AI development is driving climate damage, inequality, and democratic backsliding—non-diversifiable system-level risks that threaten portfolios and the economy alike. It urges long-term investors to adopt responsible AI guardrails that limit externalized harms, promote climate and labor equity, and preserve democratic stability. The report frames investor stewardship as a critical mechanism for AI accountability and system resilience.

Resources for the Future's new series, If/Then, focuses on providing rapid, independent economic insights on the consequences of policy choices, drawing from both new and prior research. In a highly polarized environment, it aims to fill critical information gaps by making credible evidence accessible in real time to policymakers, businesses, and stakeholders navigating fast-moving debates.

This publication frames AI safety as a critical global public good, highlighting challenges in balancing innovation with robust safety measures, ensuring international cooperation, and promoting equity so AI benefits align with sustainable development goals. It calls for clear accountability alongside shared responsibility through collaborative governance to manage AI risks worldwide

The authors believe it is imperative to stay in the conversation about changes to the business environment because of this new administration, but we need to move on from “Making the Problem Too Big”, “Ignoring Popular Sentiment”, “Failing to Find Common Ground”, “Not Telling Your Story”,  and “Talking About All the Good You’re Doing in the World.”

This article presents a framework leaders can use to better focus their sustainability strategies. It consists of four lenses: the business value lens (What affects our bottom line?), the stakeholder influence lens (What are people trying to tell us?), the science and technology lens (What does the data tell us about our impact and future?), and the purpose lens (What do we stand for?). The framework is intended to help leaders balance external pressures with internal priorities and objective data with stakeholder perceptions. 

The CPA-Zicklin Framework for Corporate Political Spending was developed to help companies manage the risks associated with election-related spending. The Framework provides twelve provisions that companies can implement to help better engage in and manage election-related spending.  

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. 

Addresses the increasing role that political turbulence is having on corporations’ ability to accomplish strategic objectives and tips for navigating external political uncertainty.  

This deep-dive paper is a collaboration between Earth4All, the Predistribution Initiative (PDI), Beyond Bretton Woods (BBW), and Africa Investor (Ai) and focuses on the role that capital markets investors can play in building a more regenerative and inclusive economy that supports the long-term wellbeing of people and nature. Building on the 2022 report to The Club of Rome, Earth for All: A Survival Guide for Humanity, this paper provides concrete proposals for how institutional investors can support systemic change.

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.