Total Value Framework

This report reviews over a decade of efforts to protect human rights and human rights defenders, emphasizing the long-standing, widely recognized field in which a variety of actors—including businesses, civil society, investors, and UN bodies—play distinct roles. It highlights progress, ongoing challenges, and the need for businesses to remember the rationale and stay committed to responsible engagement in supporting human rights defenders.

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? 

This teaching case by Rajat Panwar of Oregon State University, explores the tensions faced by companies such as Singapore’s Olam, in whether to continue to advocacy for farm subsidies that benefit the industry but undermine biodiversity and raise questions about their sustainability commitments. The case challenges students to consider how, even when companies are clear about their interests in nature, taking a public stance is politically sensitive. 

Philosopher David Silver argues that corporations are not merely profit-seeking entities but moral agents responsible for defending liberal democracy when authoritarian leaders pressure them to comply. Drawing on his book Corporations and Persons: A Theory of the Firm in Democratic Society, Silver contends that businesses must resist coercion, act collectively, and uphold ethical duties that sustain free markets and democratic institutions. 

The article explains that capitalism and open markets can strengthen democracy by fostering pluralism, competition, and opportunities for independent groups to operate outside government control. It argues the bigger risk is when governments capture businesses through regulation, which reduces that independence and weakens democracy.

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. 

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.