<p>Corporations are increasingly taking stands on contentious social and political issues such as racial justice, abortion, and LGBTQ + rights. Critics of such corporate political advocacy often allege that it is incompatible with corporate obligations to shareholders. This essay argues that those critics are mistaken. More specifically, this essay examines whether corporate political advocacy violates two important rights of shareholders: The right to have the corporation managed in their interests, and the right against being compelled to support political speech with which they disagree. I argue that corporate political advocacy is often fully compatible with both of those rights. In other words, I argue that corporate political advocacy is often consistent with managers’ fiduciary duty to shareholders, and that it often does not constitute compelled speech.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Does Corporate Political Advocacy Wrong Shareholders?

  • Aaron Ancell

摘要

Corporations are increasingly taking stands on contentious social and political issues such as racial justice, abortion, and LGBTQ + rights. Critics of such corporate political advocacy often allege that it is incompatible with corporate obligations to shareholders. This essay argues that those critics are mistaken. More specifically, this essay examines whether corporate political advocacy violates two important rights of shareholders: The right to have the corporation managed in their interests, and the right against being compelled to support political speech with which they disagree. I argue that corporate political advocacy is often fully compatible with both of those rights. In other words, I argue that corporate political advocacy is often consistent with managers’ fiduciary duty to shareholders, and that it often does not constitute compelled speech.