Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Risks and rewards in a polarized nation: Businesses face tough choices after Roe v. Wade ruling

Dick’s Sporting Goods CEO Lauren Hobart

“We recognize people feel passionately about this topic — and that there are teammates and athletes who will not agree with this decision,” Dick’s Sporting Goods CEO Lauren Hobart wrote.

Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for Footwear News

Davies is a podcast consultant, host and solutions journalist at daviescontent.com.

The Supreme Court overturned 50 years of legal precedent and quickly cut off legal access to abortions for women in large parts of the country Friday. Many big corporations realized quickly that they had to respond to the sweeping decision.

In the days before the widely anticipated announcement, some of the nation’s largest employers reached out to their workforce, offering support for those who are directly affected. After the publicized leak in early May of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito arguing for a reversal of Roe v. Wade, corporate boards and CEOs knew they had to consider their options.

The nation’s largest bank, JPMorgan Chase, told workers that it will pay for travel to states that allow legal abortions. Amazon will cover costs for employees seeking abortions in states where the procedure were made illegal. CVS, Apple, Meta, Dick’s Sporting Goods and Disney also issued statements that attempted to reassure anxious workers.

“We recognize people feel passionately about this topic — and that there are teammates and athletes who will not agree with this decision,” Dick’s CEO Lauren Hobart wrote.The court’s explosive decision and the emotional debate that followed are the latest of many recent controversies where corporations were under pressure to take a stand.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter


Gone are the days when businesses could solely focus on their core business model — keeping customers, winning new ones and making a profit.

“There is one and only one social responsibility of business,” Milton Friedman famously wrote more than 50years ago — ironically around the time of the Roe decision. The Nobel Prize-winning economist said that a corporation should “use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”

But now we live in very different times. Pursuing shareholder value alone is not enough. Many of the most highly valued young workers expect their employers to reflect their values. Businesses also face greater scrutiny from consumers. Brands feel required to to be socially and politically relevant.

“It’s just no longer an option for businesses to hide on the sidelines on all issues,” says entrepreneur and market research executive Diane Hessan, author of the recent book “Our Common Ground.” “This is the time when businesses feel obligated to have some sense of social responsibility because their customers and partners want them to, and their employees want them to. In many cases they are the last bastions of where we have trust.”

But speaking out on polarizing issues can carry real risks. Examples of corporate stumbles include Disney’s shifting stand on Florida’s “don’t say gay” legislation barring instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. Coca Cola and Delta Airlines angered conservatives when they criticized Georgia’s law to tighten regulations on voter access. Both Atlanta-based companies faced pressure from Black employees and others to come out against the Georgia law.

“Companies are on the receiving end of a lot of criticism,” says Elizabeth Doty, director of the Erb Institute’s Corporate Political Responsibility Taskforce at the University of Michigan. “We felt they needed a place to get foresight to dig into what’s behind these complaints.”

The task force was formed to help companies manage risks and concerns related to their corporate political activities.

“Companies need to go from trying to navigate this minefield to be consistent with themselves, investing in systems for healthier debate,” Doty told me during a recent interview for our podcast, “How Do We Fix It?”

Citing the voting rights example, she said that one successful approach for corporate leaders could be to ask “what makes for a trustworthy election system and then fund a cross-partisan process to go in and do that.”

This process-driven approach to finding common ground and boosting civic engagement may be an opportunity both for corporate leaders and the Bridge Alliance movement.

“Most people trust businesses more than government or news organizations,” says Hessan. “Business does have a huge opportunity.”

Doty agrees. “Companies at a minimum can invest in healthier public discourse,” she says. “In the right conditions people can come together.” By setting ground rules for honest conversations among employees from different backgrounds and viewpoints, corporations can create a more positive workplace environment and start the enormous task healing rigid political divisions.

Read More

Dictionary definition of tariff
Would replacing the income tax with higher tariffs help ‘struggling Americans’?
Devonyu/Getty Images

Could Trump’s tariffs have unintended consequences that hurt America?

The first few weeks of the Trump administration have been head-spinning. President Trump and his team were well-prepared to launch their policy agenda, signing over 50 executive orders, the most in a president's first month in more than 40 years. A major focus has been economic policy, first with immigration raids, which were quickly followed by announcements of tariffs on imports from America’s biggest trade partners.

The tariff announcements have followed a meandering and confusing course. President Trump announced the first tariffs on February 1, but within 24 hours, he suspended the tariffs on Mexico and Canada in favor of “negotiations.” Mexico and Canada agreed to enforce their borders better to stop migrants and fentanyl imports, which the Trump administration called a victory. Despite the triumphalist rhetoric, the enforcement measures were substantially the same as what both countries were already planning to do.

Keep ReadingShow less
From Silicon Valley to Capitol Hill: The Ascendancy of Indian Americans

The flag of India.

Canva Images

From Silicon Valley to Capitol Hill: The Ascendancy of Indian Americans

In the intricate landscape of global geopolitics, the ascendancy of Indian Americans stands as a quiet yet transformative force—a phenomenon that demands serious consideration. While traditional paradigms of power focus on military might or economic clout, the strategic leverage wielded by this diaspora is rewriting the rules of global influence. India’s economic trajectory reflects its ambitions on the global stage. Contributing 4% to global GDP today, the nation is poised to become the world’s third $10 trillion economy within two decades. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts India will account for 18% of total global growth by decade’s end, a rise that challenges established economic hierarchies.

Trade data between India and the United States reflects the growing interdependence: In 2020, U.S. imports to India stood at $51.3 billion. This figure grew to $80.1 billion in 2024, alongside a trade deficit swelling from $24.2 billion to $41.5 billion. This trade expansion is mirrored by Indian-American professionals dominating key sectors of the U.S. economy. With a median household income of $119,000, Indian Americans outperform national averages and hold influential roles across corporate and governmental institutions. CEOs of global giants like Microsoft, Google, and Citibank exemplify this trend, along with leadership roles in companies like Apple, Intel, and Dell.

Keep ReadingShow less
Will Trump’s immigration crackdown be good or bad for the economy?

Roofers on an 8-12 pitch roof laying under-layment before installing roof tile. Roofer is throwing safety line out of the way.

Getty Images//TerryJ

Will Trump’s immigration crackdown be good or bad for the economy?

In his first days in office, President Donald Trump wasted no time showing he means business, announcing a crackdown on immigration. He declared a national emergency, signed a raft of executive orders, sent 1,500 active duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, and his Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) has initiated raids on thousands of migrants across the nation.

The issue of immigration has always been multifaceted, impacting both the economy and human rights, not to mention the expensive logistical operation necessary to deport millions of people. But my discussion below is focused specifically on this question: what will happen to the economy if many of the immigrant workers (who are also consumers and taxpayers) who fill many jobs in the construction, restaurant, health care, agriculture, and elder care industries, suddenly are whisked away?

Keep ReadingShow less
Tariffs: Not a tax, and not free money

United States trade cargo container hanging against clouds background

Getty Images//Iskandar Zulkarnean

Tariffs: Not a tax, and not free money

During the recent election season, there was much talk of Trump’s plan to lay tariffs on the importation of foreign goods. Pundits, politicians, and journalists to the left of center consistently referred to them as a tax on the American people. Many of those to the right of center, especially those of the MAGA contingent, seemed to imply they are a pain-free way for the federal government to raise money.

Some correctly said that the country essentially ran on tariffs in its early history. Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary and arguably the godfather of our initial financial system, successfully proposed and implemented a tariff system with two goals in mind. Fund the young American government and protect young American businesses against competition from established foreign companies. The second bill signed by President George Washington was a broad tariff bill.

Keep ReadingShow less