Americans to Corporate America: Step Up, Get Local, and Lead with Your Values
The PMI U.S. Philanthropy 2025 Benchmark Survey, conducted in April among 1,000 U.S. adults aged 21+, offers a portrait of a public that wants companies to go beyond business as usual. Companies are viewed as powerful and potentially better equipped than the government to drive change but only if CEO visibility and philanthropy are authentic and focused on genuine community betterment.
The survey found:
84% of Americans believe big companies have an ethical responsibility to support the communities where they operate.
78% say they're more likely to buy from a brand that shares their values.
72% say corporations should help solve major systemic issues.
59% believe corporations may be better equipped than the government to tackle society's most pressing problems.
'These findings make it clear: The era of pragmatic philanthropy is here,' said Stacey Kennedy, CEO of PMI U.S. 'Americans are hungry for a new, grounded approach to ethical responsibility that's about listening to communities, investing locally, and showing up consistently.'
When asked what makes a company a good neighbor, Americans overwhelmingly prioritize practical action over platitudes. Hiring locally and supporting small businesses (26%) and maintaining a consistent, visible presence in communities (23%) topped the list of valued practices. Meanwhile, 86% said the best way for a company to support a community is by offering stable, well-paying jobs.
It's clear that Americans have little tolerance for performative-only philanthropy. Respondents ranked 'failing to listen' as the number one mistake companies make in community engagement, followed closely by 'doing it for PR.' They want companies to partner with local leaders, invest in jobs training, and build trust through sustained involvement, not one-off donations.
The public holds complex views on business leadership. While 68% think CEOs should take public stands on key issues, a majority (58%) say they prefer not to know a CEO's political leanings. What matters more is visible involvement: CEOs who are active in their communities and empower their employees to give back earn the public's trust and support.
Taken as a whole, the survey findings offer current guidance for PMI U.S. and other companies during a complex time for corporate leadership.
'It's clear that a deliberate approach of listening to learn is key,' said J.B. Simko, Chief Civil Society & Underage Prevention Officer at PMI U.S. 'Americans want to see partnerships that strengthen local communities and a shift from grand charity to shared responsibility and active collaboration. Corporate giving and engagement must focus more on tailored support and long-term partnerships that meaningfully address local needs – an approach we strive to take in the communities where we live and work.'
As part of its mission to improve public health by offering science-backed, smoke-free products that are better alternatives to continued smoking, PMI U.S. is also committed to being a good neighbor in the communities where its people live and work. The company has invested more than $832 million in new and expanded manufacturing facilities in America that provide well-paying jobs, and its affiliates have contributed more than $25 million in worthy causes since 2022, prioritizing military veterans and their families, economic empowerment, and disaster preparedness and relief.
Survey Methodology
The PMI U.S. Philanthropy 2025 Survey was fielded by 3W Insights between April 22 and 27, 2025, among 1,000 U.S. adults 21 and older. The survey was conducted online using opt-in panel participants. The survey is representative of the U.S. population, based on known Census demographics and geographics. The margin of error for this survey is +/-3.1%, with higher margins of error for subgroups. Statistical testing was conducted at a 95% confidence level, and subgroup findings in this analysis are statistically significant at 95% confidence.
About PMI
Invested in America
Philip Morris International Inc.'s U.S. businesses (collectively, 'PMI U.S.') are on a mission to improve public health in America by providing the ~30 million legal-age consumers who still smoke traditional cigarettes with better, smoke-free alternatives. PMI U.S. is committed to responsible marketing practices that help prevent access to its products by people under the age of 21. PMI U.S. businesses employ more than 2,500 people across America and operate product manufacturing facilities, including in Owensboro, Kentucky, and Wilson, North Carolina. Since 2022, PMI U.S. has contributed approximately $25 million to charitable causes, amplifying the good work of organizations already active within communities through financial contributions and volunteering.
For more information, please visit www.pmi.com/us/ and www.pmiscience.com.
References to 'PMI' mean the Philip Morris International family of companies. 'PMI U.S.,' 'we,' 'our,' and 'us' refer to PMI U.S. businesses.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
31 minutes ago
- USA Today
Relying on AI for money advice? What financial experts think of chatbots' responses
From grocery lists to help creating a website to promote her work as a realtor, Jennifer Allen says she uses ChatGPT for everything. When unexpected hospital bills and time away from work after giving birth led her to rely on credit cards, she knew her debt was growing. But she was scared to tally the total amount and rarely looked at her bank accounts. Until one day, she wondered if ChatGPT, or 'Chat,' as she calls it, could help. She fed the chatbot required information and it told her she had amassed $23,000 in debt. Surprised by the number, she wondered how she could pay it off. Allen said she didn't even think about consulting a financial planner. She did, however, ask ChatGPT. 'Even if a financial planner told me something, I would still go to Chat to run it by them,' Allen told USA TODAY. She prompted the chatbot to give her one thing she could do every day to help pay down her debt, and documented the process on TikTok. By the end of two 30-day challenges, she'd come up with $13,078 by following the bot's advice and earned additional money from the TikTok Creator Rewards Program. She said she now has a little less than $5,000 in debt remaining. While not everyone follows ChatGPT's advice every day, the chatbot has experienced rapid growth. It's reaching about 700 million users weekly – four times more than last year, according to OpenAI's Nick Turley. ChatGPT isn't the only artificial intelligence model people are relying on for information. A Morning Consult survey found more than half of U.S. adults said they refer to AI-generated summaires when searching online and 1 in 10 said they don't consult other sources. A Southeastern Oklahoma State University questionnaire found that 1 in 3 Americans have used an AI tool to make a career decision. Some think the technology will transform the financial planning space. Others warn against relying on it for money advice. And while some humans may be self-interested when saying they do a better job than AI, even companies behind popular chatbots advise caution. Large language models, like Gemini, can "hallucinate" and present inaccurate information as factual, according to Google. USA TODAY asked five popular chatbots common personal finance questions. Here's what they said and what financial experts thought of their responses: AI's advice on retirement savings USA TODAY asked ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini, and Grok three personal finance questions in the same order – starting with one of the most common: How much money do I need to retire? Their answers were similar but not identical. In seconds, the chatbots generated somewhat lengthy responses, usually formatted in bullet points, giving examples and general advice with caveats. Grok was the only model to give a specific number in its final answer – about $1 million. But it, alongside ChatGPT and Copilot, also asked the user to provide more information. Gemini recommended using a retirement calculator and Claude suggested meeting with a financial planner. All pointed to the 4% rule — a withdrawal strategy that says retirees can safely withdraw 4% of their savings during the year they retire and then adjust for inflation each subsequent year. However, the rule is more than 30 years old and its creator said it was outdated in 2022. 'There is not one number for everybody. If the chatbot tries to answer this question without asking for information, that's useless,' said Annamaria Lusardi, who heads Stanford's Initiative for Financial Decision-Making. 'The 4% rule of thumb is completely outdated... If you follow it, you have a very high probability of running out.' More: The right financial adviser can help you navigate a shaky economy. We rank the top firms. AI's advice on credit scores The chatbots' responses to the question 'How do I improve my credit score?' were nearly identical. They suggested stategies like paying bills on time, keeping credit utilization low, and maintaining a healthy mix of credit. 'This is a much easier question for ChatGPT to answer correctly because there is all of this information, for example, on the FICO score website,' Lusardi said. 'If you compare these two questions, this is really a type of situation where you can have rules for everyone.' Greg Clement is the CEO and Founder of Freedomology, a technology and coaching company that launched its own chatbot dedicated to helping people with their finances, health, and relationships. He worked as a financial planner for eight years and thinks popular AI models can be useful when people have financial questions but that their answers are still 'very vague and generic.' 'It's almost as if you're talking to 100 financial planners and you ask the same question to 100 people and you try to consolidate all of their answers into one summary,' Clement said. Between AI's documented bias and inabilty to understand things on a human level, Tori Dunlap, a money expert who founded Her First 100k, is skeptical of people relying on the technology. 'It's there as your digital robotic personal assistant. It's not meant to challenge you or push back, or help you think differently. That's something a coach or expert can you help you do,' Dunlap said. 'I would also say though, if you're going to go from no financial advice to ChatGPT, I will take ChatGPT every time.' What happens when you give AI specific numbers? Using the median household income and down payment in Illinois, USA TODAY asked the chatbots what home price a couple could afford in that state. Before giving a number, most asked the user to consider factors including their debt-to-income ratio, private mortgage insurance, and property taxes. But without asking for more information, each gave a different range. ChatGPT and Gemini were the most optimistic, suggesting $300,000 to $320,000 and $275,00 to $325,000, respectively. Claude said $245,000 to $270,000 and Copilot said $225,000 to $250,000. Grok gave the lowest range from $200,000 to $240,000. 'Personal finance is about our life. I don't know that I would leave it to just artificial intelligence without a careful check and being aware that different ones will give me different results,' Lusardi said. 'Some of these suggestions can be very simple and potentially not very useful.' Dunlap said the chatbots' variety of answers is the result of them not having enough information. If someone asked her this question, she said she'd follow up by asking about their credit score, their ideal mortgage payment, and interest rates. 'But before we even do that, my question is: Do you actually want to be a homeowner or do you just feel like you need to in order to be successful?' she said. 'By definition, you're talking to a robot. You're not talking to somebody who understands real complex human emotion.' After all, if someone asks AI this question, they're talking to a chatbot who has never experienced homeownership. 'If a young couple in the Freedomology community would ask the same question, they'd probably get answers from people that have owned a house for 10 or 20 years,' Clement said. 'How do you replace that? I don't think you can.' What do AI companies recommend? In USA TODAY's chats with the AI models, several included disclaimers that they were not financial advisers, and AI companies have some safeguards in place to fact check their responses. Google's double-check feature highlights any information that is contradicted online. The company's help center notes that people should not rely on Gemini for financial advice. A spokesperson for Anthropic, the company behind Claude, said they are encouraged to see people using the model as a financial literacy tool to demystify topics like compound interest and credit scores. However, they said while Claude can help people become more informed, it should not replace licensed professionals for personalized financial decisions. They recommend using Claude to learn and prepare smarter questions, but to rely on certified professionals who can give personalized advice when it comes to actual investment decisions and retirement strategies. 'The most successful approach we see is people using Claude to level up their financial literacy, then taking that knowledge into real-world decisions,' the Anthropic spokesperson said in a statement to USA TODAY. 'They understand the terminology, recognize better opportunities, and feel more confident, whether they're negotiating a car loan, choosing between job offers, or preparing for retirement planning meetings. That's where AI genuinely helps — making financial knowledge accessible to everyone.' In another statement to USA TODAY, a spokesperson for Microsoft said Copilot's Deep Research mode can help people make well-informed choices in areas that require careful evaluation, including financial decisions. 'As we look ahead, we're focused on making Copilot an even better AI companion; one that's more personal and feels natural being used in everyday life,' the spokesperson said. 'AI can still make mistakes, so we always recommend people check sources and reach out to a financial adviser if needed.' While Allen said she doesn't take everything AI says at face value, she credits it as a reason she went from not knowing how much debt she had, to paying a majority of it off. 'That's what changed about this whole process,' Allen said. 'I'm not afraid. I have ChatGPT on my side.' OpenAI and xAI did not respond to USA TODAY's requests for comment. Reach Rachel Barber at rbarber@ and follow her on X @rachelbarber_
USA Today
31 minutes ago
- USA Today
Fed's Powell faces dilemma as he crafts message on interest rate cuts at Jackson Hole
A year ago, when Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell delivered his keynote address at the central bank's annual conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, his message was straightforward and market-friendly. Inflation was easing, job growth was slowing and the unemployment rate was rising at a pace that traditionally signals recession. After hiking its key interest rate to a 23-year high to fight a pandemic-induced inflation spike, the Fed was finally poised to lower it, Powell said. Stocks surged. At his Jackson Hole speech on Aug. 22, Powell faces a more formidable challenge as he looks to provide another signal about the Fed's September interest rate plans after yet another long pause aimed at ensuring consumer price increases have been tamed. This time, however, the picture is far more muddled, and economists are split over whether Powell will telegraph a likely rate decrease next month or a continuation of the Fed's wait-and-see approach. Minutes of the Fed's July 29-30 meeting released Wednesday, Aug. 20, showed most officials regarded high inflation, not a weak job market, as the largest risk. A rate cut likely would reduce a wide range of borrowing costs for millions of Americans, including for certain mortgages, credit cards and auto loans, but also trim bank savings rates that have gotten more generous the past few years. Powell is also expected to announce a policy shift that could keep interest rates higher over the longer term as officials put more emphasis on keeping inflation contained. How is the job market in the US right now? Job growth has weakened substantially but, at 4.2%, the unemployment rate has been stable at a historically low level. And inflation has climbed higher in recent months, at least in part because of President Donald Trump's sweeping import tariffs. Before cutting rates, Powell has said, officials want to ensure tariffs amount to a one-time bump to inflation and don't raise Americans' inflation expectations in ways that ripple through the economy. How does the Fed decide the interest rate? The Fed lowers rates to support a flagging economy and job market. It raises rates or keeps them higher for longer to cool the economy and wrestle down inflation. Officials slashed a key rate by a percentage point late last year but have been on hold since December as they assesses the impact of the import fees on prices. Powell in July also said officials are focused on the unemployment rate, rather than job growth, as they weigh a rate decrease because reduced immigration – due mostly to Trump's policies – have lowered the number of payroll gains needed to keep the jobless rate low. Simply put, there are fewer people looking for jobs, so it's not such a bad thing that there are fewer jobs available. While the unemployment rate meets the Fed's goal of 'maximum employment,' the Fed's preferred inflation measure, at just under 3%, is well above its 2% target, Powell noted. The implication: Officials are still in no hurry to lower rates. That was all before the historically bad July jobs report came out early this month. What was the July jobs report? Employers added just 73,000 jobs and employment gains for May and June were revised down by a massive 258,000. Unemployment rose from 4.1% to a still-low 4.2%. The revisions, which left job growth averaging a measly 35,000 the past three months, have futures markets giving 81% odds of a September rate cut. Does Powell stick to his cautious message and disappoint investors despite the feeble July employment report? Or does he hint at a likely rate cut that may appear as though he's backtracking from his guidance about staying focused on inflation and unemployment rather than job gains? 'He is in a difficult spot,' said Jonathan Millar, senior U.S. economist at Barclays. Another wrinkle: Trump has been badgering Powell and the Fed to cut rates, calling him a "moron," and "numbskull," among other derogatory epithets. Powell has said the Fed isn't influenced by politics. Powell hasn't been the only target of Trump's ire at the central bank. The president on Aug. 20 demanded Fed governor Lisa Cook resign following fraud accusations from his administration. With the August inflation and jobs reports scheduled to be released before the Fed's mid-September meeting, providing officials a more complete picture, 'I don't think he's going to give a really strong signal' either way, said David Seif, chief economist for developed markets at Nomura. Yet forecasters anticipate at least some clues. If Powell doesn't push back at market expectations for a September rate cut, investors will likely interpret it as tacit confirmation such a move is likely, Millar said. Is inflation actually getting better? Overall inflation held steady last month at 2.7% but a core measure that strips out volatile food and energy items and that the Fed watches more closely jumped from 2.9% to 3.1%, according to the consumer price index. The effects from tariffs were mixed. Some goods typically imported from China, such as furniture and video and audio products, rose sharply. Others, including apparel and toys, moved up more modestly. Most economists viewed the report as relatively benign and a virtual all-clear signal for the Fed to chop rates in September. 'We don't see any real sign of tariff-induced inflation,' Seif said. Millar, however, noted that a gauge of wholesale costs rose at the fastest pace in more than three years, auguring a further rise in consumer prices. And Austan Goolsbee, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and a voting members of the Fed's interest rate-setting committee, told reporters last week he's worried about big price increases in categories such as airfares and dental services that may reflect a more fundamental and persistent inflation rise. He also said he's not so concerned about low job growth figures because of population changes resulting from immigration policy changes. That's noteworthy because Goolsbee is considered a 'dovish' Fed official who often favors cutting rates to avoid recession rather than raising them to head off inflation. Economists also disagree about the state of the job market. Goldman Sachs is worried that hiring in healthcare, education and the public sector, which supported solid job gains for many months, has now faded. And many other private-sector employers have put plans to add employees on hold as they await the effects of Trump's tariffs. Seif said the unemployment rate may be providing a deceptive signal of the labor market's health. In July, the share of Americans working or looking for jobs fell to the lowest level since November 2022. Although layoffs are still low, hiring has slipped below prepandemic levels. The upshot: Many unemployed people and recent college graduates are getting discouraged and leaving the workforce, Seif said. 'You have the unemployment rate creeping up and a lot of people dropping out of the labor market,' Seif said. He expects the Fed to trim its key rate by a quarter percentage point next month to a range of 4% to 4.25%. 'Three months of 35,000 (average) job gains is pretty bad.' But Millar said Trump's immigration crackdown could be skewing the labor force participation numbers. Many migrants are likely hesitant to answer questions from government officials conducting a jobs survey. He expects Powell to signal a high bar for a September rate cut. 'A lot of the job market is consistent with full employment,' he said, citing the low unemployment rate. What is the policy framework of the Federal Reserve? Powell is also expected to announce a reversal of a 5-year-old policy shift that could keep interest rates somewhat higher over the long term. In 2020, the economy had been growing slowly during the decade since the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and inflation remained stubbornly low. That's a potential problem because persistently low inflation can prompt consumers and businesses to expect it to continue, perpetuating a cycle of paltry price increases. That can lead to deflation, or falling prices, that may prompt consumers to put off purchases, hobbling the economy. So instead of targeting 2% inflation, the Fed decided to aim for inflation that averages 2% over time. As a result, if inflation undershoots the Fed's target, officials would allow it to run 'moderately above 2% for some time," as Powell put it. The Fed also said its goal of 'maximum employment' would be determined by 'shortfalls" from that level rather than 'deviations.' In other words, officials became less concerned about very low unemployment, believing it would be unlikely to spark high inflation and would help create more jobs for low-income and minority workers. But the Fed's willingness to let inflation run hotter for longer may have contributed to the post-COVID-19 price surge. And with inflation and consumers' inflation expectations running higher than normal the past few years, Powell is expected to announce the Fed is returning to its previous policy of targeting 2% inflation and responding to 'deviations' from its goal of full employment, including an unemployment rate that's too low as well as too high.
USA Today
31 minutes ago
- USA Today
The U.S. won't enforce car fuel efficiency rules. That could cost you money.
Last month, President Donald Trump's signature bill eliminated the penalties car makers would have had to pay for not meeting fuel economy requirements. The car industry applauded the move, which, federal data shows, has cost manufacturers over a billion dollars in fines in the last decade. While the fuel efficiency rules are still in the books, for now, taking away the fines, some experts say, can remove incentives to make cars use fewer gallons for more miles. 'If there's no penalty, the auto companies can cheat at will,' said Dan Becker, the director of the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at The Center for Biological Diversity. 'It's a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card.' But what does that mean for you? To illustrate the impact fuel economy rules could have on how much you pay at the gas station, USA TODAY compiled data for nearly 100 of the most popular cars by sales in the country. For example, driving the most efficient 2025 Ford F-150 for 15,000 miles costs about $2,000 today. That cost would be cut nearly in half if Ford retrofitted the truck to meet federal efficiency standards it was required to follow by 2031. That conclusion is based on the miles-per-gallon rating of this car now, compared with what it's required to have in a few years. Using the same method across all the popular car models, potential saving estimated by USA TODAY ranged from $53 up to $1,432, with most cars saving between $900 and $1,200, if the requirements are met. The analysis included passenger cars, SUVs, minivans and pickup trucks. Although car manufacturers plan their models years ahead, the rollback could mean that eventually they won't feel pressure to innovate or make their cars more fuel-efficient, Becker said. K. Venkatesh Prasad, senior vice president of research and chief innovation officer at the Center for Automotive Research, said there could be a slowdown in mileage improvements without regulatory demand, but the industry thinks on a global scale. 'Avoiding local (say, U.S.) cost given relaxed local regulations would hurt global sales or add new cost to sales of the US-designed products in other markets (China and Europe) so car makers and equally importantly the major suppliers would all invest to be ready for all major markets,' Prasad said in an emailed statement. Last year, the Biden administration said its fuel efficiency standards for 2027 through 2031 would save Americans over $23 billion. While it's an imperfect system, experts say the fuel efficiency requirements work, not only for drivers but for the environment too. David Greene, a research professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, co-authored a study that estimated the almost-doubling of fuel economy between 1975 and 2018 saved 2 trillion gallons of gasoline and 17 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. Beyond the removal of fines, the broader fuel economy requirements set by the previous administration are also being reviewed, a National Highway Transportation Safety Administration agency spokesperson told USA TODAY, in a statement. Asked whether it still projects that drivers will save $23 billion in fuel costs in the coming years, the agency said: 'We look forward to sharing the updated assessment of costs and benefits as part of the rulemaking process. Once the updated standards are completed, the agency will continue to track and notify companies when they are out of compliance.' The agency pointed to the projected increase in costs for new cars from the standards in place. Its analysis last year showed that, while regulatory costs would add a few hundred dollars to car prices, that increase would eventually be offset by fuel savings. The removal of penalties is part of a larger trend to undo regulations around the fossil fuel industry. Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed to rollback greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars. These two standards work together: the less fuel a car needs to use, the lower its emissions. Greene, who previously served as an advisor for the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, acknowledges that the emissions standards were ambitious, but said removing these could hamper efforts to curb climate change. 'That's a huge blow to the U.S. efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigate the damaging effects of climate change, which we see just about every day now,' Greene said. Transportation, which also includes ships, trains and planes, is the largest sector emitting climate-warming gases, according to the EPA. When EPA administrator Lee Zeldin announced the car greenhouse gas emissions repeal, he touted the more affordable prices and regulatory relief. However, the agency's own draft assessment showed that the move could cost the economy hundreds of billions of dollars, USA TODAY previously reported. The Biden EPA rule would have increased costs of new cars: between $900 for a sedan to $2,600 for an SUV, according to the projections announced at the time. But in the long run, cheaper maintenance and fuel savings would have offset those initial costs, estimating sedan and SUV drivers saving $4,400 over the lifetime of the car. Incentives to switch to electric cars, which would have added to the savings, are also vanishing. For example, people who buy new electric cars no longer get $7,500 in federal tax credits. Trump administration also pulled the plug on a Biden initiative to grow the network of electric vehicle chargers. Whether car makers will continue to comply with the future fuel economy standards is yet to be determined, but Becker points towards the past. After the fuel standards were initially set, they stayed about the same for about two decades and emissions didn't improve further until they were upped again during Obama's administration. 'The auto companies, without the rules, failed to improve the efficiency of their vehicles,' Becker said. Our methodology USA TODAY based its analysis on the 100 most popular cars in the country. We looked up each model on a federal database to find its miles-per-gallon rating for 2025 models, or the latest available for some recently discontinued models. Each model has various trims (like 2WD or 4WD) with different fuel economy. We used the most efficient trim, excluding EVs and plug-in electric hybrids, to lean on a conservative estimate. We compared costs under that current fuel economy against the required economy for 2031, using the current fuel prices from the Energy and Information Administration. Some caveats: The fuel economy ratings for current cars are taken under ideal lab conditions. Real world fuel efficiency tends to be lower than lab ratings. The government-required levels also don't mean that every car meets or will meet them. These apply as a fleet average, weighted by sales, to car manufacturers. Potential fuel savings from an alternative method that David Greene showed USA TODAY projected smaller savings but still in the hundreds of dollars. This method calculated a fractional reduction in fuel consumption based on current and future fuel economy requirements.
