Latest news with #corporateResponsibility
Washington Post
3 days ago
- Business
- Washington Post
Pride events face budget shortfalls as US corporations pull support ahead of summer festivities
SAN FRANCISCO — Many U.S. corporations this year stopped supporting Pride events that celebrate LGBTQ+ culture and rights, causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in budget shortfalls ahead of the summer festivities and raising questions about corporate America's commitment to the cause. The moves come as President Donald Trump has shown antipathy for trans protections and has attempted to roll back some LGBTQ+ friendly federal policies. Experts also note that a growing slice of the public has grown tired of companies taking a stance on social and political issues.
The Independent
3 days ago
- Business
- The Independent
Pride events face budget shortfalls as US corporations pull support ahead of summer festivities
Many U.S. corporations this year stopped supporting Pride events that celebrate LGBTQ+ culture and rights, causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in budget shortfalls ahead of the summer festivities and raising questions about corporate America's commitment to the cause. The moves come as President Donald Trump has shown antipathy for trans protections and has attempted to roll back some LGBTQ+ friendly federal policies. Experts also note that a growing slice of the public has grown tired of companies taking a stance on social and political issues. San Francisco Pride, the nonprofit that produces one of the country's largest and best-known LGBTQ+ celebrations, is facing a $200,000 budget gap after corporate donors dropped out. In Kansas City, Missouri, KC Pride lost about $200,000 — roughly half its annual budget. Heritage of Pride, the umbrella organization behind NYC Pride and other LGBTQ+ events in New York City, is fundraising to narrow a $750,000 budget gap after companies withdrew. Meanwhile, Budweiser brewer Anheuser-Busch ended its sponsorship of PrideFest in St. Louis, Missouri, its home base, after 30 years, leaving organizers with a $150,000 budget shortfall. In response, many Pride organizations have canceled some dance parties, reduced the number of stages, hired less pricey headliners and no longer give volunteers free food or T-shirts. But the core celebrations will go on. In San Francisco, this year's Pride theme is 'Queer Joy is Resistance.' In New York, it's 'Rise Up: Pride in Protest,' and, in Boston, it's 'Here to Stay!' 'If you come to Pride this year, that's a revolutionary act,' said Suzanne Ford, executive director of San Francisco Pride. 'You are sending a message to those in Washington that, here in San Francisco, we still have the same values that we've always had — you can love who you love here. We're not going to retreat from that.' Following media coverage of their retreat, some companies changed course but asked that their names not be affiliated with the events, the event organizers said. Corporations rethink Prid e sponsorships San Francisco Pride earlier this year lost the support of five major corporate donors, including Comcast, Anheuser-Busch and Diageo, the beverage giant that makes Guinness beer and Smirnoff vodka. 'With everything we're facing from the Trump administration, to lose five of your partners within a couple of weeks, it felt like we were being abandoned,' Ford said. After the withdrawals drew attention, some corporations said they would donate but only anonymously, Ford said, declining to identify those companies. As of this week, neither Comcast, Anheuser-Busch nor Diageo appeared on the organization's website as sponsors of the June 29 festivities. It was unclear if they donated. Anheuser-Busch and Diageo didn't reply to emails from The Associated Press seeking comment. A spokesperson for Comcast also declined to comment but said some of its companies are sponsoring Silicon Valley Pride and Oakland Pride. NYC Pride spokesperson Chris Piedmont said about 20% of its corporate sponsors either dropped their support or scaled back, including New York-based PepsiCo and Nissan. Kyle Bazemore, Nissan North America's director of corporate communications, said the decision comes as the automaker reviews all of its marketing expenses to lower costs. PepsiCo did not return an email seeking comment. Piedmont said NYC Pride has also received anonymous corporate funding and that he appreciates the unpublicized support. 'Writing a check to a nonprofit and supporting a nonprofit with no strings attached is stepping up to the plate,' Piedmont said. Companies retreat from 'brand activism' The shift reflects how corporations are adjusting to a changing cultural landscape that began during the pandemic and accelerated with Trump's second term, experts said. 'Companies are resourceful, they are clever at identifying trends and studying their environment and their customers' needs, but those needs change and corporations adjust,' said Amir Grinstein, a marketing professor at Northeastern University. Corporations' presence in rainbow-filled Pride parades, concerts and dance parties became more ubiquitous after the landmark 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, as companies splashed their names on parade floats, rainbow flags and bright plastic bracelets. So-called brand activism reached its peak between 2016 to 2022, a period of social upheaval around the pandemic, police brutality and transgender rights, Grinstein said. But research has since found a growing number of American consumers don't want companies taking positions on such topics, said Barbara Kahn, a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 'There have always been people who said, 'I don't want my toothpaste to have an opinion, I just want to use my toothpaste,' but the tide has shifted, and research shows there are more people that feel that way now," Kahn said. Pride organizers keep their distance from some corporations Meanwhile, Republican-led states have been passing legislation to curtail diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and LGBTQ+ rights, especially the ability of transgender young people to participate in sports or receive gender-affirming care. Trump signed executive orders on his first day in office that rolled back protections for transgender people and terminated federal DEI programs. Some companies followed suit by eliminating their DEI goals, prompting Pride organizations to sever ties. San Francisco's organizers cut ties with Meta after the parent company of Facebook and Instagram terminated its DEI goals and content moderation policies. Twin Cities Pride ended its relationship with Target over the Minneapolis-based retailer's curtailing of its DEI initiatives following a backlash from conservatives and the White House. The company's retreat from DEI policies led to a counter-boycott by civil rights advocates. Target announced in May that sales fell more than expected in the first quarter due to customer boycotts, tariffs and other economic factors. The company now offers only some Pride products at a few stores and online. Still, Rick Gomez, Target's chief commercial officer, told reporters in May that it's important to celebrate Heritage Months, which highlight different groups from Latinos to Asian Americans to the LGBTQ+ community. "They drive sales growth for us,' he said. Asking the community for financial support First-time donations from individuals, foundations and local businesses have increased following corporate America's retreat. In Minneapolis, a crowdfunding campaign by Twin Cities Pride to fill a $50,000 funding gap raised more than $89,000. In San Francisco, two local foundations donated $55,000 combined. 'This isn't the first year that there's been an inflammatory climate around Pride,' said James Moran, a spokesperson for KC Pride, in Kansas City, Missouri. 'We know that our community is looking for spaces that are meant for us, where we can celebrate but also process what's going on and build our own support networks.' ___ Associated Press retail reporter Anne D'Innocenzio in New York City contributed.
Fast Company
23-05-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
What is ESG investing, and is it still a thing under Trump?
The first time I met with a financial adviser who wasn't my dad, I told him that I wanted to avoid fossil fuels, weapons manufacturers, and health insurance companies in my retirement investment portfolio. The adviser paused, sighed, and said, 'I've got some bad news for you.' He explained that since I was unwilling to pick individual stocks, it was virtually impossible to avoid investing my money in those industries. And even if I had the time and temperament to trade individual stocks to keep my investments from oil, weapons, and health insurance, my money might not keep pace with the market, or even inflation. In short, my adviser believed I could either grow my money or feel good about my investments, but not both. This conversation took place more than 15 years ago. In the intervening time, socially responsible investing became mainstream. These days, every brokerage and retirement plan offers at least one ESG (environmental, social, and corporate governance) investing option for concerned investors. But just how much have things changed since my adviser poured cold water on my investing idealism? Does the existence of ESG funds truly give you the option of investing responsibly? And considering the way Trump has declared war on the very idea of corporate responsibility, will ESG investing be around much longer? In a financial world that thinks morals are paintings on walls, here's what you need to know about investing your values. Rating companies on ESG performance The ESG rating system measures the performance of a fund, security, or company in environmental, social, or corporate governance issues. Specifically, analysts look at how the company fares in terms of its environmental sustainability, its social impact, and how its internal governance promotes equity. The goal of the ESG rating system is to provide an objective analysis and rating of the company's relative performance compared to other companies in the market. The rating is no more than a snapshot in time, since industry changes, market conditions, social and environmental shifts, policy adjustments within the company, and other situational changes can affect a score. ESG doesn't mean what you think it means If ESG investing specifically highlights companies for their environmental or social impact, or for their commitment to equitable corporate governance, then investing in highly rated ESG funds means you are not only doing right by your money but also helping the planet and your fellow humans. At least that's what you'd assume ESG investing was all about. Unfortunately, that's not necessarily what highly rated ESG investments are doing. According to Kenneth P. Pucker and Andrew King, writing for Harvard Business Review in 2022, 'the ESG ratings which underlie ESG fund selection are based on single materiality —the impact of the changing world on a company profit and loss.' This is in contrast to companies considering double materiality, which looks at environmental impact in both directions: How do the organization's decisions affect the environment and climate, and what potential effect will the climate and environment have on the company's bottom line? By looking only at single materiality, highly rated ESG funds are only interested in providing value to shareholders. The underlying companies may pay lip service to sustainability or social responsibility, but their business practices don't accept responsibility for actually making any changes that will help the environment or social issues. Paying more for less Even if highly rated ESG companies aren't necessarily playing fast and loose with the definition of 'socially responsible,' it's likely that you're going to pay more to invest your money with an ESG fund—and get less for your investment. That's because ESG funds typically charge higher management fees than passive index funds while providing worse returns. This means ESG investing is an emotional decision rather than a sound investment in improving the planet, society, or your nest egg. Gaming the system The ESG rating system isn't set up to reward companies that are doing the hard work of mitigating negative environmental and social impacts. This doesn't necessarily mean that all highly rated ESG funds are full of companies headed by Gordon Gekko types. But there are certainly a number of companies that are happy to use the ESG rating system to their advantage. For instance, in 2023, presidential pal and hat weirdo Elon Musk decried the ESG rating system for ranking Tesla below Philip Morris (of cancer stick fame). Although Tesla's business model is about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Philip Morris earned a significantly higher ESG score for promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion policies within its C-suite. Musk claimed that Phillip Morris gamed the rating system to garner its 84/100 ESG score, compared to Tesla's measly 37/100. And as much as it pains me to admit it, Musk was probably right. There's not much a cigarette company can do to improve its environmental or social impact, so if it wants to improve its ESG score, it has to focus on corporate governance. Despite having an eco-friendly product, Tesla was dinged for the lack of diversity within its corporate governance. Instead of ESG spurring environmentally friendly companies like Tesla to embrace DEI initiatives in the boardroom—which is what most idealistic investors probably would have preferred to see—the rating system created a way for companies like Philip Morris to greenwash their image. Navigating the ESG landscape in the Trump era It may come as no surprise that the current president is no fan of ESG investing. Between rolling back environmental regulations, disproportionately affecting women and people of color in his mass layoffs, and axing all diversity, equity, and inclusion within his line of sight, Trump has made it abundantly clear that he does not share any of the ESG values. His distaste for these values is shared by many within the Republican party. Even before Trump returned to D.C. for his second term, multiple Republican-led states had adopted anti-ESG legislation generally aimed at keeping ESG investing out of state pension funds. While the backlash against ESG is going strong, it's unlikely that investors interested in putting their money in ESG funds will be shut out. Not only is ESG a good marketing strategy for businesses (see Philip Morris, above) but it is also popular globally, with 68% of global retail investors stating that their ethical views are an important consideration when choosing an investment, according to AXA Investment Managers. The ESG rating system isn't going anywhere. There are too many forces keeping it in place, even though high-profile tantrum throwers would prefer it to be gone. Invest like a cynical optimist I felt pretty low after my meeting with my financial adviser 15 years ago. Other than trading individual stocks—which will never be my investment style—my only option was putting my retirement money into companies I hated. When ESG investing first gained traction a few years later, my cynicism kept me from becoming too enthusiastic about the new socially responsible investing options. It was no longer my first rodeo, and I knew that there was no easy answer to values investing. And that is the trick to investing your values: recognizing that there are no easy answers. It is possible to invest your money only in companies and organizations that you truly believe in, but you will have to handpick your investments and live with the risk of low returns or potentially losing principal. You can accept the flawed ESG rating system as the best option among a bad lot, but you will have to accept higher management fees and lower returns compared to index funds. Or you can invest passively in index funds, pay lower fees, and expect average returns—but you have to accept that your money is flowing to companies you do not support. None of these options can relieve you of your ethical guilt, provide you with the investment returns you need, and require little-to-no active management on your part—because no investment can do all of that at the same time. Accepting that the perfect investment doesn't exist is the fastest way to finding an investment strategy you can live with. As for me, I've chosen to stick with the passive investing strategy that best fits my skills and temperament while committing to donating a percentage of my returns to organizations working to make the world a better place. It's an imperfect solution, but it works for me.
New York Times
09-05-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Robert A.G. Monks, Crusader Against ‘Imperial' C.E.O.s, Dies at 91
Robert A.G. Monks, a lawyer and businessman from a prominent Massachusetts family who unsuccessfully ran for the U.S. Senate three times but found a calling in his 40s as an influential defender of shareholder rights, died on April 29 at his home in Cape Elizabeth, Maine. He was 91. The cause was pancreatic cancer, which was diagnosed about a week before his death, his son, Bobby, said. By age 40, Mr. Monks had worked his way up to partner at the Goodwin Procter law firm in Boston, amassed a fortune running a regional oil and coal firm and other businesses, and made the first of three unsuccessful runs for U.S. senator in Maine. While campaigning during a Republican primary there in 1972, he noticed 'big, slick bubbles of industrial discharge' in a river, Mr. Monks wrote in an unpublished memoir. That and other signs of pollution made him wonder how corporate behavior could be better controlled. His answer was to persuade shareholders to assert their ownership rights by pressuring corporate executives to act more responsibly toward society at large. This epiphany, as he described it, ultimately gave him the sense of purpose and direction he had been seeking. He pursued his activist-shareholder agenda at the U.S. Labor Department, where he was appointed in 1983 to oversee the pension system. And in 1985, Mr. Monks, with Nell Minow, founded Institutional Shareholder Services, or ISS, which advises investors on how to vote on such matters as elections of directors, compensation policies and shareholder proposals. ISS, now majority-owned by Deutsche Börse of Germany, and a rival company, Glass Lewis, are today the largest providers of such advisory services. Their influence is such that some corporate leaders and Republican politicians, accusing the firms of pursuing 'woke' agendas, have recently called for the Securities and Exchange Commission to rein them in. Mr. Monks's main target was the concentration of power at the highest levels of corporate leadership. In 1991, he campaigned for a seat on the board of Sears, Roebuck & Co., whose share price had plunged amid losses of market share to more nimble retailers. Among other things, he sought to curb the powers of Edward A. Brennan, who was then serving as both chairman and chief executive of Sears. Mr. Monks lost in that effort but continued to push for changes in Sears' strategy. In May 1992, he bought a full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal naming Sears board members and shaming them as 'non-performing assets.' Sears at the time had been seeking to diversify, buying up financial service companies like the brokerage firm Dean Witter Reynolds and Discover credit card operations. But under pressure from Mr. Monks and other investors, Sears decided later that year to dump those businesses and focus on retail. In 2003, Mr. Monks turned his attention to Exxon Mobil. At the company's annual shareholders meeting, he lectured Lee Raymond, the chairman and chief executive. 'The scope of your operations is global, and goes beyond the usual language of business into politics and foreign policy,' Mr. Monks said. 'The scope of your power, Mr. Chairman, is truly imperial. You are an emperor.' In addition to starting ISS, Mr. Monks founded a small fund-management firm, wrote books and essays, gave speeches and formed coalitions with other corporate-governance crusaders. Partly as a result of his efforts and those of like-minded activists, more companies split the jobs of chairman and chief executive. (Among S&P 500 companies, 61 percent now divide those roles, up from 20 percent in 2000, according to ISS.) Far fewer boards are dominated by insiders, and institutional investors are more inclined to demand effective and ethical governance, Ms. Minow, the ISS co-founder, said. Mr. Monks told The New York Times in 2007, 'The notion that a company that creates a problem is exempted from trying to find a solution to that problem is like being in the elephant business but not having anyone in charge of going behind the elephant and cleaning up after it.' In one area, executive pay, he conceded that he was unable to change behavior. Pay packages for chief executives have continued to climb from levels he considered 'obscene' decades ago. Using another animal metaphor, Mr. Monks described the limits of shareholder power: 'When two gorillas get ready to fight, they throw dust at each other. I'm in the gorilla-dust business, and I'm in the gorilla-dust business not because I like it, but because it's the only game in town.' Robert Augustus Gardner Monks was born in Boston on Dec. 4, 1933, and spent his early years in what he described as a 'rambling mansion' in the western Massachusetts town of Lenox. His ancestors, including Gardners and Peabodys, had been wealthy for generations. Dividends from AT&T and General Electric sustained the family comfortably through the Depression. His father, George Gardner Monks, was a priest in the Episcopal Church and led the private Lenox School. His mother, Katherine (Knowles) Monks, ran the household and helped oversee family properties. After graduating from St. Paul's School in Concord, N.H., Mr. Monks went to Harvard, earning an undergraduate degree in history in 1954. He had stood out as a 6-foot-6 rower for the varsity crew and was awarded a Phi Beta Kappa key. He later rowed for the University of Cambridge in England, where he also studied history as a Fiske scholar. In 1954, he married Millicent Sprague, known as Milly, a descendant of the Carnegie steel family. She later founded a dance company in Maine and wrote a memoir, 'Songs of Three Islands: A Story of Mental Illness in an Iconic American Family.' She died in 2023. In addition to his son, Mr. Monks is survived by a daughter, Melinda Monks; three grandchildren; and six great-grandchildren. Mr. Monks earned his law degree at Harvard in 1958. At Goodwin Procter, his first stop after law school, he impressed colleagues with his ability to find clients among his many family connections. At age 31, though, he was tired of law and left Goodwin to take on various executive roles revitalizing and in some cases selling family businesses. A friend recruited him to be a director of Boston Co., a fund management concern, where he became chairman and a major shareholder — and cashed in when the firm was sold in 1981. Donations to Republican causes set him up for his Labor Department appointment during the Reagan administration. As a dogged Republican candidate for the Senate, Mr. Monks lost to Senator Margaret Chase Smith in the primary in 1972, to Senator Edmund Muskie, a Democrat, in the general election in 1976, and to Susan Collins, a Republican who remains in office, in the 1996 primary. He concluded that his political talents were slight. In his memoir, however, he wrote that campaigning was a joyful experience that brought him into contact with working-class people he never would have met otherwise. A 1999 biography of him by Hilary Rosenberg was titled 'A Traitor to His Class,' a label that Mr. Monks called appropriate. A devotee of transcendental meditation, he enjoyed being a maverick and needling plutocrats — a tendency that had the effect of shrinking his social circle, he wrote. Even so, he was careful not to exaggerate his heroism. 'I'm more conservative than I like to think,' he told The Financial Times in 2005. 'I'm talking a brave game, but I have a lot of money, and I'm never risking anything I can't afford to lose.'
Forbes
06-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Workers Want Companies To Keep Fighting For Reproductive Rights
New research finds that more than half of employed adults in the U.S. believe that companies should ... More speak out in support of reproductive rights. Corporate engagement on reproductive rights may include legislative advocacy, public statements and offering competitive reproductive health benefits. getty It's been nearly three years since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned women's constitutional right to abortion in the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health decision. In the immediate wake of Dobbs, many companies issued public statements condemning the decision and committing their support for abortion access. Since then, business leaders have become less outspoken about reproductive rights. Corporate leaders are understandably focused on other critical issues, including tariffs, the economy, and concerted attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion. But new research finds that many workers are eager to see renewed corporate action on reproductive rights. The data highlights the need for companies to 'act externally to support reproductive healthcare access,' said Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, in an April 7, 2025 op-ed. 'Companies that stay silent risk losing talent to competitors that don't.' More than half of employed adults believe that companies should speak out in support of reproductive rights, according to data from a survey of 10,000 adults in a 2025 report from the Institute for Women's Policy Research, conducted with Morning Consult and the Center for Reproductive Rights. This finding is consistent with shifting worker expectations about the corporate role in society. Among working adults, 60% say large companies should take a stand on important societal issues, according to JUST Capital's 2024 Americans' Views on Business Survey, based on over 3,000 responses. This expectation largely crosses political affiliation lines. The desire for large companies to take a stand on social issues was endorsed by 73% of employees identifying as liberal, 62% of moderates and 47% of conservatives. Employees particularly want corporate leaders to take action in support of women's equality and abortion access. Three out of four respondents in JUST Capital's survey agreed that corporate leaders have a role to play in advancing gender equity in the workplace, and 53% said this role includes upholding reproductive rights. When asked about corporate activism, 72% of workers said that it was extremely or very important that their employers support women's health, in Mercer's Health on Demand 2023 report, based on a global survey of 17,532 employees. Support for women's health was a top priority for both women and men, second only to support for living wages. The desire for companies to take a stand on social issues is particularly high among well-educated workers. Over two thirds of college-educated adults ages 18 to 64 said it was important that their company take a stand on social issues, in a 2022 Perry Undem report based on a survey of 3,464 individuals. Among those highly educated workers, 69% said specifically that access to reproductive health care, including abortion, should be among the issues that companies address around gender equity efforts in the workplace. 'A growing number of stakeholders are increasingly calling on corporations to take stands on social issues—and reproductive health is no exception,' concluded researchers in a 2022 Rhia Ventures report on the business case for reproductive health. 'While many companies may feel removed from the reproductive health conversation today, expectations have changed.' Reproductive Rights Are A Business Issue 'Businesses cannot succeed without the labor force contributions of women, and access to contraception and abortion is a major factor supporting women's labor rate participation,' said Shelley Alpern, Director of Corporate Engagement at Rhia Ventures, via email. Among the nearly 49.5 million prime working-age women in the U.S., nearly half live in states with severe abortion restrictions, including 17.6 million in states with total abortion bans, according to 2024 IWPR data. 'Companies also need to think about the broader economic implications,' said Alpern. 'The Institute for Women's Policy research estimates that states with abortion bans or extreme restrictions cost the national economy $61 billion in 2023 alone.' Companies also face increasing talent shortages in states with abortion bans and severe restrictions. Out-of-state workers refuse to take jobs in abortion ban states, and in-state workers are relocating to states with stronger reproductive rights, according to 2024 IWPR data. State abortion bans are particularly driving away young workers, highly educated workers, and workers who plan to have children in the next 10 years. 'As talent moves to less-restrictive states, companies may struggle to compete,' said Northup. 'To remain competitive, companies must show employees they have their back.' How Can Companies Support Reproductive Rights? Research and advocacy organizations have identified a variety of effective strategies for corporate engagement on reproductive rights. 1. Advocate for reproductive rights law and policy 'The research shows that most employees want their companies to be engaging with lawmakers for better reproductive healthcare access,' said Julia Taylor Kennedy, Senior Director at the Center for Reproductive Rights, via email. The majority of employed adults (56%) believe that companies should work with lawmakers to protect access to reproductive health care in states where they operate, according to the 2025 IWPR report. More than two in five employed adults (43%) report being more likely to work for a company that actively engages in legislative efforts to protect abortion access. Support for corporate legislative advocacy to protect reproductive rights is even higher among employees who are planning to have children soon (65%), employees likely to relocate for work (61%) and employees ages 18 to 34 (59%). 'For businesses operating in restrictive states, there is a clear message: Employees expect businesses to not only provide reproductive health care benefits but also to stand up for these rights at a policy level,' the IWPR researchers concluded. Corporate legislative advocacy can occur at the federal or state level. Engagement may include educating lawmakers about the negative business impacts of reproductive health care restrictions, writing testimony letters for congressional hearings or submitting public comments on proposed regulatory changes. Business leaders 'must convey to lawmakers—privately, if they cannot publicly—that households, communities, businesses and the economy as a whole all need more access to reproductive and maternal healthcare, not less,' said Alpern. 2. Publicly support reproductive rights Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, more than 1,000 businesses of all sizes, across all 50 states, have signed the Don't Ban Equality pledge declaring that abortion access is a core business issue. This coalition provides resources for other companies that want to take a stand to support reproductive rights. Organizations can join amicus briefs to support litigation aimed at restoring reproductive rights. Business leaders can write op-eds, speak at conferences, do interviews, or join public campaigns advocating for reproductive health access. Companies can also support or partner with legal or health organizations that are advocating for reproductive health care. 'There's safety in numbers and a lot to do,' said Northup. The researchers at Rhia Ventures also encourage business leaders to audit whether their corporate political spending may be indirectly promoting restrictions on reproductive health care. Nearly two in five employed adults (38%) say they are less likely to work for companies that donate to politicians working to restrict abortion access, according to the 2025 IWPR report. 3. Offer (and publicize) reproductive health benefits Providing comprehensive reproductive health benefits is a tangible way for companies to demonstrate commitment to reproductive rights. Reproductive health benefits encompass a range of employer-provided support for employees' family planning and women's health needs, including contraceptive coverage and abortion services. Some employers offer paid time off and cover travel costs for employees who must leave their own state to access abortion care. Data supports a strong return on investment for employee reproductive health benefits. Companies have reported a competitive advantage in attracting, supporting, and retaining talent. Three quarters of the U.S. labor force ages 18 to 64 want their employer's health insurance to cover the full range of reproductive healthcare, including abortion, according to the 2022 Perry Undem report. That includes 80% of women, as well as 75% of men ages 18 to 44. Nationwide, about 45% of employed adults say they would be more likely to apply for or accept a job if the employer provided reproductive health benefits, while only one in 10 say they would be less likely to do so, according to the 2025 IWPR report. Among workers likely to have children in the next 10 years, 57% say they are more inclined to apply for or accept a job with reproductive health benefits. Companies should 'insure abortion without exception, and reimburse for out of state travel to obtain abortion care,' said Alpern. 'They need to cover, without cost, every form of contraception in addition to what's already covered by the Affordable Care Act.' Companies can benchmark their reproductive health benefits and identify best practices with the free diagnostic survey and resources from Reproductive & Maternal Health Compass. Companies can publicize their offerings in Rhia Ventures' #WhatAreYourReproBenefits online database, which currently includes over 300 private sector employers.
