•  
  •  
 

The University of Chicago Business Law Review

Start Page

361

Abstract

Corporations are increasingly wading into social and political matters that are unrelated to their business operations. This Paper empirically investigates corporate participation in social debates through the corporate response to Dobbs, the Supreme Court’s decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion.

First, the Paper identifies and examines the public companies that reacted to the reversal of Roe v. Wade (“Reacting Companies”). Only a few corporations reacted. On the one side, they tend to be large, with sizeable workforces, concentrated in consumer-facing and tech industries, and headquartered in states with no restrictions on abortion rights. On the other side, they tend to have more female representation on the boards and more liberal-leaning CEOs. The findings suggest that companies decided to speak mainly driven by strategic positioning reasons, but leadership’s gender and ideology might have facilitated their choice to take a stand on reproductive rights. This view is further supported by the examination of the corporate contributions to the Republican Attorney General Association (“RAGA”), which has been vocal about its fight against abortion rights. More than 20% of the Reacting Companies made anti-abortion donations, even after the reversal of Roe v. Wade, disclosing the potential inconsistency of corporations’ political speech.

Second, the Paper focuses on how corporations speak. An empirical survey of the corporate statements in reaction to Dobbs reveals heterogeneous responses. The majority of the statements only announced the coverage of employees’ abortion travel expenses (“Employee Statements”). A third of the statements expressed instead a clear political stance in support of abortion rights and against the Supreme Court’s ruling (“Political Statements”). Companies that issued Employee Statements were more likely to have Republican-leaning CEOs and to make anti-abortion donations, indicating they may have spoken due to their constituencies’ pressure. Political Statements, conversely, tended to be issued by smaller companies and were significantly more likely to be authored by the CEO itself, making it unclear if the CEO was speaking on behalf of the company or expressing a personal belief.

Overall, the Paper documents that corporations participating in the public discourse are driven by different motives and speak with different and sometimes inconsistent voices. As a result, corporate statements on social and political issues do not represent a meaningful signal of companies’ values and cannot mitigate the lack of transparency of corporations’ broader political activity.

Download

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS