"Does corporate political advocacy wrong shareholders?" (2025) Journal of Business Ethics. (link)

​

Abstract: 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.

"Compelled Speech at Work: Employer Mobilization as a Threat to Employee Speech Rights." (2024) Philosophy of Management. (open access)

​

Abstract: Employers often encourage, incentivize, or even require their employees to engage in politics in a variety of ways. For example, employers often encourage employees to vote, press employees to support particular political candidates or policies, require employees to participate in political events, or ask employees to contact elected officials to advocate for the employer’s interests. Such practices are all forms of employer mobilization. This essay considers the threat that employer mobilization poses to employees’ speech rights, specifically employees’ right against compelled speech.