Skip to content

9 July, 2025

  • Saved Articles
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
  • Log In
  • Log Out

Board Agenda

  • Governance
  • Strategy
  • Risk
  • Ethics
  • News
  • Insight
    • Categories

      • View all
      • Governance
      • Strategy
      • Risk
      • Ethics
      • Board Expertise
      • finance
      • Technology
    • EU sustainability

      Omnibus package must not undermine EU sustainability

      Now is the time for Europe to speed up green transition, rather than slow it...

    • high pay

      Pay gap transparency needs to be better

      It’s not unknown for a CEO to earn 500 times as much the median employee,...

    • executive pay

      Executive pay trends in 2025

      Opposition to remuneration reports has grown sharply, according to Georgeson’s analysis of voting outcomes in...

  • Comment
      • View all
    • EU sustainability

      Omnibus package must not undermine EU sustainability

      Now is the time for Europe to speed up green transition, rather than slow it...

    • high pay Pay gap transparency needs to be better

      It’s not unknown for a CEO to earn 500 times as much the median employee,...

    • future-proof governance levers How to future-proof your business

      For boards to bolster resilience and create value in a polycrisis, a combination of hard...

  • Interviews
      • View All Interviews
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars
    • UK Corporate Governance Code Board meetings ‘are not up to scratch’

      Nearly three-quarters of board members believe the board’s performance in meetings needs improvement, an expert...

    • financial sanctions Tariffs chaos drives boardroom focus on resilience

      Business leaders will prioritise the resilience of their organisations in the face of economic upheaval...

    • supply chain oversight Act now on supply chain oversight, boards warned

      Board directors need to critically engage with the business’s supply chain activity, a panel of...

  • Board Careers
  • Resource Centre
      • White Paper Downloads
      • Book Reviews
      • Board Advisory & Corporate Services
    • C-suite barometer: outlook 2025 – UK insights

      Forvis Mazars draws UK insights from its global study and looks at UK executives’ strategic...

    • Talent Management 2025 Mind Gym

      Talent Management in 2025

      From rethinking leadership to wrestling with AI, MindGym's report reveals the trends shaping talent strategies...

    • Korn Ferry CHRO 2025 (Copy)

      On The Highwire: Being a CHRO in 2025

      Korn Ferry surveyed 750 senior HR leaders (including 450 CHROs) to understand their key priorities...

  • Events
  • Search by topic
    • Governance
    • Strategy
    • Risk
    • Ethics
    • Regulation
    • ESG
    • Investor Relations
    • Careers
    • Board Expertise
    • finance
    • Technology

US senator Marco Rubio: ‘woke corporations’ could breach fiduciary duty

by Gavin Hinks on October 14, 2021

Rubio has proposed new legislation allowing shareholders to bring legal action against directors over “political conflicts of interest”.

Senator Marcio Rubio

Image: Rich Koele/Shutterstock.com

The “war on woke” has entered the field of US corporate governance. The move comes from Florida’s Republican senator Marco Rubio, who has proposed legislation making it easier for shareholders to bring legal action against company directors for breach of “fiduciary duty” if they adopt corporate social policies that raise the “spectre of political bias”.

In an article for the Harvard Law School governance blog, Rubio rails against elements of corporate America that have allegedly embraced the “woke revolution” reflecting the views of a “narrow, elite slice of the population against the views of the public as a whole”. These policy decisions, he argues, have “severed the once constructive connection between corporate America and the conservative movement,” and “undermines” the assumption that “large corporations are good for our economy and our society”.

His proposed law, the Mind Your Own Business Act, seeks to have public listed companies change their charters or bylaws making it easier to pursue directors if their decisions involve “political conflicts of interest” which, Rubio says, are “unrelated to the pecuniary interest of the company”. This might include decisions in response to state laws; denying the sale of goods to an industry (such as refusing to buy firearms); promoting ideas during employee training programmes that suggest the US is “fundamentally racist or sexist”; or recruitment policies based on “diversity, equity and inclusion”.

Rubio writes: “Political conflicts of interest can cause breaches of fiduciary duty, just like financial conflicts of interests. However, corporate leadership acts today as if they cannot.” He even suggests taking a “woke” approach to politics prevents “corporations from effectively serving their patriotic and neccessary” role of “serving the common good”

Rubio is not without support. One commentator on the Harvard website writes: “We need to revert to the sage advice and counsel of Milton Friedman expounded in his article, The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, in The New York Times Magazine on September 13, 1970. Stockholders over stakeholders.”

Changing assumptions of fiduciary duty

Rubio’s intervention follows a number of corporate actions and statements in response to political events. Big corporates were some of the first to stand by the Black Lives Matter movement. Nike tweeted: “Don’t pretend there’s not a problem in America.” When Georgia introduced laws to make absentee voting harder Coca-Cola levelled criticism at the legislation, Delta Airlines chief executive Ed Bastian called it “unacceptable”, and Major League Baseball moved its annual all-star game out of the state capital Atlanta. Famously, Twitter and Facebook banned Donald Trump following the riot at the US Capitol in January.

But there are also other developments. The Joe Biden administration has provoked a consultation on the introduction of mandatory ESG disclosure rules for US companies, a move that has triggered a hotly fought debate despite being widely supported by investors.

Rubio’s legislative move is seen by some as an effort to force “ESG concerns into a special interests corner”. One governance expert told Board Agenda: “As the business case for sustainability builds that argument against investors is getting stale and similar initiatives under the Trump era to quash ESG-related investing are being shelved.”

Another close observer, Richard Leblanc, a professor of governance at York University, Canada, and a teacher at Harvard, says assumptions about fiduciary duty around the world are “changing to recognise the short and long-term nature of this duty”. It is “appropriate”, he adds, that corporate governance recognises “broader internal and societal interests in decision making beyond profit and shareholder wealth”.

As for conflict of interests? Most companies have “robust” measures and controls in place to “constrain any interest that may be perceived to influence the ability to act only with regard to the nest interests of the corporation”.

Free speech for directors

Leblanc adds that Rubio’s legislation appears to curtail free speech for company officers and directors setting a “dangerous precedent”. Congress cannot have it “both ways”, Leblanc adds. Companies and directors “either have the right of free speech or they do not”.

Lastly, he argues if Rubio wants to strengthen the position of US shareholders they should be given the right to “communicate with and remove company directors”.

“The forgoing would have a far greater effect on strengthening corporate governance and accountability than restricting free speech would,” he says.

It was perhaps inevitable that corporate governance would become ensnared in the US culture wars over “woke” politics. CEO activism has seen an increasing number of leaders speak out on social issues, while research from Edelman, an international communications company, finds the public places an increasing level of trust in company executives. A push for companies to heed calls to play a greater societal role was bound to provoke reaction. It remains to be seen whether Rubio’s proposed legislation will win the support it needs to become law.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Mail

Related Posts

  • Senator Marco Rubio calls for workers to sit on US boards
    February 1, 2022
    Senator Marcio Rubio

    The proposal is expected as part of a bill by Republicans Rubio and congressman Jim Banks to create "employee involvement organisations".

  • Is Elon Musk trolling Twitter?
    April 12, 2022

    Tesla and SpaceX CEO Musk has created a tricky governance challenge by buying a 9.2% stake in Twitter but declining a seat on the board.

  • Boards prioritising company insiders over independence
    September 27, 2021
    Head containing information

    After a previous trend for independent directors, crisis-hit boards have been appointing more company insiders with firm-specific knowledge.

  • Companies that make political donations are 'less risky'
    June 28, 2022
    Businessman handing over a cheque

    Research finds lower levels of both systemic and idiosyncratic risk among politically connected businesses.

Search


Follow Us

Register Free

Stay in the know! Register to access the latest governance news; plus receive updates about our events and podcasts – Sign up here

 

Most Popular

Featured Resources

wef global risks 2025

The Global Risks Report 2025

The 20th edition of the Global Risks Report reveals an increasingly fractured global...
Supply chain management cover

Strategic Oversight in Supply Chain Management: A Guide for Corporate Boards 2025

Supply chains have become complex, interdependent and opaque and—according to research...
OB-Cyber-Security

Cyber Security: What Boards Need to Know

Maintaining firewalls, protecting servers and filtering malicious emails rarely make...

The IA’S Principles Of Remuneration 2024 2025

This guidance from the Investment Association is aimed at assisting remuneration...
Diligent 2024 leadership tech cover

Leadership, decision-making & the role of technology: Business survey 2024

This research report by Board Agenda and Diligent sheds light on how board directors...

Director Reference Guide: Navigating Conflict in the Boardroom

The 'Director Reference Guide' on navigating conflict in the boardroom provides practical...
Nasdaq 2024 governance report cover

Nasdaq 2024 Global Governance Pulse

This Nasdaq survey gathered data from more than 870 board members, executives, and...

Becoming a non-executive director (4th edition)

Board composition is the subject of much debate, while the role of the non-executive...
art & science brainloop new cover

The Art & Science of Creating an Effective Board

Boards are coming under more scrutiny and pressure than ever before from regulators,...
SAA First time NED guide

First Time Guide for Non-Executive Directors

The role of the non-executive director has never been more vital: to advise, support,...

Register Free

Stay in the know! Register to access the latest governance news; plus receive updates about our events and podcasts. Register


  • Editors & Contributors
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Board Advisory & Corporate Services
  • Media Marketing Solutions
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Board Director Network
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookies
|

Copyright © 2025 Questor Media Group Ltd.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sitemap