Jehan El-Jourbagy has published Impact of Corporate Response to Controversial Presidential Statements or Policies in 18 DePaul Bus. & Com. L.J. 69. Below is an excerpt from the analysis section that may be of interest to BLPB readers. A version of the paper can be found on SSRN here.

With the possible exception of Tesla and Under Armour responding to the Paris Climate Agreement withdrawal, the data demonstrates that statements, both direct and more nuanced, and silence in regard to Presidential communications have little to no impact on share price. Instead, there are more clear markers, such as when a corporation announces layoffs or a new product, that show a clear dip or rise, but the responses to Presidential communications had a minimal impact.

Diversity and inclusivity are generally universal values for corporations and issuing a statement in opposition to the travel ban could be viewed as consistent with those values. The data, however, does not indicate a correlation between a public statement and share price. Moreover, the data does not reveal any marked difference between companies who issued statements and who remained silent, perhaps suggesting that company leaders may feel free to support or oppose the President without fear of financial reprisal. The only finding that may indicate a positive relationship between a statement or action and stock price is when Elon Musk left the council after President Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement. Curiously, prior to the announcement, Tesla’s stock started rising on May 23; therefore, other *97 announcements or reasons could account for the upward trend. Nevertheless, as Tesla is an electric car company that seeks a zero-emission future, making a statement in opposition to the withdrawal is very much consistent with its values and core business, and a rise in stock price compared to its competitors is an interesting finding.

However, contrary to what was noted by Chatterji et al. in their work regarding corporate advocacy and the net positive of issuing statements, the overall results do not seem to translate to the context of shareholder value. Or rather, the data does not indicate a clear positive result for making statements consistent with core values nor a clear negative impact for remaining silent even when doing so appears to be inconsistent with core values. In other words, the data appears to indicate that the market absorbs corporate activism – and lack of activism – equally in that there is very little impact. Perhaps public opinion favors statements consistent with a corporation’s mission and values, but the market is indifferent.