Emerson Electric

Corporate Weaponization Risk Levels
Criteria	Risk Level
Cancellations	Medium Risk
Discriminatory Philanthropy	High Risk
Employment Protection	High Risk

Corporate Governance and Public Policy Risk Levels
Criteria	Risk Level
Advocacy Bias	High Risk
Funding	High Risk
Political Actions	High Risk

Insights

Tale of Two Rebrands: Cracker Barrel Listened. Jaguar Did Not. The Results Speak Loudly

August 5, 2026

It was the best of times for customer loyalty. It was the worst of times for corporate rebranding. In a span of two years, two iconic brands ventured into the same storm and shipwrecked their reputations and their stock prices all in the name of “reinvention.” One heard the roar from loyal customers and adjusted course. The other remained willfully deaf. The results tell the story, even for those who still don’t want to hear it. In the dog days of August 2025, Cracker Barrel unveiled a stripped-down new logo and began remodeling its restaurants, scrubbing out the nostalgia-rich clutter for a more antiseptic, sure-to-be-dated-in-a-year look. Unsurprisingly, faithful customers noticed and responded immediately. The familiar barrel with Uncle Herschel seated nearby vanished. The warm, unpretentious and inviting character that had defined the chair for decades seemed to evaporate in a moment. Sales, which had already been slowing due to declining food quality complaints, suffered more. The stock price plummeted, wiping out tens of millions in market value in days. Investors following the company closely raised concerns, including investor Sardar Biglari who specifically outlined the downsides of the rebrand, calling the $700 million transformation plan “obvious folly” well before the company poured capital into the doomed project. High profile voices across media and online platforms joined in to amplify the disconnect. Even President Trump joined the conversation posting on Truth Social “Cracker Barrel should go back to the old logo, admit a …

Insights

As You Sow Misleads Readers about Anti-DEI Proposals

July 31, 2026

Earlier this summer, as the 2025-2026 proxy season came to a close, leading progressive shareholder group As You Sow intentionally misled readers about the success of anti-DEI proposals. As You Sow suggested that voting results on anti-DEI shareholder proposals at 43 companies this season, including Disney, Costco, Visa, and Apple, proved that 99% of investors are opposed to anti-DEI measures. As You Sow claimed that the universal failure of these proposals sends an “unmistakable message” to corporate boards that DEI is a “financial asset” that directors need to prioritize for the needs of the company, labelling anti-DEI efforts as a “political threat.” A 0-43 record for anti-DEI proposals does appear striking at first. However, no ESG proposals won majority support in the 2025-2026 proxy season, which includes pro-DEI proposals at 0-10 with an average support around 13%. According to Broadridge’s 2025 ProxyPulse report, voting by retail investors “declined to 28% of their shares owned in 2025,” which is the lowest level of participation in 9 years. Low retail investor participation is the historical norm, as proxy votes are disproportionately cast by large institutions on their behalf, not by individual investors. As You Sow knows this. Furthermore, for As You Sow to suggest that “[d]iversity is not a liability to be managed, it is a dividend to be captured” when companies like IBM and Nike have recently faced intense scrutiny for their DEI practices is absurd. To learn more about the Myth of Shareholder Democracy, consider reading Stefan Padfield’s piece titled: Proxy Voting and the Myth About Shareholder Democracy.

Insights

DEI by Another Name

July 30, 2026

In response to legal, political, consumer, or shareholder pressures, companies are increasingly replacing “DEI” terminology with broader terms such as “Inclusion,” “Culture,” or “Belonging,” while providing little explanation as to whether the changes are substantive or primarily cosmetic. For example, CVS Health renamed its public-facing DEI page to ”Inclusion & Belonging” without issuing a public statement explaining the change. The company also stopped referencing a diversity pay metric for leadership in their annual 10-K filing. Similarly, Home Depot quietly removed its DEI webpage and replaced it with a ”Living Our Values“ section. While these changes alter the public branding, they do not necessarily clarify whether the companies’ underlying policies or priorities have materially changed. From a shareholder perspective, this lack of transparency can create uncertainty about a company’s strategic direction and how it intends to approach politically and socially contentious issues going forward. It is in companies’ best fiduciary interest to clearly communicate whether they are maintaining, modifying, or discontinuing DEI-related initiatives rather than simply changing terminology. Providing that clarity allows shareholders and other stakeholders to better understand the company’s priorities and evaluate whether its policies remain focused on advancing its core business objectives and long-term fiduciary responsibilities. Home Depot’s Previous DEI Page vs Its “Rebranded” Page

Insights

How Companies Have Responded to the SPLC

July 30, 2026

Growing scrutiny of the Southern Poverty Law Center has sparked a broader conversation about how its “hate group” list is being used to blacklist mainstream Christian and conservative nonprofits from corporate charitable giving programs, most notably through Benevity, one of the largest employee-match platforms, used by hundreds of the Fortune 500. Below, we track how companies are responding to the public call to distance themselves from the SPLC and to stop using its designations to discriminate in corporate giving. 7 Publicly removed the SPLC filter 5 Confirmed no politicized filters 5 Distanced themselves from the SPLC 2 Dodged or downplayed the filter 7 Publicly removed the SPLC filter Salesforce Bowyer Research (Substack) Mastercard Bowyer Research (Substack) Texas Instruments Bowyer Research (Substack) AT&T Bowyer Research (Substack) NVIDIA Daily Signal Microsoft Daily Signal DoorDash Daily Signal 5 Confirmed they do not use politicized hate-group filters for charitable eligibility Meta Bowyer Research (Substack) Morgan Stanley Bowyer Research (Substack) Citi Citi Foundation statement McDonald’s American Express 5 Publicly distanced themselves from the SPLC Reported together in a single account of tech companies stepping back from the SPLC. Source: Daily Signal → Alphabet Mastercard Meta PayPal Salesforce 2 Dodged or downplayed the SPLC filter Starbucks …

Insights

Schwab and Walmart get it right on not covering “gender transitions” for minors

Op-Ed July 28, 2026

Consider the millions of working parents who show up every day at their jobs, work hard to support their families and pay into their company’s healthcare plans. They trust that their premiums will fund genuine medical care, not repeat one of medicine’s darkest mistakes. In our not-so-distant past, frontal lobotomies were performed to “treat” psychiatric conditions — despite limited evidence of effectiveness. The operations had devastating long-term effects and no proven medical benefit. It was not long before the world realized what a serious mistake was being committed and put a stop to this abusive “treatment.” Today’s unproven “gender-affirming” interventions on minors use surgery, hormones and puberty blockers to address a mental health condition with similarly irreversible consequences: permanent sterilization, the removal of healthy organs and lifelong physical and emotional damage. No responsible modern healthcare plan would cover frontal lobotomies, yet many quietly fund these experimental sex-denying procedures on children. Let us not repeat that shameful history on our gender-dysphoric youths. This is not healthcare. These are not medically necessary procedures. These are not minor adjustments or reversible treatments. They are costly, permanently damaging experiments on our children, who lack the maturity and legal capacity to count the cost of …

Insights

550+ Companies Covering Sex-Denying Procedures for Minor Dependents

List July 28, 2026

According to February 2026 data from the Human Rights Campaign, 550+ companies provide health insurance coverage for transgender medical interventions, including puberty blockers, hormones, and surgical procedures, to covered minor dependents through their employee health plans. HRC reports this information after a corporate representative uses an online HRC portal to upload, or affirm a previously uploaded copy of, the company’s Summary Plan Description (SPD) or Summary of Material Modification (SMM) that explicitly shows coverage for transition-related care. The representative must also upload a copy of the company’s applicable clinical guidelines (medical policy). These companies range from major financial institutions and law firms to retailers, insurers, and tech giants. Shareholders, customers, parents, and employees deserve to know where their companies stand. 1792 Exchange calls on every company on this list to adopt clear protections for minor dependents in their healthcare plans and get back to business. A&O Shearman Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation Billtrust Box Inc. Griffith Foods Group Hanover Insurance Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey HSBC Holdings Linklaters Mayer Brown MERGE Moderna Neuberger Berman Group NTT DATA Services NTT Global Data Centers Americas PGA TOUR Publicis Health Publicis Media Sony Interactive Entertainment Sony Music Sony Pictures Steptoe Sutherland Global …

Company Leadership

Political Contributions of Leadership

Rating Criteria

Latest Content

Tale of Two Rebrands: Cracker Barrel Listened. Jaguar Did Not. The Results Speak Loudly

As You Sow Misleads Readers about Anti-DEI Proposals

DEI by Another Name

How Companies Have Responded to the SPLC

Schwab and Walmart get it right on not covering “gender transitions” for minors

550+ Companies Covering Sex-Denying Procedures for Minor Dependents