Sony
Sony Corporation of America (Sony) is High Risk. The company yields to political activism in shaping corporate governance, potentially alienating consumers, dividing employees, and harming shareholders. Sony embraces corporate initiatives that redirect its central focus from business goals to partisan policies and divisive issues. This approach fails to safeguard free exercise, free speech, and free enterprise.
Rating Criteria
| Criteria | Risk Level |
|---|---|
| Cancellations | Medium Risk |
| Discriminatory Philanthropy | High Risk |
| Employment Protection | High Risk |
Corporate Weaponization ⓘ
| Criteria | Risk Level |
|---|---|
| Advocacy Bias | High Risk |
| Funding | High Risk |
| Political Actions | High Risk |
Corporate Governance and Public Policy ⓘ
Latest Content
Woke Video Games Flopping As A Non-Woke One Booms
More companies are rejecting radical DEI, but the battle is far from over
One Too Many
In July 2026, Massachusetts passed H.5595, which “[a]mends [Chapter 112] governing abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy by striking out language which currently restricts late-stage abortions to cases where the life or health of the mother is at risk…” (H.5595 Summary). 1792 Exchange’s Corporate Bias Ratings database shows 55 companies headquartered in Massachusetts actively support abortive practices. These companies support this by advocating for abortion, offering abortion travel benefits, or offering reproductive health coverage. Nixon Peabody focuses its legal practices on supporting reproductive health. The law firm states it “[provides] comprehensive support for all aspects of reproductive rights and fertility law.” Ahold Delhaize provides travel benefits to employees outside Massachusetts: Quote, it “offers abortion travel coverage” in its healthcare plan. Boston Scientific stated its “current U.S. health care benefits offer employees… a broad range of reproductive [benefits].” Who’s to say these companies do not also reimburse the procedure itself? Too many Massachusetts businesses are participating in this new amendment through overly broad reproductive “healthcare” coverage. These businesses not only support but provide means to practice this amendment. 1792 Exchange understands business neutrality affects Americans within and without the womb, and providing abortive “healthcare” isn’t big business; it’s a big price.
The EEOC’s mission is opportunity for all, not demographic bean-counting
In the Superman comics, Bizarro World is a place where everything is exactly backward. It is a cube-shaped planet where ugliness is admired, failure is celebrated, lies are preferred to truth, and the normal rules of logic are turned upside down. What is obviously true on Earth becomes false, and what is plainly false is treated as a self-evident fact. Donna Brazile recently accused the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of abandoning its purpose by proposing to end mandatory annual race-and-sex workforce reporting. Her argument reads like a dispatch from Bizarro World. In truth, the commission’s July 21 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to rescind the EEO-1 and related demographic reports is a long-overdue course correction that reorients the agency to the actual text and original intent of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII forbids discrimination against any individual based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It does not authorize the government to compel every covered employer, regardless of whether a single discrimination charge has been filed, to annually sort its workforce into racial and sex categories and submit the tallies to Washington. That regime, in place for decades, imposed nearly $275 million in annual compliance costs on employers and roughly …
What Your Company’s Pride Sponsorship Supports
Many Americans are asking why corporations continue to fund LGBTQ Pride events that include programming or vendors that most can agree are seen as inappropriate for children. At certain events, attendees may encounter nightclubs, alcohol brands, cannabis dispensaries, or drag performances that often contain sexually suggestive elements. Many families would not ordinarily choose to expose their children to these types of environments, leading some to question why such programming is viewed differently when presented under the banner of LGBTQ+ Pride or “inclusion.” Before sponsoring socially contentious events, companies should carefully consider how they want their brands to be perceived by consumers, shareholders, employees, and the broader public. While stakeholders may hold differing opinions on many social issues, protecting the well-being of children remains a widely shared concern. Corporate sponsorships communicate a company’s values and priorities, making it important to evaluate whether those partnerships support its long-term business objectives and appeal to a broad customer base rather than a narrow segment of the market. NYC Pride is sponsored by Target, which publicly committed in 2025 to stop sponsoring nonbusiness causes. The event includes Youth Pride, a program specifically designed for LGBTQIA+ youth, their families, and allies, with the stated goal of “empower[ing] …