At Roe v. Wade, large corporations already have a precedent for action

With the leak of the Supreme Court’s draft decision increasing the likelihood of Roe v. Wade’s death, companies are under pressure to adopt more favorable employee policies regarding women’s reproductive rights.

In recent months, several companies, including Apple, Citigroup, Salesforce, and Yelp, have spoken out or announced changes to their benefit policies amid several state-led efforts to limit or ban abortion. Last week, Amazon announced new benefits, while a few companies, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, have said they are reviewing existing policies in the wake of news that the country’s highest court is potentially on the verge of overthrow the landmark case of abortion rights.

As the abortion debate intensifies, some business activists are urging companies to take swift steps to adopt more favorable reproductive rights policies prior to any action by the Supreme Court. “Right now it’s a ripple, but it’s going to be a wave, and when Roe is overthrown, it’s going to be a tsunami,” said Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow, a non-profit shareholder organization.

The business world is being monitored for what it says – or does not say in public. Among corporate giants who have been the mother of the issue, some may be worried about stepping into a political landmine or angering certain voters. But corporate social responsibility experts say that despite these concerns, it is important for companies to address the issue of reproductive rights.

“Public companies, whether they like it or not, are in the spotlight for this debate,” said Carla Bevins, assistant professor of business communications at Carnegie Mellon University’s Carpets School of Business. “They will continue to set the example for other companies,” she said.

Some companies have publicly urged other companies to take a stand. “Given what’s at stake, business leaders need to make their voices heard and act to protect the health and well-being of our employees. It means protecting reproductive rights,” said Levi Strauss & Co. in a statement on May 4th.

It is quite certain that taking a stand on a polarized issue such as abortion presents challenges for companies that are dealing with multiple voters with different opinions. That said, the message companies send does not have to be “overtly political,” said Martin Whittaker, CEO of Just Capital, a nonprofit research organization that measures and seeks to improve a company’s performance on environmental, social and managerial factors. . “If you focus on it as a health issue, that’s probably the surest reason,” he said.

Citigroup did, for example, and its CEO explained the company’s position in response to a question posed at its annual shareholders’ meeting on April 26 about its policy of paying for employee travel in connection with seeking abortion. “We know this is a topic that people feel passionate about. I want to be aware that this benefit is not meant to be a statement on a very sensitive topic,” CEO Jane Fraser said at the time.

Companies have been insuring abortion for years, and changing their policies now is in line with that, said Shelley Alpern, director of corporate engagement at Rhia Ventures, which invests in reproductive health solutions that empower women. “They should take action now to mitigate what is coming,” she said.

Yelp called on the CNBC Congress in a statement to codify women’s right to make decisions about their own bodies. Yelp also said companies should “step up to protect their employees and provide equal access to the health care services they need, no matter where they live.”

Furthermore, corporate policies that pay for travel when required to receive health care are not limited to abortion, with Amazon among those who note coverage for travel related to many conditions, from cancer treatment to mental health and substance abuse, in cases where is no medical option within a 100 mile radius of an employee’s home.

For many years, Citi has offered a travel benefit that typically gives employees access to specific health services, such as transplantation, bariatric or orthopedic procedures, outside their local area.

“What we did here was follow our previous practice,” Fraser told shareholders. “We have been covering reproductive health care for over 20 years. And our practice has also been to ensure that our employees have the same health coverage no matter where in the US they live. So to that end, we have had a practice of reimbursing travel for many “We respect everyone’s views on this issue,” she said.

This approach to employee health benefits has been used by Walmart for years, partnering with “centers of excellence” around the country to provide healthcare and travel and lodging expenses to employees for conditions including obesity surgery, spine and heart health, cancer treatment and other conditions.

It would be naive to think that any response to the Supreme Court ruling, even one that focuses on a company’s own employees, would be able to completely avoid the political altercation. Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida enacted legislation last week to use the tax law to penalize companies that offer additional health and travel coverage.

Meanwhile, companies withholding their plans from stakeholders, including employees, investors and customers, are at risk of making a mistake, according to corporate responsibility experts. A company’s prolonged silence can easily backfire and cause a loss of credibility among employees, consumers and shareholders.

Whittaker pointed to the recent warning story about Disney. The media giant was subjected to intense scrutiny by employees and the public for its initial reluctance to speak out against Florida law, nicknamed “Don’t Say Gay.”

The company’s management said they had thought it was better to work behind the scenes, but later promised to support efforts to crack down on the controversial law.

“What we saw with Disney is that if you’re too behind the scenes, it’s actually like treason,” said Cait Lamberton, Alberto I. Duran Presidential Distinguished Professor of Marketing at The Wharton School.

Companies that do not act fast can end up having trouble attracting and retaining top talent. If you’re at the top of your class at Harvard and you get two offers from prominent companies, and one has a favorable policy and the other does not, employees are likely to choose the one with the favorable policy, Behar said.

As extended benefits become the norm, companies that are slow to trade can have ripple effects. “If an employee who works for a company that does not offer the benefits ends up with a bill of $ 2.3 million after having these experiences, it will give a very strong story and will continue to draw attention to the company’s decisions, “Lamberton said.

Taking a stand can be especially important for companies that routinely promote health-specific ideals, such as wellness and broader goals of equality and independence as part of their public persona.

“You can not hold yourself up as a brand that supports certain outcomes in society and remain silent on an issue like this. It just does not make sense,” Lamberton said.

–By Cheryl Winokur Munk, specifically for CNBC.com