How is intervention in politics differenr from anything else a corporations management does, all of which is notionally in the interest of the shareholders, which (through the board) delegate authority to the CEO, hire the CEO, provide feedback and direction to the CEO, and fire the CEO of he strays unacceptably from their preferences?
That's an opportunity for an ideology based index fund.
Of course, having said that...
I'm not sanguine about the relative performance of such an instrument.
One of my favorite quotations is from A Man for All Seasons, with Paul Scofield as Sir Thomas More. "If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us saintly. But since we see that avarice, anger, pride and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty, justice and thought, perhaps we must stand fast a little, even at the risk of being heroes."
These already exist, they're just expensive.
A liberal, globalist politics really IS best for Google, Apple, Microsoft and many others, and thus it is correct for their leaders to say so. If you on the other hand dislike liberal globalism, then you have the choice to divest from/not profit from those companies. (Alternatively, you could invest in them as a kind of personal diversification.)
You have to make choices, and those choices have costs.
If you don't like what the company leadership says or does, you always have the option to sell your ownership and start a new company with your values and opinions.
In the meantime, public or private companies that take stances on issues like this can empower their employees, gain new customers, and enjoy the freedom to express their values.
It speaks more about you than anything else the fact that you find it awful when it's about a very vocal political cause, yet you probably don't consider that in order for companies to build infrastructure, modify the law for things that benefit them economically, and so on, there's indeed a high level of political participation.
No, I hate it in every situation. I didn't read the article so I don't know what political cause you are referring to, and I certainly was not referring to one.
Just stay out of it.
If the CEO wants something that he feels is good for his company let him donate personally.
Privately held companies can do what they want.
The reason I'm opposed is that the CEO is putting his opinion into the mouth of his shareholders, who may or may not share his opinion. The shareholders hire the CEO to decide things related to the company, but not political things.
There are obviously gray areas like laws the impact the company directly, but I think people can handle those case by case, with the general policy of stay out of it.