Pfizer

PFE
2.3
Companies list

Public Statements Risk

1

The company is a high profile key player in big pharma but is insulated from customer'visibility by the structure of the US healthcare markets and the fact that people tend to know what drugs they use but not who manufactures them. The Pfizer website includes both DEI and Sustainability subsections, and has had a much higher profile and press relevance since COVID.

Political Contributions Risk

3

Goods Unite Us data shows that Pfizer is the second highest political contributor in the medical sector, but the size of donations are pretty evenly split between parties. It seems common for others in the sector to slightly favor the Republicans. It has been reported that Pfizer recently donated $1 million to the Republican Party of Kentucky to expand their headquarters.

Political Dichotomy Risk

2

Pfizer makes just under half its revenue in the US, with most revenue coming from 4 drugs: Paxlovid, Comirnaty, Eliquis, Prevnar Family; 2 COVID vaccines, a blood thinner, and a childhood pneumonia vaccine respectively. Selling, informational, and admin expenses are almost as big a share of revenue as Cost of Goods Sold. This could make them fairly vulnerable to boycotting. Additionally, Goodwill (branding/reputation with customers) is listed as 27% of Pfizer's Current Assets, possibly a reflection of how marketing-dependent their slice of Pharma is. This drastically increases their risk of a boycott but is neutralized somewhat by how middle of the road their donations are and how complex and consumer-independent much of the drug market is.

Associational Risk

4

Pfizer has heavily funded the controversial Dr. Mehmet Oz, who has been accused of spreading medical misinformation. Pfizer has also funded legislators who supported the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capital and legislators who are anti-LGBTQ+.

Brand Visibility Risk

2

Research revealed that Pfizer is heavily searched on Google; however, there are relatively few articles about the company itself.

Political Hazard (pH) Ratings Explained

A corporation’s Political Hazard Rating, or pH rating, is an overall assessment of the corporation’s likelihood of facing a material consumer boycott or investor backlash from a controversy caused by the company’s or its executives’ political activities and proclivities. The pH ratings range from 1 to 5, with a higher rating correlating with higher risk. The categories below are the components considered when setting a company’s pH rating.

Public Statements Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and the corporations’ own prior public political statements, including their frequency and whether they have tended to be, or actually have been, controversial or high-profile.

Political Dichotomy Risk

Rates the corporation based on the dichotomy, if any, between the executives’ and/or corporations’ own prior political contributions or statements and the likely political leaning of the corporation’s consumer base.

Political Contributions Risk

Rates the corporation based on the magnitude of the executives’ and/or corporations’ total political contributions to politicians and PACs, benchmarked to sector, and the weighted nature of those contributions as between political parties.

Associational Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and/or the corporation’s own prior political contributions and/or public association with particularly controversial people or high-profile politicians or PACs.

Brand Visibility Risk

Rates the corporation's risk relative to sector with higher risk being associated with higher brand visibility

Pfizer

PFE
2.3
Companies list

Public Statements Risk

1

The company is a high profile key player in big pharma but is insulated from customer'visibility by the structure of the US healthcare markets and the fact that people tend to know what drugs they use but not who manufactures them. The Pfizer website includes both DEI and Sustainability subsections, and has had a much higher profile and press relevance since COVID.

Political Contributions Risk

3

Goods Unite Us data shows that Pfizer is the second highest political contributor in the medical sector, but the size of donations are pretty evenly split between parties. It seems common for others in the sector to slightly favor the Republicans. It has been reported that Pfizer recently donated $1 million to the Republican Party of Kentucky to expand their headquarters.

Political Dichotomy Risk

2

Pfizer makes just under half its revenue in the US, with most revenue coming from 4 drugs: Paxlovid, Comirnaty, Eliquis, Prevnar Family; 2 COVID vaccines, a blood thinner, and a childhood pneumonia vaccine respectively. Selling, informational, and admin expenses are almost as big a share of revenue as Cost of Goods Sold. This could make them fairly vulnerable to boycotting. Additionally, Goodwill (branding/reputation with customers) is listed as 27% of Pfizer's Current Assets, possibly a reflection of how marketing-dependent their slice of Pharma is. This drastically increases their risk of a boycott but is neutralized somewhat by how middle of the road their donations are and how complex and consumer-independent much of the drug market is.

Associational Risk

4

Pfizer has heavily funded the controversial Dr. Mehmet Oz, who has been accused of spreading medical misinformation. Pfizer has also funded legislators who supported the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capital and legislators who are anti-LGBTQ+.

Brand Visibility Risk

2

Research revealed that Pfizer is heavily searched on Google; however, there are relatively few articles about the company itself.

Political Hazard (pH) Ratings Explained

A corporation’s Political Hazard Rating, or pH rating, is an overall assessment of the corporation’s likelihood of facing a material consumer boycott or investor backlash from a controversy caused by the company’s or its executives’ political activities and proclivities. The pH ratings range from 1 to 5, with a higher rating correlating with higher risk. The categories below are the components considered when setting a company’s pH rating.

Public Statements Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and the corporations’ own prior public political statements, including their frequency and whether they have tended to be, or actually have been, controversial or high-profile.

Political Dichotomy Risk

Rates the corporation based on the dichotomy, if any, between the executives’ and/or corporations’ own prior political contributions or statements and the likely political leaning of the corporation’s consumer base.

Political Contributions Risk

Rates the corporation based on the magnitude of the executives’ and/or corporations’ total political contributions to politicians and PACs, benchmarked to sector, and the weighted nature of those contributions as between political parties.

Associational Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and/or the corporation’s own prior political contributions and/or public association with particularly controversial people or high-profile politicians or PACs.

Brand Visibility Risk

Rates the corporation's risk relative to sector with higher risk being associated with higher brand visibility

Pfizer

PFE
2.3
Companies list

Public Statements Risk

1

The company is a high profile key player in big pharma but is insulated from customer'visibility by the structure of the US healthcare markets and the fact that people tend to know what drugs they use but not who manufactures them. The Pfizer website includes both DEI and Sustainability subsections, and has had a much higher profile and press relevance since COVID.

Political Contributions Risk

3

Goods Unite Us data shows that Pfizer is the second highest political contributor in the medical sector, but the size of donations are pretty evenly split between parties. It seems common for others in the sector to slightly favor the Republicans. It has been reported that Pfizer recently donated $1 million to the Republican Party of Kentucky to expand their headquarters.

Political Dichotomy Risk

2

Pfizer makes just under half its revenue in the US, with most revenue coming from 4 drugs: Paxlovid, Comirnaty, Eliquis, Prevnar Family; 2 COVID vaccines, a blood thinner, and a childhood pneumonia vaccine respectively. Selling, informational, and admin expenses are almost as big a share of revenue as Cost of Goods Sold. This could make them fairly vulnerable to boycotting. Additionally, Goodwill (branding/reputation with customers) is listed as 27% of Pfizer's Current Assets, possibly a reflection of how marketing-dependent their slice of Pharma is. This drastically increases their risk of a boycott but is neutralized somewhat by how middle of the road their donations are and how complex and consumer-independent much of the drug market is.

Associational Risk

4

Pfizer has heavily funded the controversial Dr. Mehmet Oz, who has been accused of spreading medical misinformation. Pfizer has also funded legislators who supported the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capital and legislators who are anti-LGBTQ+.

Brand Visibility Risk

2

Research revealed that Pfizer is heavily searched on Google; however, there are relatively few articles about the company itself.

Political Hazard (pH) Ratings Explained

A corporation’s Political Hazard Rating, or pH rating, is an overall assessment of the corporation’s likelihood of facing a material consumer boycott or investor backlash from a controversy caused by the company’s or its executives’ political activities and proclivities. The pH ratings range from 1 to 5, with a higher rating correlating with higher risk. The categories below are the components considered when setting a company’s pH rating.

Public Statements Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and the corporations’ own prior public political statements, including their frequency and whether they have tended to be, or actually have been, controversial or high-profile.

Political Dichotomy Risk

Rates the corporation based on the dichotomy, if any, between the executives’ and/or corporations’ own prior political contributions or statements and the likely political leaning of the corporation’s consumer base.

Political Contributions Risk

Rates the corporation based on the magnitude of the executives’ and/or corporations’ total political contributions to politicians and PACs, benchmarked to sector, and the weighted nature of those contributions as between political parties.

Associational Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and/or the corporation’s own prior political contributions and/or public association with particularly controversial people or high-profile politicians or PACs.

Brand Visibility Risk

Rates the corporation's risk relative to sector with higher risk being associated with higher brand visibility

Pfizer

PFE
2.3
Companies list

Public Statements Risk

1

The company is a high profile key player in big pharma but is insulated from customer'visibility by the structure of the US healthcare markets and the fact that people tend to know what drugs they use but not who manufactures them. The Pfizer website includes both DEI and Sustainability subsections, and has had a much higher profile and press relevance since COVID.

Political Contributions Risk

3

Goods Unite Us data shows that Pfizer is the second highest political contributor in the medical sector, but the size of donations are pretty evenly split between parties. It seems common for others in the sector to slightly favor the Republicans. It has been reported that Pfizer recently donated $1 million to the Republican Party of Kentucky to expand their headquarters.

Political Dichotomy Risk

2

Pfizer makes just under half its revenue in the US, with most revenue coming from 4 drugs: Paxlovid, Comirnaty, Eliquis, Prevnar Family; 2 COVID vaccines, a blood thinner, and a childhood pneumonia vaccine respectively. Selling, informational, and admin expenses are almost as big a share of revenue as Cost of Goods Sold. This could make them fairly vulnerable to boycotting. Additionally, Goodwill (branding/reputation with customers) is listed as 27% of Pfizer's Current Assets, possibly a reflection of how marketing-dependent their slice of Pharma is. This drastically increases their risk of a boycott but is neutralized somewhat by how middle of the road their donations are and how complex and consumer-independent much of the drug market is.

Associational Risk

4

Pfizer has heavily funded the controversial Dr. Mehmet Oz, who has been accused of spreading medical misinformation. Pfizer has also funded legislators who supported the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capital and legislators who are anti-LGBTQ+.

Brand Visibility Risk

2

Research revealed that Pfizer is heavily searched on Google; however, there are relatively few articles about the company itself.

Political Hazard (pH) Ratings Explained

A corporation’s Political Hazard Rating, or pH rating, is an overall assessment of the corporation’s likelihood of facing a material consumer boycott or investor backlash from a controversy caused by the company’s or its executives’ political activities and proclivities. The pH ratings range from 1 to 5, with a higher rating correlating with higher risk. The categories below are the components considered when setting a company’s pH rating.

Public Statements Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and the corporations’ own prior public political statements, including their frequency and whether they have tended to be, or actually have been, controversial or high-profile.

Political Dichotomy Risk

Rates the corporation based on the dichotomy, if any, between the executives’ and/or corporations’ own prior political contributions or statements and the likely political leaning of the corporation’s consumer base.

Political Contributions Risk

Rates the corporation based on the magnitude of the executives’ and/or corporations’ total political contributions to politicians and PACs, benchmarked to sector, and the weighted nature of those contributions as between political parties.

Associational Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and/or the corporation’s own prior political contributions and/or public association with particularly controversial people or high-profile politicians or PACs.

Brand Visibility Risk

Rates the corporation's risk relative to sector with higher risk being associated with higher brand visibility

Pfizer

PFE
2.3
Companies list

Public Statements Risk

1

The company is a high profile key player in big pharma but is insulated from customer'visibility by the structure of the US healthcare markets and the fact that people tend to know what drugs they use but not who manufactures them. The Pfizer website includes both DEI and Sustainability subsections, and has had a much higher profile and press relevance since COVID.

Political Contributions Risk

3

Goods Unite Us data shows that Pfizer is the second highest political contributor in the medical sector, but the size of donations are pretty evenly split between parties. It seems common for others in the sector to slightly favor the Republicans. It has been reported that Pfizer recently donated $1 million to the Republican Party of Kentucky to expand their headquarters.

Political Dichotomy Risk

2

Pfizer makes just under half its revenue in the US, with most revenue coming from 4 drugs: Paxlovid, Comirnaty, Eliquis, Prevnar Family; 2 COVID vaccines, a blood thinner, and a childhood pneumonia vaccine respectively. Selling, informational, and admin expenses are almost as big a share of revenue as Cost of Goods Sold. This could make them fairly vulnerable to boycotting. Additionally, Goodwill (branding/reputation with customers) is listed as 27% of Pfizer's Current Assets, possibly a reflection of how marketing-dependent their slice of Pharma is. This drastically increases their risk of a boycott but is neutralized somewhat by how middle of the road their donations are and how complex and consumer-independent much of the drug market is.

Associational Risk

4

Pfizer has heavily funded the controversial Dr. Mehmet Oz, who has been accused of spreading medical misinformation. Pfizer has also funded legislators who supported the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capital and legislators who are anti-LGBTQ+.

Brand Visibility Risk

2

Research revealed that Pfizer is heavily searched on Google; however, there are relatively few articles about the company itself.

Political Hazard (pH) Ratings Explained

A corporation’s Political Hazard Rating, or pH rating, is an overall assessment of the corporation’s likelihood of facing a material consumer boycott or investor backlash from a controversy caused by the company’s or its executives’ political activities and proclivities. The pH ratings range from 1 to 5, with a higher rating correlating with higher risk. The categories below are the components considered when setting a company’s pH rating.

Public Statements Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and the corporations’ own prior public political statements, including their frequency and whether they have tended to be, or actually have been, controversial or high-profile.

Political Dichotomy Risk

Rates the corporation based on the dichotomy, if any, between the executives’ and/or corporations’ own prior political contributions or statements and the likely political leaning of the corporation’s consumer base.

Political Contributions Risk

Rates the corporation based on the magnitude of the executives’ and/or corporations’ total political contributions to politicians and PACs, benchmarked to sector, and the weighted nature of those contributions as between political parties.

Associational Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and/or the corporation’s own prior political contributions and/or public association with particularly controversial people or high-profile politicians or PACs.

Brand Visibility Risk

Rates the corporation's risk relative to sector with higher risk being associated with higher brand visibility

See this company on INDEXALIGN

Read the reports of these top S&P 500 companies

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

AB InBev

AT&T

Adobe

Advance Auto Parts

Alphabet

Amazon

American Express

Apple

AutoZone

Bath & Body Works

Best Buy

Biogen

Brown Forman

CVS

Caesar's

Campbell

CarMax

Carnival

Charter

Chipotle

Clorox

Coke

Colgate Palmolive

Comcast

Constellation Brands

Costco

Digital Realty

Disney

Dollar General

Dollar Tree

Domino's

EA

Equinix

Estee Lauder

Etsy

Expedia

FedEx

First Energy

Ford

Fox

Garmin

General Mills

General Motors

Hasbro

Hershey's

Hilton

Home Depot

Hormel

Intuit

JM Smucker

JP Morgan

Keurig Dr. Pepper

Kraft Heinz

Kroger

Las Vegas Sands

Lowe's

MGM Resorts

Marriott

McCormick

McDonald's

Meta

Microsoft

Moderna

Molson Coors

Monster

Motorola

Netflix

Nike

Norwegian Cruise

Nvidia

Oracle

Paramount

Pepsi

Pfizer

Procter & Gamble

Ralph Lauren

Ross

Royal Caribbean

Salesforce

Starbucks

Sysco

T-Mobile

TJX

Take Two

Tapestry

Target

Tesla

Tyson

UPS

Ulta

United Airlines

VF Corp

Verizon

Walgreens

Walmart

Warner Bros. Discovery

Waste Management

Wynn

Yum!

eBay

“As a political data company, we are uniquely positioned to measure a company’s pH.” Abigail Wuest, CEO