Ross

ROST
1.5
Companies list

Public Statements Risk

1

Incredibly quiet as far as the CEO and public communications go. Their messaging is pretty boilerplate, with a little inclusivity mentioned and generally good representation. The website mentions both DEI and corporate social responsibility, including environmental sustainability.

Political Contributions Risk

2

Donations, which are 100% by senior executives, are almost entirely to Democrats. This raises pH score, but donations are broadly negligible, which lowers risk. Industry competitors tend to have much higher donation levels.

Political Dichotomy Risk

2

Ross operates 100% of its locations within the US and its territories. Being a discount brand, Ross targets value-conscious young to middle-aged consumers, mainly operating along the East Coast and Southeast, as well as a substantial presence in California. Ross' political contributions, which are minimal, align with the general partisanship of their consumer base. Ross faced protests and calls for boycott in 2018 for underpaying workers but claimed vendors and manufacturers were to blame; it does not appear the company suffered substantially. Given that partisanship largely aligns and contributions are minimal, risk should be very low, but the focus of operation in the US elevates it to a degree.

Associational Risk

1

Lack of news about the company lowers risk - especially the absence of controversial coverage of individuals related to the brand. No risks identified among company executives and their relations. The most controversial politician recieving Ross funds was President Biden.

Brand Visibility Risk

1

Ross has good brand awareness, but low brand knowledge. People seem to know that it is a discount clothing store, but consumer orientation ends there. Ross makes sales based on price, not lifestyle or brand, and the company is therefore much more insulated than most of the fashion industry from a brand visibility perspective. Their SEO is also lackluster as an online search for "Ross" does not yield the brand in top results.

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

Ross

ROST
1.5
Companies list

Public Statements Risk

1

Incredibly quiet as far as the CEO and public communications go. Their messaging is pretty boilerplate, with a little inclusivity mentioned and generally good representation. The website mentions both DEI and corporate social responsibility, including environmental sustainability.

Political Contributions Risk

2

Donations, which are 100% by senior executives, are almost entirely to Democrats. This raises pH score, but donations are broadly negligible, which lowers risk. Industry competitors tend to have much higher donation levels.

Political Dichotomy Risk

2

Ross operates 100% of its locations within the US and its territories. Being a discount brand, Ross targets value-conscious young to middle-aged consumers, mainly operating along the East Coast and Southeast, as well as a substantial presence in California. Ross' political contributions, which are minimal, align with the general partisanship of their consumer base. Ross faced protests and calls for boycott in 2018 for underpaying workers but claimed vendors and manufacturers were to blame; it does not appear the company suffered substantially. Given that partisanship largely aligns and contributions are minimal, risk should be very low, but the focus of operation in the US elevates it to a degree.

Associational Risk

1

Lack of news about the company lowers risk - especially the absence of controversial coverage of individuals related to the brand. No risks identified among company executives and their relations. The most controversial politician recieving Ross funds was President Biden.

Brand Visibility Risk

1

Ross has good brand awareness, but low brand knowledge. People seem to know that it is a discount clothing store, but consumer orientation ends there. Ross makes sales based on price, not lifestyle or brand, and the company is therefore much more insulated than most of the fashion industry from a brand visibility perspective. Their SEO is also lackluster as an online search for "Ross" does not yield the brand in top results.

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

Ross

ROST
1.5
Companies list

Public Statements Risk

1

Incredibly quiet as far as the CEO and public communications go. Their messaging is pretty boilerplate, with a little inclusivity mentioned and generally good representation. The website mentions both DEI and corporate social responsibility, including environmental sustainability.

Political Contributions Risk

2

Donations, which are 100% by senior executives, are almost entirely to Democrats. This raises pH score, but donations are broadly negligible, which lowers risk. Industry competitors tend to have much higher donation levels.

Political Dichotomy Risk

2

Ross operates 100% of its locations within the US and its territories. Being a discount brand, Ross targets value-conscious young to middle-aged consumers, mainly operating along the East Coast and Southeast, as well as a substantial presence in California. Ross' political contributions, which are minimal, align with the general partisanship of their consumer base. Ross faced protests and calls for boycott in 2018 for underpaying workers but claimed vendors and manufacturers were to blame; it does not appear the company suffered substantially. Given that partisanship largely aligns and contributions are minimal, risk should be very low, but the focus of operation in the US elevates it to a degree.

Associational Risk

1

Lack of news about the company lowers risk - especially the absence of controversial coverage of individuals related to the brand. No risks identified among company executives and their relations. The most controversial politician recieving Ross funds was President Biden.

Brand Visibility Risk

1

Ross has good brand awareness, but low brand knowledge. People seem to know that it is a discount clothing store, but consumer orientation ends there. Ross makes sales based on price, not lifestyle or brand, and the company is therefore much more insulated than most of the fashion industry from a brand visibility perspective. Their SEO is also lackluster as an online search for "Ross" does not yield the brand in top results.

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

Ross

ROST
1.5
Companies list

Public Statements Risk

1

Incredibly quiet as far as the CEO and public communications go. Their messaging is pretty boilerplate, with a little inclusivity mentioned and generally good representation. The website mentions both DEI and corporate social responsibility, including environmental sustainability.

Political Contributions Risk

2

Donations, which are 100% by senior executives, are almost entirely to Democrats. This raises pH score, but donations are broadly negligible, which lowers risk. Industry competitors tend to have much higher donation levels.

Political Dichotomy Risk

2

Ross operates 100% of its locations within the US and its territories. Being a discount brand, Ross targets value-conscious young to middle-aged consumers, mainly operating along the East Coast and Southeast, as well as a substantial presence in California. Ross' political contributions, which are minimal, align with the general partisanship of their consumer base. Ross faced protests and calls for boycott in 2018 for underpaying workers but claimed vendors and manufacturers were to blame; it does not appear the company suffered substantially. Given that partisanship largely aligns and contributions are minimal, risk should be very low, but the focus of operation in the US elevates it to a degree.

Associational Risk

1

Lack of news about the company lowers risk - especially the absence of controversial coverage of individuals related to the brand. No risks identified among company executives and their relations. The most controversial politician recieving Ross funds was President Biden.

Brand Visibility Risk

1

Ross has good brand awareness, but low brand knowledge. People seem to know that it is a discount clothing store, but consumer orientation ends there. Ross makes sales based on price, not lifestyle or brand, and the company is therefore much more insulated than most of the fashion industry from a brand visibility perspective. Their SEO is also lackluster as an online search for "Ross" does not yield the brand in top results.

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

Ross

ROST
1.5
Companies list

Public Statements Risk

1

Incredibly quiet as far as the CEO and public communications go. Their messaging is pretty boilerplate, with a little inclusivity mentioned and generally good representation. The website mentions both DEI and corporate social responsibility, including environmental sustainability.

Political Contributions Risk

2

Donations, which are 100% by senior executives, are almost entirely to Democrats. This raises pH score, but donations are broadly negligible, which lowers risk. Industry competitors tend to have much higher donation levels.

Political Dichotomy Risk

2

Ross operates 100% of its locations within the US and its territories. Being a discount brand, Ross targets value-conscious young to middle-aged consumers, mainly operating along the East Coast and Southeast, as well as a substantial presence in California. Ross' political contributions, which are minimal, align with the general partisanship of their consumer base. Ross faced protests and calls for boycott in 2018 for underpaying workers but claimed vendors and manufacturers were to blame; it does not appear the company suffered substantially. Given that partisanship largely aligns and contributions are minimal, risk should be very low, but the focus of operation in the US elevates it to a degree.

Associational Risk

1

Lack of news about the company lowers risk - especially the absence of controversial coverage of individuals related to the brand. No risks identified among company executives and their relations. The most controversial politician recieving Ross funds was President Biden.

Brand Visibility Risk

1

Ross has good brand awareness, but low brand knowledge. People seem to know that it is a discount clothing store, but consumer orientation ends there. Ross makes sales based on price, not lifestyle or brand, and the company is therefore much more insulated than most of the fashion industry from a brand visibility perspective. Their SEO is also lackluster as an online search for "Ross" does not yield the brand in top results.

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