That’s the finding of a recent Fortune analysis in collaboration with S&P Capital IQ on the gender composition of Fortune 500 boards. The list is based on the latest available data in the S&P Capital database as of early January.

But here’s the encouraging news: The number of Fortune 500 companies with no female directors is down by 54% from 2013, when researchers at Catalyst had found that 50 Fortune 500 companies had all-male boards. A variety of reasons are behind the decline. Some companies on Catalyst’s 2013 list have dropped out of the Fortune 500. A few have since been acquired by companies with women on their boards. Still, others may have named a woman in response to the ever-increasing pressure to make corporate boards more diverse.

Despite this progress, several female business leaders told Fortune that it’s unacceptable for even one Fortune 500 company to be run by an all-male board.

“It is not okay for a company to have a board that does not represent the views of their customers, and women are influential decision-makers, if not the key decision-makers, in many buying decisions,” said Maureen O'Connell, the CFO at Scholastic Corp. “Also, women often have a different style for interacting with other board members. For example, women tend to bring skills such as the ability to build consensus and to be inclusive in decision-making, which can lead to be better problem solving.”

It’s important to note that 28% of Fortune 500 firms list just one female director. Still, studies have shown that it takes at least three women to enhance performance and governance and achieve effective critical mass.

Fortune reached out to every company that listed no female directors. A few companies responded with news that they recently named a woman to its board and thus were removed from our list. Of the remaining 23 companies, only two provided us with a comment on our findings.

Here are the 23 Fortune 500 companies with no female directors:

To subscribe to Caroline Fairchild's daily newsletter on the world's most powerful women, go to www.getbroadsheet.com.

Despite the prevalence of the Silicon Valley aggressively casual CEO look, in the ranks of the Fortune 500 the suit still matters — for both male and female CEOs. And within this group, a few business leaders stand out with a certain “look.”

Based on market capitalization data pulled today, Uber is now more valuable than 359 of the 469 publicly-traded companies on the Fortune 500, or about 77% of them. (That figure decreases to 72% if we add the 21 privately-held companies on the list. The catch is that we cannot determine the market capitalizations of those companies.)

Uber’s paper valuation is now higher than the following household-name companies:

Kraft Foods Group
Delta Air Lines
General Mills
CBS
Rite Aid
Macy's
Viacom
Dollar General
Kellogg
KKR
Nordstrom
Halliburton Company
Archer-Daniels Midland Company
Omnicom Group
Charles Schwab Corporation
YUM! Brands
DISH Network
Aetna
Estee Lauder
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Kroger
Cardinal Health
Aflac Incorporated
Hilton Worldwide Holdings
L Brands
Hershey Company
ConAgra Foods
Whole Foods Market
Boston Scientific Corporation
Harley Davidson
Hormel Foods
Dollar Tree
Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Dr Pepper Snapple Group
Campbell Soup Company
Best Buy
Clorox
Hertz Global Holdings
MGM Resorts
Mattel

The Fortune 500 is based on the annual revenue of U.S.-based companies. Uber's revenue figures are private, but a leak of Uber's financials shows the company was expected to do $1 billion in transactions in 2013, and is on track to do $1.5 billion to $2 billion this year.

Uber takes an approximate 20% cut from its transactions. That cut of $2 billion in revenue would be $400 million, which is not enough to land Uber on the Fortune 500. Even $2 billion in gross revenue isn't enough: No. 500 on this year’s list, United Rentals, had $4.9 billion in revenue last year.

With its nosebleed valuation, investors are betting on the four-year-old company's rapid growth. Uber has been doubling its revenue every six months, according to comments made by CEO Travis Kalanick in June of this year. At $40 billion, Uber more than doubled its valuation from just six months ago. The company is likely bound for an IPO, even as it grapples with a bad reputation. Investors don't seem phased by the company's negative publicity, because Uber is making them filthy rich. At Uber’s previous $18 billion valuation, early investors were set to make 2000 times their investment. Now, at $40 billion, the "Uber Rich" are only getting richer.

Fortune has compiled its first-ever list of the world's 10 biggest employers among publicly listed companies, based on latest fiscal-year-end figures from FactSet Research Systems, annual reports, and other publicly available information. In the cases where companies provide a specific breakdown of part-time and full-time employee figures, we count part-time employees as half of a "full-time equivalent" worker. If companies do not provide a breakdown, all employees are considered full-time.

On our list, size matters: Of the top 10 employers, six had revenues above $100 billion in their most recent fiscal year. These global giants hail from a variety of industries including retail, business services, energy, and banking, some of which are more labor-intensive than others, thus dictating a need for more employees. The companies are based throughout the world, representing six countries; China is the home base for three of them, followed by the U.S. and the U.K., each with two on the list. We included efficiency data for these companies, measured by revenue per employee based on 2013 annual figures. A few of these firms may surprise you, while others are well known for their size and reach.

In coming out in Bloomberg Businessweek, Cook wrote, "Of course, I've had the good fortune to work at a company that loves creativity and innovation and knows it can only flourish when you embrace people's differences. Not everyone is so lucky."

That last statement is accurate, not just because of the prejudice that gay individuals face in their personal lives, but because of the lack of protections against the discrimination of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people in the workplace.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, in 29 states workers can still be fired for saying exactly what Cook wrote Thursday. They include:

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming

Congress has failed to pass federal legislation that bans discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and transgender identity outright. But politicians in Washington have introduced legislation known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act for two decades. And, for two decades, it has failed to pass.

Congressional inaction has resulted in a patchwork of state legislation that's left big gaps across the country where being LGBT can be cause for termination.

"When I talk about hot topics, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is front and center. The President and The White House are making incremental steps to move us in that direction because there is no federal protection," says Selisse Berry, founder and chief executive officer of nonprofit advocacy organization Out & Equal.

In June, President Obama signed an executive order banning workplace discrimination based on employees' sexual orientation and gender identity among federal contractors. In September, the EEOC filed its first lawsuits on behalf of transgender employees under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The business community in the U.S. is also doing its part to combat LBGT discrimination. Company by company, businesses have put sexual orientation and gender identify protections into their codes of conduct. "That way, people can come out at work and not be worried about being fired," Berry says.

“Ninety-one percent of Fortune 500 companies include sex orientation protections. Seventeen years ago, it was 5%. People weren't really talking it," she says. Today, 61% of Fortune 500 companies include protection against gender identity bias.

The situation overseas, however, is significantly different. "There are 17 countries where [LGBT people] can be married,” Berry notes, “but 75 where we can be imprisoned or killed as LGBT people."

She leads marketing and communications across the company. She also oversees licensing, partnerships with startups, and Silicon Valley-based investment shop GE Ventures.

And soon Comstock will get her first P&L responsibility. As of October 1, she's in charge of one of the company’s core divisions, GE Lighting.

"It's a 130-year-old business that's being reinvented," says Comstock, explaining why CEO Jeff Immelt tapped her to lead the business that GE's founder, Thomas Edison, invented. As Comstock herself evolved over the decades--from NBC PR chief to NBC Universal president of integrated media to GE CMO--she's honed a reputation for rethinking and reinventing age-old businesses. And GE Lighting, where LED technology is shaking up the global market, fits her expertise, as Immelt noted in a memo to employees.

Comstock's new assignment--which, yes, is in addition to her current duties at GE--puts her in charge of a unit that generates $3 billion in annual revenue. GE Lighting's CEO, Maryrose Sylvester, will keep her title and report to Comstock--a logical setup since the two have worked together lately on new products like GE Link "connected light bulbs" that you can buy at Home Depot HD to control your home's lighting via your smartphone. The greater opportunity, Comstock says, lies in partnering with startups that develop LED technology for commercial and government buildings.

With all this new tech opportunity in the pipeline, "lighting becomes a service business," she says.

Comstock works hard at keeping up with the cutting edge. She spends "at least 25 to 30% of my time" in Silicon Valley, where several dozen employees at GE Ventures work on helping the company innovate in four areas: software, energy, healthcare and advanced manufacturing. ("I work with great women," says Comstock, pointing to GE Ventures CEO Sue Siegel and Karen Kerr, newly assigned to lead the venture arm's advanced manufacturing.) Serving on the board of Nike NKE has taught Comstock a ton about innovation. She also oversees Quirky, a crowd-sourced new-product incubator that's partly owned by GE and has developed with GE a WiFi-enabled air conditioner. "Working with Quirky, I'm learning about scale and speed," Comstock says.

Like most successful inventors (and re-inventors), Comstock, 54, has kept career planning to a minimum. She majored in biology at William & Mary and thought she'd be a doctor. "Once I decided not to go to medical school, I wanted to be a science journalist," she says, laughing. "See where that got me." Has she, over the years, thought about leaving GE for a younger company? "Of course, I've thought about it," she admits. But GE's global platform and Immelt's willingness to let her try out new opportunities has kept her there.

Comstock's advice for a thriving career: "First, jump at opportunities that are unpopular and other people ignore. Second, don't take 'No' for an answer. I'll hear 'No' for the second, third, fourth, fifth time, and I'll keep persisting. Third, hire great people."

And, she says, that third guideline, hiring great people, is the most critical of all.

“From the MPW Co-chairs” is a daily series where the editors who oversee the Fortune Most Powerful Women brand share their insights about women leaders.

One strong trend the entire MPW team has noticed over the years is the shift in industry makeup of those at the very top of the list. When Fortune first started the list, the top ranks were consistently held by women in creative fields, like advertising, media and publishing. In 1999--the second year Fortune published its MPW list -- Carly Fiorina, then CEO of Hewlett-Packard HPQ , was the lone woman CEO in the male-dominated tech sector.

Cut to this year's list: The women at the top of the list run the bluest of blue chip firms, the biggest industrial and technology giants, and some of the largest companies in the Fortune 500. Just look at the companies with their chief executives now represented in the top 10: IBM IBM . General Motors GM . Pepsi PEP . Lockheed Martin LMT . DuPont DD . Hewlett-Packard. Not one of the top 10 is in retail; not one is in media; not one is in marketing or advertising (not, of course, that there's anything wrong with those industries, but the size of the companies is typically smaller and they are fields that traditionally have more women at the top).

The shift speaks volumes about how women's roles have evolved in business and the kinds of milestones women are achieving in corporate America. (In addition to these corporate giants, we now have a woman running the Fed, a woman Secretary of Commerce, a woman at the helm of Time magazine. It would be nice if we could also have a woman pope and a female president of the United States, but at least one of those two things may not be that far away.)

Here's another lesser-known commonality about the women at the very top of the list: almost all of them majored in seriously hard sciences. Let's just tick down the list: IBM’s Ginni Rometty majored in computer science and electrical engineering. GM’s Mary Barra got a BS in electrical engineering. DuPont’s Ellen Kullman? Mechanical engineering ("mech e" in engineering shorthand). PepsiCo’s Indra Nooyi got her BS in physics, chemistry and math--not engineering per se, but a hat trick in STEM studies. HP’s Meg Whitman studied math and science then went into economics. A bit lower down on the list, Yahoo YHOO CEO Marissa Mayer majored in symbolic systems and got her masters in computer science; Xerox’s XRX Ursula Burns has a BS and MS in mechanical engineering. (Former Google executive GOOG Megan Smith is not on our list, but the newly-named chief technology officer of the United States has a BS and MS in mechanical engineering.)

One in seven engineers may be female, but engineers represent three of the top five spots on the MPW list. And while engineering may be the trend among the top ranks of the MPW list, plain old math and science is good too: Mondelez’s MDLZ Irene Rosenfeld holds a Ph.D. in marketing and statistics, Archer Daniels Midland’s ADM Pat Woertz studied accounting, Lockheed’s Marillyn Hewson and Facebook FB COO Sheryl Sandberg studied economics.

In fact, of the top 10 Most Powerful Women, only one was anything close to a liberal arts major: Fidelity president Abigail Johnson, who majored in art history at William Smith College. For everyone else, it's STEM City.

What's remarkable about this is that these women were choosing these fields of study decades ago. Right now, tech is the engine of our economy--coding is cool, and everyone has their eye on the riches that can come from the next hot tech idea. And even still, we have a paucity of young women and girls in STEM fields. But these women, encouraged by their passion, their talents, and in many cases parents who gave them the confidence to know they could achieve anything they wanted to--pursued their STEM passions of study at a time when it was far more rare, and it propelled each to the top of their fields.

I bring this up because it's statistically exceptional (see, I can say that, even though I'm an English major) and generally remarkable. But also because I hope as the Most Powerful Women list grows even more and more powerful, and the number of women CEOs of Fortune 500 companies grows and grows and grows--25 now, up from 10 in 2006 and 2 in 2002 and one in 1997 (and she was co-CEO with her husband)-- I hope young girls will look at these women as models of power and inspiration--and might emulate their path to success. If that's the case, we'll be that much closer to the day when the number of women CEOs on the Fortune 500 is too numerous to count--even for a math major.

"From the MPW Co-chairs" is a daily series where the editors who oversee the Fortune Most Powerful Women brand share their insights about women leaders.

Today, only 17% of board members in the Fortune 500 are women, according to industry stats. Given both the tendency of companies to put sitting CEOs on boards, and that there are only 21 female CEOs in the Fortune 500, the odds for women to find a board seat are even more difficult. This, despite data from Catalyst, a business research organization, which shows demonstrated shareholder value of a diverse board.

Enter Gerri Elliott, who's as accomplished as they come – in any industry. With a combined 34 years of senior executive experience at tech businesses like IBM IBM , Microsoft MSFT and Juniper Networks JNPR , Elliott has been responsible for thousands of people in sales, marketing, services, support and channels, and billions in revenue. She has served on start-up, nonprofit, and private boards, and spent countless hours in board rooms presenting and hammering out issues with her own big public company boards.

About 18 months ago, Elliott decided that she wanted to put all that experience to work by serving on a Fortune 500 board. It was the logical next step in a successful career. Elliott figured she'd simply put the word out to her close-knit circle that she was looking for a board seat and the opportunities would come flowing in.

"Except they didn't," Elliott says. Despite encouragement by her inner circle that she'd be great on a board and have a flood of opportunities, she waited in limbo for about a year. "That's when I realized I had to go after a board seat the same way I have approached everything else in my career, with a thoughtful, detailed plan."

One big reason for the silence from potential board recruiters, Elliott concluded, was the fact that she wasn’t currently serving on a major, public company board, and therefore not on their radar. A classic, and frustrating, example of the chicken-or-egg dilemma. But Elliott also realized she was torpedoing her chances, at least in part, by doing something she often advised fellow women professionals against - taking a roundabout route.

"Women are not often as direct as they need to be when they want something," Elliott says. "I believe that if you want something, deserve something, you should say it. I realized I ought to follow my own advice."

Elliott devised a multi-step plan of attack, beginning with stepping back and taking the time to think through her aspirations and expectations in serving on a corporate board.

Step 1: Know what you're looking for and the value you bring

"Rather than broadcasting this vague idea that I wanted a board seat, I could help people help me," she says. She spent time thinking about what kind of company she wanted to serve and where she felt she could add value.

Elliott identified the ideal size, governance ranking, industries, and location (proximity to East-Coast family, her home in Silicon Valley, and the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, where she serves on the advisory board for the Center for Executive Women Senior Leadership Program).

Elliott's tech background and the industries in which she had spent the bulk of her career (retail, travel and manufacturing specifically) were her greatest assets as a board candidate. For each potential company and industry she looked to see how those assets could be put to use. She asked herself, 'What is the business value I could provide to a corporate board? Why would they want me as a member?'

Not only did she honestly evaluate her skills and potential contribution herself, she made sure to ask the boards she later interviewed with what value they believed she would bring to the table. "If you can't answer that as a candidate, or if the board can't answer that specifically, then I don't think it's a good fit."

Beyond the size and industry of the Fortune 500 companies Elliott aspired to serve, the organization and vision of the board were of critical importance for her. "I think great boards have a plan for what the board composition ought to be. And you could tell right away whether they had that plan," Elliott says.

Step 2: Secure support and communicate overtly

At the time she was beginning her search, Elliott was EVP and chief customer officer at Juniper Networks. Before taking any overt action, it was important that she secure the support of her CEO and board chairman. Once that was accomplished, Elliott felt free to take action openly.

She sent an email to her entire network, including friends, acquaintances, and every recruiter who had ever reached out to her, directly stating her goal of getting on a corporate public board within the year. Nothing vague, a very clear ask for help. "The response back was tremendous," Elliott says. Time and time again she heard the same refrain, "I had no idea that’s what you wanted to do."

Step 3: Reverse the recruiting model

Through her research, Elliott found that only 30% of corporate board seats get serviced through executive recruiters. The other 70% are serviced through the board's own network. Which again explains why if you have never served on a board it's so hard to break in.

While she was doing her self-assessment and legwork, Elliott came across James Drury Partners, an executive recruiting firm that has a service dubbed "Board Select." To oversimplify, after an exhaustive vetting process, Drury works for the candidate to devise a comprehensive plan to select the right target boards for that candidate based on several factors, such as industry, size, scale and geography. Drury works closely with their clients to create a package containing their resume, an in-depth bio, testimonials from references, and a detailed executive summary. Drury then proactively contacts boards to introduce the executive to the CEO, chairman and head of nominating and governance.

Drury started with a list of 400 companies that Elliott then bucketed into one of four categories: A) I'd love to be on. B) I'd like to be on. C) I'm not sure. D) No way. Winnowing the list to just her A's and B's, Elliott was left with 50 companies. The Drury team told Elliott to chop that 50 down to 20. "So I got it down to 20, and it was tough," she remembers. "It was a wonderful process because it makes you really think about what you are going after."

Drury reached out to Elliott's list of 20 target companies, with all the supporting material, and got 10 hits right away. These weren't offers, just the preliminaries, but all that supporting material Drury had wrung out of Elliott made potential boards take notice. Once word got around the rarified world of big company board recruiters, Elliott was in demand. Although Elliott feels fortunate to have worked with Drury, the selection process is something she feels anyone can approximate as they are choosing their ideal boards.

Step 4: Choose wisely (and it's okay to be picky)

Ultimately, Elliott came out of the process with three board seats at companies that fit her criteria - Whirlpool, Bed, Bath & Beyond and Charlotte Russe, a private board. The opportunity to serve on the board of Whirlpool, she notes, "was a 30% one," serviced by an executive recruiter she reached out to with her email blast. Bed, Bath & Beyond came through the Drury process, and Charlotte Russe, through her network of personal contacts.

Given how challenging it can be to land your first board seat, Elliott acknowledges how tempting it is to jump on your first offer knowing that it now puts you in the pool of eligible candidates for future boards. "Even if that board may not be exactly right, you know that it may get you to one that you would love to be on."

Still, Gerri advises to choose wisely. "The amount of time, effort, work, serious nature of the business that you're doing, your fiduciary responsibility, the liability - there's a lot at stake," she says. "It's like a marriage. You're making a commitment for the long-term, so take your time and wait for the ideal opportunity. And once you do, be ready for the flood of new opportunities, because now you’re a known entity."

Michael V. Copeland is a partner at Silicon Valley venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. Danielle Lussier is a Stanford University student who works in the marketing department at the firm.

How do you avoid the failure trap?

This is the question that Ron Carucci and Eric Hansen, partners in a consultancy called Navalent, sought to answer by interviewing 2,600 executives--most of them at Fortune 1000 companies--over a 10-year span.

The consultants discovered plenty of handicaps to success: 67% of executives struggle to let go of work they did in their previous job. There's also that debilitating time suck: 61% said that people want more of their time than they have available. And the imposter factor: 60% of executives said that others ascribe more power to them than they believe they have.

Here are three tips from Carucci and Hansen, whose new book based on the study, Rising to Power: The Journey of Exceptional Executives, is out this month:

1. Diagnose, don't indict.
Executives new to an organization often turn over rocks to discover what they've gotten themselves into--and fail to manage their shock. Saying "How have you people survived this long?" is the worst reaction. "Actively solicit feedback about how you and your actions are being perceived," Carucci advises. "And find ways to honor the heritage of long-standing employees."

2. Decide, don't defer.
"Leaders begin their role in the relational red," says Carucci, noting that leaders in general are less trusted today than in the past before social media empowered everybody. Making employees feel valuable and part of decision-making is crucial, but here's the hitch: Decisiveness is more critical than ever. Make tough choices for the good of the organization without getting handicapped by inordinate worry about how employees feel.

3. Embrace power, don't abdicate.
Newly promoted executives, especially CEOs, are ever more fearful about being viewed as indulgent--since brash displays of power and privilege are so not cool today. "Don't abdicate the good you can do with your new power," says Hansen. "Learn to harness it."

The interviews with the 2,600 executives revealed only slight differences between male and female leaders. Women bosses felt less isolated than men did, perhaps because women build support networks early on in their transitions. But female leaders also seemed to enjoy being executives less than the men did, Hansen and Carucci found..

This is not a surprise to Fortune. The Most Powerful Women in Business (Fortune's 2014 rankings will be revealed this Thursday) tend to view power more horizontally than male leaders do. To women at the top, power is typically not so much about climbing the ladder; power is more about wielding influence across a spectrum that's much bigger than the next job.

Think Airbnb. They've experienced explosive growth - and not by the traditional means of buying or building more properties. They did it by understanding what really mattered to those booking hotel rooms. They did it by studying the emergence of the "sharing economy." And, absent a vast footprint of physical assets, they did it by acting decisively to create a whole new model for meeting this traditional need - a model that delivers competitive advantage through scale but not in a traditional sense of physically controlled properties. Indeed, Airbnb not only created a new model, it created a new market.

In today's global marketplace that operates 24/7, the traditional barriers to entry are falling, and traditional conceptualizations of growth as increasing in size and span of control are losing their potency. Market and customer access have become easier; product and idea life cycles are shrinking as ideas, data, and knowledge travel fast and openly across the Internet. Competitive advantage gained from expensive product innovations is shorter-lived. And brands are losing their stickiness amid an onslaught of data, ideas and emotional triggers that compete for human attention, loyalty and spending.

In light of these changes, it's not surprising that we're seeing new approaches to driving growth throughout the Fortune 500. One example is the recent spate of mammoth splits at traditional powerhouse firms including Motorola MSI , Kraft KRFT and Abbott. In each case, powerful CEOs chose to divide the size of their companies (and spans of control) in half in order to increase focus and speed growth. For the same reasons, portfolio rationalizations are now commonplace; e.g., Procter & Gamble PG , ITW and Unilever UN . And even more recently, expensive inversions have become in vogue, including firms like Eaton and Abbvie.

CEOs of traditional mega-conglomerates are literally slicing up and uprooting their organizations in order to fuel growth. And they have to because the successes of companies like Airbnb and Uber have shown that smaller firms with simpler and more nimble infrastructures can win – just look at the market caps being attached to these asset-lite firms. This is not to suggest that building scale and pursuing acquisitions are no longer important drivers of growth. It does mean however that these strategies will be held to greater scrutiny as the idea that "bigger is always better" becomes quaint.

And who is going to lead these firms of the future? We'll need leaders with deep insight into their organizations' markets, customers and capabilities; leaders who create and leverage more flexible architectures for connecting and collaborating; leaders who foster cultures based on constant self-scrutiny, innovation and an ability to forge unexpected partnerships; leaders who can keep pace with new market opportunities and ever-more-aggressive investor herds; leaders who can inspire new kinds of growth.

Sally Blount is dean of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University.

This ugly picture is an apt metaphor for the pay practices at many of the largest U.S. companies today.

While low-wage earners suffer most, there's growing evidence that low pay harms almost everyone, hurts corporate profits over the long term, and stifles economic growth. But could U.S. companies afford to pay more - could they invest dollars in workers today — in order to reap longer term gains?

A look at Fortune 500 data suggests that the largest U.S. corporations could improve the economy, their bottom lines, and the lot of millions of workers by increasing the wages they pay their employees.

Fortune 500 companies employ nearly 27 million workers. And all but 37 of the Fortune 500 earned a profit last year. What would happen if those firms that ended up with extra change at the close of the year gave their lowest paid workers a healthy raise?

Of the Fortune 500 companies with positive net income last year, all but 14 could have paid one quarter of their workforce $10,400 more annually and still had millions to spare. (See the results for all Fortune 500 companies.)

This calculation assumes that the tax deductions for the raises would offset any incremental benefits costs and that no other revenue boosts or cost savings would accrue from happier, more stable employees. The $10,400 bump equates to a $5 per hour raise for a full-time worker.

Nearly 85% of Fortune 500 companies with positive income could have paid every single worker $10,400 more and still finished 2013 in the black.

Wal-Mart, No. 1 on the Fortune 500 and the nation's largest private employer, could have given a $10,400 raise to its bottom quartile of wage earners and still have finished the year with net income of over $10 billion. In fact, it could have paid 70% of its 2.2 million workers $10,400 more annually and still had millions to spare. Wouldn't that be more humane than hosting a Thanksgiving canned food drive for its Canton, Ohio employees?

In April, Time magazine reported that some Disney workers were homeless due to low pay. Yet according to the Fortune 500 data, Disney (No. 61 on the Fortune 500) could have paid half of its employees $20,800 more annually or all of its employees $10, 400 more and still booked profits of over $4 billion.

Family Dollar Stores, which made 24/7 Wall Street's list as one of the worst companies to work for and is No. 271 on the Fortune 500, could have given 92% of its workers a $10,400 raise and still turned a profit last year.

Wal-Mart, Disney, and Family Dollar spokespersons did not respond to requests for comment on the calculations or their implications. But the results don't surprise Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Based on the level of historical earnings, "companies clearly could pay more," he told me, and "it would make a huge difference" if they did.

Fifty-four percent of the 1,000 Americans polled by NBC News/Wall Street Journal in August said that they believe "The widening gap between the incomes of the wealthy and everyone else is undermining the idea that every American has the opportunity to move up to a better standard of living."

On September 2, members of House the Homeless, founders of the Universal Living Wage Campaign, flew banners on the Barton Skyway bridge in Austin, Texas. "It was National Bridge the Economic Gap Day--our 13^th", Richard R. Troxell, author of Livable Incomes: Real Solutions that Stimulate the Economy, wrote me in an email. On that hot September day, instead of angry car horn honking and raised middle fingers, "the vast majority of horns were toots and there were many, many big rig blasts of encouragement and the fingers turned into thumbs that were all up."

There's a lot of talk about political gridlock in D.C. But one of the biggest challenges our economy faces is corporate gridlock. What will it take to create a corporate focus on economic growth and long-term profitability in a socially responsible way?

Just 500 chief executives could decide to help their companies, the economy, and many millions more. But will they?

Eleanor Bloxham is CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance (http://www.thevaluealliance.com), an independent board education and advisory firm she founded in 1999.

But despite the ongoing protests, a curfew implemented by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, and the arrival of the Missouri National Guard to quell acts of violence, the company says it’s business as usual.

Ranked No. 121 in the Fortune 500 list, Emerson Electric is a global manufacturing and technology company with over 200 manufacturing locations around the world. Emerson was founded in St. Louis in 1890 when the company began making electric motors, a unit it has since sold off. In the 1940s, the company bought its first property and started moving operations to Ferguson, and has been based there ever since.

An August 17 video below taken by Sports Illustrated reporter Robert Klemko puts perspective on the close proximity of the headquarters to the protests. He told Fortune the video was taken from 8039 W Florissant Ave. The Emerson headquarters are at 8000 West Florissant Ave and the remains of the QuikTrip are located at 9420 West Florissant, about three-fourths of a mile away, according to Google Maps.

Despite the nearby activity, Mark Polzin, a spokesman for Emerson says the company is operating normally and there have been no incidents. “From the outset, we’re a little up the road from the main activity,” he added. The leadership and security teams for Emerson Electric have also been regularly in touch with local authorities, while staff are being kept updated on potential safety issues and problems related to increased traffic, he said.

When pressed about what safety efforts are being taken, if needed, Polzin said, “For a number of reasons we are not commenting on these areas and types of questions at this time.”

There’s no manufacturing at the Ferguson campus today, but, as Emerson Electric headquarters, it is “home to many key operations and functions at corporate and business level,” according to Polzin. About 1,300 Emerson employees work in Ferguson compared to over 30,000 total U.S. employees and 110,000 around the world.

Meanwhile, on a corporate level, Emerson Electric has been making bold moves under the leadership of David Farr, who’s headed Emerson Electric since 2000 and who was profiled by Fortune last year. That even included selling off the company’s original business, electric motors, as it was struggling to survive.

Farr is currently working to broker a deal auctioning off the company’s power transmission solutions business this fall. The company has tapped Goldman Sachs for the transaction, which could top as much as $1 billion, according to Reuters.

In its most recent earnings report, which was released August 5, Farr said in a statement that “despite the global business environment struggling” to grow, Emerson Electric’s “underlying sales growth improved” up 3% year-over-year.

Along with its operations weathering a shaky global outlook, the company seems busy working to aid its own struggling city – despite perceptions of a disconnect between its status as a Fortune 500 corporation and the city’s increasing economic issues.

Emerson’s Charitable Trust, which is headed by Patrick Sly, has contributed $33 million to over 1,800 charities in the U.S, according to the company. Of that, the company reports donating over $2.5 million to the United Way of Greater St. Louis Foundation, which partners with area charities, along with about 18 other local schools and organizations in awards ranging from a couple thousand dollars to over $100,000.

And Emerson’s help isn’t going totally unnoticed, it seems. John Gaskin III, a spokesman for the NAACP for Ferguson, on Friday told Businessweek that Sly “is one of the most genuine men that you could meet in this town.”

In addition to Emerson Electric, there are nine Fortune 500 companies in the greater St. Louis area, including Express Scripts, which is ranked No. 20. When asked about precautions being taken for employees, spokesmen for the companies either declined to comment or were not immediately available.

Amy Hargroves, Sprint's director of corporate responsibility & sustainability, admits the telecom giant has been "surprised" by how hard it is to reach its modest goal of getting 10% of its electricity from renewables by 2017. She listed the lack of financing options and standardized contracts as well as a shortage of utilities and regulators in the renewable space.

"We are a relatively large company,” Hargroves said. “If we can't do those things, how can we ever make this easier for smaller companies to participate."

Walmart WMT and Sprint S are among 12 major American companies that endorsed a series of principles released Friday to increase access to renewable energy. The group, convened by World Wildlife Fund and the World Resources Institute, also includes heavyweights like GM GM , Facebook FB , Mars, Procter & Gamble PG , Johnson & Johnson JNJ and Intel INTC . Together, they hope to cut clean energy costs and push for production so they achieve their target of using 8.4 million megawatt hours of renewable energy per year through 2020.

"It's really no secret that American companies are buying more renewable energy than ever before,” said Marty Spitzer, WWF's director of U.S. climate and renewable energy policy. “It seems like we hear about another deal at least once or twice a week lately.

He continued: "These iconic companies, despite their tremendous success buying renewable energy, are having hard trying bringing on enough renewables to meet their own goals. This is holding back the entire market."

According to a WWF report that came out last month, 43% or 215 of the companies in the Fortune 500 have set climate and/or clean energy targets. Fifty-three of those companies have reported saving $1.1 billion annually through energy efficiency and renewables which equates to taking 15 coal plants off-line.

The problem, according to Spitzer, is that the supply of renewables hasn't kept up with demand. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, renewable sources only accounted for only 10% of energy consumption in 2013 and 13% of electricity generation.

"They are facing two big challenges,” Spitzer said. “Many utilities are not providing the renewable energy products their corporate customers need so the companies are forced to go around utilities to obtain the renewables they want. When they do bypass utilities and go to renewable energy developers or providers, they are often able to purchase the renewable energy they need but the deals are overly complex, take a long time to execute and are not happening at the scale the large buyers want."

The Corporate Renewable Energy Buyers Principles calls for greater choice in procuring renewable energy, more access to cost competitive options, longer and variable-term contracts, access to new projects that reduce emissions beyond business as usual, streamlined third-party financing and increased purchasing options with utilities.

WWF was careful to say these principles should be treated more like policy recommendations aimed at sparking a conversation on closing the gap between supply and demand of renewables. The companies have no plans to collectively buy power in bulk but their executives and WWF are planning to meet with regulated utilities and their regulators in the coming weeks to solve the problem.

"These Buyers' Principles lay the groundwork for partnerships to help energy buyers like us go further faster," said Walmart’s Ozment, whose company, among other things, wants to procure 7 billion kilowatt-hours of renewable energy by the end of 2020. "We know our company's goal to be supplied by 100% renewable energy is good for business and good for the environment. If we can buy renewable energy for less, we can operate for less -- and we can pass on the savings and a cleaner energy future to our customers and their communities."

WRI's Letha Tawney said she is hopeful the voluntary principles will inspire utilities powered by polluting fossil fuels like oil and gas to speed up their entry in the renewable markets.

"They could deliver the renewable energy these companies are looking for," Tawney said, adding that utilities including Duke Energy in North Carolina, NV Energy in Nevada, and Dominion Virginia Power have begun exploring ways to provide renewable power to their largest customers.

WATCH: China's coal problem

On Tuesday, the British-based bank giant will begin trading ETNs, or exchange-traded notes, that track a "Women in Leadership" (WIL) index of U.S. companies with gender-diverse leadership.

And the new investment products are part of a broad effort to offer "socially valuable" options to customers. "Increasingly, investors are looking for social value — to use their investments as a vote or as a way to make a statement," says Barbara Byrne, a vice chairman in Barclays' investment banking unit who is overseeing the WIL launch.

So, what do you get if you buy the new WIL ETNs? The senior, unsecured, unsubordinated debt securities (which are backed only by the full faith and credit worthiness of Barclays Bank, the issuer) track a weighted index of 85 U.S.-based companies that are listed on the NYSE or NASDAQ, have market capitalizations of at least $250 million, and have a woman CEO or a board of directors that’s at least 25% female. Spanning 10 industry sectors, the companies include most of the 24 Fortune 500 giants with female chiefs--General Motors GM , IBM IBM and PepsiCo PEP , among them--and other companies like Verizon VZ , General Electric GE and Pfizer PFE that don't have women at the top but qualify based on female representation on their boards.

The idea for Barclay's women-focused effort came about 18 months ago from two young women directors who noted studies showing that companies with gender-diverse leadership outperform those with less diversity. Barclays considered creating a mutual fund like the Pax Ellevate Global Women's Index Fund launched in June by Sallie Krawcheck, the former Bank of America BAC executive whose firm, Ellevate, is all about women and investing.

But since Barclays was already a leader in the ETN space, with 81 products covering a full range of asset classes, the bank opted to develop a tradeable security that offers investors daily liquidity.

Based on past performance, the female-focused ETNs may be a good investment. The Barclays WIL Total Return Index has outperformed the S&P 500 Total Return Index by 1.2% per year over the past five years.

Barclays management views the WIL products as step one in its plan to offer other "socially valuable" investment options. "We've seen the evolution of socially responsible investing go from 'no tobacco' to 'no firearms' to green/environmental," says Ian Merrill, head of Barclays' ETN business in the Americas, noting that Credit Suisse offers an LGBT Equality Index that tracks the performance of companies with LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) friendly policies. Merrill aims to ride the trend, or better yet, lead it. "We want to give investors the best ways to invest in companies that do business the right way."

For a bank that has suffered in the press and faced legal scrutiny (lately, over its high-frequency stock-trading practices), selling products that enable customers to do well and do good may be a wise investment in its reputation. While Barclays has worked to add women to its board, the company still has only three among its 14 directors - so, it falls short of its own WIL standard of 25% female representation on the board. Byrne says she's fully aware of that reality, and her colleagues are sensitive to it. "We're aspirational," she says. "We're targeting getting there."

McCormick MKC , whose spices and seasonings have been at the elbow of many adventurous home cooks, has been a Baltimore area landmark for 125 years, and a generator of huge revenues--some $4.2 billion last year. But, in a jolt to the area, the company recently said it wants to move its administrative offices elsewhere, possibly in Pennsylvania.

“The McCormick name has always been associated with Baltimore and this region,” says Kirby Fowler, president of the Downtown Partnership of Baltimore, which oversees a 106-block inner city area. “McCormick is so engrained in the Baltimore psyche. You can’t drive down a street without seeing an advertisement or sign with their name.”

Baltimore area officials are scrambling to figure out how to keep McCormick in the state. The loss of McCormick, one of Baltimore County’s biggest employers, would be a blow to the immediate area as well as Maryland. The most recent listing of Fortune 500 companies shows only three Maryland-based companies, none of which are in the Baltimore area.

McCormick, which ranks No. 591, is one of several top-1,000 Baltimore area-based companies, including Under Armour UA , T. Rowe Price TROW , and W.R. Grace & Co GRA . But critics say Maryland's tax policies drive away major corporations. Since 2006, the number of Fortune 500 companies in the Baltimore area dropped from seven to zero.

But McCormick is a special case. It employs about 2,100 people and is fondly known for its practice of giving gift bags full of McCormick staples, including its well-known ground black pepper, to the crowds who attend its annual meetings. The company's identification with the Baltimore area began with its founding in the city in 1889 by Willoughby M. McCormick, along with three workers, in a local cellar. He later opened a spice shop downtown.

By the 1940s, the company was a major player in spice production and was selling its herbs, spices, seasonings, flavorings, sauces, and extracts nationally and internationally. In addition to McCormick, the firm's brands include Lawry’s and Old Bay as well as Thai Kitchen, Simply Asia, and Zatarain’s.

For over 70 years, the giant spice maker operated a factory--with the smell of cinnamon and other pungent spices wafting through the air--and headquarters in a 12.5-acre building on Light Street by Baltimore's Inner Harbor. The multi-billion- dollar company moved its corporate offices from downtown Baltimore in the 1960s, to nearby Sparks, north of the city.

Two years ago, the firm renewed its presence downtown by opening the McCormick World of Flavors, where cooks and tasters can watch cooking demonstrations, test their flavor preferences, and add to their spice racks. The store is located in the Inner Harbor, across from McCormick’s original location, an area that is experiencing a lively economic recovery, with surging construction in apartment buildings as well as office and retail space, after struggles stemming from the 2008 recession.

The possibility that McCormick may move away has left city and county authorities searching for ways to keep the company in the state. But there is a tension. Baltimore City officials, of course, would like to see the company return to the Inner Harbor area to function as a jewel in the waterfront downtown revitalization effort, which now includes the Baltimore aquarium, the Maryland Science Center, and nearby Oriole Park at Camden Yards.

But Baltimore officials are treading lightly so they don’t usurp the county’s economic interests.

“McCormick is one of the top places to work, and it makes tremendous contributions to the county,” says Tom Sadowski, president and chief executive of the Economic Alliance of Greater Baltimore, a non-profit economic development partnership.

“We are trying to organize a collective outreach to the company,” he says. “It’s beyond brand recognition. It makes good business sense for them to consolidate, but we are going to move heaven and earth to make sure they stay in the area.”

In announcing its plans in March, McCormick said it wanted to combine its offices to make a more effective workplace, but it also said it wanted to minimize disruption to its 700 workers, many who live in northern Baltimore County and southern Pennsylvania.

McCormick President Alan D. Wilson has indicated, in published interviews, that he is open to moving across the border to Pennsylvania as well returning to downtown Baltimore. The company offered no additional comment on the move.

Economic leaders demur when asked what incentives the city or county may offer, but, with everything on the table, McCormick is in the position of driving a hard bargain for tax breaks and other perks. In the 1990s, McCormick won $20 million in incentives from Maryland (which out-negotiated rival Pennsylvania) when the company was searching for a new distribution center.

McCormick's headquarters consolidation is likely part of a larger to effort position itself for overseas sales expansion. Indeed, in recent years, the spice maker's growth has come from abroad, especially emerging markets, while its sales in the United States last year fell below expectations.

“McCormick evokes a positive association with Baltimore and the region,” says Fowler. “It’s part of our economic well being. We have to do whatever it takes to keep it here.”

Governor Jerry Brown won't claim credit for Steve Jobs, but he isn't modest about California's business chops. This year, besides leading the country in GDP, the state is home to more Fortune 500 companies (54) than any other--except New York, which it ties. But California isn’t the only state with the right to brag. Recent years have seen a dramatic shakeup in the geography of the country's largest businesses. Another big gainer: Texas, with its booming energy sector. The Lone Star State, hardly a business mecca two decades ago, now hosts 52 Fortune 500 companies. Enough to give the country’s longstanding economic hubs a run for their money.

Over the last 20 years, the total market cap of California’s Fortune 500 companies soared from $445 billion (about half of New York's valuation at the time) to $3.2 trillion in 2013--28% more than New York's today, and easily more than any other state in the country. Texas, meanwhile, can claim the title of fastest growing. Texas added no fewer than 15 Fortune 500 companies in the past two decades. (That's more big-list companies than Arizona, Nevada and Kentucky have combined.)

How do they do it? In California, it hasn't hurt that the state has seen more than its fair share of business genius over the years: Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, and the Google guys to name a few. But perhaps just as important, the state has shown an unparalleled flair for reinvention. In 1995, its bread and butter was manufacturing and financial services. Since then, it has added 20 new companies to the 500 list in the technology and biotech sectors alone. (See our story in the current issue of the magazine, The Fortune 500’s 50-state shuffle.) Aspiring tech hubs around the world can only dream of creating their own Silicon Valleys. Over the past 20 years, the state lost 31 Fortune 500 companies, but added back 39. Schumpeter would be proud.

Texas, meanwhile, has benefited from its ties to industries that are taking off. A national energy hub, the state is home to three out of the top 10 Fortune 500 companies--Exxon Mobil (2), Phillips 66 (6), and Valero Energy (10)--more than any other. Texas's 52 brand-namers also are the best in the union in terms of sales, collectively netting a whopping $1.6 trillion last year.

Credit their state economic policies or the sunny climes, California and Texas are doing something right. In this exclusive Fortune video, watch these two very different governors--one Democrat and one Republican--sound off on how they got results.

Where's Andrew Cuomo in this brag-a-thon? The New York Governor declined to respond to repeated requests for comment. Hmm. Wonder why.

Watch Alcoa discuss their techniques in the video above.

This post has been updated from its original version to reflect the correct size of Alcoa’s aluminum rolling mill.