In the context of companies increasingly being expected to weigh in on potentially controversial issues unrelated to their core business and/or that have the potential to alienate one or more stakeholder groups, these new resources may help companies navigate the potential complexities associated with this type of corporate activity.
“A Checklist for Companies Considering Whether to Speak on Political Issues” from Perkins Coie suggests a sound approach for companies seeking to develop a framework to support well-founded and consistent decision-making on whether and how to engage in, and speak out on, political and social issues. The checklist includes a non-exclusive list of principles-based factors that companies may consider, as well as lobbying and ethics compliance considerations.
The Conference Board’s “How to take a stand on hot-button social issues in this polarized environment? How to organize your sustainability function for success?” similarly identifies a series of factors relevant to companies’ decision-making on whether, when, and how to respond to or take a position on potentially divisive political and social issues. Based on a roundtable discussion with about 100 executives, the instructive takeaways also address process transparency to (among other things) set employee expectations, separating the CEO’s view from those of the company’s, board engagement, and measuring the impact of speaking out.
Directors & Boards also suggests sensible factors companies should consider in determining whether and how to articulate a position on likely controversial social or political issues in its “Taking a Stand: How and When Should Companies Speak Out on Political Issues?” Among other tips, the article advises companies to “walk their talk” and to be prepared in advance for possible negative fallout associated with taking a stance on issues that are bound to be misaligned with at least a subset of diverse stakeholder viewpoints.
Triggered by - but not limited to - the new Georgia voting law, in this WSJ op-ed: “Politics Is Risky Business for CEOs,” former American Express CEO Harvey Golub advises against CEOs taking a stance on public policy issues that don’t directly affect their business for several reasons including the inability to separate the CEO from the company they lead, which he asserts makes speaking out as individuals unfeasible; the likely alienation of employees and customers who will disagree with the stated position; and the potential precedent-setting nature of speaking out on issues unrelated to the business, which he posits will lead to limitless expectations about taking a stance on current events and issues going forward.
We have previously reported on other useful frameworks that serve a similar purpose, i.e., that support a logical, grounded decision-making approach that companies can apply to an increasingly wide range of potentially polarizing political and social issues.
See “It’s War: The New Dilemma For Corporations And Social Issues” (Chief Executive), “Statement signed by major corporations opposing laws that restrict voting rights” (The Washington Post), and “Hundreds of Companies, CEOs Band Together on Voting Access” (WSJ), “Simon & Schuster Says Mike Pence Book Will Proceed, Despite Employee Petitions” (WSJ), and additional resources on our Activism page »CEO.
This post first appeared in the weekly Society Alert!