Besides post-pandemic workplace organization, how companies should handle social and political issues just might be the most talked-about topic in C-Suites.
“There is little doubt in my mind,” Alan Murray, CEO of Fortune Media, wrote recently “that historians will look back at the last few years as a significant turning point in the history of business. Most large companies—the Fortune 500—have significantly increased the attention they pay to social and environmental issues, and are more willing to speak out on controversial social and political issues.”
Murray admits critics see companies taking positions as political posturing. But, he believes’ taking stands “reflects a fundamental change in the way businesses are run.”
As evidence, Murray includes comments CEOs made during a recent Fortune virtual roundtable.
“Clearly the business of business is no longer purely business. Our constituents are watching us,” Henry Schein CEO Stan Bergman said.
UnderArmour’s Patrick Fisk said he never expected to address social and political issues when he became CEO. Prior to 2020, had he been asked about taking a stand, he would have said: “‘What are you talking about? I’m here to run a business.’”
On the other hand, Fisk now concurs with a point that FleishmanHillard SVP and new ESG lead Cathy Resler made during an interview with us: the pandemic led corporate leaders to pause and reconsider ESG issues (see p. 7).
As Fisk says, the push for corporations to take stands “accelerated during the pandemic, and it isn’t just North American; it’s global. We see it happening across the world, and it has accelerated dramatically.”
It seems standard practice that companies must act, or at least speak, on social and political issues. Consumers demand companies speak out, right? The younger the consumer, the more this is the case, the thinking goes.
In addition, it’s generally held that CEOs, often the face of a company, have a duty to take stands on issues.
A More Complex Picture
The deeper you go, though, all this appears more complicated.
Late last month, for example, Fortune magazine tested the conventional wisdom. It asked Fortune 500 CEOs which of these statements comes closest to their thinking, even if neither is exactly right:
- CEOs have a responsibility to speak out on important social and political issues and should continue to do so.
- CEOs have recently gotten too involved in commenting on social and political issues and need to pull back.
One might think at least a majority would pick the first statement. Actually, business leaders split evenly: 50 percent for the first statement and the same for the second.
Interestingly, 12 percent of the CEOs consider themselves Democrats; 30 percent said they are Republicans, with 47 percent Independent.
For Fortune CEO Murray, the survey question speaks to the “awkward dilemma” that US voting rights “has created for corporate chieftains.”
Incidentally, the survey shows more than 80 percent of the CEOs believe “everything possible should be done to make it easy for every citizen to vote.” Yet, Murray says, CEOs have “a strong desire to stay out of the partisan crossfire.”
Going After CEOs Personally
You’ve likely heard that Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell warned companies to stay out of politics recently.
Less known is an effort to ensure CEOs stay quiet on non-business issues.
A dark money group called Consumers’ Research said May 18 it will launch a $1 million ad campaign (TV and online) against CEOs who, the group says, seem more interested in taking political stands than on conducting business. Early targets include CEOs of Coca-Cola, Nike and American Airlines.
Instead of blasting the CEOs for their companies’ support of voting rights, they attack on other fronts. For example, Nike’s CEO John Donohoe is whacked for allegedly using forced labor in China. Coke boss James Quincey takes a hit for obesity in America.
The attack on Doug Parker, American’s CEO, is the most personal. During a moment when the pandemic forced layoffs, Parker is called out for having a high salary.
As CNBC’s Eamon Javers reports, the ads are “replete with ominous video of the CEOs and cast[s] them very much like opposition candidates in a political campaign.”
Consumers’ Research chief William Hild told Javers, “Increasingly we’re seeing companies taking their eye off the ball…curry[ing] favor with woke politicians, rather than focusing on serving their consumers.”
It’s possible some CEOs are listening to calls to leave politics and social issues to others.
Diversity: A Waste of Time?
A survey of 1,527 full-time employees at large companies in the US, Canada and the U.K. found nearly 40 percent of C-Suite executives saying diversity efforts are “a waste” of time and resources. United Minds, a unit of Weber Shandwick, conducted the survey.
A pop-up PRNEWS survey last week of 65 Twitter followers asked about companies and CEOs taking stands.
- 17% said yes, they “always” must take stands.
- 17% said no, “stick to business.”
- 9% were “torn on the question.”
- 57% said they should take stands “judiciously.”
Assuming the best route is taking stands judiciously, questions for communicators include:
- Who determines what issues to take a stand on? Is a formal process the best way to go or should it be ad hoc?
- As in crisis communication, how quickly should a company respond to an issue? Is it OK to wait for others to respond first?
- Should it always be the CEO doing the speaking?
The first step in deciding what issue to take on is to evaluate if you’ve “done the work” regarding the position the company wants to support, says Victor Parker II, director, corporate communication at Ayzenberg Group. For example, do the company’s practices align with the position on which it’s thinking of advocating? On diversity, for example, does your company “have diverse representation?”
In addition, Parker says, inventory company executives to see if their personal lives align with the position the company is thinking of supporting. If not, you’re “falsely promoting” a position, he says.
Another point he makes concerns timing. “People feel pressure to be the first to respond to the zeitgeist,” he says. “But you don’t always need to be the first,” Parker believes.
He also recommends taking a peer inventory before responding. Essentially this is an informal poll of executives in your sector to find out what they’re doing on an issue. This is where “building trusting relationships with peers” comes in handy, he says.
And there’s nuance involved in taking a stand, “just as there is with everything else in life.” For instance, sometimes he advocates having internal conversations only between employees and leaders about social and political issues. “Not everything needs to be posted or communicated externally,” he says.
Formal Guidelines and a Committee
LaShonda Eaddy, who’ll be teaching PR and strategic communication at Penn State in the fall, says communicators should advocate that companies establish guidelines to help determine whether or not they should engage on social and political issues.
“Issues will come up again and again, so it’s important to have structures in place to help remove emotion” from the decision to speak or not, Eaddy says.
Former Obama spokesperson Ben LaBolt agrees. While some consumers don’t care about a company’s stands, many, including younger generations, do, he says. As such, companies and CEOs eventually will need to say something about an issue, LaBolt says.
In addition, he agrees with Eaddy about guidelines. He also advises “being proactive and having a plan” about how the company will react to issues, he says.
Beyond that, LaBolt advocates a formal group of executives convene at least quarterly to discuss the landscape of social and political issues that the company might need to address. Now a partner at Bully Pulpit Interactive, LaBolt believes the group should include leaders from around the company, including communication, legal, marketing and HR. Depending on the issue, the group can add company experts, he says, such as on DEI and sustainability, for example.
Eaddy and LaBolt urge communicators to invest a lot of time into creating such guidelines.
“This can’t be done in a day,” Eaddy says. She urges communicators to provide case studies to executives that illustrate the pros and cons of taking stands. Both Eaddy and LaBolt agree that a starting point for creating such guidelines is the company’s value set.
This thinking is central to a decision-making model Beehive Strategic Communication is touting. The model, it says, helps companies decide if and when to speak out on social and political issues. It examines how an issue or situation “intersects” with a company’s “purpose, mission and values...alignment is critical,” Beehive’s Katy O’Neil says.
In addition, the model gauges importance of the issue to key stakeholders. It also considers how much a company can influence the issue. Making a statement without action is unacceptable, O’Neil says.
The Southwest Model
For years, at least one company, Southwest Airlines, has had a formal process to advise its CEO on whether or not the company should address a social issue.
The airline’s cross-functional Social Topics Committee meets within 12 hours after a request is received to weigh in on a social issue, says Southwest SVP and Chief Communication Officer Linda Rutherford. “Speed, consistency and courage” are the committee’s guiding principles, she adds.
In addition to rapid response issues, the group also meets monthly to review positions, determine if anything needs to be updated and examine “the work we’re doing against those issues we’ve adopted, such as combatting human trafficking,” Rutherford says.
In addition to communication leaders, executives from investor relations, HR (called ‘People’ at Southwest), marketing, governmental affairs, community outreach, DE&I, legal, employee/labor relations and operations are group members.
The group runs through a set of test questions about such factors as audience and business impact, risk and financial impact. Its goal, Rutherford says, is building a consensus recommendation that it takes to the CEO.