In recent years, organisations have increasingly faced pressure to take a stance on social, political, and moral issues. However, navigating this terrain requires careful consideration, as it may carry significant risks. It poses the question: Should organisations speak up or stay silent on such issues?

Do people want businesses to take a stance?

A 2023 Corporate Social Activism Report by IR Magazine found that approximately 75% of Investor Relations Officers (IRO) feel it is important for organisations to not only engage in corporate social responsibility but also to “actively engage in effecting change” through involvement in social activism. The majority of investors share the perception, with 68% of them also in agreement.

This belief is not simply limited to investors and IROs; a significant proportion of employees share the same stance. According to 2023 research by Weber Shandwick, 84% of employees have higher job satisfaction at organisations where leaders speak up about critical events and issues, while 64% of them believe that organisations have a responsibility to speak on issues, regardless of whether they are sensitive or controversial.

According to Economist Preston McAfee, “Firms are composed of people who care about issues and outcomes and will choose to advocate for what they think is right, even if there are short-run costs.”

Consumers are also increasingly vigilant about the companies they buy from. Findings from the 2020 Edelman Trust Barometer indicate that over half (57%) of them are willing to boycott or support a brand based on its stance on political, social, or moral issues.

People want businesses to take a stance, as businesses nowadays are regarded as selling not only their products and services but also their values. Yet, most organisations are not quick to convey their stance, as action is not free from risks.

Case studies

Over the past two decades, there has been an increasing acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community across many countries, along with activism in support of trans rights.

Despite this, beer company Bud Light has received major backlash after working together with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer, for a social media promotion. The partnership, which can be regarded as a pro-LGBTQ+ stance, was criticised by a few conservative commentators and celebrities.

A significant portion of the public shared the same views as the company’s sales plummeted, demonstrating that something as simple as advocacy for human rights and inclusion can still be regarded as controversial.

In response to the backlash, the company released a vague statement that many regard as tepid instead of a solid statement on its advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights, which opens the door for criticisms from the remaining public who support the LGBTQ+ community.

On the other hand, there are cases where speaking out on issues has greatly improved public perception of a business and even positively impacted sales.

In 2022, five out of nine judges in the US Supreme Court decided that a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion is no longer constitutionally protected, an incident infamously known as the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

The decision sparked public outrage, with a Pew Research Center study finding that the majority of the US public disapproved of the overturn, as 62% of Americans believed that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Many top companies decided to take a stance on the issue, with Meta and JPMorgan Chase releasing statements on how they would reimburse travel costs for employees who seek legal abortions outside of their home state. Amazon similarly announced expanded health benefits to cover travel fees incurred by their employees seeking an abortion if the procedure is unavailable near their area of residence. Rideshare companies Lyft and Uber also declared to provide legal support for drivers who are at risk of potential lawsuits for driving passengers to get an abortion.

A survey by Cision analysing the sentiment of 33,000 tweets provides insight into the public’s views on the companies’ responses to the overturn. The findings show that 34% of the public praised the companies’ willingness to announce support, and 6% indicated that the companies’ stance would influence them to buy their products.

However, it was also found that 32% raised criticism surrounding a few of the companies having inconsistent messaging as the companies have previously or currently backed anti-abortion groups through actions or donations.

Those who chose to remain silent received backlash from the public, demanding they take a stance, and 24% called for a boycott. There was also an abundance of speculative and accusatory tweets about why certain companies chose to remain silent on the issues.

When should we speak up?

Based on the case studies, speaking out on social, political and moral issues can be a hit or miss for an organisation’s reputation. It poses the question: which course of action should they take?

The main factor for organisations to consider is to assess whether the stance they plan to take is authentic and how it fits into the organisation’s values. A Harvard Business Review article proposes that companies ask themselves the following three questions to guide their approach: Does the issue align with the company’s strategy? Can you meaningfully influence the issue? Will your constituents agree with speaking out?

• Does the issue align with the company’s strategy?

A company’s mission, values, and purpose are part of its overall strategy. Thus, companies need to understand that their stance can benefit or harm their positioning in regard to this strategy.

In the case of Bud Light, their tepid response was met with further backlash as they were perceived to backtrack from their original stance, creating the impression that they were disingenuous. 

Benjamin Ryan, a reporter and contributor for several prominent US publications such as the New York Times, tweeted about Bud Light’s parent company, “Anheuser-Busch caves to the pressure of a massive campaign against the company after it used trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney as a spokesperson for Bud Light. Read between the lines of this statement, and you can see a company running scared and kicking Mulvaney to the curb.”

This is consistent with the Cision survey that showed people were critical of companies who voiced their stance against the overturn of Roe v. Wade yet had past or current activities that linked them to anti-abortion groups.

• Can you meaningfully influence the issue?

Companies should consider whether they have the expertise and resources to contribute to the issue positively, as advocating for issues demands action.

Many top companies that released statements in disapproval of Roe v. Wade did not only release a statement but also had an action plan to support their stance.

Through the restructuring of employee benefits and company policies to support employees who are seeking an abortion or offering legal support to those who are vulnerable, the companies have demonstrated their capability and commitment to their advocacy. They essentially ‘talk the talk’ and ‘walk the walk’ instead of simply jumping on the bandwagon to garner a few brownie points from the public.

• Will your constituents agree with speaking out?

As previously mentioned, investors, employees and consumers all care about organisations taking a stance. When key constituencies within a business are generally in agreement with the proposed stance, the company greatly reduces its risk of disrupting future businesses.

Organisations must assess the views and opinions of their key constituents and carefully weigh their relative impact on the organisation. For example, a small customer segment with limited power must be considered in contrast to the organisation’s largest investor.

In short, although the majority of an organisation’s stakeholders want them to speak out, organisations must realise that society has different expectations of them as opinions and views are becoming increasingly fragmented. While it is impossible to please every stakeholder, organisations should assess whether their stance on an issue authentically aligns with the organisation and its key constituents.

Curzon PR is a London-based PR firm working with clients globally. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our Business Development Team [email protected]