Over the past few years, we’ve seen well-intentioned corporate statements spark everything from customer boycotts to political retaliation. It’s an increasingly high-risk environment for communicators, one in which companies are often “damned if they do and damned if they don’t.”
I’ve been studying this question for more than a decade and first presented on the topic at Page in 2018. I later published a piece in Harvard Business Review called “When Should Your Company Speak Up About a Social Issue?” Since then, the environment has only grown more complex.
A Three-Question Framework
Whenever I’m advising companies on whether and how to take a stand, I begin with these questions:
- Does the issue align with your strategy, mission or values?
If it doesn’t, your engagement risks appearing opportunistic or inconsistent. The fastest way to lose credibility is to act against your stated purpose. - Can your company meaningfully influence the issue?
Speaking out is not enough. True engagement requires the ability and willingness to make a tangible difference, whether through operations, policy or public positioning. - How will your key constituencies respond?
Stakeholder alignment is rarely unanimous. But communicators must consider where investors, employees, customers and regulators stand and weigh the relative influence of each.
If the answer is “yes” to all three, the path is clear: you should lead. If all three are “no,” you should likely stay silent. The area in between is where most decisions live, and where communications strategy becomes essential.
Examples from the Field
To illustrate this framework, I often point to recent real-world decisions—some bold, some measured, and some that reveal the tension between values and business imperatives.
- Apple’s Position on Climate (Constituencies Misaligned)
I frequently reference a conversation where Tim Cook told investors, “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.” That moment wasn’t about politics—it was about values deeply embedded in Apple’s strategy. It was also a reminder that leadership sometimes means being willing to part ways with stakeholders who don’t share your priorities. - Amazon’s Measured Response to Roe v. Wade (Not aligned with strategy, external constituencies misaligned)
After the leaked Supreme Court decision, Amazon offered to reimburse employees for out-of-state reproductive care. While not a public-facing stance, it was a meaningful action. The move showed a degree of alignment with employee expectations and influence over internal policy—but without a full-throated public campaign. It’s a good example of quiet action over public rhetoric. - Coca-Cola and Credibility by Association (Could not meaningfully influence the issue)
Rather than speak out directly, Coca-Cola partnered with organizations focused on water conservation. This kind of alignment through partnership is a smart option when credibility on a given issue is still being built or when other voices are better positioned to lead.
A Time for Strategy, Not Slogans
Communicators guide their organizations best through clear frameworks, consistent messaging, and a strong sense of purpose, not performative statements or one-off campaigns. They also need to know when not to speak, especially if the issue is outside the company’s sphere of relevance or if stakeholder reactions are likely to do more harm than good.
As Plato is often quoted, “Wise people speak because they have something to say. Fools, because they have to say something.”