Most corporates in the past were deaf to social issues, it really wasn’t their ‘thing’ but the welcome rise of ESG awareness up the corporate ladder has led to an interesting dilemma.

To some the ESG concept is grounded in what they directly do and can change – from renewable energy to supply chain to social programmes such as the recently formed New York Jobs CEO Council. It is an operations-driven policy. However, there is an argument that corporates have a ‘duty’ to speak out over what they see as a wider agenda. There is no ‘right’ answer, but the two views are mutually exclusive and tend to create camps of thought.

The recent criticism of Home Secretary Priti Patel by Ben and Jerry's over the cross-channel migrant crossings is certainly an agenda-driven comment, even given its UK foundation has supported refugees, in a series of company tweets the firm has urged Patel to show more "humanity" and directed its ire at her directly.

Clearly there is a capacity for such pronouncements to backfire or be seen as interfering, or worse just a PR stunt, but that is a judgement for the company to make.

But leaving aside this particular feud, the issue is whether corporates are really able to enter a social and political arena. Nobody should be afraid to comment, but there is a line between a company’s CEO (or foundation) speaking privately and the firm’s official channels being used (as was done here) and from endorsing programmes outside their expertise to endorsing political issues (Big Bad Corp supports Napoleon for President?). There is a fine line, and in today’s already divisive world, it is one that corporate my wish to consider before forced to do so.

Share Story: