Corporate leaders are now under huge pressure from both employees and consumers to take a stand and address a variety of ‘hot-button’ social and political issues publicly.
These include racial equality, Covid-19 vaccinations, voting rights, the war in Ukraine, and more recently US Supreme Court rulings in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on women’s reproductive rights and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen on gun regulation. However, a new survey found that only 10% of companies have responded publicly to the recent Supreme Court decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, on women’s reproductive rights. And significantly fewer (4%) are publicly addressing the decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, on gun regulation, compared to issues such as racial equality (61%), LGBTQ+ rights (44%), Covid-related topics (40%) and gender equality (39%).
The Conference Board’s latest survey reveals that a majority have either addressed or plan to address the decision on women’s reproductive rights internally. Significantly fewer, however, are internally addressing the ruling on gun regulation. That may be due in part to the pressure companies are receiving. Around 26% of companies stated they have felt pressure to respond to the Dobbs ruling, and 13% felt pressure to respond to both decisions, but no firms stated that they had felt pressure to respond only to the Bruen decision.
ADDRESSING SOCIAL ISSUES IN THE WORKPLACE
“Companies should have a clear process and criteria for deciding whether, when, and how to respond to social issues,” stated Paul Washington, Executive Director of The Conference Board ESG Center. “The pressure to address these and other social issues is unlikely to abate. Having clear guidelines can help set expectations for how the company will respond in the future and ensure that the company is appropriately taking into account the divergent views of multiple stakeholders.”
The survey polled nearly 300 US public, private and nonprofit corporations, more than half with annual revenues over $1 billion (60%), weighing in on how companies are responding to social issues, including those raised by two recent rulings: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on women’s reproductive rights, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen on gun regulation.
INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS
Key findings showed that even when companies do not speak up publicly, they may address issues internally based on the nature of the subject. For example:
- 10% of companies responded to Dobbs, or plan to respond, with public statements.
- Only 4% have made a public statement on Bruen.
- Racial (61%), LGBTQ+ (44%) and gender equality rights (39%) – and Covid-related topics – have been the predominant focus of corporations’ public statements on social issues in the past two years.
- A majority (51%) either have addressed, or plan to address, women’s reproductive rights internally. Around 10% haven’t decided whether to respond, and 31% are not planning to respond.
- Of those companies responding to Dobbs internally, the most common responses are to communicate existing healthcare benefits to employees 942%) or to offer travel expense benefits (30%).
- Significantly fewer – 9% – are addressing Bruen internally. Around 73% are not responding.
- Not all companies have been silent on gun issues. Around 22% addressed gun safety before Bruen in a variety of ways; 74% internally; 18% through a public statement; and another 18% donated to nonprofits relating to gun safety.
TACKLING TOUGH TOPICS
“These issues are amongst the hardest to tackle for those in Corporate Communications, both internally and externally. There is no right answer to what to say or what to do, but there is a right approach. This is based on a company’s values, commitments to all its stakeholders, and its business. They should think deeply, act wisely, and stay connected to what other companies are doing,” said Ivan Pollard, Leader of The Conference Board Marketing & Communications Center.
Similar types of events can lead to widely divergent responses. For example:
- While 26% of companies stated they have felt pressure to respond to the Dobbs decision, and 13% to both decisions, no firms stated that they had felt pressure to respond only to Bruen.
- Almost half (47%) of companies report receiving no pressure to take a stand on either issue.
RESPONDING TO EMPLOYEE PRESSURE
Companies need to ensure they have a consistent way to respond to employee pressure on social issues, noted the report. Of the companies that have received pressure to respond to the Court’s decisions on reproductive rights and guns, 78% said the pressure came from individual employees and 55% cited employee resource groups.
“Employees are not only a primary source of pressure for companies to take stands, but also a primary audience for the corporate response,” said Rebecca Ray, Executive Vice President of Human Capital at The Conference Board. “Companies should consider establishing a mechanism for employees to raise issues and should have consistent criteria and a process for management to decide whether and how to address those issues. For example, some firms have asked employee resource groups to provide regular input to the CEO; others have established a separate employee committee to raise issues for senior management and board consideration.”
COMPANY CORE VALUES
The criteria for deciding whether to address a social issue should include more than “company values.” For example, the survey revealed that:
- 61% of companies cited the issue’s relationship “to the company’s core values” as a criterion for deciding whether to take a stand on the issues raised by the Supreme Court’s decisions.
- 29% cited the relationship to the company’s business.
- 23% mentioned the ability to make a meaningful impact.
Senior management can take steps to avoid becoming an “echo chamber” in deciding the company’s position on social issues. Around 75% of companies said the decision to take a stand on the two decisions rested with either the CEO, or the CEO and senior management team collectively. Many fewer included government relations (29%), corporate citizenship/community relations (18%), marketing (15%), finance (14%), and investor relations (11%) in the decision, despite the fact that these functions could help represent the views of the company’s regulators, communities, consumers and shareholders.
TRUST IN BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
While they seldom make the decision to take a stand, a majority of boards are being consulted involved/informed beforehand or informed at the time of decision. “Americans’ trust in business leadership unavoidably places CEOs and their C-suites at the nexus of public policy issues,” said Dr Lori Esposito Murray, President of the Committee for Economic Development, the public policy centre of The Conference Board (CED). “Managing the growing expectations of multiple stakeholders will require new and evolving leadership skills, and consequently, broad engagement in the pursuit of knowledge and insights both inside and outside the company walls.”
Companies need to prepare for ongoing pressure to address the issues of reproductive rights and gun safety through internal policies, political activities, and nonprofit contributions related to these issues. Few companies have decided to address the issues of women’s reproductive rights and guns by making adjustments in their lobbying activities (2%), political contributions (4%), or non-profit contributions (6%). But these areas are not likely to escape employee scrutiny – or pressure – for long, concluded the report.
Last year, following the horrific recent events against members of the Black community, leading CEOs made a stand against racism for the first time ever. Click here to read more.
Sign up for our newsletter
