Patricia Bayerlein is Gagen MacDonald’s Executive Director and has been with the firm since its founding. She frequently helps companies navigate the complex topics of corporate activism, ESG initiatives and the employee experience. As businesses prepare for elections across the U.S. and globe, she took a moment to talk with Gagen Manager of Marketing & Thought Leadership Danny Kelleher about how and when companies should take a stand on broader societal issues.
DK: Companies often find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to taking stances on societal and political issues. Not commenting often risks alienating many stakeholders. Commenting can also risk alienating many stakeholders. In general, how do you think companies should approach the question of what they stand for, what they speak out about and, more broadly, how they exist within the world in 2024?
I think that if you’re going to speak out on a societal issue, that issue really needs to be aligned with who you are as a company. What do you stand for? What is your purpose? What are your values? You can’t comment on everything, and the companies that get it right are the ones that really find that alignment.
It’s also very important to gather a diverse set of perspectives internally. Before you take external action, you should gather employees from different groups and consider the issue from all those different angles. This can be a great way to empower Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), and help them function not just as peer-to-peer support groups but also as true advisory groups for leadership.
Ultimately though, it’s never really just about commenting on a social issue. If you’re going to comment on an issue, you should take some type of action. That’s the main key. If you just say words without showing that tangible commitment to helping the cause, you’re going to get into hot water.
DK: It seems like in many ways, the biggest risk for a company is seeming performative; that when a company appears more focused on seeming a certain type of way than truly being that way, things tend to backfire. Does that seem accurate?
That’s right. When a company takes a public stance on an issue that has nothing to do with its industry or its identity — or when it takes a stance and fails to pair that stance with action — there’s this ambiguity around intention that gets created. Stakeholders wonder if the company’s goal is to have an impact on the actual issue or simply to change their perception of the company.
If the internal reality doesn’t align with what you preach externally, it’s going to catch up to you.
— Patricia Bayerlein, Executive Director
DK: I want to ask you quickly about the term “purpose.” I know what you’re talking about when you use it, and I think most of our readers do too, but it feels like it might be smart to pause and clarify for everyone. When you talk about purpose, you’re not talking about the purpose that unites businesses, which is to make profit and benefit their shareholders, right?
Right. That’s obviously always going to be the goal for a business, but when I talk about purpose, I’m talking about why the company was created; what you provide to your customers and the world, not just to your shareholders. Different companies, of course, have different ways to express that, ranging from tactical reasons for existence to much more abstract, emotional ones. But they also have a set of values they live by, and they use those to make decisions about what to speak out about, too.
DK: APCO research has found that there is much support around the U.S. for companies taking action internally in response to a current event issue — such as by changing an internal policy that impacts employees — than taking action externally, such as by speaking out for or against the issue in the media. Why do you think people feel this way, and what do you think it shows us about the nature of corporate advocacy?
It speaks to what you were saying earlier, about how unacceptable it is to seem performative or disingenuous. If the internal reality doesn’t align with what you preach externally, it’s going to catch up to you. Then it’s very hard to maintain people’s trust in your intentions. It’s not dissimilar to politicians who, say, take stands around income equality and then turn out to be underpaying their staffers. If you don’t seem to live the values you preach, people are going to start asking whether your heart is in the right place.
It's always a good idea to inform employees before you go out to the media around a high-profile issue. As we say at Gagen, true change starts within.
DK: I’d like to pivot to ask about one of my favorite topics, which is the power of language. The same APCO study I mentioned earlier has an interesting finding. That finding is that there is much more support for many sub-topics that fall under the ESG umbrella — such as, say income inequality, or mental health care — than there is for the term ESG itself. Why do you think that is, and what does it tell us?
Frankly, it has a lot to do with political beliefs and rhetoric. As the concept of ESG has grown, many have tried to derail it. According to the Corporate Governance Institute, ESG means investing in ethical business practices. The ideas contained within the broader notion of ESG tend to carry a lot less baggage than the umbrella term itself. To some, ESG means finding the intersection of taking action for the planet, sustainability and community while also caring about profit. To others, ESG signifies being less strategic or less profit-oriented in the name of appearing moral or progressive.
DK: What should companies do, then, if they want to make sure their ESG strategies truly help them grow and profit? What can they do to unite employees around their initiatives and stances?
Companies can do a few things. The first is to take great care in how they position and talk about their initiatives and actions. Take something like climate change; some people do not believe in climate change, or see it as a politicized term. A much larger majority, however, care about clean water, or about protecting the natural environment and their communities. The more you can make sure the discussion is objective and tangible, the less risk there is of deepening political divides. Let’s return to the point about action. If you’re truly taking action about something, not just making abstract statements, you have a much better chance of uniting your employees and your stakeholders at large.
That all comes hand-in-hand with doing the work to truly listen to and understand your stakeholders. Different companies have different realities; some issues are going to be much more divisive for some companies than for others. If you take the time to understand your people, though, you can find issues that unite them, and that energize your culture in the process.
