After a second fatal shooting of a US citizen by federal agents in Minneapolis last weekend, corporate leaders appeared to find their voice again after a year of near-silence in response to actions by the Trump administration.
Sixty Minnesota-based companies, including General Mills, Target, and 3M, called for an “immediate de-escalation of tensions” in a letter penned Jan. 25 that was simultaneously lauded as a good first step amid the potential for political backlash and criticized as too cautious, failing to mention immigration or condemn the shooting.
A flood of other internal and external statements followed, with companies ranging from 109-year-old toy companies to executives at Silicon Valley companies and buzzy AI giants like Anthropic and OpenAI issuing comments, making it harder for leaders to avoid pressure from their employees or communities to do the same. Charter spoke with experts on communications and business ethics and mined our earlier coverage to compile advice, tactics, and commentary to consider when thinking about what to do next:
Think about long-term consequences to brand trust. Sunday’s CEO letter was a turning point for corporate silence, argues Alison Taylor, a professor at NYU Stern who studies corporate responsibility and business ethics. “Corporations in general have fallen pretty heavily into line in the past year, but I think the events in Minneapolis, particularly [last] weekend, really feel like a tipping point in public opinion,” she says. “Depending on what happens in the next few weeks…we might see more courage,” predicts Taylor.
Yet there’s no easy way out, she says. “Speak out, [and] you are quite likely to get retaliation from the government. If you don’t, you are going to really lose trust with your customers and employees.” While compliance-focused leaders might be prioritizing the short-term risks of political retaliation, Taylor warns that there could be long-term consequences in the loss of brand value and trust.
Supporting democratic values is a business issue, argues Michael Posner, director of the Center for Business and Human Rights at NYU Stern. “That democratic foundation has been hugely beneficial to companies that want to compete on a level playing field and be successful,” he says. “They have the most to gain by that kind of predictable, stable, rule-of-law-based country.”
As political instability increases, Taylor suggests some corporations have already adopted practices more commonly seen in emerging markets, such as appointing Trump loyalists to their corporate boards or rebranding corporate initiatives with language that aligns with the administration’s priorities. It’s a set of tactics often used in populist authoritarian states or countries, Taylor wrote in a recent essay, where the government “uses discriminatory enforcement, public shaming, and strategic selectivity to reward its supporters and punish its enemies.” She tells Charter “in a liberal democracy, you adjust to public opinion. In a populist authoritarian country, you tailor your message to what the government wants.”
If you don’t have a decision framework, get one fast. Communications pros say most companies have developed working groups and decision trees to decide when to engage in recent years. “A framework is helpful for making the decision, but it’s also incredibly helpful for explaining that decision,” says Nikki Summer, a communications consultant.
First, decide whether speaking out is authentic and relevant to your brand, and what outcome you want to achieve by saying something, she says. “If your answer is a statement and there’s nothing else backing it up, that’s not a great look.” (On Wednesday, Patagonia said it was donating to local organizations and “writing to US senators in every state where we have employees,” encouraging a vote against the bill for US Department of Homeland Security funding.) Then, ask if it’s consistent with how you’ve previously responded, consider what stakeholders are expecting, and think through alternatives, Summer says.
Paul Argenti, a professor at Dartmouth University’s Tuck School of Business, says leaders should ask not only whether speaking out is strategic to their brand, but whether they can meaningfully influence the topic and whether their constituencies will agree. “If there’s three ‘yeses’ or three ‘nos’ it’s easy,” he says. When one of the answers is no, it’s a more complex decision.
Richard Edelman, CEO of the Edelman global communications firm, shared an even simpler framework at the 2024 Charter Workplace Summit: “Does it have something to do with your business?” If the answer is yes, whether that’s your supply chain, sourcing, or employee experience, “all these things are within your control and therefore within your responsibility.”
Consider alternatives that support employees. Not everything has to be a public statement. “You could call an all-hands, you can talk to people one-on-one, you can reach out to individual employees, you could make a donation, you could give a day off for volunteering or protesting,” says Gab Ferree, who leads a professional development community for communications leaders.
Behind the scenes, employers can create legal defense funds and resource hubs for immigrant employees, craft policies regarding ICE on company property, train managers on how to respond to workplace raids, and extend remote-work privileges to employees. These kinds of internal actions are often more important than broad, public statements for politically sensitive issues like abortion rights, Edelman said in 2024. “Talk to your people, don’t become a public advocate,” he recommended.
Look for allies. There can be relative safety in numbers, says Posner. “If I act alone, I’m going to wind up disadvantaging my company against my competitors—which to me, speaks to the need for collective action,” says Posner.
Anthony Johndrow, CEO of Reputation Economy Advisers, says it was smart for CEOs to speak out as a group, even if the letter was “soft:” “The question is what do they do next. What if there’s a general strike? They’re going to have to take a stand and clarify what they will do if their employees don’t show up for work.”
Research shows that collective action from business leaders like Sunday’s CEO letter also often leads to more action, even from peers who didn’t sign the letter. The process is called “social authorization,” Wharton professor Stephanie Creary told Charter in 2022.
Prepare managers to deal with distraction and fear. Research shows that high-profile instances of violence or harm, especially those that target specific communities, create “psychological threats” that can follow employees to work. When that happens, “you’re worried about your safety, you’re worried about your community, you’re worried about your friends and family,” Angelica Leigh, an associate professor at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, told Charter in 2022 following a mass shooting in Buffalo, NY.
Teach managers how to proactively identify signs of withdrawal or hostility, recommended George Vergolias, chief clinical officer for consultancy R3 Continuum, following the 2024 election. Offer a toolkit with scripts to try. Hear out employees’ frustrations and concerns without stating political opinions. And after letting employees share how they’re feeling, remind them that the team still has shared projects and goals, and there is an expectation that everyone remains respectful, even when they disagree.
For more on addressing the current moment, read our advice on supporting employees amid crisis, our guide to anticipating and responding to employee protests at work, and our template for connecting societal issues to your organization’s internal values and policies.