Should CEOs interject themselves and their companies into social issues?

In recent years, we’ve seen a growing number of CEOs and companies stepping into the political spotlight. From Disney’s public stance against Florida's “Don’t Say Gay” bill to brands like Patagonia and Ben & Jerry's championing climate change and social justice causes, it's become increasingly common for businesses to take a stand on contentious issues.

As CEO of Henson Group, a $50M company, I have serious concerns about the risks this trend poses. While speaking out on clear human rights violations makes sense, I believe CEOs should avoid wading into polarizing political debates that could jeopardize their brand and alienate stakeholders.

Here’s why: companies are made up of people with diverse viewpoints. In a privately held company, an owner may feel they have the right to speak for the business, but even then, there are reasons to tread carefully. In publicly held companies, the CEO is effectively speaking for all shareholders and stakeholders. Without consulting them, this can be seen as a presumptuous move with potential career-threatening repercussions.

At Henson Group, we have employees spread across more than twenty states and countries, each with their own political views. As a leader, I’m cautious about speaking out on divisive issues because I know my team represents the full political spectrum. I don’t believe I have the right to impose my personal views on them, nor do I think it’s fair to assume that my perspective aligns with how all our employees feel.

A CEO’s primary concern should be maintaining the company’s brand identity. Customers and clients relate to that identity based on the features, benefits, and reputation of the product or service—not the CEO’s political stance. It’s one thing for a company to champion universal values like charity, human rights, or community service. Those actions align with the brand and rarely spark controversy—they simply add positive value to the company's image.

Politics, however, are almost always polarizing. Some customers may celebrate a political stance, while others could react with dismay or even anger. It’s impossible to please everyone in the political arena. The real risk lies in alienating a portion of your audience, potentially leading to boycotts or negative campaigns. Some consumers may even organize efforts to rally others against your brand.

My view is that I want Henson Group’s customers to focus on the quality and reputation of our services—not my political position. Getting involved in political issues not only risks damaging the brand but also puts undue pressure on the employees who help build it. This company belongs to them just as much as it does to me.

The brilliance of the U.S. Constitution never ceases to amaze me. The Founders, in their wisdom, constructed a system that continues to account for so many issues we face today, more than 240 years later. One provision they made was allowing corporations to contribute financially to political parties or causes they support. This is a far more effective—and less controversial—way for businesses to make their voices heard.

Personally, I contribute to the political party that aligns with my beliefs. I believe voting with your dollars is far more impactful than political statements or public ads. So if you want to promote change, I recommend doing so through financial contributions rather than risking your brand by wading into political discourse.

This is just one CEO’s perspective. But if you want to create positive change without compromising your company’s image or employee morale, reach for your checkbook—not the press. The business of business is business, not politics.