Companies as critics, adapters, and pioneers : motives, strategies, and risks of corporate social advocacy

Abstract

Companies are increasingly expected to take a stance on controversial social and political issues. Known as corporate social advocacy (CSA), companies are addressing challenges such as the election of populist parties, immigration policies, and gun laws. To explore the motives, strategies, and stakeholder influences behind CSA, we conducted semi-structured interviews with communications managers at large corporations (N = 15). Results indicate that both intrinsic (employee pressure and corporate values) and extrinsic (external stakeholder pressure and economic benefits) motives drive companies to engage in CSA. Companies manage CSA cautiously, using three strategic approaches: (1) careful issue selection, (2) balancing proactive and reactive positioning to manage narratives and public sentiment, and (3) choosing between clear, explicit statements on straightforward issues and vague, ambiguous statements on highly polarized issues. The risks are primarily economic (e.g. reputational damage and stakeholder alienation). Based on these strategies, we categorize companies into three types: (1) critics, who rarely take positions and act reactively; (2) adapters, who decide on a case-by-case basis and take a proactive stance on clear violations of values, but are wary of polarizing rhetoric; and (3) pioneers, who proactively address controversial issues and make their positions clear.