The past few years have seen corporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) efforts evolve from corporate medal of honor to business standard to political landmine. In the past year alone, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has become the most controversial component of the ESG battleground, with the SCOTUS decision on Affirmative Action setting the frontlines for an all-out war between political parties. Companies are both the soldiers and the casualties as they seek to navigate a landscape fraught with pressures from the right, the left, activists, and their own workforces. 

With the 2024 election season in full swing, many corporate leaders are trying to keep their heads down to avoid drawing fire from any stakeholder, lest they become the latest campaign headline. This is no easy task when the left demands commitments to DEI and the right seeks to punish companies for them and trying to please everyone seems to please no one. So how can corporate America avoid missteps while simultaneously implementing DEI programs that reflect their values? 

Here are three recommendations that we here at Rokk Solutions, a bipartisan public affairs firm, regularly share with Fortune 100s to help them navigate the DEI battleground. 

Leverage Areas of Agreement

By most accounts, bipartisanship is an endangered species, especially when it comes to ESG. But the numbers tell a more complex story. Our research with Penn State University’s Smeal College of Business shows bright spots in bipartisan voter views of ESG and DEI, in particular. For starters,  majorities of both Republican and Democratic voters believe companies have the right to pursue DEI policies as they see fit, without government interference. This should give businesses peace of mind that politicization of their efforts is unpopular with voters and therefore unlikely to win hearts and minds at the polls. 

 

Beyond a clear license to operate, voters on both sides of the aisle are likely to view DEI policies as a means to improving social inequities and worker well-being. While there is a gap between Republicans and Democrats on this issue, it narrows in comparison to their disagreement on a business case for DEI. The takeaway here is that by leaning into narratives that frame programs as tools to support people, companies can limit blowback and even build allyship with broader swaths of the American public. If companies can additionally make a clear business case for their DEI programs, they will be even more successful in dampening criticism from the right. 

Focus on ESG and DEI Impact

One of the strongest communication strategies companies can employ is to craft their narratives around impact as opposed to commitments or even outputs. Demonstrating the positive internal and external outcomes of DEI and ESG efforts combat perceptions of hypocrisy or “say-do” gaps, which then reduce the fodder for political attacks. In our research, we found that about half of both Democrats and Republicans believed DEI programs “were for show” or failed to actually increase diversity. By showing, not telling, policymakers how these programs are positively impacting constituents is crucial to preventing and dampening attacks. Consider what kinds of data supports the narrative of impact: Shareholder returns or societal improvements to key districts can go a long way in neutralizing opposition.

Mitigate Risk 

Even if a company’s messaging bridges the political divide and incorporates watertight stories o/impact, the heightened sensitivities of the election year make risk inevitable.  To mitigate the risk, organizations must build out their crisis guidelines to incorporate political vulnerabilities around ESG. Begin by studying programs through a political lens and identify where risks may be hiding. Is a headquarters located in a red state that has legally challenged DEI? If so, consider updating crisis guidelines to include specific actions for responses at the state and local levels. This requires coordination across business functions including government relations, corporate communications, and even marketing, but is crucial to ensuring the organization is operating as a unit. By doing this homework ahead of time, companies can then build out “break-the-glass” plans to quickly pivot from attack and quickly regain the advantage. 

In addition to the crisis-preparation work that businesses can do to strengthen their plans, it is vital to remember that these plans are only as good as the reputation you’ve built through your stakeholder engagement. This means that companies should consider crisis mitigation plans in conjunction with their bipartisan and impact messaging and not a stand-alone component of a broader communications plan. In the election year’s heightened political sensitivities, this advice is even more relevant than usual.  

The partisan attacks on DEI and ESG of recent years have put businesses on their heels, many of which are shying away from commitments and communications. It may seem like the safest route, but it is dangerous to forget that the totality of stakeholders represent a variety of views. Shifting between being outspoken and silent on social issues creates a bigger reputational risk of corporate hypocrisy that itself could be a huge misstep in an election year. Instead of changing with the political winds, companies will better protect themselves by implementing a steady communications plan that considers areas of bipartisan agreement, stories of impact relevant to specific stakeholders, and a crisis-mitigation plan that considers DEI and ESG vulnerabilities. 

Remaining open, communicative, and proactive may seem like wading into the battleground, but with the right swords and your shield, companies can withstand the war unscathed.