Why are corporate leaders silent on the Voice to Parliament?

As Australia heads towards a national referendum on a proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament — at an as-yet-unconfirmed date and on a still-to-be-finalised question — it’s timely to ask when, if at all, business organisations will enter the debate.

If trends overseas are any indication, business may be losing its appetite for participation in highly contentious social and political issues. Sadly, cancel culture and “anti-woke campaigns” elsewhere seem to be grinding down corporate commitment to speaking out.

Support for companies and CEOs to take a stand on significant social or political issues has been strong in recent years, and may have reached a high-water mark with thousands of firms worldwide taking a stance against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But now the tide is turning.

Late last year, a survey of 400 American communications professionals found only 18% of brands were very likely to speak out on societal issues, despite shareholder demands, and less than a quarter of the respondents said their companies have a playbook for knowing when and how to take a stand.

Around the same time, UK-based IR Magazine ran a cover story that found some firms were starting to take a step back on political issues, returning the focus to shareholder value. John Galloway, global head of Vanguard’s investment stewardship program, told the magazine a “new culture of caution is emerging” and firms are starting to question whether they should be coming out publicly on issues “that aren’t material to their operations”. 

“Even companies that have made bold political statements on political issues in the past don’t want to comment,” he said.

In January this year, a headline in Bloomberg went even further and proclaimed “The Outspoken CEO is a Rapidly Dying Breed”, arguing that “companies are rethinking a recent willingness to publicly wade into contentious issues.”

And a new US study of consumer sentiment by Stagwell Global found 38% of participants (up six points from July 2022) think American companies are speaking out too much on social issues, while a falling total of 25% (down three points) believe they aren’t speaking out enough. At the same time, 68% (up 12 points) regard speaking out as a marketing ploy. 

Similar doubt about motivation was shown in a recent Australian survey by Leo Burnett, which found 88% believe it’s important for brands and businesses to be actively engaging in “doing good”, yet almost half of the male respondents were “sceptical of the legitimacy of the company’s intentions”.

The current poster child for the danger of corporate political activism has to be Disney World, which spoke out against a bill by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to restrict certain classroom instruction about sexual orientation law and gender identity. The company also suspended all political donations in the state.

In a year-long campaign of political retaliation against one of the Florida’s largest private employers, the state has just passed legislation further restricting Disney’s special economic status, with the Republican presidential hopeful declaring “There’s a new sheriff in town.”

Even Republican stalwarts like former vice president Mike Pence and New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu condemned penalising businesses for political speech.

The corporate risk of having a contrary opinion can happen in Australia too, albeit not at the same level. In February, Marcus Blackmore, a major shareholder in the health supplements company Blackmores, declared his opposition to the proposed Voice to Parliament.

There was an immediate Twitter call to boycott his namesake company, which found itself forced to explain that Mr Blackmore had not been an employee or director since late 2020 and that “his views are completely independent of Blackmores Group”.

“Blackmores is committed to supporting the health and wellbeing of all people and values and celebrates diversity, inclusivity and equality for employees, customers, partners, and those in the community,” the company said. However, it stopped short of stating an explicit position on the Voice.

The hashtag #BoycottBlackmores quickly faded, but perhaps it was a shot across the bows for any company considering entering into that particular debate.

Unlike some universities and elected councils, very few commercial organisations have so far taken a position on changing the constitution to recognise First Nations peoples’ right to be heard on key matters in Parliament.

It’s worth comparing the response to this issue with the corporate free-for-all in the run-up to the national ballot on legalising same-sex marriage.  

When the marriage equality issue emerged in 2015, a who’s who of Australian corporates lent their names and brands to a full-page newspaper advertisement in support. The companies represented the banks, accounting firms, big tech, telecoms and many more.

When the matter was due to go to a national postal survey in late 2017, 34 prominent business and community leaders signed a letter to the prime minister, arguing that marriage equality is good for business, employees, customers and the country. Signatories at the time included Wesfarmers managing director Richard Goyder, Carnival boss Ann Sherry, Holden managing director Mark Bernhard, ANZ chief executive Shayne Elliott, Business Council of Australia chief executive Jennifer Westacott, and Qantas boss Alan Joyce (The Australian called it “corporate bullying”).

Where are those same prominent business leaders on the Indigenous Voice? Is the issue fundamentally different, or are big corporates losing their appetite to take a stand on high-profile social concerns? Or is it a growing fear of cancel culture?

In this broad environment it’s hardly surprising Australian companies so far appear reluctant to become involved in the upcoming referendum. Maybe they are waiting until a consensus emerges, or maybe it’s simply too early to take a stand. Perhaps they will start to speak out when the referendum date and question are eventually declared.