Companies should take a public stance and not stay silent on discussions about social or political issues, The Logic’s latest subscriber survey has found. 

Fifty-six per cent of subscribers agreed that companies should weigh in. Thirty-eight per cent somewhat agreed, and 18 per cent strongly agreed. Thirty-two per cent disagreed, while 13 per cent said they didn’t know.

“Companies should take a firm stand on issues of equity, diversity and inclusion. We spend much of our time in the workplace and it’s important for employees to understand where their company stands on these issues,” one subscriber wrote.

Many companies, including tech firms, have been grappling with how to manage internal employee debates. Last summer, amid protests following a Minneapolis police officer’s murder of George Floyd, Shopify CEO Tobi Lütke told managers that the e-commerce company “cannot solve every societal problem,” must focus on core business objectives and avoid “endless Slack trolling, victimhood thinking, us-vs-them divisiveness, and zero-sum thinking.” 

Coinbase, Basecamp, Facebook and Google have also discouraged or restricted internal social and political discussions, citing a desire to ensure their workplaces are productive and respectful.

But many of The Logic’s subscribers say companies can’t simply opt out, given their substantial economic and social power. “Pretending that business is separate from the society it operates in is naive at best,” one subscriber wrote. 

Another subscriber said that refusing to participate in discussions still sends a signal. “To opt out says as much as anything,” they said.

Several subscribers pointed out that many firms already wade into social and political matters when they mention environmental, social and corporate governance, or diversity in hiring or marketing materials. One subscriber said this shift to purpose-driven organizations has “a downstream effect.” 

“Leaders cannot pay lip service to diversity within their staff but then not speak out against oppression,” another respondent said.

Many subscribers said they felt that a company’s decision to engage in such discussions depends on the specifics of the issue, whether it’s relevant to the business, or how it affects their employees or customers. 

Some respondents who said it’s not appropriate for companies to engage were concerned about distractions from a business’s core mandate and the risk of misusing company resources. “Companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders first before other stakeholders,” one said.

Some subscribers questioned whether it’s worth listening to companies that choose to speak out. “We just have to hear them with a grain of salt, since whatever message they provide, it’s going to be skewed to their business interests,” one respondent wrote.

The Logic also asked subscribers whether companies should restrict internal employee discussions on social and political issues. Sixty-two per cent disagreed with that tactic. Thirty-nine per cent strongly disagreed, and 23 per cent somewhat disagreed, while 28 per cent agreed that those conversations should be limited while at work.

“There are complex issues that deeply affect employees that need to be part of the open conversation,” one subscriber wrote.

While the majority of  respondents were against an outright ban, some said that discussions may need to be limited if they are disruptive or disrespectful. 

Another subscriber wrote that it makes business sense to allow them: “Companies who listen to their employees are likely better in tune with their customers.” 

One respondent said that attempts to limit social and political discussions are biased.

“These rules are never applied evenly—inevitably what straight white men want to talk about isn’t political, but a woman of colour asking to be treated with respect is ‘not workplace-appropriate.’”