We recently published an article in the Journal of Business Ethics reflecting on how CEO activism—the growing trend of CEOs taking public stances on political issues—affects the democratic process. The bulk of the article was written between 2021 and 2022. While this may not seem that long ago, much has changed since then.
An increasingly reactionary practice
In the early 2020s, most prominent activist statements made by CEOs supported progressive causes. The term “CEO activism” was primarily associated with statements in favor of stricter gun laws, expanded LGBT+ rights, and support for the #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter movements, for example. Elon Musk, whom we only briefly mentioned in our paper, had just begun to take overt political stances in favor of the Republican Party. Peter Thiel, the PayPal founder who is famous today for his advocacy of a techno-libertarian ideology and his skepticism towards democracy, was relatively unknown to the general public at the time.
The situation changed drastically with the 2024 U.S. presidential election, when Musk took CEO activism to new heights by using his platform X to inundate his 200+ million followers with pro-Trump messages. Since then, several other corporate leaders, such as Stephen Schwarzman, have publicly endorsed Trump’s politics, thereby bringing right-wing CEO activism into the spotlight. The latest is Marc Benioff, who praised Trump for “doing a great job” and supported his decision to deploy the National Guard in San Francisco, before partially backtracking.
A practice whose potential threat to democracy has become increasingly clear
Another difference between the early 2020s and now is the attitude toward CEO activism among scholars. Back then, it was largely positive, particularly within the management and organizational science literature. While scholars in these fields recognized the potential negative impact of a CEO’s political statements on company profits, the possible detrimental effects on democracy seemed not to be their primary concern. CEOs’ voices in the public sphere were generally considered to enrich the democratic process and to act as a check on the government—as in 2017, when many CEOs criticized Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement and distanced themselves from his comments on the violent protests in Charlottesville. This perception of CEO activism as beneficial to democracy has changed drastically since the 2024 elections, when the enormous media influence of certain CEOs became apparent, as did the fact that the newly elected president had no qualms about lavishly rewarding his most fervent supporters.
Reflecting on what makes a CEO’s statement conducive or detrimental to democracy
Although we did not anticipate these developments when we wrote the article, we did not share the positive attitude toward CEO activism that was common at that time. Our unease about business leaders’ growing presence in public political debates was certainly influenced by our living in Europe, where people have historically been more wary of economic actors’ involvement in political affairs (as reflected in far more restrictive campaign financing laws, for example). That said, we did not intend to discredit CEO activism altogether. Rather, we aimed to provide a nuanced perspective on the topic, acknowledging that democratically beneficial CEO interventions may exist, while also highlighting the risks this practice can entail—regardless of whether these interventions lean left or right.
To do justice to the complexity of the issue and avoid simplistic answers, we decided to examine it through the lens of political philosophy. Specifically, we drew on the distinction between “liberal” and “republican” conceptions of democracy, as outlined by political thinkers such as Jürgen Habermas and Michael Sandel. Those who hold a liberal view of democracy tend to see the public sphere as a largely self-regulating “market” of competing viewpoints. In contrast, those with a republican view of democracy consider that public debates need to be conducted in the spirit of a deliberative “forum,” where participants should be mindful of how they express their views.
We argued that the evaluation of whether activist practices by CEOs are conducive to democracy differs depending on which of these two conceptions of democracy is adopted. Proponents of a liberal conception of democracy are likely to consider CEO activism, by and large, to be less of a danger to democracy than proponents of a republican view. However, they may acknowledge that specific instances of CEO activism, particularly cases in which a CEO infringes on other citizens’ basic rights through his or her public statements, might be problematic. To prevent such cases, they would call for stronger legal protections for those rights.
Proponents of a republican conception of democracy, however, would argue that the manner in which CEOs intervene in public debates matters—requesting that any such intervention should be “civic-minded,” i.e., guided by a concern for the common good. To provide practical guidance, we offered recommendations for civic-minded CEOs who are considering participating in political debates. Specifically, we recommended that, if they intervene, they do so in a timely manner (i.e., when elections or referenda are being held, before rather than soon after the final voting day) and in a way that offers added insight on the issue at hand (i.e., by making public discussions on a particular political issue more empirically grounded, nuanced, or considerate of publicly disregarded points of view). They should also adopt a constructive rather than confrontational tone, and be transparent about their potential economic interests related to the issue they are speaking out about (i.e., outline the hoped-for economic consequences of their intervention, when relevant).
The need to further reflect on how to effectively prevent detrimental forms of CEO activism
Our article is just an initial contribution to the topic of the consequences of CEO activism on democracy. And it certainly does not provide a definitive answer to the question of how to prevent politically vocal CEOs from further deteriorating an already heated political climate, or from disproportionately weighing in on public debates.
We are aware that some activist CEOs simply are not as civic-minded as we would hope. They are not genuinely interested in contributing to constructive debates, or in restraining themselves so that their voices do not carry undue weight in the public sphere. Even worse, recent events have shown that some CEOs are willing to do the opposite. They do whatever it takes, including leveraging their own media platforms, to exacerbate the affective polarization dividing their fellow citizens and to support a government that political scientists broadly agree is leading their country down the path of democratic backsliding.
One might have hoped that some of their peers would step in to provide a strong dissenting voice in public debate. But this did not happen. CEOs, perhaps afraid of possible economic retaliation, clearly did not turn out to be the check against governmental aggrandizement that some had wanted them to be.
This sobering observation calls for intensive reflection on how to best regulate CEOs’ and their companies’ interference in public debates (for political statements are not always made in a CEO’s name, but sometimes in a brand’s—a practice called brand activism). Currently, activism is the only form of corporate political intervention that evades regulation. Other practices through which economic actors influence politics, such as corporate lobbying and campaign financing, are regulated—the latter even being subject to very strict laws in most European countries.
We recognize that finding ways to regulate corporate activism is a challenging task, especially in a country like the U.S., where the law has historically placed fewer restrictions on the freedom of speech of private citizens and legal entities than in other democracies. There are multiple forms that regulation may take, ranging from hard law to self-regulatory guidelines implemented at the company or industry level to pressure exerted by civil society, including the media, NGOs, and customers. Exploring all these regulatory options is urgent in order to protect public discourse from interference by economic actors that could harm democracy.
Aurélien Feix
Aurélien Feix is an Associate Professor at EDHEC Business School, where he teaches political science and corporate social responsibility. His research focuses on the corporate sustainability discourse and its impact on our understanding of the relationship between business and society. He also examines the political activities of companies and their implications for democracy, as well as the phenomenon of commodification and the opposition it elicits.
Georg Wernicke
Georg Wernicke is the Dieter Schwarz Foundation Chaired Associate Professor of Strategy in the Strategy and Business Policy Department at HEC Paris. His research focuses on corporate social responsibility and corporate governance, examining how CEOs, boards, and firm-level choices shape CSR, misconduct, and stakeholder outcomes.
