An election campaign may prompt businesses and organizations to respond to issues that directly affect their operations, employees, members or sector.
Taking a public stance can help defend an interest, correct misinformation or promote a solution, but it can also expose the organization to political and reputational risks. Conversely, refraining from speaking out may prevent an issue from being blown out of proportion, but it may also allow a damaging proposal to gain traction without any response. In any case, you must be mindful of the Chief Electoral Officer’s rules if you are considering speaking out.
The question is therefore simple: when is it best to speak out, to intervene privately, or to remain silent?
To weigh in or not: A strategic decision
There is no one-size-fits-all answer. An organization generally has three options: to speak out publicly, to engage directly with the relevant political actors, or to choose not to intervene.
Even when an issue directly affects an organization, a public statement is not necessarily the best option. Engaging with political parties, candidates, a sectoral association or other stakeholders can sometimes be more effective and carry fewer risks.
In other situations, choosing not to intervene may be the best course of action, particularly when the issue has little bearing on the organization or when the risks of a public statement outweigh the expected benefits.
When should an organisation consider making a public statement?
- Direct and significant impact: an announcement has a tangible impact on operations, staff, customers, members, the organisation’s mission or its ability to deliver services. Even in such cases, a public statement is not automatically warranted.
- An issue at the heart of the organization's mission: a topic directly linked to the organization’s responsibilities or expertise is gaining prominence in the public debate and clearly concerns its stakeholders.
- Credible added value: the organisation has data, examples or practical expertise that enables it to provide useful insight, document the issue or offer a concrete solution.
- Clear public interest: an intervention may correct misinformation, clarify a consequence, reassure stakeholders or reiterate a solution that has already been advocated.
Potential for a collective approach: when the issue is sector-specific, a voice represented by an association or a group can sometimes be more effective than an isolated intervention.
When should we opt for silence or a private approach?
- The issue affects us only slightly or indirectly: if the link with the organization is difficult to establish, a public statement risks lacking credibility or being of little use.
- We are reacting mainly to the pressure of the moment: media or political urgency should not dictate a public statement without a clear objective.
- Our intervention risks being perceived as partisan: if the message could be interpreted as support for or an attack on a political party, a different approach may be preferable.
- A private approach may be more effective: direct discussions with political parties, candidates or other stakeholders can sometimes better serve the intended goal.
- We are not ready to speak out: without solid facts, internal alignment, a prepared spokesperson or the ability to manage reactions, it is better to avoid a hasty statement.
Being prepared before having to react An organization does not need to react to every political announcement. It is better to determine in advance which issues might warrant a response and the criteria that will guide that decision.
When an issue arises, the first question should not be ‘What should we say?’, but ‘Should we intervene, and if so, how?’
NATIONAL can help organizations answer this question by assessing the political context, the risks and possible reactions, and then determining the best way to respond.
Watch the interview led by Gabrielle Proulx here (available in French).
