Is Silence Still Strategic When the World’s on Fire?

When the streets erupt, the headlines explode, and public pressure hits boiling point… can business leaders still afford to say nothing?  

In this episode tackle the growing tension between corporate responsibility and political risk. From a CEO letter in Minnesota addressing immigration-fueled violence to Keir Starmer’s high-stakes diplomacy in China, we ask: when the world demands clarity, is strategic ambiguity still a safe PR move? 

Listen For

2:08 What is safety in numbers for corporate protest
5:03 Is strategic ambiguity a smart way to stay neutral
7:12 What is the Business and Democracy Commission
9:48 How do leaders speak when policy moves faster than people
12:09 Can the UK and EU trade with China and India without angering the US

The Week Unspun is a weekly livestream every Friday at 10am ET/3pm BT. Check it out on our YouTube Channel or via this LinkedIn channel

Folgate Advisors

Curzon Public Relations Website

Stories and Strategies Website

Request a transcript of this livestream

Chapters

• 2:08 What is safety in numbers for corporate protest
• 5:03 Is strategic ambiguity a smart way to stay neutral
• 7:11 What is the Business and Democracy Commission
• 9:48 How do leaders speak when policy moves faster than people
• 12:11 Can the UK and EU trade with China and India without angering the US

Transcript

Farzana Baduel (00:03):
Well, hello everybody and welcome to the Week Unspun, a weekly live look at the news through a PR lens. My name is Farzana Baduel in London.

Doug Downs (00:14):
My name's Doug Downs in Canada's Rockies. I'm David Gallagher back home in London.

Farzana Baduel (00:19):
Our lead story is going to be from the US and what business leaders are signalling and avoiding as policy shifts accelerate. Then we're going to zoom out to the political layer with PM Keir Starmer in China, the EU in a trade deal with India. And we may be seeing this early shaping of new alliances, this new world order that everyone has been talking about, and also how do public sentiments weigh in where these policy pivots are faster than people can keep up with. Over to you David.

David Gallagher (00:48):
Hey, thanks Farzana and good to be back. Good to see you as well Doug. As you know, I spent two weeks in the US where really all eyes, all cameras were on Minnesota and the events unfolding there. And if you don't know what was happening there, the state's in the middle of a gigantic federal immigration enforcement surge, which led sadly, tragically to the shooting of two protesters in Minneapolis. Now, we've talked on this show a lot about this idea of strategic silence, and this is this idea that companies, the business sector in particular often tries to stay out of the political fray. They don't want to comment on political or policy issues, especially if that runs risking the ire of the Trump administration or the MAGA movement. And I think you could kind of understand why they would stay quiet. However, after a lot of pressure from employees at some big Minnesota based companies, some investors and some other stakeholders from the business community, more than 60 Minnesota CEOs representing big businesses like Titan, Best Buy, General Mills and UnitedHealth released a joint letter of protest really through the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce calling for the immediate de escalation of tensions, urging state, federal and local officials to work together on real solutions.

(02:08):
So some might say that was too little too late, but I actually think it raises a couple of questions. And the reason I wanted to raise it on the show today, it kind of gets to what we do. We give advice to companies like this. It's one thing for us to play armchair West Wing political advisers. It's another thing for us to talk about actual corporate PR advice that we might give. And I think we might be asked to give opinions on how to deal with this. So kind of a two part question, and maybe I'll do this first with you and then with Doug. But I think this Chamber of Commerce letter of 60 approach, it is kind of a standard corporate response to a touchy issue in terms of giving them some sort of herd immunity. Nobody can get singled out, but they can look in solidarity with their peers. So I think that's interesting. I want to get your take on that. And then Doug, I want to come to you maybe with a slightly different angle on that because I think it raises maybe a different strategic approach. But is this normal? Do you think Farzana, was this a good corporate approach to sign on with colleagues?

Farzana Baduel (03:07):
I think that there's safety in numbers and if you want to raise your head above the parapet, there's no better way to do it with a unison of other heads in your industry. And I think that's where the trade associations or professional associations, the trade bodies, et cetera, I think that's where they actually do bring in a lot of value where they can actually echo and voice the concerns and the issues of the industry. So it makes it look like the members are speaking out, but without the members being sort of singled out by political actors who may look towards retribution. So I think it is a very wise move, safety in numbers, and you've always had it. You've had open letters signed by multiple signatories, so this is just another form and other guise, but I think this is an opportunity really for the trade bodies out there to step up and do their job.

David Gallagher (04:00):
Yeah, I would agree. I think it's better than nothing. And believe me, the noise was getting loud. People were asking where is the business community as our streets are becoming literally impassable in some way. So I think it was better than nothing. I wanted to dig in this a little bit further, and I listened to we're big fans of the Communications Breakdown podcast with Craig Carroll and Steve Dowling, and they used a phrase that I thought was interesting and they talk about strategic ambiguity, but what they mean by this is this idea that when it comes to policy issues or political issues, hot button issues, businesses don't have to comment necessarily on what's happening with the immigration enforcement tactics. They don't even really have to comment on the violence, but they do have a responsibility to talk about safety, especially safety of their employees and customers and what happens on the premises. So they can remain somewhat ambiguous about the higher level issues, but get very specific about their main line responsibilities. So Doug, I wonder how that strikes you. Is that enough or is that a step too far?

Doug Downs (05:03):
I thought strategic ambiguity, great term that Craig and Steve put together. I call it not stepping in it because anything you say that expresses opinion is going to tick somebody, a big group, off and you're just adding petrol to it, trying to sit. I dunno, David, I think trying to tell people this is right, this is wrong, not right now. De escalation is incredibly important. And I said I think it was last week, the onus for de escalation is probably on law enforcement. And I'm not saying law enforcement is wrong here at all, but it's probably on law enforcement because that is the professional body. You can't ask the mob to de escalate, but government leaders have a responsibility there as well. I thought the silence on perspective was the right move in this case.

David Gallagher (05:53):
Yeah, yeah, I would agree. I hesitated slightly. I went back and looked to see what the response was on social media to the letter and to this idea.

Doug Downs (06:02):
Criticism.

David Gallagher (06:03):
And some of the businesses got lit up in terms of how they failed to take a moral stand or an ethical stand. And I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with that necessarily, but I do think if you're giving advice to a business and they've got commitments to shareholders, stakeholders in the community, your job is to help them thread that needle and not necessarily to solve the bigger problem which remains, but how to protect the interest of their employees and their customers.

Farzana Baduel (06:31):
And also David, I think in those situations sometimes you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Exactly. And I think from a PR perspective, what's important is that when you put together statements in these highly contentious polarised topics, it's important to get people who do not have the same viewpoint so that you understand how it lands in both parties. Because often what you see with some organisations is they make a mealy mouthed sort of statement and they end up winning no friends and they alienate both sides.

David Gallagher (07:01):
Well, speaking of damned if you do and damned if you don't, you were at an event this week, right, talking about rapid shifts in policy and the whiplash it might cause maybe take us through the event you spoke at. I thought it was fascinating.

Farzana Baduel (07:12):
So I spoke at a panel and it was really to launch the final report from the Business and Democracy Commission. And that's in part supported by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations where I'm president this year as well as Ipsos. And it's been spearheaded by a consulting firm called Jericho. And what was quite interesting is that the room was absolutely full because people are looking for a PR framework to manage and protect reputation through these highly contested times. And as you can see, everyone was sort of at the edge of their seats because they were looking for a methodology. And so this report, which is free to download, and we're going to have the link in our show notes and also in our social media comments. And so please do. And what they really identify, they identify that number one populism creates a business risk. Number two, policy failures create costs for business.

(08:01):
Number three, poor responses damage reputation and revenue. And also disinformation is a direct business threat. Values alignment is essential for talent, but it's complex. Younger generations are much more interested in leaning into a values gap rather than perhaps older generations. Also, opaque lobbying just erodes that trust. I think that framework is really important. You need a framework to operate from. So because often when you're in the middle of a crisis, you are in fight or flight mode and sometimes your sort of cognitive thinking isn't as good as you would like it to be when all of a sudden you're in the middle of a crisis. Now, speaking of policy pivots and how do organisations sort this, we also this week saw our Prime Minister Keir and his state trip to China. It puts the UK and China back into the spotlight. And what's really interesting is back in the UK you've had this huge debate about China's proposed super embassy and you've had a lot of protests against it.

(09:03):
And what I wanted to try and understand is that narrative gap. You've got policies that are pivoting super quick, alliances that are shifting, which would normally happen over the course of decades and all of a sudden it's happening within months, within weeks even. And there is a lag because the public are used to China not quite being a friend, but being a bit of a foe because there's been many, many years of anti China rhetoric, for instance in the UK. And so all of a sudden our Prime Minister is there looking for cooperation and of course the public are perplexed. So I want to ask you, David, how would you advise where you've got policy that is moving much faster than actually the public can keep up with in terms of shifting their sentiments?

David Gallagher (09:48):
Yeah, it's interesting. I re listened to Mark Carney's speech from Davos last week, which I think we spoke about last week and I kind of heard it with different ears today, if that makes sense. And one of the comments that really stood out for me was this idea that we're not going through a transition right now. We're going through a rupture. And I think the speed with which we will see changes in policy, changes in strategy, not just at the nation state level, but at the business level will be really pretty rapid and pretty frightening in some ways in terms of how quickly things are moving. And there will be this lag between public opinion about what they've been told before and where things are going. Now, I guess what I liked about Starmer's approach, and I know there are people in the opposition who won't like parts of it, but he seems to be moving at two speeds.

(10:36):
So definitely he's addressing the bread and butter issues right now. Some good things have already come out of this, visa free travel to China for British citizens, no tariffs on Scottish whisky, a few kind of quick wins that he could talk about. But then he is also saying we need to take a more pragmatic, cautious approach to what are some really real remaining issues with the relationship with China. So I think he's trying to again, thread that needle between here's some immediate benefits and here's some things that we need to work on together. I also like the fact that he hedged himself with business leaders who are all there to talk about benefits to shareholders and customers. What the real changes will be, I think remains to be seen. But we're going to hear a lot more pivots and rapid developments in the near future, I think. And I think that's just the new normal for business.

Farzana Baduel (11:29):
I want to bring Doug in because actually you also had the EU and India and they announced a new trade deal. And so what you are seeing is you're seeing the UK going off to China, the EU going off to India. There's obviously tensions with tariffs with China and India and obviously the US, their sort of bilaterals. How can institutions like the EU, countries like the UK, actually have their cake and eat it? How can they actually pursue these trade opportunities and alliances with China, with India, with other countries and not sort of incur the wrath of the White House?

Doug Downs (12:09):
I think they can, and it's to frame it to an agreeable value that most even American audiences would agree with, even Washington would agree with. I think there's a hierarchy to communication. I've always kind of lived by this. You have values at the very top, you have attitudes in the middle. I've got an attitude about taxes, but I have values that sometimes supersede those, don't like paying taxes. And then opinions that we sort of fight about that really aren't very deeply entrenched. So from a PR perspective, I think you frame this as diversification and resilience and not swapping sides because that's a value that people would disagree with. On China, the UK line has to be engage where it serves national interest, de risk where it touches security. On India, kind of easier because it's a values compatible partner. And the EU India trade deal, the mother of all deals as they're calling it, is being positioned as commercially significant and rules based.

(13:07):
So brief Americans early, message shared objectives, publicly resilient supply chains, enforcement, national security, fair trade, and then use language that plays well in DC, de risking, friend shoring, rules based trade, no tech leakage. Because the White House backlash isn't going to be about trade existing. It's going to be about trade being framed as a pivot away from the US. Diversify your trade, not your values. Put really simply, it's okay to de risk, just don't defect. I like that. Time to wind us out. Thank you so much for sharing a bit of time with us, whether it's your afternoon in the UK with your second pint or in the morning over here on the island with your second coffee, I appreciate your time. The Week Unspun is a co production of Curzon Public Relations, Folgate Advisors, Stories and Strategies podcasts, recordings on Apple, Spotify and YouTube. Give them a listen. And our final thought for today, most conflict is two people with fear trying to feel safe at the same time. Have a safe and happy weekend.