Even when these efforts are merely rhetorical, the fact that they at least position themselves as “responsible” itself indicates that the paradigm is shifting in a positive direction.  In 2022, many multinational, western companies scrambled to determine whether to maintain subsidiaries in Russia. Those that left tended to be ones with concerns of backlash if they didn’t leave and so consumer-oriented companies like McDonalds, Starbucks, and Pepsi exited. Some, like Eli Lilly justified staying, arguing that some of their life-saving drugs were manufactured or sourced, in part, in Russia, making their product quite a bit more serious than a hamburger with a swig of cola. What companies might return to Russia and under what circumstances. For that matter, what companies might relocate facilities away from longtime allies? 

Amid such chaos, it is worth remembering that businesses can bring people together who may not otherwise be brought together nor even want to. There is a value for business to do that.  There is a value for the world to see that happen. 

Businesses Could Do Worse Than to Channel Socrates  

Knowing how to react to the next invasion, the next round of trade wars, or the realignment of alliances is about wisdom. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and game theory can help generate information, options, and analysis, but at the end of the day, the organisation itself, and not just its leaders, must have a sense of what it is and what it stands for. Whether an organisation has a well-defined values-driven identity and its strategic orientation (adopt vs adapt), will impact and steer its decision making in crisis or conflict.  

For example, in interviews with CEOs from North America and Europe, executives were asked to provide an example of a successful company that implemented strong values. Not surprisingly, the executives’ top example was the 1982 Johnson & Johnson removal of Tylenol when a third party planted cyanide in bottles killing six people in Chicago. CEO James Burke explained that the company had to follow the company’s credo, which first called for providing safe products to consumers. There was much corroborating evidence that J&J’s cultural commitment to the credo was robust. In a crisis, the company knew who it was. 

Since then, there are countless examples of companies following their credo in times of crisis or conflict. For example, Google and Twitter “Speak to Tweet” initiative to amplify their commitment to the free flow of information during the Arab Spring or Uber’s making movement more accessible by donating 10 million rides to help individuals during the pandemic to access vaccines. Interestingly, Mozilla, was held to its credo of an open internet and reversed its decision to ban anti-censorship tools in Russia. 

Companies that commit to a well-defined values-driven culture or identity tend to be in a far better position strategically in the face of invasions, trade war or geopolitical realignment. Yet, other than a mission statement, many companies spend little time thinking through what its values are aside from making money. 

Similarly, a company’s strategic orientation provides a strong blueprint that enables its leadership to determine whether they “adopt” their own approach, i.e., apply the same standards and protocols wherever they go (in a way, flying their own corporate flag) or whether they “adapt” i.e., become a chameleon to maximize profit. One can see different ways companies dealt with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and one will likewise observe those strategic options in considering whether and when to return. Companies facing an upended geopolitical landscape would do well to figure out who they are.       

Collaborative, Civil Culture is a Business Value and a Geopolitical One 

Executives themselves believe that corporate culture is one of the three most important assets of a company. Moreover, over eighty percent of executives believe that their cultures need to improve. Ample evidence exists that uncivil conduct in the workplace i.e., a toxic workplace costs companies money. Companies that can develop these civil, collaborative cultures are thus at an advantage in the market. Creating those cultures depends very much on the identification of values, as described above, and the buy-in from employees. Employees today want to work in a company that aligns with their values. The so-called “Future of Work” depends largely on the alignment of these interests. Yet, this goal immediately raises two concerns. 

First, to figure out this alignment, to create and maintain such a civil, collaborative culture is hard work. This is especially true when social and political issues public harmony and social media features ways of interacting with others in opposition to that kind of culture. Nevertheless, it is a necessary task. Second, people come to a workplace from different backgrounds, different religions, and a myriad of other different factors. Even if the reason they come together is simply to make money, and not to deliberately create a civil, collaborative culture, that common goal still forces them to find a way to engage with each other.  

Alignment would not be a bad thing to show to a fractious world and would be a way for businesses to make an unexpected contribution to peace and harmony. 

***

Timothy L Fort, PhD, is the Eveleigh Professor of Business Ethics at the Kelley School of Business.  He is the author of four books (and nearly fifty articles) on business and peace, including The Diplomat in the Corner Office (Stanford, 2014) and Business, Integrity and Peace (Cambridge, 2007), which each won a best book award from the Academy of Management.