Key Takeaway:
Multinational corporations are increasingly taking sides in times of geopolitical conflict, often aligning their actions with their home countries or responding to public pressure. This trend, known as “partisan behavior,” comes with significant risks, both financially and reputationally. Companies that take a stand risk alienating customers and investors, while those that remain neutral may face intense scrutiny. The growing demand for brands to take political stances and the pressure to remain neutral can make it difficult for businesses to maintain neutrality. A better approach is focusing on humanitarian support, which can be achieved through a shared corporate code of conduct and collaboration with non-governmental organizations. This approach can also be applied to universities, nonprofits, and other large institutions.
For decades, multinational corporations maintained a stance of neutrality in times of geopolitical conflict, choosing to prioritize business interests over political entanglements. But recent global crises have dramatically altered this approach. Increasingly, companies are taking sides—aligning their actions with the positions of their home countries or responding to intense public pressure.
The shift became particularly evident when Russia invaded Ukraine. Major corporations, including Google and Amazon, quickly pledged support for Ukraine through financial aid and supplies. Others, such as Renault and Deutsche Bank, made a different kind of statement—pulling out of Russia entirely, dealing a blow to its economy.
In total, over 1,000 foreign companies scaled back operations in Russia, with nearly 300 exiting the country altogether. What made this remarkable was the speed of their decisions—many of these firms took action before their governments had even formalized their foreign policy responses.
This trend is what some researchers have termed “partisan behavior”—when corporations support one side in a conflict while harming the other. However, this comes with significant risks, both financially and reputationally.
The Cost of Taking Sides
Walking away from a profitable market is never an easy decision. Energy giant Shell, for instance, suffered losses of nearly $5 billion when it severed ties with Russia’s Gazprom. Likewise, U.S.-based tech company Cisco lost close to $200 million when it halted operations in Russia.
But taking a political stance can also lead to consumer backlash. Consider what happened in the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict. In Israel, McDonald’s franchise owners donated meals to Israeli soldiers, a move that ignited a wave of boycotts in multiple countries. Meanwhile, Ben & Jerry’s attempted to halt sales in Israeli-occupied territories, which triggered legal battles and a sharp financial hit for its parent company, Unilever.
These examples illustrate the dilemma: companies that take a stand risk alienating customers and investors. Yet those that remain neutral may also face intense scrutiny.
The Pressure to Pick a Side
Why are corporations taking these risks? One reason is the growing demand for brands to take political stances. In an era where social media can amplify both praise and outrage, companies are under immense pressure to align with popular sentiment—or face the consequences.
In some cases, staying neutral isn’t even an option. During conflicts, governments may impose sanctions or trade restrictions that force companies to sever ties with certain nations. Many firms in Russia had no choice but to exit due to Western sanctions. Meanwhile, Chinese companies capitalized on the situation, expanding their presence in Russia with government backing.
A survey by the American think tank The Conference Board highlighted that Western businesses increasingly find it difficult to “maintain neutrality” in geopolitical disputes. With global tensions on the rise, this pressure is unlikely to ease anytime soon.
A Better Approach: Focus on Humanitarian Support
While taking a clear political stance can be a minefield, companies do have another option: a non-partisan humanitarian approach. Instead of siding with one party in a conflict, corporations can shift their focus to supporting the victims—regardless of their nationality.
Some firms have already adopted this strategy. U.S. media giant Comcast and telecommunications provider Verizon each committed $1.5 million to humanitarian organizations like Doctors Without Borders to assist civilians in both Israel and Gaza. Unlike McDonald’s and Ben & Jerry’s, these companies have not faced major backlash—demonstrating that businesses can make meaningful contributions without alienating consumers.
Beyond financial donations, multinational corporations could take an even more proactive approach. A shared corporate code of conduct could be established, ensuring companies focus solely on humanitarian efforts aligned with international law.
Under international humanitarian law, conflicting parties are obligated to allow the passage of aid, protect refugees and civilians, and ensure the safety of humanitarian workers. Corporations could collaborate with non-governmental organizations to facilitate aid distribution, provide logistical support, and ensure that supply chains remain intact for essential goods.
Lessons for Businesses and Institutions
This humanitarian approach isn’t just relevant to corporations. Universities, nonprofits, and other large institutions can also learn from these corporate dilemmas.
For example, the controversy surrounding U.S. university presidents who resigned after making politically charged statements on the Israel-Gaza conflict might have been avoided with a clearer, non-partisan humanitarian stance. By emphasizing support for affected populations rather than engaging in divisive political debates, institutions could navigate these complex issues more effectively.
Navigating a Politically Charged World
The days of corporations sitting on the sidelines during global crises may be over. Public expectations have shifted, and businesses are under increasing scrutiny for how they respond to international conflicts.
However, there is a way forward. Instead of taking political sides, companies can adopt a neutral, humanitarian approach, focusing on alleviating suffering rather than fueling division. In an era of rising global tensions, this may be the most ethical—and sustainable—path for businesses seeking to operate on the world stage.
