In 2023, Jenoptik CEO Stefan Traeger took a stand against rising right-wing populism in Germany, launching the #BleibOffen (#StayOpen) campaign to promote openness, diversity, and democratic values. This case study, based on the INSEAD Ethics & Social Responsibility Initiative event held in December 2024, explores the ethical challenges and risks companies face when speaking out on political and social issues.The event ‘When Should Business Speak Out on Political and Social Issues?’, held at the Europe Campus in Fontainebleau in December 2024 was chaired by Professors Craig Smith, Chair in Ethics and Social Responsibility at INSEAD and Markus Scholz, Chair of Responsible management at TUD Dresden University of Technology.

In an era where digital platforms reshape business and society, Professors Leena Lankoski and Craig Smith explore how corporate responsibility must evolve when the economy goes digital. Their study, published in California Management Review, offers critical insights into the ethical, social and organisational challenges companies face in the digital age and invites business schools and practitioners alike to rethink responsible innovation and digital governance.

When companies have a responsibility to speak out on politics: Earlier this year, Christian Sewing, CEO of Deutsche Bank, chose the bank’s annual reception in Berlin to speak out about the threat right-wing extremism poses for the bank’s investors. Sewing is not a lone voice on this. Numerous companies and their CEOs have recently stepped forward to raise their concerns about growing right-wing extremism coordinated by the activities of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. They see the negative impacts that AfD’s proposed policies, relating to migration, the European Union and man-made climate change, could have for the German economy.The bigger question may not be whether right-wing politics really is bad for business, but rather if Deutsche Bank and other firms should be getting involved in politics at all.

Business ethics can be regarded as a field dealing with corporate self-regulation as it relates to the treatment of stakeholders. However, a concern for corporate stakeholders need not take a corporate-centric perspective, as shown by recent efforts (especially Singer in Bus Ethics Q 25(1):65–92, 2015) to situate corporate conduct within Rawls’ political theory. Although Rawls was largely mute on the subject himself, his theory has implications for business ethics and corporate governance more specifically. Given an understanding of a “Rawlsian society” as a whole - where corporations as associations are a part - this paper addresses how a Rawlsian perspective would safeguard against corporate harms in society. The authors argue that a Rawlsian society would primarily regulate corporate conduct through exogenous constraints in the form of legislation. To the extent that business ethics is concerned with endogenous constraints in the form of corporate-centric self-regulation regarding stakeholders, to adopt a Rawlsian perspective is to assume instead a society-centric perspective and to impose exogenous constraints on corporate conduct in the form of legislation for the benefit of citizens. In the context of Rawls’ political liberalism, normative concerns in business are accounted for through legislation and the system of background justice. In a clear departure from Singer (Bus Ethics Q 25(1):65–92, 2015, Bus Ethics J Rev 6(3):11–17, 2018a), the authors further develop their argument to propose that Rawls' theory can be interpreted as providing a rule for corporate governance. The rule - which is imposed exogenously for the good of society - states: after choosing the corporate constraint mechanism (exogenous vs. endogenous) that best promotes the Liberty Principle, choose the corporate control regime (shareholder vs. stakeholder) that maximizes economic efficiency.

Business executives face no starker test of their leadership than when confronting the choice between capturing profits and saving lives.Pharmaceutical companies generated billions of dollars in additional revenue from the COVID-19 vaccine, buoyed by bidding wars between wealthy countries as the virus spread across the planet.1 Faced with unparalleled demand, deals were being locked in even before the vaccines were developed. And once distribution started, vaccine hoarding began. Some countries had enough vaccines to vaccinate their populations several times over. As a result, millions of doses passed their use-by date and were thrown away, while people in poorer economies remained unvaccinated.