“Our strength is the respect we have for each other.” “We are one firm, one community.” “We stand united against anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and acts of hatred in any form.”
These days, such run-of-the-mill corporate nods to diversity, equity, and inclusion might elicit an eye roll from a cynical employee. They can read like a kind of throat-clearing, a prelude to a bland memo that manages to be both verbose and grandiloquent—while saying nothing at all.
But when Citigroup’s CEO Jane Fraser and her team described her company’s values this way in a statement on Oct. 22, it was not a run-of-the-mill situation.
It had been just two weeks since the Hamas incursion into Israel—the brutal murder of 1,200 people and kidnapping of 240. The violence was multiplying, and by mid-November, the Israeli bombardment and blockade of the Gaza Strip had killed an estimated 11,240, including 4,630 children, according to the Hamas-controlled government. Hundreds of thousands of homes had been destroyed, and millions of people displaced. Refugee camps and ambulances had been hit by missiles. Countries around the world and international organizations were angrily condemning one side or the other. In the U.S. there were marches of solidarity and protest. Social media had become a sea of outrage and recriminations. Rifts were forming between friends and family members.
Those stark divisions were as evident at work as they were anywhere else—especially at multinational companies such as Citigroup, where employees trying to do their jobs dwelled in grief, worry, and loss, as well as anger.
And in a moment that Fraser correctly called “gut-wrenching,” her basic affirmations of core values—compassion, respect, humanity, unity— landed differently. They took on a certain power, especially when paired with pledges of financial support to humanitarian relief organizations.
Not taking a side is not usually considered a courageous move. But by resisting the pressure to either “stand with Israel” or “stand with Palestine,” Fraser showed a different kind of bravery.
“We can be a model for the respectful dialogue that we hope to see in the world,” she wrote.
Her statement, as well as an earlier one expressing horror at the Oct. 7 attacks on civilians and support for colleagues in Israel, struck a delicate balance: speaking up meaningfully while avoiding alienating employees around the world with direct experience or strong feelings on either side of the conflict. As Fraser acknowledged, “Our colleagues represent the full spectrum of faiths and nationalities.”
And these written statements weren’t “one-and-done” engagements with the issue either, Fraser’s management team told me. As well as addressing questions that come up in town hall meetings and video chats, the company released an explanation when an employee who expressed anti-Semitic views on social media was fired. (“We don’t need a policy to tell us what’s right and how we should treat one another.”)
All in all, the evolving communication was a case study in how a company can stay true to its values during an emotionally fraught geopolitical conflict.
Some readers may find it hard to nod in agreement. Many are calling upon companies to take a much stronger stance on the ongoing conflict—to pick a side.
To the Anti-Defamation League’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, for example, the response of the U.S. business community following the attacks on Israel was “disappointing at best, disastrous at worst.”
“History will judge them,” he said of those who remained silent. The group has asked companies to sign a “workplace pledge to fight anti-Semitism.” (More than 120 companies have. Citi has not.)
Many Muslims or those with family or friends in Gaza, meanwhile, have felt that the horrors and tragedies of Palestinian civilians are being given short shrift. They wonder why the words “Gaza” or “Palestinians” aren’t present in some companies’ corporate communications—including Citi’s.
It may be impossible to fully satisfy both sides. And efforts to acknowledge the war have sometimes spiraled into heated skirmishes: The chief executive of Web Summit resigned after his denouncing of Israel’s bombardment set off a wave of boycotts of the tech conference. And Starbucks sued the union organizing its workers over a pro-Palestinian social media post.
But standing on the sidelines is increasingly not an option either. In this era of stakeholder capitalism, companies are striving to be accountable not just to shareholders but also to employees, customers, and their communities. They have stepped up to express support for social justice movements such as Black Lives Matter, and to honor Pride Month and other such events. Many companies curtailed their operations in Russia when it invaded Ukraine last year. And some cut ties with former President Donald Trump and his allies after the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol.
After Oct. 7, many business leaders immediately spoke up. Yale professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld has counted more than 200 U.S. and international firms that condemned Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel, denounced anti-Semitism, and expressed support or solidarity with Israel.
But as the Israeli military response has intensified in the weeks since, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has become more acute, the corporate world’s response has been more muted. Novartis, American Express, and Bain & Co. are among relatively few that have acknowledged the escalating crisis, offered humanitarian support, and condemned Islamophobia, as well as anti-Semitism.
That more muted response to the plight of Palestinians led the Council on American-Islamic Relations to call the corporate response “one-sided,” and to express the concern that Muslim, Arab-American, and Palestinian employees “are not acknowledged as victims of this terrible humanitarian crisis.”
To some company leaders, it may seem safer to avoid releasing any public statement at all—and indeed, that’s what many companies did. Why say anything, if it risks alienating at least one set of stakeholders?
But that’s cowardly leadership, says Richard Edelman, CEO of his namesake PR firm. “Silence is not an option,” he told me. Employees are looking to their leaders to say something, he said, and it doesn’t have to be that complicated: “You have to have one message: I stand for humanity.”
“Silence is not an option ... You have to have one message: I stand for humanity.”
Richard Edelman, CEO of Edelman
That universal message, combined with humility and listening, can be powerful without being political. Business leaders cannot—and should not try to—solve complicated geopolitical problems. Humility means understanding that they won’t succeed where political leaders, diplomats, and activists have failed. And listening isn’t just a passive act: It requires a willingness to change the messaging if necessary, or to update it based on new events.
Even for leaders who are mostly getting it right, the whole conversation can be awkward: Fraser’s notes to her Citigroup colleagues were well crafted, but they felt a bit cool too.
Still, perhaps that’s the best way to approach an emotionally heated moment like this one: Keep cool, stand by your employees, stick to your core values, and express real empathy for anyone who is affected. It’s that simple.
A version of this article appears in the December 2023/January 2024 issue of Fortune with the headline, “Sometimes it’s bravest to not take a stand.”
