It is rare to see such a significant number of managers and entrepreneurs express their concerns so candidly regarding right-wing parties in the midst of an election campaign. To what extent are they able and willing to proceed?
The roster of German business leaders openly opposing the AfD continues to expand. Reinhold Würth, the screw king, cautioned his employees in a letter last year against supporting the AfD. He is presently urging the public to participate in the electoral process through full-page ads in newspapers: “Each vote opposing the right carries immense value.” During the recent ARD talk show Maischberger, TUI’s CEO Sebastian Ebel expressed his opposition to the AfD, stating, “I don’t want an Orbánization of Germany.” Bonita Grupp, co-head of the family-run company Trigema since 2024, recently addressed criticism from AfD politician Björn Höcke regarding a diversity campaign her textile company participated in. In an interview with “Capital,” she remarked, “There are people who unfortunately think that ‘Made in Germany’ actually means ‘Made by Germans.'”
A survey conducted by the International University Institute (IHI) Zittau of the Technical University of Dresden, which included 160 companies from the Dax, M-Dax, and S-Dax stock market indices, reveals that more than 92 percent of the respondents view political populism as a hindrance to Germany’s attractiveness as a business location. A significant 76 percent perceive the rising popularity of the AfD as a potential threat to Germany’s standing as an export powerhouse. That does not imply that they are explicitly against the AfD. However, over a third of companies (36 percent) clearly acknowledge their political corporate responsibility.
For instance, Siemens CEO Roland Busch cautioned during a video call with the press at the start of February about a rise in nationalist and xenophobic tendencies. This situation may result in a degradation of the system, as “a critical point has been reached, perhaps even exceeded.” Mercedes CEO Ola Källenius commented on Würth’s letter to the workforce in an interview with the F.A.Z.: “I think that’s very strong, this commitment deserves respect.”
The rationale for explicitly discouraging support for the AfD varies significantly. Entrepreneurs like Roland Busch and Reinhold Würth express their concerns regarding the liberal democratic order, while others take a more tactical approach. This week, the association “The Family Businesses” reached out to undecided voters who are considering the AfD, stating, “Voting for the AfD is useless.” Since no other party is willing to collaborate with the AfD, it lacks the influence to effect change. Marie-Christine Ostermann, President of the Family Businesses, emphasises the importance of voting for the economic change parties FDP, CDU, or CSU, stating it is essential for those seeking a shift in migration and economic policy to do so for strategic and patriotic reasons. This week, a significant number of company leaders and founders voiced their support in a prominent campaign advocating for dual votes for the CDU. Among the supporters are employers’ president Rainer Dulger, the previously mentioned Bonita Grupp, and investor Frank Thelen.
The extent to which business leaders should engage directly in election campaigns remains a topic of debate. The answer varies based on the perspective of the individual questioned. The German Corporate Governance Code, which serves as a guideline for corporate behaviour, lacks any recommendations on this matter. Ingo Pies, a business ethicist, emphasises the importance of moderation: “While companies should engage in political discussions, they should refrain from endorsing political parties,” advises the professor of business ethics at the University of Halle-Wittenberg in an interview with the F.A.Z.
It is advisable for business leaders to engage politically in areas where they possess unique expertise. The regulation of artificial intelligence hinges on the expertise provided by companies. However, if businesses take a unilateral stance against the right, they may find themselves on a precarious path. Some may wonder: Why don’t they also take a stand against the left?
The TU Dresden study reveals that companies can face repercussions for their political stances, experiencing costs that extend beyond mere antagonism from populist groups. Companies generally anticipate favourable responses or backing for anti-populist measures from their investors and employees, yet they brace themselves for adverse reactions from their customers and suppliers. Forty-two percent anticipate losing business partners, while thirty-two percent express concerns about potential reputational harm. Businesses, conversely, view the likelihood of anger or reprisals as minimal – at least given the existing political climate.
A survey carried out last autumn by the international employment law firm Littler reveals a rise in political discourse within the workplace, highlighting the challenges it presents for management. A significant number of HR managers across 13 European nations have indicated that tensions among employees are rising as elections approach. Executives participating in the survey highlighted the potential for discrimination lawsuits from dissatisfied customers and the threat of reputational harm to their organisation as significant risks associated with taking a politically controversial position by their management. The concerns are notably heightened in larger organisations, specifically those with over 5,000 employees, as indicated by the Littler study, compared to their smaller counterparts. It appears that developments are also occurring in other European nations like France, Spain, and Poland – the political stances of corporate leaders extend beyond Germany.
According to Jan-Ove Becker, a partner at Littler’s Hamburg office, employers must go beyond merely managing their workforce. The employment lawyer analyses the survey findings, noting that managers are increasingly anticipated to express their views on contentious matters, with even a lack of response potentially signalling a position. Business leaders possess significant latitude: executives such as Reinhold Würth or Thomas Rabe of Bertelsmann can articulate their views through advertisements or interviews, thereby shaping the values of their organisations. During a conversation with the F.A.S., Rabe asserted that the principles of Bertelsmann and those of the AfD do not align. He urged that those in his workforce who sympathise with the AfD reflect on whether Bertelsmann aligns with their values. However, it is prohibited for any employer in Germany to exert influence on their employees’ voting choices.
The political affiliations and backing of an individual are aspects of their personal life, and a manager cannot impose any labour law penalties based on this information. Historically, labour courts have ruled that the termination of employees for their affiliation with an anti-constitutional party is invalid. Nonetheless, political involvement should not influence the organisation. Should an employee engage in election advertising within the company that leads to a lasting disturbance of industrial harmony, they may face a warning or termination of employment.
Business ethicist Pies expresses concern regarding recent developments: “We have strong empirical findings for what is known as affective polarisation.” This indicates that political adversaries are increasingly viewing one another as foes. Both in America and in Europe. “An increasing number of citizens are responding to remarks from the opposing side with animosity and disdain.”
The divide is especially evident among the supporters of the AfD and the Greens. Communication has deteriorated to the point where insults have replaced meaningful dialogue. “We find ourselves engaged in a contest to determine who can disparage the opposing side with the greatest volume,” cautions Pies.
He suggests: “Any appeal for moderation is beneficial – we must step away from the perilous front line: we are the heroes and the others are the villains.” To effectively address conflicts within their workforce, companies should avoid taking sides. “Establishing guidelines for equitable treatment is essential, yet it is crucial that these guidelines remain free from political bias.”
He expresses strong criticism regarding the Edeka case: the supermarket chain had unmistakably taken a stand against the AfD through a newspaper advertisement prior to the state elections in Thuringia in autumn 2024. “While the intentions might have been good, the outcome was misguided,” states Pies. If one in three citizens in Thuringia casts their vote for the AfD, a significant number of Edeka customers and employees are included in that demographic.
Nevertheless, the anger directed at the advertisement ultimately does not reach the headquarters responsible for its creation, but is mainly focused on the local store managers. “The managers of the Edeka stores in eastern Germany expressed their surprise, noting that they had not been consulted prior to the decision,” states Pies.
In a recent interview with F.A.S., Edeka’s chief, Markus Mosa, clarified that it was an advertisement rather than a political statement in the strictest sense. “We hold the conviction that it is essential for our company to take a stance.”
+ There are no comments
Add yours