Opinion: There's no such thing as a neutral CEO

What is one common thread most people in the world share currently? I’ll hazard a guess. 

Wherever you are in the world right now, if you’re like most people, you’ve probably tried to keep the world’s turbulence at a healthy distance. That is, regardless of where you stand on the current geopolitical flavour of the month (or week), something we can all seem to get behind is a collective effort to insulate against and minimise the constant disruption to trade, business, global relationships - and more than likely, your mental sanity. 

Although things have been especially heightened in recent weeks, this isn’t necessarily new. Age-old is the defaulting position of business leaders to face challenge with a number of tactics: outmanoeuvre it, remain neutral, or at least stay quiet long enough for things to pass. And while the reports out of Minneapolis certainly feel like a catalyst - the deaths of two US citizens, the ICE deportation raids that shook the city, and the unusually forceful reaction from business leaders and workers - I realise that this isn’t about Minnesota. It’s about something much bigger. 

What people aren’t talking about is the quiet sense of anxiety surfacing among corporate leaders. It isn’t just shock at the events themselves. It’s the growing realisation that staying silent is no longer neutral, and that the old corporate instinct to wait it out no longer functions in a world where every issue feels urgent, moral, and politically loaded. 

But what are they meant to actually say? I often hear, “What authority do I have to speak on this?” or “What if I say the wrong thing?”. And beneath that: “If everyone is tired, aren’t CEOs allowed to be tired too?”. Let’s come back to this. 

First, I want to point to some research to make the case. Here in the UK, our 2025 UK Impact Monitor at SEC Newgate shows people usually have complex, often conflicting expectations for leaders. On one hand, large majorities believe businesses should speak out, even when it risks unpopularity with government: 76% want businesses to speak out on social issues, even if stakeholders disagree. Even more overwhelming, despite the notable global rollback on ESG, 82% want leaders to speak out on environmental issues, even if it creates political tension. These are not small or ambiguous majorities. They are clear signals that silence is interpreted as avoidance. 

Back to the earlier point – business leaders are exhausted trying to constantly navigate all of this. Of course they are. We all are. But exhaustion doesn’t release leaders from responsibility - especially when their decisions shape jobs, communities and social norms. The research underscores that trust is increasingly tied to whether businesses demonstrate authenticity and consistency. 

Younger generations in particular, the future workforce and consumer base, have higher expectations of corporate action. Gen Z expects businesses to be more vocal about inclusion, governance, climate. To them, corporate silence feels less like neutrality and more like a deliberate signal that what they are choosing to ignore doesn’t matter more than profits.

This is why the idea of being apolitical simply doesn’t hold anymore. Choosing not to comment is still a political decision. How you spend your time, what issues you acknowledge, who you align with: these choices send signals whether you intend them to or not. And CEOs, by virtue of their platform, have the ability to influence public discourse in a way most people never will. That’s not an optional add-on to leadership. It is part of the job. 

But speaking up doesn’t always look like shutting down your offices in protest, nor does it mean commenting on every emerging issue. Action has to be realistic. It has to be practical. Above all, it has to be genuine. The question is not: “What is the safest statement I can make?” but rather: “What do I actually believe?” and “Am I willing to be accountable for that belief?”.

Hiding behind complexity, or behind the idea that this isn’t your lane, may feel like a short-term shield, but it erodes trust. Silence is how harmful systems perpetuate themselves. And alongside any pragmatic concern for protecting profits, leaders should also think carefully about protecting their conscience - and their credibility. 

The public aren’t asking for flawless corporate heroes. They’re asking for leaders who are honest, anchored, transparent, and willing to step forward instead of sideways. The Impact Monitor makes that very clear. People aren’t looking for perfection, but they certainly demand sincerity. 

These events haven’t yet passed. And they won’t. They’re part of a pattern that makes the old idea of corporate neutrality increasingly untenable. But perhaps if all leaders - of governments, businesses, industry organisations - can start there: with real values rather than those rehearsed for optics, profits or public approval, then perhaps this difficult moment can produce leadership that is cleaner, clearer, and ultimately more human.