When significant portions of a company’s customer base become engaged in protests of any kind, board members should monitor how public reaction to the protest issue could present unanticipated risks to their companies.
The recent deaths of two American citizens at the hands of federal immigration agents during protests in Minneapolis, Minnesota has led many companies in the state to make public statements about how agents’ tactics in their pursuit of undocumented immigrants have contributed to an unstable and unsafe environment for local businesses and the communities they serve. As the U.S. Department of Homeland Security continues to implement immigration enforcement actions across the country, boards may want to review their Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) policies with special attention to how the CEO and top executives should respond to social and political issues.
After Renee Good and Alex Pretti were killed during protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in Minneapolis, CEOs and executives of Best Buy, Target, U.S. Bancorp, 3M and other Minnesota-based companies signed on to an open letter from Minnesota’s Chamber of Commerce that called for “an immediate deescalation of tensions and for state, local and federal officials to work together to find real solutions.”
Responding to the tragic deaths as part of a group lessens the risk of receiving backlash from the community or retaliation from the government. However, corporate board members should also know that there is also risk in staying silent on these issues. Companies must have internal discussions to determine which course of action is best for each specific issue and then act as soon as appropriate.
A company like Home Depot, for example, whose parking lots have become the targets of ICE raids nationwide might need to publicly address its stance on immigration enforcement a lot sooner than a company like Verizon. Some companies’ bottom lines will be negatively affected by labor shortages caused by immigration enforcement. Some companies may lose revenue because part of their customer base disagrees with their stance on immigration. The stakes regarding this issue are real.
As companies review their ESG policies, here are some things board members should consider on immigration:
Consult with legal to develop ESG strategies around immigration. Any stance on immigration enforcement or company policies regarding immigration must comply with current law. Have your policies kept up with the more aggressive changes in immigration enforcement over the last few years? Seek outside consultants if necessary to make certain the company has been following the law regarding the hiring of foreign workers. Knowing the law can help your company deal with and prepare for government I-9 audits which verify employees’ authorization to work in the U.S.
Communicate any company positions or policies on immigration enforcement. Sometimes pressure to speak out about an issue will come from employees and shareholders. Once the board and management have agreed on the company’s position on immigration-enforcement-related matters, communicate as much information as is prudent to those stakeholders. Employees should understand where the company stands in case they deal directly with customers and clients who want to know. Shareholders should be informed in case the company’s position on immigration could affect the stock price.
Craft emergency plans for protests against your company or ICE raids of your facilities. Issues like immigration can produce unexpected outcomes. Boards must anticipate and plan for worst-case scenarios. How would your company respond to customer protests over your response to immigration enforcement issues? What procedures should employees follow if your company is confronted with an ICE raid? Boards need to be prepared for these and other possibilities.
