As the toll of the Israeli offensive in Gaza mounts, corporate communications is in crisis mode.
On October 7, Hamas launched an assault on Israel from the Gaza Strip.
Burning houses and their inhabitants and shooting civilians, Hamas murdered around 1,400 Israelis.
After news of the attack broke, a number of companies released statements condemning the attack.
There Walt Disney Company donated $2 million (1.9 million euros) to humanitarian organizations in the region and expressed outrage at these “horrible terrorist attacks.”
Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazonwrote, on X, formerly Twitter, that the violence against civilians was “shocking and painful to watch”And Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizerconfides, on LinkedIn, that he has “heartbroken by these atrocities”.
While for many, these expressions of condolence are a natural reaction, some supporters of the Palestinian cause are not so sure.
They lamented that while businesses expressed sympathy for Hamas victims, suffering of the Palestinians is not mentioned.
It didn’t take long for Starbucks and McDonald’s to find themselves at the center of the controversy.
When Israel began launching retaliatory strikes on Gaza, fast food chain McDonald’s announced it was offering thousands of free meals to personnel of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
Pro-Palestinian groups say that by offering free meals, McDonald’s is complicit in the “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians.
As for Starbucks, it entered into controversy when its employees’ union shared a message on X (formerly Twitter) which read: “Solidarity with Palestine! “Solidarity with Palestine!”
This message sparked a quick reaction from several Jewish groups, and when Starbucks decided to sue the unionthe company sparked a wave of pro-Palestinian anger.
Speak up or stay silent?
“Corporate social responsibility” is a term that has been around since the 1950s, but the idea was more related to philanthropy, rather than issuing statements on broader cultural issues.
Previously, many companies felt it wasn’t necessary (or particularly wise) to voice their opinions on social issues, whether it was abortion, racism, or LGBTQIA+ rights.
Yet the rise of social media in the 2000s led to a huge cultural shift.
As it is now easier to debate and share opinions, businesses are more likely to speak out about perceived injustices, even those that do not directly concern them.
In some cases, it is an opportunity for possible gain rather than a burden for businesses, as we saw after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
With the Western world generally agreeing on the identity of the oppressor, brands can display their ethical position without risking too much damage to their reputation.
ADVERTISEMENTConsumers have seen Ukrainian flags appear on shopping sites and in stores, and a number of companies have launched solidarity campaigns, such as the Airbnb rental platformwhich began offering free housing to Ukrainian refugees.
That said, when public opinion is more divided, corporate activism can be more complex to manage.
An-Sofie Claeys, assistant professor of corporate communications at Ghent University in Belgium, teaches her students how to manage a company’s public relations in crisis situations.
Regarding the war between Israel and Hamas, she told Euronews: “I don’t think there is a clear solution for advising businesses”.
“One thing they should take into account is to be consistent”she adds.
ADVERTISEMENT“If you have never spoken out on social issues before, and your company is a B2B company, (…) then I think you will probably stay silent”says An-sofie Claeys. “But if you produce goods for consumers, if you are a brand that has already taken a stand on societal issues (…), it can seem very hypocritical not to take a stand now”.
Power and people
It is not easy to determine the extent to which the Israeli offensive is supported by ordinary citizens.
According to a survey published on October 27 in the Israeli newspaper Maariv, almost half of Israelis want to wait before invading Gaza, although opinions are changing rapidly.
The UK, an IPSOS survey of October 27 shows that Britons are more likely to want the British government to be a neutral mediator in the conflict (37%) or not to get involved at all (16%), than to support Israel (13 %) or Palestinians (12%).
Compared to a study surveyed among American citizens on October 15, IPSOS noted that Britons are less inclined to support the Israeli offensive, although the organization acknowledged that the polls showed some variation.
ADVERTISEMENTAs the death toll in Gaza continues to rise, the dates on which results were collected may also influence IPSOS’ conclusions.
To some extent, the fractured public reactions can also be observed within Western political bodies.
US President Joe Biden and the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen notably called the Israeli invasion of Gaza an act of self-defense, but a number of leaders, such as UN Secretary-General António Guterres, criticized Israel’s attack.
Given how divergent these opinions are, it’s easy to understand why business communication can become difficult at a time like this.
By choosing to speak out on the conflict between Israel and Hamas, brands naturally expose themselves to criticism from both camps.
ADVERTISEMENTAnti-Semitism and the legality of the boycott
In preparing this article, Euronews contacted pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian groups who are boycotting businesses due to the conflict.
At the time of publication, pro-Israel groups had not yet commented, but the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement responded to our questions.
The group, active since 2005, focuses its boycotts on a small number of companies it says are complicit in violations of Palestinian rights.
These include technology companies HP and Siemens, retail group Carrefour, insurance company AXA and sportswear company Puma.
“All peaceful popular efforts, including boycott and divestment, aimed at holding these complicit companies accountable for their support of Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians are justified and necessary”explains BDS to Euronews.
ADVERTISEMENTThe group specifies that “boycotts are effective”emphasizing that their actions “have already led large multinational companies such as Veolia, Orange and General Mills to withdraw from operations in illegal Israeli settlements”.
Although BDS’s actions are effective, the group has nonetheless generated its share of controversy over the years.
The group notably sparked a debate on the legality of the boycott, as well as the right to freedom of expression.
In 2019, the German parliament ruled that BDS used anti-Semitic methods to achieve its goals, and similar opinions have been expressed in countries like the France and the United Kingdom.
In the United States, several states have passed bills aimed at discouraging anti-Israel boycotts, but many of these initiatives have been legally challenged on the grounds of free speech, with boycotters arguing that they should be allowed to criticize the Israeli state.
ADVERTISEMENTUltimately, the BDS debate highlights the difficulty of discussing the war between Israel and Hamas, because by condemning the actions of Benjamin Netanyahu’s offensive, companies open themselves up to accusations of anti-Semitism .
Due to growing tensions over the conflict, verbal and physical attacks against Jewish citizens have increased alarmingly since October 7.
In Dagestan, with a Muslim majority, hundreds of men stormed an airport looking for Israeli passengers Monday October 30. A few days earlier, on October 20, London noted a 1,353% increase anti-Semitic crimes compared to the same period last year.
If fears linked to anti-Semitism are therefore entirely legitimate, the amalgamation between criticism of the Israeli state and condemnation of the Jewish people poses an obvious problem.
In some quarters, those hoping to silence Palestinian voices have also blurred the lines between support for Hamas and support for the Palestinian cause, characterizing those who oppose the Israeli offensive as sympathizers of terrorism.
ADVERTISEMENTSo, with loaded language in the extreme, it’s hard to see how companies can respond to the war in a way that doesn’t undermine their popularity with consumers.
“I think there is a difference between what we should do morally and what we should do in terms of strategy and reputation,” confides the professor, An Sofie Claeys, to Euronews.
She adds that businesses must “really take their values into account, and act and communicate accordingly.
