. In tense scenarios such as these, there also comes a pressure and tension amongst consumers for retail executives to provide a response.  On January 25, more than 60 CEOs from major Minnesota-based companies, including Target, Best Buy and General Mills, responded to the call to action with a public letter calling for an “immediate de-escalation of tensions” in the state. The letter came one day after ICE agents shot and killed 37-year-old Alex Pretti, a nurse at the city’s Veterans Affairs hospital, while he was being restrained on a Minneapolis sidewalk. “With yesterday’s tragic news, we are calling for an immediate de-escalation of tensions and for state, local and federal officials to work together to find real solutions,” the letter said. The statement is especially notable as previously many CEOs have sought to avoid weighing in on any politically charged issues during the second Trump administration. Whereas, hundreds of smaller businesses in the Minneapolis area had already shut their doors on January 23 as they backed protests against the actions of ICE agents in the city. In situations like this, noted Alison Taylor, a clinical associate professor at the NYU Stern School of Business and author of Higher Ground: How Business Can Do the Right Thing in a Turbulent World, retail executives need to balance on an extremely precarious edge when trying to determine an appropriate response.  The line major retail executives need to balance in times of conflict As Taylor told Inside Retail, there is a delicate balance between a retailer’s desire to release a statement intended to be sympathetic towards a general public who are shaken up by a tragic event, versus trying to avoid public backlash if the statement released is not well received.  “This is the bind that everybody [in the retail industry] in. If I had to make one singular comment, it would be that there aren’t really many good paths forward here.” Regardless of which route a retail executive may go, either in releasing a statement or staying silent, both come with a high yield of risk in a political climate that is highly “retailiatory”.  For example, with a brand like Target, that has already received notable public backlash from its pullback on DEI initiatives that, arguably, other big box retailers who have made similar moves, did not receive, there would be almost no route that its incoming CEO Michael Fiddelke could take without immediately drawing a negative response.  That being said, with a company that operates on as large of a scale as Target does, or with a company that has regularly responded in moments of crisis before, there is a set expectation from consumers for CEOs, or retailers as a whole, to respond to a situation in a careful and considerate manner.  One piece of advice Taylor doled for executives trying to determine a response is to avoid releasing an overly neutral statement just to say one did.  “These sort of bland word salad statements run the risk of making nobody happy.”  Additionally, Taylor advised that before releasing a response, retail executives need to consider the short and long term effects of their decision, in regards to the effect it would have on the company’s reputation, share price, litigation risk and so on.  One difficult aspect to determine in a situation like this would be the potential long-term decline in a brand or retailer’s social licence to operate.  For instance, Taylor noted that the general consensus amongst younger consumers, such as those within the Gen Z cohort, despise when companies “flip flop” or come across as performance. In this situation, they would prefer a company to not release an “empathetic” statement, if their previous actions don’t align with their words.  Regardless of what type of statement is officially released in a time of crisis or mass public outrage, Taylor recommended that companies avoid acting alone.  “You want to do as these CEOs have done, which was to get together and make sure to issue a joint statement. This makes it much harder to be picked off individually.” In avoiding acting alone, this also means making sure that you consult with multiple teams across your company, including fields like human resources, corporate affairs and your entire C-suite, before making a collective decision.  The do’s and don’ts of responding to a crisis As Taylor noted, in case scenarios like this, it is extremely difficult for a big corporation to avoid making a statement.  However, as crisis communications expert Megan Paquin told Inside Retail, it is still a highly important action to take.  “I’m glad to see CEOs speaking out about the horrifying events taking place there and in other communities across the nation,” said Paquin. “Not only are these existential issues to the values of the US, but they are also deeply affecting consumers in various aspects of their lives. Executives and organisations are often dissuaded from speaking out on political issues, but the fact is that, at the most basic level, the uncertainty, conflict and sadness absolutely affect consumer behaviour. Stress influences how we spend money, and executives have a responsibility to be involved in that decision-making process — no matter their politics.” That being said, executives must:  Be honest “Don’t make a performative statement if it doesn’t actually reflect the organisation’s position, their personal values and the actions that they support or don’t support. It will take a savvy consumer all of five minutes to find out if the organisation’s actions or the executive’s political donations are not aligned.”  Leave space “Don’t speak out just to speak out. Offer a statement and action that delivers value to your audience. Whether that is to reinforce this is a brand consumers can trust or to achieve a certain outcome, make sure your statement and actions have a clear purpose.” “Otherwise,” Paquin suggested, “give your platform to another who can make positive use of it or leave space in “the feed” for others who need to communicate critical information or can provide a service to your audience.” Acknowledge their consumers “When your audience is asking you to share a position or showing changes in purchasing behaviour, acknowledge it. Don’t bury your head in the sand or hide behind the idea that politics are divisive. If your consumers are demanding you take a position, do it. You may lose some in the process, but you’ll almost certainly gain others that, over time, will become more valuable because your organisation is more aligned with their interests, values and beliefs.” Lastly, Paquin noted, consumers see many executives and organisations hiding in the “backchannels.”  The ones won’t make a statement, but remain active in advocating for their positions. Like Taylor pointed out earlier, consumers, especially younger ones, don’t tolerate this behaviour. It is important to find ways to bring your “backchannel” tactics back into the light, or risk being perceived as a brand that says one thing but does another.  “Consumers don’t give the benefit of the doubt anymore, and we can’t operate successful, ethical businesses in the shadows,” she concluded. Further reading: Stay neutral or pick a side? What to learn from McDonald’s political foray.