The protests that gripped Kenya on June 25 and July 7 this year were not merely a contest between the government and citizens over tax hikes and economic hardship. They also marked a profound moment of reckoning for the corporate sector. Beyond the curfews, looted businesses, and shuttered offices, a new front line emerged: the expectation that companies must publicly declare their position on national social and political crises. The days when firms could hide behind neutrality and carefully worded press releases appear to be ending.

This is neither a uniquely Kenyan problem nor a fleeting phenomenon. It reflects a global trend where consumers, employees, and communities increasingly view corporations not as neutral economic actors, but as civic institutions with moral agency and public responsibilities. The question, however, remains complex and dangerous: should businesses speak out or stay silent? And how do they strike a workable balance without risking operational, reputational, or legal consequences?

The End of Comfortable Neutrality

Traditionally, businesses avoided overt political commentary, preferring to confine their public voice to operational updates or market-related matters. However, the current digital, hyper-connected world has largely dismantled that separation. As Ian Bremmer, an American political scientist, author, and entrepreneur focused on global political risk and President of Eurasia Group, has argued, “In today’s politicised world, corporations are being dragged into the arena whether they want to be or not. Neutrality is a political act in itself.”

In Kenya’s recent protests, this dynamic played out in real time. Digital campaigns like #WhereDoesYourBankStand and #CorporateComplicity targeted institutions that remained silent as young protestors clashed with police. Businesses that had no history of political activism found themselves caught in public debates, accused of complicity for their silence. The public no longer tolerates non-engagement, especially from companies that profit from communities facing political or economic oppression.

At the same time, speaking out is fraught with peril. Publicly criticising government actions risks regulatory retaliation, exclusion from procurement contracts, or unofficial State harassment. This is not theoretical. Across Africa, businesses that oppose government policy have faced abrupt license reviews, tax audits, or opaque legal challenges. It’s a volatile space where miscalculation can cost millions in brand equity and future earnings.

The Case for Speaking Out

There is a growing school of thought arguing that businesses cannot afford to remain apolitical in moments of national crisis. Dr. Andrea Bonime-Blanc, governance and risk expert, warns that “silence in the face of human rights violations or popular unrest signals tacit approval, and this damages long-term brand legitimacy, employee morale, and consumer trust.”

Our country’s youthful, politically conscious demographic, now more than 60% of the population, is quick to penalise perceived indifference. In a digital culture where social media activism shapes purchasing decisions, corporate reputations can be rebuilt or destroyed within hours.

Globally, companies like Nike and Ben & Jerry’s have demonstrated that values-led corporate activism can drive brand loyalty, especially among Gen Z and millennial consumers. In Kenya, select start-ups and mid-sized firms saw increased online engagement and consumer goodwill after issuing solidarity messages during protests.

Moreover, from a public policy perspective, businesses have a stake in preserving constitutional democracy, civic stability, and the rule of law: the very conditions that underpin a functional market economy. When governments overreach or political violence goes unchecked, it undermines the predictability essential for investment and growth. Taking principled positions on non-partisan values, such as peaceful protest, human dignity, and legal accountability, is arguably an act of corporate self-preservation.

The Argument for Silence and Its Risks

Conversely, there are legitimate reasons for restraint. Speaking out without fully understanding the social, political, and historical context of a crisis can have unintended consequences. Ill-considered statements risk alienating key customers, investors, or regulators. Multinationals operating across various jurisdictions face complex regulatory obligations and shareholder expectations that may prohibit overt political commentary.

Moreover, American economist Michael Porter, in his concept of “Creating Shared Value”, warns that businesses should avoid being drawn into ideological battles. Instead, they should focus on value creation through social investment and community upliftment. The principle here is that companies are not elected institutions, and their intervention in political disputes can distort public discourse or escalate tensions.

In Kenya’s polarised environment, where political loyalty and economic privilege are tightly interwoven, a corporate stance may entrench divisions rather than heal them.

A Framework for Balance: Values, Not Politics

The way forward lies not in absolute activism or total silence, but in a carefully considered, values-based approach to engagement. Businesses should ground their public positions in universal human rights principles, constitutionalism, and social good, avoiding alignment with political personalities or parties.

For instance, companies can issue statements affirming their commitment to employee safety, peaceful protest, and the right to lawful assembly without directly endorsing or opposing government policies. They can amplify messages on social cohesion, support community relief initiatives, or convene multi-sectoral dialogues on economic recovery.

Edelman’s 2023 Trust Barometer underscores this approach. It notes that 63% of consumers globally expect CEOs to speak out on societal challenges, but they overwhelmingly prefer positions rooted in values rather than partisan politics.

Conclusion

Kenya’s unfolding protests have cast the business community in a complex moral and strategic terrain. The old playbook of corporate neutrality is increasingly unworkable. Companies must decide when, how, and why to engage in moments of national crisis, understanding both the risks of silence and the perils of ill-judged activism.

A values-led, context-aware, and policy-sensitive approach offers a pragmatic path forward. It preserves corporate reputation, protects operational interests, and reinforces democratic norms without overstepping into partisan contestation. In doing so, businesses secure not only their brands but the economic and political environments in which they operate.

In today’s Kenya, the question isn’t whether businesses should speak up or stay silent; it’s whether they can afford not to strike the right balance.