The great realignment: Recalibrating risk for corporate social impact storytelling

Megan Tuck  is SVP and leader of Bliss Impact, The Bliss Group.

The effects of the corporate rebrand of DEI are being felt everywhere, from communications and HR departments to the C-suite and operations teams. I recently had an “a-ha” moment about this during a conversation with Lily Zheng, a FAIR strategist who is pioneering an alternative framework to organizational DEI. I asked what they think about these changes, and their question back to me was straightforward, but eye opening. Rebranding corporate social impact may be fine, but do companies know where their proverbial defensive line in the sand is?

The reality is there is a seismic shift underway in corporate America. It is driven by organizations reconsidering the social impact storytelling they have so readily embraced in recent years. In some cases, companies have gone so far as to fully eliminate social impact programs and wipe any mention of them — and related language — from their communications.

The truth is that we could and should have seen this coming. Whether organizations fully embrace social impact language to attract values-focused consumers or fully realign their brands’ communications away from social impact language to avoid triggering backlash — both are reactive risk management moves that are not unprecedented in our history of navigating the intersection of justice and capitalism.

Still, those reactions represent either end of a risk spectrum. Most corporations likely call for a more balanced, measured risk recalibration for corporate social impact storytelling communications that understands where the defensive line is.

The risk recalibration of corporate storytelling

Corporations are trying to answer questions on either side of a spectrum: Is it risky to continue social impact storytelling with the enthusiasm we saw in 2020 and 2021? Is it risky to alienate consumers based on their beliefs?

Well, yes… to both. But the inherent problem with trying to answer these questions is that they are fully reactive and do not consider each individual organization’s defensive line. This approach carries an even greater risk — if you don’t know where your line is, you will always get pushed past it by changes in how our society thinks about social impact.

Knowing where the defensive line is allows corporations to embrace a proactive social impact communications strategy by focusing on what the substantive actions they are willing to stand by. Surviving this “great realignment” means making a calculated risk recalibration that is based on asking better issues response questions, aligning with authentic brand values over societal pressures, and avoiding long-term harm to your brand reputation with near-term changes out of fear.

A social impact risk recalibration might include:

• Social issue response framework development: A session at this year’s Engage for Good conference regarding navigating corporate purpose in the current era of DEI backlash surfaced a critical question that all organizations need to ask before they do anything: What are the social issues that align with your corporate purpose and you are not willing to ever walk away from? From there, you can start to build a communications framework that balances authenticity and risk, rather than reacting blindly to social perceptions.
• Strategic language selection: This cannot be merely about avoiding certain words, but about crafting narratives that authentically reflect corporate values while minimizing legal exposure. For example, an organization that has historically used language around “DEI metrics and targets” may feel high legal risk with this terminology now, but maintains a commitment to (and most importantly, real, tangible actions toward) a diverse workforce. Strategic language selection here may mean reframing this as “workforce inclusion indicators.”
• Data-driven approaches to language selection: Understanding how the societal context of language changes over time and being able to see ahead of peaks and valleys can put companies a step ahead of reactive changes.
• Integration with core business strategy: Forward-thinking companies are integrating social impact into their core business strategies to be able to point to business imperatives over all other ideological arguments.

The path forward: Adaptation without sacrificing the work

As corporations continue to navigate the changing landscape of social impact messaging, authenticity remains paramount. There’s nothing wrong with going on the defense to be able to continue good work. The most successful corporate social impact storytellers will be those that adapt their language while maintaining clarity on what they aren’t willing to sacrifice.

Language will always evolve. Legalities will always change. If businesses are to survive these shifts, they must do more than find new words for tried-and-true concepts. They must be willing to avoid all-or-nothing approaches, because in another five years, we could be right back where we started five years ago.