How to navigate PR in times of geopolitical uncertainty

Geopolitical crises present brands with complex challenges, forcing them to make difficult decisions about operations, partnerships and public positioning. The stakes are high: remaining silent may be seen as tacit approval, while taking a stand risks alienating certain audiences and stakeholders. Striking the right balance is crucial, as history has shown that a mismanaged response can inflict lasting reputational damage.

Best practice shows that a company’s actions must be guided by both its internal values and a careful assessment of key stakeholders. However, this is neither easy nor straightforward, as the wrong judgment or miscalculation can be costly.

This blog explores how global brands in both Russia and the US have responded to the recent geopolitical issues, analysing their varied approaches to crisis management. By examining these case studies, we can discover key lessons in strategic communication, stakeholder engagement and long-term brand resilience.

Lessons from the Russian exit

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has underscored the complexities businesses face when operating in politically sensitive environments. Multinational corporations had to navigate difficult decisions regarding their presence in Russia, balancing corporate responsibilities, stakeholder expectations and long-term business interests.

Due to significant pressure some companies, such as McDonald’s, eventually suspended operations and transitioned their business, while others, including Nestlé, PepsiCo and Unilever, opted to maintain limited operations to continue serving essential needs. These approaches were met with varied public responses, highlighting the importance of aligning business strategies with stakeholder perceptions. Meanwhile, brands like Apple, Nike and IKEA, which swiftly adjusted their operations, experienced a different kind of reputational outcome.

The key takeaway for businesses is that in complex geopolitical situations, clear communication, strategic foresight and sensitivity to stakeholder concerns are essential for maintaining trust and long-term brand resilience. In the future as geopolitical dynamics evolve and political sensitivities improve, businesses may have opportunities to reassess their decisions, ensuring that their long-term strategies remain sustainable and aligned with market conditions.

Tesla’s PR crisis: a case study in political controversy

Tesla, the leading US electric vehicle company, is currently facing a growing public relations challenge driven by market fluctuations, product developments and the political debate surrounding its CEO, Elon Musk. His outspoken views and political affiliation to US President Trump have made him a polarising figure, linking Tesla’s brand to his persona and fuelling both strong support and intense opposition. In recent weeks, protests and even acts of vandalism against Tesla vehicles in the US have exposed the risks of this association.

Despite Tesla’s dominance in the EV market, stock volatility and shifting consumer preferences are driving some loyal supporters toward alternative options. Musk’s ties to President Donald Trump have only heightened this dynamic. While Trump’s public support reinforces Tesla’s significance in American industry, it also further politicises the brand, potentially alienating certain customers. More importantly, Musk’s approach, which has exposed Tesla to significant reputational risks, has arguably neglected the concerns of its shareholders.

To maintain its leadership and broaden its appeal, Tesla must realign its communications strategy. Refocusing on its core values – ‘Move Fast,’ ‘Do the Impossible,’ ‘Constantly Innovate’ and ‘Think Like Owners’ – would help shift attention back to its technological and industry contributions. Additionally, diversifying its leadership’s public presence could help ensure Tesla’s reputation is defined by its innovations rather than the personal controversies of its CEO.

Should brands take a stand on geopolitical issues?

The decision for brands to engage in geopolitical matters is a complex one. On the one hand, taking a stand can bring clear benefits, such as enhancing brand reputation, building public trust and demonstrating alignment with core values. Today the public often expect brands to reflect their personal beliefs, and aligning with particular geopolitical stances can deepen stakeholder loyalty.

However, the risks of taking such stands are equally significant. Brands may alienate certain customer segments, create internal divisions or provoke backlash from groups who disagree with their position. Geopolitical issues are often polarising, and a brand’s stance can make it a target of controversy.

Conclusion

To navigate these issues, brands must conduct regular risk assessments to understand potential consequences and develop a well-considered crisis communication plan. They should also ensure their actions stay true to their values to protect credibility. Above all, brands should adhere to industry best practices, ensuring transparency and cultural sensitivity in their communications. Taking such thoughtful, strategic approach to geopolitical engagement can help brands manage both the opportunities and challenges that come with such high-stakes decisions.

At GRA, we believe a well-crafted strategy can help brands thrive, even during global uncertainty. Contact us today and let us guide you through these challenges with confidence.