The corporate response to the Israeli-Hamas war differs in key ways from the response to the war in Ukraine, but common insights can be drawn from both conflicts.
Trusted Insights for What’s Ahead™
US corporations responded to the Russian invasion of Ukraine not only by withdrawing from the Russian market but also through an outpouring of corporate philanthropic resources to support those affected. In 2022, 89% of surveyed companies responded to the Ukraine war, while to date 62% of firms have responded to the humanitarian crisis in Israel and Gaza. While 73% of companies responded to the Ukraine invasion with direct cash contributions from corporate funds, only about one-third of companies have done so in the most recent conflict. Instead, companies are emphasizing matching employee-driven donations.1
Companies need to have a playbook for providing humanitarian relief in response to war. The playbook should draw upon the company’s experience in a) responding to natural disasters and b) making statements addressing controversial social issues because responding to wars has elements of each. In both cases, it’s critical to have clear criteria for deciding whether to respond, a process to enlist relevant stakeholders in making a thoughtful decision, and a menu of ways of responding—externally and internally—that are tailored to the particular circumstances.
While conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza illustrate how each war presents unique circumstances, they highlight four key guiding principles for corporate responses—if a company chooses to respond at all. First, in deciding whether to make a statement, it is important, but insufficient, to ground the company’s response in “values”: the company should have a business rationale for weighing in, including an ability to make an incremental difference. Second, the company should take a long-term view in its response, both in how it phrases any statements and how it allocates resources from the original response through the resettlement of refugees. Third, companies should consider focusing their response on their employees, including their physical and mental well-being, as companies are doing today with programs addressing antisemitism and Islamophobia in the workplace. And finally, companies should focus on common ground and avoid adding to the political polarization in our society.
1Data on how companies responded to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 originate from a survey of disaster philanthropy practices by The Conference Board of 100 leading firms in 2023. Data on how companies are responding to the Israel/Gaza humanitarian crisis originate from an ongoing annual survey of corporate citizenship resources, priorities, and expectations at leading corporations by The Conference Board, 2023–2024.
The corporate response to the Israeli-Hamas war differs in key ways from the response to the war in Ukraine, but common insights can be drawn from both conflicts.
Trusted Insights for What’s Ahead™
US corporations responded to the Russian invasion of Ukraine not only by withdrawing from the Russian market but also through an outpouring of corporate philanthropic resources to support those affected. In 2022, 89% of surveyed companies responded to the Ukraine war, while to date 62% of firms have responded to the humanitarian crisis in Israel and Gaza. While 73% of companies responded to the Ukraine invasion with direct cash contributions from corporate funds, only about one-third of companies have done so in the most recent conflict. Instead, companies are emphasizing matching employee-driven donations.1
Companies need to have a playbook for providing humanitarian relief in response to war. The playbook should draw upon the company’s experience in a) responding to natural disasters and b) making statements addressing controversial social issues because responding to wars has elements of each. In both cases, it’s critical to have clear criteria for deciding whether to respond, a process to enlist relevant stakeholders in making a thoughtful decision, and a menu of ways of responding—externally and internally—that are tailored to the particular circumstances.
While conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza illustrate how each war presents unique circumstances, they highlight four key guiding principles for corporate responses—if a company chooses to respond at all. First, in deciding whether to make a statement, it is important, but insufficient, to ground the company’s response in “values”: the company should have a business rationale for weighing in, including an ability to make an incremental difference. Second, the company should take a long-term view in its response, both in how it phrases any statements and how it allocates resources from the original response through the resettlement of refugees. Third, companies should consider focusing their response on their employees, including their physical and mental well-being, as companies are doing today with programs addressing antisemitism and Islamophobia in the workplace. And finally, companies should focus on common ground and avoid adding to the political polarization in our society.
1Data on how companies responded to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 originate from a survey of disaster philanthropy practices by The Conference Board of 100 leading firms in 2023. Data on how companies are responding to the Israel/Gaza humanitarian crisis originate from an ongoing annual survey of corporate citizenship resources, priorities, and expectations at leading corporations by The Conference Board, 2023–2024.
Email
Linkedin
Facebook
Twitter
Copy Link
.png)
.png)