A CEO wants to publicly oppose a controversial law that harms a minority group. Half the board warns it will cost 30% of customers. Should they speak out?

Why this dilemma matters

Public-good questions surface the trade-offs that aggregate numbers usually hide. Choosing “Speak out — corporations have moral weight and silence signals complicity with injustice” prioritises broader fairness; choosing “Stay silent — a company's duty is to employees and shareholders, not political advocacy” gives more weight to concrete impact on individuals.

Worth asking yourself

• What does this say about what we collectively value?
• Whose interests should count more here, and why?