The ongoing suffering, grief, and anger of Israelis and Palestinians caused by the Israel-Hamas war is affecting millions of people around the world. It has also caused stress, if not commotion, in many institutions around the world, leading some leaders to speak, others to stay silent, some to be admonished or even forced to quit. As we noted last week, there is no easy way for a company to navigate these waters.
That’s why a note from Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser, sent to her company’s employees ahead of a previously planned visit to the Middle East this week, caught my attention. It struck a balance between speaking up meaningfully and avoiding alienating anyone. These two paragraphs stood out to me:
“The loss of innocent lives, starting with the October 7th terrorist attack on Israel and now farther reaching, has been gut-wrenching, putting a strain on our entire Citi family, with our people in the region bearing the brunt of it. Despite many of them being personally impacted, our colleagues in Israel and throughout the region continue to go to extraordinary lengths to serve our clients in what is a very dangerous situation...
As a global company, our colleagues represent the full spectrum of faiths and nationalities. Our strength is the respect we have for each other and our ability to come together as one Citi family. We are one firm, one community. We stand united against antisemitism, Islamophobia and acts of hatred in any form, and act swiftly when we see it. In this way, we can be a model for the respectful dialogue that we hope to see in the world.”
In a discussion I had about the note with her communications team, they highlighted some crucial elements and put them into the context of Fraser’s broader communications approach.
First, Fraser speaks to her employees, clients, and investors regularly in venues like town halls, a video series called “Fifteens with Frazer,” and quarterly memos, so her team is accustomed to hearing from her. “She’s not a one-and-done type person,” Ed Skyler, Citi’s head of enterprise services and public affairs, and a member of Fraser’s management team, told me.
That approach creates space for nuance, especially on a heated topic. In fact, Fraser issued a previous note two weeks ago on the Israel-Hamas war, in which she affirmed the company’s “support for Israel.” That earned her recognition from Yale’s Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, who keeps a list of companies that spoke out early and clearly in support of Israel after the Hamas attacks on the country.
It also cleared the path for her to express empathy as civilians in Gaza are killed, wounded, and displaced and to acknowledge the effect on Citi personnel. “If these are dynamic situations that are changing by the day, employees want to know that leadership of the company is sensitive to that,” Skyler said.
Second, Fraser sticks to addressing how the war affects Citi and its stakeholders, with a laser focus on affected employees and messaging that clearly includes those in the region.
“We generally only talk about situations where we have people,” Skyler said, acknowledging the omission of references to “Palestinians” or “Gaza” in her latest communication. But, he added, “As the crisis spread, and it became clear that other [Citi] markets beyond Israel were going to be impacted, including Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan, she wanted to follow up and acknowledge how things had developed.”
Third, Fraser’s communication reflects the bank’s global nature, the diversity of its employees, and its corporate culture. It speaks of “one Citi family” and “one community,” and equally condemns antisemitism and islamophobia (though I wonder whether some employees might expect a more direct stance for or against a certain actor on the world stage).
“We are the most global bank in the world,” Skyler explained. “We are on the ground in 95 countries. Any geopolitical event, war, or conflict impacts us in a way that other companies may not feel. With that comes an employee base with different nationalities and perspectives. We can have those perspectives, but have to be respectful of each other.”
That’s why Citi did not explicitly “stand with Israel” as some other companies have. Its initial message spoke of “support” but steered clear of making that support political or unconditional. It also meant that Citi took a hard line, for example, against an employee who posted antisemitic messages on social media last week. The employee was terminated immediately, Fraser’s team said. (The company also posted a public message about that incident.)
I could see how some employees—especially those aligned with one side of the conflict or the other—might expect Fraser to speak out more loudly or more explicitly. The notes were well crafted, but felt a bit cool, too. Overall, I suppose that’s probably the best way to go about a heated and ongoing conflict like this one (in addition to listening): keep cool, stand by your employees, and express empathy without taking sides politically.
More news below.
Peter Vanham
Executive Editor, Fortune
peter.vanham@fortune.com
This edition of Impact Report was edited by Holly Ojalvo.
ON OUR RADAR
INBOX: “Climate CEOs” call for new government regulations ahead of COP28 (World Economic Forum)
More than 100 CEOs from around the world wrote an open letter to governments to introduce new policies and regulations to “accelerate decarbonization” ahead of next month's UN Climate Summit in Dubai. The group, convened by the World Economic Forum (disclosure: my former employer), asked, among other things, to adopt low-emissions procurement for public investments and to introduce carbon pricing mechanisms where they don’t yet exist.
The companies in question, which include Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, JLL, Microsoft, and Tyson Foods, have earned their seats at the table, Pim Valdre, WEF's head of climate ambition initiatives, told me: They have all committed to “science-based targets” to reduce emissions and collectively reduced their carbon footprints by 10% in the 2019-2021 timeframe.
Our take: It's great to see these companies stand up for decarbonization. What’s needed next, though, is to get on board the big polluters—they’re conspicuously absent from the list of signatories.
ESG is beyond redemption: May it RIP (Financial Times Opinion)
“ESG is beyond redemption, a testimonial to the consequences of letting good intentions overwhelm good sense and allowing the selling imperative to define and drive mission,” writes Aswath Damodaran of NYU’s Stern School of Business in this Financial Times op-ed. “The problems of investing with an environmental, social and governance framework start with assessing what it measures, which has changed over time and reflects its revisionist history,” he adds. In reality, it is neither good for value, nor for investor, nor for society. So, may it rest in peace.
Our take: We wrote about the death of ESG a few months ago, so there’s that. This new op-ed is worth reading, as the arguments are sound and original. ESG as an investment category should indeed die, but it should live on as sustainability and social impact imperatives in managing a company and delivering on its purpose.