The Risks of Mixing Business and Politics: A Cautionary Tale for Companies

Business and Politics

With Canada gearing up for a highly anticipated federal election on April 28, 2025, political fervor is reaching a fever pitch. Citizens are rallying behind their preferred candidates, passionately defending their choices while critiquing the opposition. While this level of engagement is a hallmark of a healthy democracy, it’s a different story when businesses step into the fray. For individuals, taking a political stance might be a matter of personal conviction—though even that can spark debate—but for businesses, the stakes are higher. Clients come from all walks of life, bringing with them a spectrum of political beliefs. By publicly aligning with a political cause or candidate, a business risks alienating a significant portion of its customer base, which can have a devastating impact on its bottom line.

The Cost of Taking Sides: Real-World Examples

One of the most striking examples of this phenomenon is Bud Light’s 2023 marketing misstep. In an effort to tap into the growing visibility of the LGBTQ+ movement, the beer brand partnered with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, featuring him in a promotional campaign. The move was intended to signal inclusivity, but it backfired spectacularly. Conservative consumers, a key demographic for the brand, reacted with outrage, launching a boycott spearheaded by figures like Kid Rock. Videos of people destroying Bud Light cans flooded social media, and the backlash translated into hard numbers: by June 2023, sales had plummeted 24%, stripping Bud Light of its long-held position as America’s top-selling beer. The recovery process took years, with the company forced to pivot its marketing strategy and rebuild trust with its alienated customer base. What began as an attempt to broaden its appeal ended up costing Bud Light dearly, proving that political stances can come with a steep financial price.

Closer to home, Canada’s Big Five banks—RBC, TD, BMO, Scotiabank, and CIBC—have occasionally waded into political waters, often to mixed results. Take, for instance, the push by some of these institutions to adopt progressive stances on issues like environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies. While such moves may resonate with certain clients, they can also create friction. I recall working at one of these banks when it publicly endorsed a politically charged initiative. The decision didn’t just ruffle feathers among customers who disagreed—it also placed employees in an uncomfortable position. Staff members who held opposing views felt pressured to toe the corporate line, effectively silencing their personal beliefs to maintain professionalism. This internal discord can erode morale and productivity, while externally, it risks driving away clients who feel their values are no longer reflected in the institution they trusted with their finances.

The Exception: Niche Businesses Built on Politics

Of course, not every business suffers from taking a political stance. Some thrive precisely because they’ve woven it into their identity. A prime Canadian example is the influencer known as “The Best Damn Roofer.” Catering explicitly to a conservative clientele, he’s built a brand around unapologetic political messaging—famously charging Liberals more for his roofing services, cheekily dubbed his “liberal tax.” His clients, who might leave him a cooler of beer as a token of appreciation, revel in his brazen approach. For him, this isn’t a risk; it’s the cornerstone of his business model. By targeting a specific ideological group, he’s carved out a loyal niche, unbothered by the prospect of losing business from those outside his political tribe. But this strategy works because it’s deliberate and calculated—not a haphazard leap into the political fray.

The Broader Lesson: Prioritize the Bottom Line

The contrast between Bud Light’s stumble and The Best Damn Roofer’s success underscores a critical lesson: businesses must weigh the consequences of political involvement against their core objectives. For most, the primary goal is to serve customers and generate profit, not to champion ideological causes. When a company like Bud Light alienates a chunk of its diverse customer base, it jeopardizes that goal. When a bank’s political stance creates tension among employees and clients alike, it undermines the trust and cohesion that keep it running smoothly. Niche players like Best Damn Roofer can afford to play politics because their model depends on it—but for the average business, neutrality is often the safer, smarter path.

As Canada heads to the polls, the temptation for businesses to signal virtue or pick a side may grow. But before they do, they’d be wise to review the potential repercussions. Taking a stance might feel righteous in the moment, but the fallout—lost sales, fractured teams, or a tarnished reputation—can linger far longer than any election cycle. If politics must enter the equation, it should be a strategic choice, baked into the business plan with eyes wide open to the risks. Otherwise, the focus should remain where it belongs: on delivering value to customers, regardless of how they vote on April 28th. In a polarized world, neutrality isn’t just a safe haven—it’s a competitive advantage.