When war, trade, and diplomacy dominate headlines, brands can no longer pretend politics don’t affect them. From McDonald’s dramatic exit from Russia and H&M’s backlash in China, global brands today are walking a tightrope — one misstep, and they risk losing entire markets. The question is no longer whether businesses should take a stand, but whether they can survive if they don’t. This article explores the tension between business interests in today’s volatile geopolitical and public scrutiny, and why “brand neutrality” may be an outdated luxury.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, McDonald’s didn’t just stay quiet and continue business. It shut down 853 restaurants. That’s not a small decision for any global company, but that’s what they did. Of course, Russia replaced it quickly with “Tasty, and That’s It,” But McDonald’s made a calculated move – signalling alignment with Western markets and possibly distancing itself from past leadership scandals – and people noticed. But I’m not saying every brand should always take a drastic step just to send a message. Case in point: H&M – They tried to take a stand on the human rights issues in Xinjiang, saying they wouldn’t use that cotton; it backfired – badly.

Advertisement

The brand was swiftly removed from major platforms, faced widespread........

© The Statesman