????首席執(zhí)行官舉著標(biāo)語牌去街頭示威游行的場景實(shí)在是難得一見。和示威運(yùn)動的領(lǐng)袖不同，公司高管不會跑到游行集會上，手持?jǐn)U音器大聲疾呼；也不會指揮船只前去拯救鯨魚。政治問題是兩極分化的，無論公司選擇哪種立場，都會面臨失去消費(fèi)者的風(fēng)險。

????然而，有些公司的首席執(zhí)行官卻因一些熱門的敏感話題成為眾人矚目的焦點(diǎn)。2月5日，美國同性戀權(quán)利組織之一“人權(quán)戰(zhàn)線”（Human Rights Campaign）發(fā)布了一段內(nèi)容為高盛首席執(zhí)行官勞埃德?布蘭克費(fèi)恩擁護(hù)同性婚姻的視頻。布蘭克費(fèi)恩不是一個人在戰(zhàn)斗。耐克（Nike）、亞馬遜（Amazon）、微軟（Microsoft）和星巴克咖啡（Starbucks）)公司都發(fā)表聲明，支持華盛頓州讓同性婚姻合法化。星巴克首席執(zhí)行官霍華德?舒爾茨在其他問題上同樣敢于直言。2011年11月，他發(fā)起了一項(xiàng)幫助政府創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會的計劃。星巴克稱，迄今為止，公司已經(jīng)為美國創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會基金（Create Jobs for USA Fund）募集了大約700萬美元資金。

????商界領(lǐng)袖經(jīng)常卷入政治話題，其中有些話題甚至可能會被視為政治激進(jìn)主義。有些甚至為了捍衛(wèi)自己的價值觀而拒絕了一些潛在客戶。舉例來說，已退休的好市多公司（Coscto）首席執(zhí)行官吉姆?辛內(nèi)加爾就制定過一項(xiàng)政策，即使法律允許秘密攜帶槍支，消費(fèi)者也不得攜帶槍械入店。

????但賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)沃頓商學(xué)院（the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania）管理學(xué)教授馬克爾?尤西姆表示，一般來說，大多數(shù)公司都會繞開富有爭議性的問題以回避風(fēng)險。他說：“水能載舟亦能覆舟。支持你做法的消費(fèi)者確實(shí)能帶來一些利益，但同時，反對者也有可能會拋棄你的產(chǎn)品。”尤西姆稱，從上世紀(jì)八十年代末、九十年代初以來，公司股東的勢力越來越強(qiáng)大，促使首席執(zhí)行官越來越關(guān)注按季度為股東返還利潤。

????西北大學(xué)凱洛格管理學(xué)院（Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management）倫理和管理學(xué)教授亞當(dāng)?加林斯基說，這是他們的職責(zé)所在。他說：“公司聘請他們并不是為了政治利益，而現(xiàn)在他們把商業(yè)利益和政治目標(biāo)混為一談?！彼f，首席執(zhí)行官們大膽直言并不奇怪，因?yàn)?“相對于董事會而言，權(quán)力的天平越來越向首席執(zhí)行官傾斜。”正因?yàn)榇?，首席?zhí)行官談?wù)摖幾h性話題時，即便可能傷害到股東利益，面臨的風(fēng)險也不大。

????有些首席執(zhí)行官可能已經(jīng)開始質(zhì)疑股東價值高于公司基本價值這一理念。尤西姆稱，他們甚至可能會率先站出來，倡導(dǎo)某些領(lǐng)域的社會進(jìn)步。他還說：“鑒于當(dāng)前政府陷于僵局，政治黨派壁壘森嚴(yán)，首席執(zhí)行官們會站出來說話，‘如果政府不能主導(dǎo)應(yīng)對這些問題，我們有責(zé)任站出來，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人們解決問題，而不是只關(guān)注公司季度收益指標(biāo)如何?！?/p>

????星巴克咖啡（Starbucks）的做法正是如此。該公司對《財富》雜志稱：“創(chuàng)造長期的股東價值很重要，但公司能夠，也應(yīng)該讓自己獲得更高層次的成就。我們認(rèn)為，采取這種做法的公司最終也能夠在盈利方面獲得良好的結(jié)果，因?yàn)橄M(fèi)者也愿意支持那些擁有跟他們相似價值觀的公司。”

????Rarely do you see a CEO with a picket sign. High-level executives aren't the kind of leaders who man the bullhorns at protests rallies or captain dinghies to save the whales. Political issues are polarizing, and companies that take sides risk turning off customers.

????Yet some CEOs are stepping into the limelight on hot-button issues. On February 5, the Human Rights Campaign released a video featuring Goldman Sachs (GS) CEO Lloyd Blankfein advocating same-sex marriage. Blankfein wasn't alone. Nike (NKE), Amazon (AMZN), Microsoft (MSFT), and Starbucks (SBUX) have all issued statements in favor of same-sex marriage in Washington State. Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz has been outspoken on other issues as well. On November 1, 2011, he launched a program to help create jobs in America. To date, the company says it has raised around $7 million for the Create Jobs for USA Fund.

????Corporate leaders have always been involved in issues that could be seen as political activism. Some have even turned away potential customers for the sake of their own values. Retired Coscto CEO Jim Sinegal, for example, had a policy that no customers were allowed to carry firearms in stores -- even in states where concealed carry is legal.

????But in general, most companies steer clear of controversial issues to sidestep risk, says Michael Useem, a professor of management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. "You pick up a little gain from customers that like what you're doing, but you could also conjure up calls to abandon your products." Since the late 80s and early 90s, Useem says, corporate shareholders have grown increasingly powerful. That has pushed CEOs to focus more and more on returning value for shareholders every quarter.

????That's their job, argues Adam Galinsky, a professor of ethics and management at Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management. "They weren't hired by companies to serve a political purpose," he says, "now they're conflating the business purpose and the political purpose." It's not surprising that CEOs are speaking out though, Galinsky says, because, "the balance of power has tipped more in favor of CEOs versus the board of directors." Because of that, he says, CEOs face less risk when they speak out on controversial issues, even though it could potentially harm shareholders.

????Perhaps some CEOs have begun to question the prioritization of shareholder value over the company's defining values. They may even be advocating for social progress when no one else will, Useem says. "Given the fact that government is extremely deadlocked and politics very partisan, CEOs may be stepping forward to say, 'if the government can't lead in these issues, we have an obligation to do that ourselves in a way that transcends the normal parameters of quarterly earnings,'" he adds.

????Starbucks seems to be headed that way. "Delivering long-term shareholder value is essential, but companies can and should hold themselves to higher standards of achievement," the company told Fortune in a statement. "We believe companies that do so will also see a positive increase in the bottom line -- customers want to support companies that have values similar to their own."