Listen to This Article Enhance your reading experience by listening to this article.

In an interconnected world, brands must balance between public perceptions and their core values. The political complexities they face can overshadow their commitment to society, leading to reputational risks that can have far-reaching consequences.

Brands thrive on innovation, economic growth, and societal impact, but when they operate in countries with oppressive regimes, they face a challenging dilemma. Their contributions to development may inadvertently align with government policies that suppress dissent, placing them in a precarious position.

Take the case of Apple, a company known for its sleek devices and environmental initiatives. In 2021, the company faced criticism for complying with China’s stringent censorship laws, including censorship references for Chinese politicians and dissidents in its engraving services. This year, Apple has also been cited for the unavailability of its app, with claims that more than 60 percent of the world’s top 100 in China’s App Store are either unavailable or inaccessible, highlighting the difficulty of balancing market access with human rights principles.

Moreover, brands often find themselves caught between the demands of citizens and the pressure exerted by governments. How they navigate political unrest can significantly shape public perception and impact their reputation.

Coca-Cola’s experience in apartheid-era South Africa serves as a poignant example. Despite engaging in community projects, the brand faced accusations of indirectly supporting the oppressive regime. It was only when the company took a firm stand against apartheid that it was able to regain trust and support from consumers.

Back home in Kenya, Safaricom, the country’s telecommunications giant, is no stranger to this delicate balancing act. The telco provides critical services such as M-Pesa, the mobile money wallet. For the past two decades, Safaricom, through its corporate social responsibility arm, the Safaricom Foundation, has significantly impacted Kenyan communities with initiatives in education, healthcare, economic empowerment, water access, environmental conservation and disaster response.

Though these services directly improve the lives of over eight million Kenyans across all 47 counties, the company has also faced scrutiny, particularly during the ongoing civic agitation. The telco has been accused of siding with the government by limiting connectivity during protests. This allegations of throttling internet speeds have raised ethical concerns about the company’s role in safeguarding citizens’ digital rights.

The alleged throttle during the internet outage is further complicated by the proposed tax regulations that were being debated. The government is encouraging the youth to engage in self-employment opportunities, including content creation, as a means of fostering economic growth and job creation. But by limiting internet speeds during the protests, authorities were seen as potentially hindering these efforts and stifling the creative economy.

This clash of interests between government policies and the aspirations of the youth exacerbated the already tense situation, leading to allegations of Safaricom aligning with the government’s stance by limiting internet access during protests.

In response to the outage, Safaricom CEO Peter Ndegwa took the commendable step of openly communicating about the undersea cable disruptions and the company’s efforts to restore services. This transparent approach helped to address concerns and to demonstrate the company’s commitment to accountability.

Despite the challenges faced, Safaricom allegedly opted for redundancy over a complete shutdown of the internet, underscoring its ethical stance and sparking a necessary debate on responsible corporate behaviour in times of political turmoil.