最后，当ceo们以负责任的方式对敏感的、政治化的社会问题发表意见时，他们对社会问题的支持就会增强，批评的空间就会减少。ceo们应对一些政治或有争议的问题，如同性婚姻，必须与他们的同龄人协调和合作(Gaines-Ross, 2017)。这被视为一种负责任的做法。该公司应该通过工作和观察其他行业领袖来回应这个问题，然后在发表支持声明之前寻求建立一个共同阵线。这将为他们的陈述增加更多的力量，也将使对他们支持的质疑和批评少些关于公司的，多些关于更大的利益。现在，正如媒体报道所观察到的，澳航并没有发布任何单独的声明。许多ceo都对同性婚姻问题表示了支持。20位知名高管试图表达这种支持。此外，澳航也做了自己的调查，发现虽然不是每个人都支持婚姻平等，但在澳大利亚的民意调查中，绝大多数澳航员工都支持婚姻平等问题。因此，该公司发现有必要为同性婚姻权利说话。世界各国领导人之间也有类似的联系。北卡罗来纳州的厕所法案被80多名ceo请愿反对，他们认为该法案侵犯了LGBT群体的权利。有趣的是，当涉及到支持权利时，公司被提倡采取这种联合立场。然而，如果你观察到澳航首席执行官所受到的反对形式，这似乎是必要的。ceo们要遵循的第二个主要因素是在他们的行动中表现出一致性(Jackson, 2011)。像澳航这样的公司有支持某些社会背景的历史，尤其是当他们觉得这影响到他们的主要利益相关者的时候。坚守这些价值观很重要，因为公司的声誉依赖于此。正如媒体证据所指出的那样，该公司并没有收回他们的支持，因为部长们对他们提出的有争议的反对声明。事实上，他们以更强的力度加强了他们所呈现的。
Finally, when CEOs voice their opinion on sensitive and politicized social issues in responsible ways, their support of social issues becomes stronger offering lesser room for criticism. CEOs responding to some political or controversial issue, such as the gay marriage have to coordinate and collaborate with their peers (Gaines-Ross, 2017). This is seen as a responsible approach. The company should respond to the issue by working and observing other industrial leaders and then should seek to establish a common front before releasing their support statement. This will add more power to their representations and would make the questioning and criticism of their support less about the company and more about the greater good. Now as observed in the media report, Qantas has not pushed a lone statement. Many CEOs have presented their support for the gay marriage issue. Twenty high profile executives sought to present this support. Furthermore, Qantas has done its personal research as well and found out that while everyone does not support marriage equality, opinion polls among Australians in general and a vast majority of their own employees support the marriage equality issue. Therefore, the company found it essential to speak for gay marriage rights. In countries all over the world, similar liaison among world leaders was observed. The bathroom bill in North Carolina was petitioned against by more than 80 CEOs who felt it infringed on LGBT rights. It is interesting that companies are advocated to take this joint position when it comes to supporting rights. However, this seems necessary when one observes the form of opposition that the CEO of Qantas has received. A second major element to be followed by the CEOs is to show consistency in their actions (Jackson, 2011). Companies like Qantas have a history of supporting some social contexts especially when they feel it affects the major portion of their stakeholders. Adhering to such values is important as the company’s reputation relies on it. As noted from the media evidence, the company has not taken back their support because of Ministers controversial statements of opposition of what they presented. In fact, they have reinforced what they presented with more strength.
The essay presented the argument that companies in current times have to voice their opinion on social issues as they realize their corporate social responsibility. They can no longer afford to just satisfy profit mottos, and are pushed into participating in social issues. Sensitive politicized social issues are at the fulcrum of company reputation and it is critical for the companies to present their standpoint strongly.
Qantas attempts to satisfy the majority stakeholder. The company acknowledges that there could be some people who do not believe in the equality of marriage. However, it has presented a standpoint that would be applicable to almost everybody. Even people who do not believe in the equality of marriage with respect to gay marriages still should not have any problem with how others live their lives. Qantas in essence has chosen a solution that would fit the majority of stakeholders.