The usual argument would be that this isn't profitable or contributing to the bottom line, and would serve only to inflame tensions/unrest etc... Thereby it's s

The usual argument would be that this isn't profitable or contributing to the bottom line, and would serve only to inflame tensions/unrest etc... Thereby it's so disruptive it's antithetical to getting things done. Two options arise out of it: Hire someone else not prone to or going through this societal conflict at the moment ($$$), or forbid the topic and risk losin conscientious objectors amongst workers/leadership. The executive case with a shareholder value tilt would be avoid and reject the conversation, sink the risk, evaluate fallout, and hire replacements as necessary. You've still done your fiduciary duty, but damn those meddlesome cats. The Stakeholder value executive prioritizing social change would likely engage with the topic, seeing it as an opportunity to raise awareness, get free press, attract talent, etc. I can only really see a case for suppressing it if it were something you couldn't afford to not have.