首席执行官举着标语牌去街头示威游行的场景实在是难得一见。和示威运动的领袖不同，公司高管不会跑到游行集会上，手持扩音器大声疾呼；也不会指挥船只前去拯救鲸鱼。政治问题是两极分化的，无论公司选择哪种立场，都会面临失去消费者的风险。

    然而，有些公司的首席执行官却因一些热门的敏感话题成为众人瞩目的焦点。2月5日，美国同性恋权利组织之一“人权战线”（Human Rights Campaign）发布了一段内容为高盛首席执行官劳埃德•布兰克费恩拥护同性婚姻的视频。布兰克费恩不是一个人在战斗。耐克（Nike）、亚马逊（Amazon）、微软（Microsoft）和星巴克咖啡（Starbucks）)公司都发表声明，支持华盛顿州让同性婚姻合法化。星巴克首席执行官霍华德•舒尔茨在其他问题上同样敢于直言。2011年11月，他发起了一项帮助政府创造就业机会的计划。星巴克称，迄今为止，公司已经为美国创造就业机会基金（Create Jobs for USA Fund）募集了大约700万美元资金。

    商界领袖经常卷入政治话题，其中有些话题甚至可能会被视为政治激进主义。有些甚至为了捍卫自己的价值观而拒绝了一些潜在客户。举例来说，已退休的好市多公司（Coscto）首席执行官吉姆•辛内加尔就制定过一项政策，即使法律允许秘密携带枪支，消费者也不得携带枪械入店。

    但宾夕法尼亚大学沃顿商学院（the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania）管理学教授马克尔•尤西姆表示，一般来说，大多数公司都会绕开富有争议性的问题以回避风险。他说：“水能载舟亦能覆舟。支持你做法的消费者确实能带来一些利益，但同时，反对者也有可能会抛弃你的产品。”尤西姆称，从上世纪八十年代末、九十年代初以来，公司股东的势力越来越强大，促使首席执行官越来越关注按季度为股东返还利润。

    西北大学凯洛格管理学院（Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management）伦理和管理学教授亚当•加林斯基说，这是他们的职责所在。他说：“公司聘请他们并不是为了政治利益，而现在他们把商业利益和政治目标混为一谈。”他说，首席执行官们大胆直言并不奇怪，因为 “相对于董事会而言，权力的天平越来越向首席执行官倾斜。”正因为此，首席执行官谈论争议性话题时，即便可能伤害到股东利益，面临的风险也不大。

    有些首席执行官可能已经开始质疑股东价值高于公司基本价值这一理念。尤西姆称，他们甚至可能会率先站出来，倡导某些领域的社会进步。他还说：“鉴于当前政府陷于僵局，政治党派壁垒森严，首席执行官们会站出来说话，‘如果政府不能主导应对这些问题，我们有责任站出来，领导人们解决问题，而不是只关注公司季度收益指标如何。’”

    星巴克咖啡（Starbucks）的做法正是如此。该公司对《财富》杂志称：“创造长期的股东价值很重要，但公司能够，也应该让自己获得更高层次的成就。我们认为，采取这种做法的公司最终也能够在盈利方面获得良好的结果，因为消费者也愿意支持那些拥有跟他们相似价值观的公司。”

    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."