Political gamesmanship during an election period poses great challenge to big business. Often business executives find themselves knee high in the murky waters of politics. If the candidate whom a business supports carries the day, the promise of lucrative contracts is real. This situation is however ideal where there is a clear favourite in the polls. Otherwise a business might find itself smack at the middle of a political mud fight.

Take the Kenyan situation. A few days ago a top manufacturer made headlines by complaining that the current political wave was hurting its business. Its competitors were using politics as a means to crush its sales. While business competition is as rough as political gamesmanship, big business ought to weigh its options when deciding whether or not to be involved with politics.

The sustainability of a business may be undermined depending on how the business behaves or reacts during a political process. In Kenya, there is no law regulating campaign financing. Hence, businesses have the freedom to finance any political cause to a limit of their choice.

Article 38 of the Constitution protects political rights. Business executives have the constitutional right to support a political cause they believe in. For business sake, such political choices may impact on the sustainability of a business. Big business ought to carry out an internal audit on the impact a political process will have on its business.

From the top, the first question would be, how will political manoeuvring affect the sustainability of the business? Will the competitors cash in on political leanings? What if the political union the business supports loses; does the business have sufficient good will from the winning side? It’s a catch 22 situation, maintaining business relationships while supporting a specific political course.

Secondly, the business ought to inquire on the political leanings of its chains of supply. Is the chain of supply politics proof? What if one of the elements in the chains collapses due to political affiliation? In case of political chaos, would the chain of supply be maintained? What would be the appropriate contingency plans? These questions call for continuous dialogues between a business and entities in its chain of supply.

Thirdly, employee political affiliations may pose a challenge. Do the employees enjoy unfettered exercise of their freedom of conscience and political rights? Does the business assure the employees of continued engagement notwithstanding political leanings? What environment does the business create to ensure a free market of ideas at the workplace?

Lastly, the business ought to study the manifestos of political parties with a toothcomb. What impact will implemented manifestos have on the business? Will businesses have the opportunity to contribute to policy change and formulation? What steps will the business take to cushion itself from the political aftershocks?

While not exhaustive, the above reflections may aid businesses in carrying out a sustainability audit during periods of tense political processes.