There are numerous ways to describe how Donald Trump’s influence has disrupted the financial landscape. The implications have settled over the last seven weeks since the so-called “liberation day,” but businesses will require significantly more time to adapt to this evolving reality. In the interim, annual reports must be crafted with even greater precision than before.

Just as Alastair Campbell famously remarked to Tony Blair that “we don’t do God,” businesses are often advised to steer clear of politics. Nevertheless, it is nearly impossible to remain silent on the actions of politicians, both in the U.S. and the UK, given the significant repercussions. Complicating matters further is the challenge of how to effectively influence governmental policies, especially when it appears that politicians prefer a close association with power.

A reading of recent corporate announcements reveals various strategies employed by chairmen and chief executives. Many assume their audiences are familiar with policy updates from Washington and rely on nuanced language, often omitting direct references to the president. This cautious approach is understandable, as the stakeholders—shareholders, customers, and employees—likely hold diverse political viewpoints.

Larger corporations tend to struggle if they operate with a campaigning mindset. This is why mission and vision statements often become generic and devoid of substance. In many cases, a revised vision is little more than a rebranding effort, akin to changing a company logo.

Currently, there seems to be a swift retreat from equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) policies within numerous global firms, seemingly in response to the corporate climate promoted by the Trump administration. This shift could be temporary, serving as a natural recalibration after years of strong EDI advocacy, or it may simply reflect a rebranding attempt while maintaining the status quo.

While these strategies may lack depth, they are not unexpected. However, the sight of corporate leaders frantically attempting to align themselves, and thus their companies, with prevailing political sentiments is less admirable. This phenomenon is evident in both the UK and the U.S., albeit with smaller campaign contributions in the UK and a more subtle approach to influence, which could undermine public transparency crucial in a democracy.

The British method of engaging politically is generally more economical, reflecting the stark differences in electoral finance on both sides of the Atlantic. Political donations are typically met with skepticism by UK shareholders, and it is uncommon for business leaders to use personal funds to support political candidates. Those who do often lead companies they have built themselves, viewing them as extensions of their own character.

For business leaders aiming to gain influence without alienating their diverse stakeholders, the challenge lies in meeting politicians while avoiding the appearance of flattery. Vocal opposition can lead to invitations from ministers or at least access to events on the House of Lords terrace, but repetitive criticism tends to lose its effectiveness. Conversely, excessive flattery can only carry one so far; even Donald Trump may not respond favorably to unending praise.

Conversations at business meetings held under Chatham House rules often uncover insights from leaders that contrast starkly with their public remarks. This lack of candor is regrettable, as current political dynamics pose significant challenges for businesses. Civil and open public feedback would be a welcome change; for now, however, it’s back to scrutinizing those annual report statements.

Ed Warner serves on several boards and is expressing personal views.