In October this year, Brazil returns to the polls to choose the President of the Republic, governors and legislative representatives. In years like this — and in a context in which politics has become more polarized — the corporate environment tends to feel the impact: conversations “heat up”, groups form, and the line between opinion and pressure can become dangerous.
The most efficient way to get through this period is not to “ban politics”, but rather to reinforce integrity and security with practical measures: clear rules in the Code of Conduct, leadership trained to not transform opinions into hierarchical rules, internal channels prepared to receive complaints, with a team of compliance to investigate them, and objective communication about what is acceptable.
The Electoral Court has a very objective definition: electoral harassment involves practices of coercion, intimidation, threat, humiliation or embarrassment associated with the election, with the aim of influencing or manipulating the vote or, even, pressuring employees to influence their support, orientation or political expression at work (or in other professional situations). The reason why this takes on more serious consequences within companies is simple: there is hierarchy, subordination, economic dependence and fear of retaliation.
Continues after advertising
In cases of harassment, the impact experienced by those who received the message is usually weighed more than the “intention” of those who spoke. This is why even “jokes”, hallway conversations or comments at lunch can become a problem.
The history of the last national elections explains why the issue is a strong candidate (pardon the pun) to return to the top of the political agenda. compliance. In the 2022 electoral cycle, the Public Ministry of Labor registered 2,838 complaints, involving 2,137 companies or people investigated for electoral harassment. In addition to investigations, there were recommendations, TACs (Conduct Adjustment Terms) and public civil actions filed, a sign that the issue is not just in the “HR” sphere when it escalates.
In practice, what tends to characterize electoral harassment in the corporate environment is not the existence of political opinion, but rather the use of power, corporate channels or social pressure to impose a position. This appears in a series of situations: when there is a threat (explicit or hidden) of job loss, worsening of working conditions or even career stagnation; when there is a promise of benefit in exchange for political-parental alignment; when using corporate email, work meetings, official groups or company resources for campaigns; when “proof” of membership is required (t-shirt, sticker, postage, participation in an event); or when a climate of humiliation and isolation is created for those who think and/or express themselves differently. In extreme situations, it is worth remembering that coercing someone to vote or not vote, through violence or serious threats, is also an electoral crime.
Continues after advertising
On the other hand, not all political talk turns into harassment. What differentiates debate from abuse, in general, is the presence of hierarchical subordination, insistence, embarrassment, or retaliation. The company can (and should) guide its team so that political issues are not taken to corporate channels and that coexistence is respectful, in addition to making neutral institutional communications and reinforcing rules of civility. Treating business situations and scenarios technically is also not a problem.
This is where the central question comes in: what should companies do, objectively, to get through 2026 safely? First, make the topic explicit in the Code of Conduct and in internal communications: electoral periods require a reinforced standard of respect. Second, invest in leadership training, because the risk usually comes from above: managers need to understand that their position amplifies any speech and that, in harassment, the effect is usually decisive for the severity.
Third, organize environmental and resource rules: the company can prohibit campaign clothing and objects on site and in virtual work environments and, above all, prohibit the use of corporate assets for electoral demonstrations, such as stickers on company cars, advertising stamps on corporate notebooks, exchange of messages on institutional email and political posts on social media, when related to work. Here, the same rule applies to contacts made with the employer’s clients and business partners: partisan neutrality is the best way to avoid legal risks.
Continues after advertising
Another pillar is the basics, which many companies only remember when problems occur: functioning reporting channels and trained professionals to consistently investigate them. Channels need to exist, be known by employees and be taken seriously; the complaint must be screened, investigated and registered immediately, including possible sanctions, which must be proportionate to the conduct proven to have been committed.
Social media demands a realistic middle ground. The company does not govern the employee’s personal account, but can act when there is a direct link with work: use of the name/brand; identification as an employee, to give authority to the content; attack on colleagues/clients/business partners; condoning violence or conduct that violates internal rules and compromises the work environment. In contexts where employees use personal networks to prospect customers or sell products, a practical guideline, which reduces conflicts, is to separate the professional profile from the personal profile.
In the end, the employer does not control the public debate, but must manage the work environment itself. Now is the time to review rules, align leadership and adjust internal channels to get through 2026 safely.
