There is a strong case for companies to stay out of politics. First, their top executives are not, in my experience, startlingly better informed than most interested people. In years of listening to business leaders talk about politics, usually off the record, I have heard few say anything more insightful than you hear at the average dinner party.

An exception was a Danish management consultant who, at the time the euro was created, told me it was like setting household thermostats to the same temperature everywhere from Finland to Greece.

His was a more arresting simile than most European senior executives’. At the time, their favourite was that the EU project was like a bicycle and if you stopped pedalling you would fall off.

There is an even stronger argument for companies not to take political decisions: their leaders do not represent only themselves.

Whether you believe managers should answer to shareholders or to a broader group of stakeholders — employees, suppliers, the local community — they represent a wide group of people, all of whom have their own political opinions.

One example was the US gun control debate. When I contacted American companies last year to ask them where they stood, normally chatty corporate spokesmen were suddenly out of the office and unable to return my calls

Rather than trying to speak for them, you could argue that companies should allow shareholders and staff to vote for their own opinions and fund the political candidates they support.

You could, but it would be a waste of time. Companies have always been deeply engaged in politics, from the United Fruit Company’s involvement in the overthrow of the Guatemalan government in 1954 and its backing of the 1961 Cuban Bay of Pigs invasion to legislative lobbying to the everyday funding of candidates for office.

Some corporate political activity is clearly meant to help shareholders and employees, even if it is deeply damaging to citizens’ health, such as tobacco companies’ agitating against plain cigarette packaging.

Even where there is no obvious benefit to the organisation, corporate leaders have justified their political involvement by saying it will help produce a society more hospitable to business. Rupert Murdoch used this argument in 2010 when his company made donations to the Republican Governors Association.

So deeply are companies embedded in the political process that it is particularly striking when they refuse to have anything to do with it.

One example was the US gun control debate. When I contacted American companies last year to ask them where they stood, normally chatty corporate spokesmen were suddenly out of the office and unable to return my calls.

This was true even of those companies whose leaders had bravely backed same-sex marriage on the grounds that gay employees needed to know that their bosses were on their side and potential recruits had to be assured that this was a hospitable place to work. I pointed out to these companies that more US gun attacks happened at workplaces than at any other institution. Wasn’t this a company issue too? The few that got back to me — some with views on everything from fair trade sourcing (in favour) to genetically modified ingredients (against) — said they did not want to talk about guns.

The referendum on Scottish independence is another example of corporate reticence. The plebiscite is a hugely consequential event. If Scotland would have voted ‘Yes’ it could have had an impact on the pound, the UK’s world standing and its future in the EU.

Yet while some British business leaders, such as Sir Richard Branson, warned of the dangers of a UK break-up, most had to be pushed by 10 Downing Street into saying anything. And when they did, such as the retailers who warned that Scottish prices could go up, they did so late in the campaign and largely in the safety of others saying the same things. Several big companies said nothing.

Why? Some said they did not want to interfere with the Scottish people’s right to decide. The vote also deeply divided Scotland. These companies’ employees and customers probably reflect that split.

But I doubt deep divisions will stop companies from speaking out on Britain’s EU membership if and when that is the subject of a referendum.

I think the answer, in the very different arguments over guns and Scotland, is that opponents of gun control and supporters of Scottish independence are formidably well organised and tough on their opponents.

Large companies are powerful. But some groups seem to scare even them.

Published in Dawn, Economic & Business, September 22nd, 2014