The risk for companies lies not only in explicit electoral harassment but also in the lack of control over the conduct of leaders, corporate channels, and information used during the election period.
As of August 2026, 738 cases of electoral harassment had been identified in the Labor Courts. The study conducted by labor agencies analyzed a sample of 138 cases, in which characteristics of institutional harassment were identified in 92% of the cases, psychological terror in 81.9%, the use of digital platforms in 67.4%, and economic intimidation in 61.7%.
Given this scenario, 5 points deserve special attention from companies:
1. Digital environment: Corporate groups, instant messaging, social media, and other communication tools can be used to pressure workers, including by requiring them to forward political content, demanding they post certain materials, or monitoring their expressions of opinion. The survey identified the use of virtual platforms, with WhatsApp being the primary technological platform cited. Therefore, internal guidelines must also cover work-related digital channels, making it clear that corporate communications must not be used to influence employees’ political choices.
2. Institutional neutrality policies: The company must have objective rules regarding the use of the workplace, the brand, and corporate channels during the election period. The survey identified instances of institutional harassment, including the use of internal communication tools and work hours themselves for election-related activities.
3. Leadership: Managers, directors, and others in positions of authority should receive specific guidance on this topic. The so-called “economic intimidation” identified involved situations related to salary, loss of position, and the offering of bonuses or perks. The recommendation is that political preferences are a private matter and should not be linked to decisions regarding hiring, promotion, compensation, job retention, or the distribution of benefits.
4. Whistleblower Channel: During the election period, internal whistleblower channels may receive reports related to political pressure, as well as general complaints or situations that do not necessarily constitute electoral harassment. Therefore, in addition to providing an appropriate and confidential channel, it is important to establish a process for screening, investigating, preserving evidence, and taking proportionate measures when any irregularities are found. Having a structured procedure in place allows the company to demonstrate that it does not tolerate abusive conduct and that it has effective prevention and response mechanisms in place.
5. Voter registration data: On September 1, 2026, the Federal District Labor Prosecutor’s Office issued a preventive recommendation to companies advising them not to request voter registration data from employees and job applicants, including information contained in voter registration cards. The measure reinforces that information of this nature should not be incorporated into business routines without a legitimate and appropriate purpose, especially given the risk of its use for political monitoring or pressure.
For companies, the main takeaway is that prevention does not mean restricting freedom of expression, but rather setting limits on the exercise of corporate power.
In an increasingly digital electoral environment, one characterized by greater integration among regulatory agencies, clear policies, leadership guidance, reporting channels, and proper data handling become risk management tools.
