Corporate leaders on LinkedIn, or ‘LinkedInfluencers,’ hold significant sway. However, many subtly promote brands, services, or products without disclosing material connections, blurring the line between genuine advice and covert endorsements.

This risks misleading their followers, causing poor decisions, and breaching ASCI’s influencer guidelines, which recently flagged such posts as ‘mini sales pitches’.

Is this ethical given their professional stature, and should transparency be mandatory?

Karthik Srinivasan, communications consultant and Tara Kapur, market lead - India, Duolingo English Test, share their thoughts.

Do you believe industry executives and leaders have a responsibility to be transparent about brand affiliations in their LinkedIn posts? 

Karthik Srinivasan (KS): Ideally, yes. Logic is more common sense than ethics. Consider a post by a leader where he/she is expressing pride or joy in their team doing exceptionally well on something. And the next post happens to be a paid plug for an insurance company. What should that leader’s followers understand - that both posts were fake/paid for, or both were genuine sentiments? Our social media timeline, including LinkedIn, is almost like a slow life-stream of sorts. If it includes personal notes on what/how we feel about something, then interjecting that stream with a post that was purely influenced by what was paid for it deserves to be called out if only to assert that our real sentiments are indeed real, in other posts.

Tara Kapur (TS):  It’s important to differentiate between industry experts or leaders who post organically about other brands, and LinkedIn influencers who monetise their content. I typically follow marketing leaders, two of my favourites are Karthik Srinivasan and Saurabh Bajaj. They typically share posts to build credibility and foster discussions on campaigns or brands they find inspiring. These posts are usually organic and focus on learning, not tied to formal affiliations.

This is typically something I try to follow as well. For instance, I’ve shared insights about the Google Doodle, KitKat and Candy Crush’s brand partnership, or PhonePe’s digital OOH activations; not because of any brand affiliation, but because I was impressed by the work and wanted to engage my community in meaningful dialogue. This kind of sharing is valuable. These are examples about the work, and not sales.

It’s more impactful than only celebrating one’s own work or that of one’s team. On the other hand, LinkedIn influencers who monetise their following by promoting products or brands should be transparent because this is promoting sales, and not sharing insights.  Including disclaimers ensures clarity and helps maintain trust. Some LinkedInfluencers already do this.

How do you view the ethical implications of corporate leaders promoting a product without disclosing a material connection? Could this harm an executive’s credibility and trustworthiness among followers?

KS: Consider the real-world equivalent of this – a corporate leader is in an industry event, and is talking to his peers during the break. He casually mentions about a new app that he recently installed and talks exuberantly about how it made his finances simple and easy to manage. His peers in the event may take his word at face value, coming from a well-known leader like him, and also install the app to try it out. If they, by chance, come to know that the leader was paid handsomely to talk about the product at various industry events he gets invited to, how would they feel? They would feel ‘used’, to a large extent. So yes, if there’s no disclosure and people do find out later from some other source that a product promotion was paid for, the leader’s credibility would be affected.

TS: While some corporate leaders may receive compensation for their posts, the context is key. If a post focuses on insights such as analysing why a campaign worked or appreciating another team’s creative work, it is generally about fostering learning and professional growth, not directly influencing consumer decisions. This type of content is less likely to raise ethical concerns, as it’s rooted in building knowledge rather than driving product sales. That said, authenticity is critical. Most corporate leaders post to build their personal brand and credibility, not for financial gain, especially since their core income typically far outweighs any benefit from paid LinkedIn content.  For paid posts with a ‘salesy’ tone or clear promotional intent, adding a disclaimer about any material connection would be helpful and ethical. Transparency in such cases not only safeguards trust but also reinforces the leader’s integrity.

Given that LinkedIn is seen as a professional networking platform, do undisclosed promotions conflict with the audience’s expectations for authenticity and professionalism?

KS: One can be perfectly professional even when promoting a product, by calling out that endorsement as a paid plug clearly and directly.

TS: LinkedIn is not just a networking platform; it’s also a space for learning, sharing ideas, and fostering meaningful professional discussions. Posting authentic, thoughtful content adds value to the platform and takes time and effort, which is why it’s so highly regarded. However, undisclosed promotions or posts designed solely to ‘hack’ the LinkedIn algorithm undermine this purpose.

Do you believe LinkedIn posts by executives should be held to the same standards as traditional influencers promoting products on other social platforms?

KS: Absolutely. And it already is the case. There is no difference between paid promos on X, Instagram, or Facebook, and a paid promo on LinkedIn. They are all online platforms, and all paid promotions are just that - paid promotions.

TS: Have addressed this in an earlier response.

Is it high time LinkedIn introduced tools to label sponsored content or indicate brand partnerships, similar to other platforms? Also, what impact could standardised disclosure tools have on the credibility of LinkedIn as a professional platform?

KS: It would be slightly easier if there’s a platform-centric option to call out paid promotions on LinkedIn, like Instagram. Overall, I think it would benefit by introducing such an option so that those who have not considered adding a disclosure for paid promotions may look at others using it and start using it.

TS: Yes. but the challenge is to clearly identify what is organic and what is not. The concern is flagging of organic content that’s about other brands, which will hamper sharing and learning from corporate leaders that we previously never had access to. Standardised disclosure mechanisms would reinforce LinkedIn’s credibility as a professional platform by distinguishing authentic insights from promotional content, and could hopefully reduce some of the spam on the platform.

(This article first appeared in the December issue of Manifest, part of the monthly Perspectives feature. Buy the copy here)