One of the most current application areas of public relations in politically and culturally polarized societies is corporate social advocacy initiatives. The concept, which has not yet entered public relations literature in Türkiye, has important differences from corporate social responsibility, on which a large literature has been developed. The issue addressed in corporate social advocacy, defined as organizations taking stance on controversial issues, is generally not related to the field of activity of organizations and is riskier than corporate social responsibility because it means taking sides on a sociopolitical issue. This study aims to examine the elements through which corporate social advocacy arguments are structured. In the study, during the public debate involving different claims, regarding Türkiye’s withdrawal from “Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence”; public statements of Koç Holding, Borusan Holding and Sabancı Vakfı were regarded as examples of corporate social advocacy. The public statements were examined with argument analysis, for which Stephen E. Toulmin’s “Model of Argumentation” was followed. The study revealed that companies claimed that it was a wrong decision to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention and the claim was supported on the grounds that the Istanbul Convention had an important function in fighting against violence against women. In the contentious debate on the Istanbul Convention, companies’ stance that an opposite argument would harm the fight against violence against women made it possible to exemplify the statements as corporate social advocacy initiatives. The study argued that corporate social advocacy is a concept through which the contribution of public relations to society can be seen and that public relations should be repositioned in social sciences.