Corporate Activism

Introduction

Airbnb's “Is Mankind?” ad in 2015 supported transgender Americans at a time when their rights were a subject of hot debate. Such corporate activism has become more common in the United States. (screenshot)

Go to top

Overview

In September 2019, about a month after back-to-back mass shootings in Ohio and Texas killed more than 30 people, a remarkable thing happened in the U.S. corporate world: The heads of nearly 150 companies signed a letter to Congress demanding stronger gun control.1

“Doing nothing about America's gun violence crisis is simply unacceptable and it is time to stand with the American public on gun safety,” they wrote. The letter was signed by chief executives at Levi Strauss & Co., Gap, Twitter, Uber, Airbnb, Condé Nast and other major U.S. companies.2

People pay their respects to the victims of a mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, in August 2019. A month later, the leaders of nearly 150 U.S. companies urged Congress to pass stronger gun laws. (AFP/Getty Images/Mark Ralston)

Just a few years ago, such a letter would have been unlikely, an ill-advised move for companies that serve customers from all parts of the political spectrum. To take a stand on a polarizing social issue was to alienate part of your market, and perhaps some employees. Few took that risk.

Today, the letter symbolizes a tectonic shift taking place in how U.S. companies participate in both the marketplace and the political process. The common wisdom that counsels restraint is changing, according to many experts in marketing and politics. “Business leaders are not afraid to get engaged now,” said Chip Bergh, president and CEO of Levi Strauss.3

In what some call “woke capitalism,” U.S. businesses are increasingly getting involved — often vocally — in social and political issues. Iconic American brands, especially, are wading into policy debates on climate change, race relations, immigration, gun control and LGBTQ rights — some of the most divisive and polarizing issues in the United States. For example, in May, amid demonstrations over the death of George Floyd at the hands of police, companies such as Netflix, Twitter and Citigroup supported the Black Lives Matter movement, which protests the deaths of African Americans in police custody.4

Businesses' reasons are varied and involve more than ideology. Some business leaders are responding to market expectations from a young generation of Americans who want the companies they patronize and the brands they wear to reflect their political and social values. When these brands do not, many consumers take their business elsewhere.

“If you are a company and you are not on the right side of same-sex marriage, you forfeit everyone under 45 — maybe forever,” says Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization. “Why would you do that?”

But corporate activism has its critics. On the right, many conservatives argue that business can best help society by staying focused on turning a profit. Others — including some critics on the left — see corporations' social activism as a way for business leaders to curry favor with the public so they can better advance their real interests in government.

Woke capitalism, according to conservative commentator Ross Douthat, “increasingly exists … to justify the ways of CEOs to cultural power brokers, so that those same power brokers will leave them alone … in realms that matter more to the corporate bottom line.”5

Companies' involvement in social issues takes numerous forms. Some use advertising as a tool, while others turn to grassroots activism. Some are using the courts, or directly altering their business practices in socially responsible ways. Traditional lobbying, in which corporations seek to protect their business interests, remains potent. Whatever the strategy, marketing experts say more companies are blending marketing and activism in ways that go beyond experimentation, and the results could alter the consumer landscape.

Long Description

A growing body of research shows that consumers increasingly want companies to get involved in social issues. The Edelman Trust Barometer, an annual report by the research organization Edelman Intelligence that has measured the public's trust in private and public institutions worldwide for 20 years, found that in 2019, 64 percent of Americans believed brands can be a powerful force for change, up 13 percentage points since 2017.6

“It's a market expectation,” says David M. Bersoff, head of thought leadership research at Edelman. “[Companies] need to connect with consumers beyond the product. They need to connect on values and purpose and identity.”

Numerous brands are beginning to follow such a strategy:

• Nike signed former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who has not played in the league since 2016, to a promotional contract in 2018 and released a television ad that featured him, after Kaepernick took the polarizing step of kneeling during the national anthem at games in 2016 to protest racial injustice. The ad, which marked the 30th anniversary of the company's iconic “Just Do It” campaign, stirred immediate controversy, including scathing criticism from President Trump. Yet Nike's ad addressed the issue head-on. “Believe in something,” Kaepernick said in the ad, “even if it means sacrificing everything.”7

• Walmart, the nation's largest retailer, reduced its gun offerings in 2019 in response to mass shootings, including one at a Walmart store in Texas. The company stopped selling handguns, handgun ammunition and certain rifle bullets that can be used in military-style assault weapons. It also supported gun control legislation.8

• Patagonia, the outdoor gear and clothing company that has been active on social issues for decades, challenged the Trump administration over protection for federal lands. When the administration decided to substantially reduce protected land in Utah's Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in 2017, Patagonia sued to block the effort. To announce the lawsuit, the company blacked out its homepage except for a single line: “The President Stole Your Land.” The case is pending.9

A Nike billboard in San Francisco in 2018 features former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who protested racial injustice by kneeling during the national anthem at football games. (Getty Images/Robert Alexander)

“You saw a big rise in corporate activism after the election of Donald Trump in the first couple of years, with companies coming forward to take stances against some of his early policies,” says Ben White, chief economic correspondent for Politico. “They felt the need to address those things and make sure that their customers knew where they stood.”

But some marketing experts and business analysts warn that social activism can be risky for corporations, and note that a majority of companies in the United States have declined to participate, at least so far.

“Today's corporations, from Microsoft Corp. to GM to Amazon.com Inc., survive by producing goods and services that feed, clothe, transport, entertain and otherwise provide benefits to billions of people,” wrote business columnist Terence Corcoran. “The corporate adoption of social purposes would take focus away from these core business purposes.”10

Companies taking a stand have faced boycotts and condemnation, with the blowback occasionally coming from the president. Trump, whose Twitter account is one of the largest on the internet with more than 80 million followers, does not hesitate to confront companies directly. Boeing, Facebook and General Motors have all felt Trump's wrath for stances they have taken or for decisions they have made.11

Stories abound of companies that have run afoul of public perception and paid a price. (See Short Feature.)

A public controversy “erodes your brand at a speed never seen before,” says Bruce Mehlman, founder of the lobbying firm Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas, which advises corporate clients. “With social media, you can light that fuse in one day.”

The coronavirus pandemic, which has shut down large swaths of the U.S. economy and sent unemployment soaring, is further complicating companies' views of corporate activism. Many companies chose to wade into social issues when the economy was stable and business was good. Some may be more reluctant now.

Businesses “are hurting financially, they are struggling to stay alive, they are stretched,” Bersoff says. “I think this is a different environment than a few months ago.”

Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political spending and lobbying, warns of another risk: Companies taking stands that their customers or employees see as inauthentic, gimmicky or just another marketing campaign. “Silence is safe until an organization presents itself as part of a community,” she says. “If you are part of a community, good and bad comes with that. You have to walk the walk.”

Walking the walk is especially important to younger Americans, according to surveys. A RealClear Opinion Research poll this year found that Millennials (which the poll defined as those born between 1981 and 1996) and Generation Z-ers (defined as those born after 1996) are far more likely to expect companies to take a position on political and social issues than are older Americans.12

Long Description

The poll, conducted in February, showed 42 percent of Millennial and Gen Z respondents said companies have a responsibility to take positions, compared with just 23 percent of the Baby Boom (defined as those born between 1946 and 1964) and Silent (those born between 1928 and 1945) generations.

The reaction to Nike's Kaepernick ad clearly reflected this divide. Two-thirds of Millennial and Gen Z respondents said they viewed Nike more favorably after seeing the ad, more than twice the 30 percent of the Baby Boom and Silent generations who felt that way.

John Della Volpe, director of polling for RealClear Opinion Research, says younger Americans see huge societal issues that need to be addressed and that those issues are driving market expectations. “They see a world with significant challenges and massive inequality woven through issues,” Della Volpe says. “Access to clean air and water. Access to quality education. Access to health care. Access to a safe school environment. These are expectations young people have.”

Many experts also say that younger Americans, who are native both to a digital world and to the sharing economy made possible by companies such as Uber and Airbnb, know how to communicate with brands far more effectively than previous generations.

Experts in marketing and politics also cite lower trust in government as a factor in the rise of corporate activism.

The Edelman Trust Barometer reports that 66 percent of Americans do not have faith in political leaders to solve the country's challenges. Trust in government and religious leaders is below 50 percent. By contrast, 74 percent believe that CEOs should lead the charge for change, up 9 percentage points from 2018.13

“Business is seen as more competent,” Bersoff says. “People feel that business moves faster, has better ideas and is better at getting things done. Business is more capable of making change in society.”

Others, however, argue the whole notion of corporate activism is overblown. These skeptics say social activism is simply marketing by other means — and that in any case it is miniscule compared with what companies spend lobbying government to promote their own interests. Business interests spent almost $3 billion on lobbying in Washington in 2019, many times more than labor or ideological groups, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.14

“This stuff is really trivial,” Weissman, the Public Citizen president, says of corporate activism. “It doesn't involve leveraging their tremendous political power. A huge portion of this activity relates to brand building more than influencing public policy.”

As business leaders, marketing experts, consumers and others debate corporate activism, here are some of the questions they are asking:

Are consumer expectations driving corporate activism?

The bestselling author Simon Sinek said some prophetic words in a much-watched 2009 TED Talk. “People don't buy what you do,” he said. “People buy why you do it.”15

Sinek's talk — third on the list of most popular TED Talks with more than 50 million views — did not directly address corporate activism, but it summed up the issue well.16 Experts in marketing and politics say that consumer expectations have changed dramatically in recent years, and they point to a bevy of statistics that show younger generations want brands to stand for more than high quality and low prices.

Long Description

Young Americans increasingly want to see more developed brand identities that mirror their values and beliefs on a broad range of social issues, according to recent polls.

“Millennials and Gen Z feel the need to connect and feel good about the places they work and the places they support,” says Della Volpe of RealClear Opinion Research. “[Companies] need to understand that if they don't do this, they may face consequences.”

Other polls have found broad support for corporate activism. For example, a 2019 report by Global Strategy Group, a public affairs and research firm, showed that more than three out of four consumers expect companies to engage on political and social issues and almost nine out of 10 say companies can make a difference when they do.17

That sentiment was mirrored in the 2020 Edelman Trust Barometer, where 73 percent of Americans said companies can both increase profits and improve conditions in communities where they operate.

“I don't think companies and businesses developed a heart of gold,” says Bersoff, of Edelman Intelligence. “It's not about CEOs finding they want to do more good in the world. What's really driving it is marketplace pressures.”

However, some experts warn that companies risk alienating parts of their market by taking stands on social issues.

Chick-fil-A is a good example. Although it is one of the most successful restaurant chains in the country, the company has had image problems since CEO Dan Cathy said in 2012 that he opposed same-sex marriage and media reports found that the Chick-fil-A Foundation donated money to organizations that do not support LGBTQ rights. The company has endured ongoing boycotts and protests from LGBTQ groups and their supporters, and has had trouble opening restaurants in at least two states.18

In 2014, Cathy acknowledged that his public stand was a mistake and said he learned from it. “Consumers want to do business with brands that they can interface with, that they can relate with,” he said. “And it's probably very wise from our standpoint to make sure that we present our brand in a compelling way that the consumer can relate to.”19

Some experts in marketing and politics say that ignoring market expectations poses its own risks for companies. Inaction, in other words, can have consequences.

“Today's consumers not only believe strongly that companies should take positions on social and political issues, but they are actively seeking out information on where companies stand,” said Julie Hootkin, a partner at the Global Strategy Group. “As a result, those companies that choose to step out on issues stand to be rewarded, while those that choose to sit on the sidelines may have a price to pay.”20

While few marketing experts would dispute the idea that expectations have shifted in recent years, many say that how companies try to shape public opinion is the most important factor. Corporations have many ways of influencing social change, from charitable donations to work through a trade association. Not everything has to involve a brand taking a stand, Bersoff says.

“You can be involved in society … and not necessarily weigh in on the most decisive issues of the day,” he says.

Experts say that activism and advocacy should be an authentic extension of the company's business. In 2014, CVS became the first national pharmacy chain to pull cigarettes and tobacco products from its shelves. That same year, it changed its name to CVS Health.

The company estimated that it would lose $2 billion in tobacco sales at a time when it was posting annual revenue of about $139 billion.21 Yet President and CEO Larry Merlo said in a video message making the announcement that “tobacco products have no place in a setting where health care is delivered.” Health activists and others lauded the company's decision, and CVS continued to prosper. In 2019, annual revenue at CVS was almost $257 billion, an increase of 32 percent over 2018.22

An example that went in the other direction was Pepsi, which released a controversial ad in 2017 that depicted a street protest with activists and police in which a white woman, model Kendall Jenner, walked up to a police officer and handed him a Pepsi. The company suffered an immediate backlash for using scenes of protest against racial discrimination for commercial purposes.

Model Kendall Jenner hands a Pepsi to a police officer in a 2017 ad that garnered widespread criticism for using images of a street protest to sell soda. Pepsi apologized and pulled the ad. (screenshot)

“No one is finding joy from Pepsi at a protest,” said Elle Hearns, a former organizer for Black Lives Matter. “That's just not the reality of our lives. That's not what it looks like to take bold action,” she said. Bernice King, the daughter of civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr., tweeted, “If only Daddy would have known about the power of #Pepsi.”23

The company pulled the ad and halted the campaign quickly, issuing an apology. “Pepsi was trying to project a global message of unity, peace and understanding,” the company said in a statement. “Clearly, we missed the mark and apologize.”24

How do companies know when to weigh in on social issues and which issues to choose? “It's not easy,” says Mehlman, of the lobbying firm Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas. “This is new. If you were a CEO in the old days, make as much money as you can and you were good. Now, the market expects much more of you.”

Is corporate activism healthy for the U.S. political system?

American corporations are one of the mightiest forces in the U.S. political system, by almost any measure.

In 2019, corporate interests accounted for nearly 87 percent of all lobbying money spent — to the chagrin of critics, who say that corporate interests have an outsized impact on taxation, the minimum wage, consumer protections and other important policy areas.25

Besides the lobbying muscle, business interests accounted for 66 percent of the contributions made by political action committees and individual donors in the 2018 midterm elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. They spent more than $2.8 billion, more than 16 times the amount spent by organized labor.26 The spending is cited by critics and government watchdogs who say that business interests hold too much sway in Washington.

But many marketing and political experts say there is a significant difference between traditional corporate lobbying and activism on social issues. They say traditional lobbying promotes core business interests, such as loosening regulations on an industry, while corporate activism on social issues is more about marketing and brand building. And some say companies put a lot more muscle into the lobbying on core interests than they do on brand building.

“I don't think [social activism is] that consequential,” says the Public Citizen's Weissman. “Corporate lobbying is super consequential.”

The nation's political system is adversarial by design, and many political analysts say that companies have every right to support policies that align with their interests. Those who champion corporate activism argue that, like individual citizens, a company that is active on issues is simply participating in the political process as it was designed.

Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability, which works for corporate transparency in politics, says that corporate activism can play a useful political role so long as company positions align with their lobbying and spending in Washington.

“I think it's been healthy,” Freed says. “We really have a political system that's dysfunctional. It is badly, badly broken. The fact that companies speak out is very important. Companies do provide leadership.”

Many on the left say businesses' political influence is not so benign. Anand Giridharadas, author of Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World, argued that powerful business interests give a nod to improving society — but use their political influence to expand their power. “World-changing initiatives funded by the winners of market capitalism do heal the sick, enrich the poor and save lives,” Giridharadas said. “But even as they give back, American elites generally seek to maintain the system that causes many of the problems they try to fix — and their helpfulness is part of how they pull it off. Thus their do-gooding is an accomplice to greater, if more invisible, harm.”27

During the 2020 presidential primaries, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and other candidates who sought the Democratic nomination routinely decried corporate influence in politics. Warren argued that, beginning in the 1980s, corporations abandoned their obligations to their workers and the community. Corporations in recent decades have put their stockholders first, the good of the community second, she argued.28 That message, echoed by Sanders and other liberals, has resonated with young voters, some of whom formed a bloc of support for Sanders' campaign and welcomed his promise of “democratic socialism,” which would empower workers and weaken corporate influence in politics.

“With democratic socialism, I think we can bring those corporations under democratic control, hold them more accountable and encourage them to act in the interest of the public by paying higher wages, improving working conditions and creating jobs on American soil,” 18-year-old Alyssa Thompson of Greene, Maine, told The New York Times in 2018.29

Marketing experts say there is a difference between how corporations take stands on social issues and how they lobby on questions such as taxes and other economic policies. “When you think about what companies do when they care about specific policies, it's a little different” from advocating for a social policy, Weissman of Public Citizen says.

Political analysts add that there is an important difference between simply supporting a piece of legislation with a public statement and actively campaigning to get it passed. Vocal support without action is unlikely to be enough to result in concrete victories, such as getting a bill enacted, they say.

For example, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and other technology companies formed the Coalition for the American Dream in 2017 to support immigration reform, including a measure that would provide a path to citizenship for “Dreamers,” undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.30 Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has taken to Facebook to advocate that Dreamers receive citizenship.31 Congress has yet to pass a bill on the Dreamers issue.

Some marketing experts say companies are not using their full clout to develop grassroots support for their positions on social issues. Grassroots organizing has been a staple of many campaigns by associations and nonprofit groups. But while companies are increasingly conducting this type of advocacy, they are doing so cautiously. Many of their campaigns are focused on issues that are not overtly controversial, such as encouraging voter registration in the 2020 election.

Advocacy experts say grassroots activism could dramatically enhance corporate influence across multiple industries. The largest of these companies have massive resources, strong name recognition and a customer base that numbers in the millions. The power these brands have to sway opinion through grassroots campaigning could substantially augment traditional lobbying, the experts say.

They point to Apple, which has more than 1.4 billion devices in use and recorded $260 billion in revenue in 2019. If it could persuade just a sliver of its customers to support or oppose legislation, it could unleash an avalanche of communications. That is a relatively cost-effective tool for a company that spent about $7.4 million on lobbying last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.32

Jeb Ory, CEO of Phone2Action, a software platform that enables grassroots advocacy, explained the rationale in a company blog post.

“Activism campaigns led by companies allow brands to empower their customers and employees to engage on an issue they care about,” he wrote in 2018. “When people engage with issues they care about, they become a more engaged member of their community and ultimately strengthen the democratic process — a core tenant of civic society. By leading a grassroots movement that encourages civic action, companies build a genuine community around their brand.”33

Is corporate activism good for American businesses?

When a corporate advertiser pulled out of the ESPY Awards for excellence in sports in 2015 because transgender Olympian Caitlyn Jenner was being honored, Airbnb was eager to take the time slot.

The company unveiled its dramatic “Is Mankind?” advertisement, which showed unwavering support for transgender Americans at a time when transgender rights were being debated and some state governments were regulating the access transgender Americans have to public bathrooms in schools and other public facilities.34

Why did a hospitality company with a pioneering stake in the sharing economy wade into transgender rights? Jonathan Mildenhall, the company's chief marketing officer at the time, says that Airbnb is extremely popular with LGBTQ customers, both as renters and as guests. Perhaps more important, the company's operating principle — and its advertising slogan — was summed up in two words: belong anywhere.

“The LGBTQ community is a dominant force defining mainstream cool, and they are using our platform,” says Mildenhall, now CEO of his own consulting firm, TwentyFirstCenturyBrand. “You have to make sure they feel recognized, championed and heard.”

Airbnb saw its outreach to the LGBTQ community as good business, according to Mildenhall, because the company was promoting its values to make renters and customers more comfortable with Airbnb.

“It is a campaign that doesn't get into product or experience,” Mildenhall told PR Week. “It's about values that we believe in. We believe people will want to travel and open up their home as it will draw people into the community.”35

Marketing experts agree that corporate activism can be very good for companies' bottom lines — when done correctly. That means that the issues the company takes on are an authentic match with the business. An example that comes up often is Patagonia.

Patagonia, an outdoor clothing company, sued the Trump administration over the administration's effort to reduce the size of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah. Patagonia's environmental activism is a core part of its business model. (Getty Images/Education Images/Universal Images Group/Bernard Friel)

Patagonia has woven activism into its business model. For decades, it has been working on environmental preservation. While its fight with the Trump administration over protections for federal land has gained headlines, much of what the company does is less well known. For example, Patagonia has earmarked 1 percent of annual sales for conservation efforts. Since 1985, more than $89 million has gone to grassroots environmental groups, according to the company. It also established a nonprofit to encourage other companies to do the same.36

While Patagonia may be unique, it offers lessons to companies that want to take on social issues effectively, many marketing experts agree. The issues have an authentic fit with the company's products, its audience and its brand identity. “We protect the planet because we want to be with the planet,” says Corley Kenna, director of global communications and public relations at Patagonia. “Our business is rooted in responsibility to the planet.”

The company has prospered. Inc. magazine reported in 2018 that Patagonia had quadrupled revenue since 2014. CEO Rose Marcario said in 2017 that the company was approaching $1 billion in annual sales.37 (The company is privately held and therefore is not required to publicly disclose revenue statements.)

Vincent Stanley, who is the company's director of philosophy and co-wrote a book on it with Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard, says authenticity is the key to integrating activism and business.

“There is a depth to the positions we take,” Stanley says, adding that the company generally confines its advocacy to environmental issues and purposely so. “If we took a position on immigration, most people in the company might agree. But that's not the basis on which we relate to the customer.”

Done authentically, he says, advocacy “engages both employees and customers on the basis of values, often more enthusiastically than what the product can do for you. If it's consistent over time, it will help grow the company and help build trust and credibility.”

Patagonia's customers respond to the company's values-driven approach, according to YouGov, a research and analytics firm. Its 2017 survey showed that Patagonia's customers are both socially conscious and interested in fashion: While 61 percent consider themselves well dressed, 69 percent said they pay attention to where products are made.38 The company understands this ethos extremely well, and everything from its supply chain to its activism — including a willingness to promote the sale and exchange of used Patagonia clothing — is calibrated to speak to its audience.

Many companies that engage on social issues do not have Patagonia's level of authenticity and have seen a backlash from customers, Kenna says. “You can't take these kinds of positions unless you have credibility on it,” he says. “People see right through it. They see it as a marketing stunt.”

There are other practices that can make advocacy go smoothly for companies. The Center for Political Accountability's Freed calls it “alignment”: A company's position on social issues should match its activities in other areas of the business, from political spending and lobbying to its supply-chain practices. Freed gives a hypothetical example of a company that openly supports the Affordable Care Act but then contributes to an association representing state attorneys general, some of whom are suing to have pieces of the Affordable Care Act overturned. “How do they justify that?” he asks.

While this may seem obvious, companies find their positions in conflict with their activities with some regularity, Freed says. “If you have misalignment, it is a real business risk,” he says. “It is a reputational risk.”

Brian Sullivan, CEO of Sullivan Branding, agreed. “When taking political or social stands as a marketer, the message must be credible coming from your brand and must be rooted in values demonstrably lived by your enterprise,” he told Forbes magazine.39

The fit is something every company must judge for itself and is likely to differ by industry, marketing experts say. A company such as Patagonia, for example, has strong ties to a customer base that is politically active. Advocacy is expected, and it is baked into the model.

Similarly, companies in the sharing economy such as Airbnb, Uber and Lyft may be comfortable with advocacy because they often have fought regulatory battles at the federal, state and local levels. By contrast, companies in mature, heavily regulated industries may be less comfortable.

“You have 20th-century legacy companies terrified of losing what they have, and 21st-century ambitious companies terrified they are not going to get enough,” Mildenhall says.

In the end, he says, more companies are likely to wade in moving forward. “There is a genuine business case for taking a social stand on issues your community cares about,” Mildenhall says.

Go to top

Background

Early Activism

In 1960, sit-in protests at the lunch counter in a Woolworth general merchandise store in Greensboro, N.C., became a catalyst for change in the United States and helped propel the civil rights movement.40

Less well-known is the impact those sit-ins had on the business itself. Before the protests, Woolworth, a national chain, had a policy to “abide by local custom” and keep its customers racially segregated in the South. But the protests hurt sales across the country. Within five months, the Greensboro store integrated its lunch counter, and the chain eventually dropped its segregation policy.41

African Americans stage a sit-in at a lunch counter in a Woolworth store in Greensboro, N.C., in 1960 to protest racial segregation. In response to the protests, the company eventually dropped its policy to “abide by local custom.” (Getty Images/Bettmann)

The story is an example of how businesses in the 20th century approached social activism. Most companies were not ideologically driven, according to Jerry Davis, a professor of management and sociology at the University of Michigan. They did what was good for their business. Woolworth did not become a champion of civil rights, run television ad campaigns, fund civil rights groups or launch a campaign to pass the Civil Rights Act in Congress. It just changed its policy and kept selling merchandise.

“Traditionally, corporations aimed to be scrupulously neutral on social issues,” Davis wrote. “No one doubted that corporations exercised power, but it was over bread-and-butter economic issues like trade and taxes, not social issues. There seemed little to be gained by activism on potentially divisive issues, particularly for consumer brands.”42

Change to the business world came slowly in the years after World War II as the world around it changed. In 1965, Ralph Nader, a lawyer, political activist and author, published the landmark book Unsafe at Any Speed, a critique of the American auto industry and its safety practices. The book helped launch the consumer rights and environmental movements in the United States, and Nader gained national prominence. He was instrumental in helping to bring about major policy changes and founded several watchdog organizations, including Public Citizen.

All this activism had a major impact on consumer rights and environmental protection. Between 1968 and 1972, Congress passed the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Clean Air Act and what came to be known later as the Clean Water Act. The legislation launched a conversation about the role of corporations and their responsibility to bring about social change.

As the nation debated basic environmental and consumer protection, critics blamed companies for everything from toxic dumping to the use of leaded gasoline and the pesticide DDT. High-profile environmental disasters helped drive the conversation, such as an explosion on a Union Oil drilling platform off the California coast near Santa Barbara in 1969 that sent roughly 3 million gallons of crude oil into the Pacific Ocean.43

The result was a boom in environmental activism — groups like the World Wildlife Fund, the Environmental Defense Fund and Greenpeace were all born in the 1960s and early 1970s — and serious discussion in Washington about regulating toxic industries and punishing companies that pollute.

The Committee for Economic Development, a research and policy organization for business leaders, undertook a study in 1966 called “Social Responsibilities of Business Corporations,” which explored how companies should serve society.

“The large business corporation is undergoing the most searching public scrutiny since the 1930s about its role in American society,” said the study, which was published in 1971. “There is widespread complaint that corporations have become cavalier about consumer interests … and are dangerous polluters of the environment.”44

New Economic Models

But business interests and their supporters pushed back. Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, wrote a now-famous essay in 1970 titled “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits” that set expectations for corporate behavior for decades to come.

Friedman argued that using corporations as a vehicle for social and societal change was socialist in tone and a bad fit for American capitalism. “The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned ‘merely’ with profit but also with promoting desirable ‘social’ ends; that business has a ‘social conscience’ and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers,” he wrote. “In fact they are — or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously — preaching pure and unadulterated socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.”45

His conclusion was that businesses can best help society by making money. “There is one and only one social responsibility of business — to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud,” he wrote.46

The Cold War competition between the United States and the Soviet Union, which began shortly after the end of World War II in 1945 and continued until 1991, provided support for such thinking. Companies — along with most U.S. economists and political thinkers — saw unfettered capitalism as the best way to produce a dynamic and healthy society. Socialist governments that meddled in industries in an attempt to achieve social change did more harm than good, some economists argued.

In the 1980s, successive Republican administrations cut taxes and business regulations. Broader culture, meanwhile, celebrated corporations and a business culture centered on making money. Many Baby Boomers and Generation X-ers (those born between 1965 and 1980) bought into it. Business became the most popular college major in the United States, supplanting education, history and the social sciences.47

The fictional character of Gordon Gekko and his mantra that “greed … is good,” portrayed in Oliver Stone's 1987 movie Wall Street, became an American icon. Actor Michael Douglas won an Academy Award for the role.

In 1997, the Business Roundtable, a Washington-based organization of corporate chief executives from the largest U.S. companies, mirrored Friedman's ideas when it issued principles of corporate governance that essentially defined the purpose of a corporation. The document, and several others that came after it, “endorsed principles of shareholder primacy — that corporations exist principally to serve shareholders.”48

America's love of business was reflected in Washington, where pro-business policies on issues from taxation to environmental protection were enacted during the 1980s and 1990s under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Conservatives argue these policies sparked an economic boom and helped workers and society. But liberals say cuts in tax rates and regulations tilted an already uneven playing field even more toward corporations and their shareholders.

The focus on profit, said Sen. Warren, D-Mass., “has had a tremendous effect on the economy. In the early 1980s, large American companies sent less than half their earnings to shareholders, spending the rest on their employees and other priorities. But between 2007 and 2016, large American companies dedicated 93 percent of their earnings to shareholders.” The nation's biggest companies, in other words, Warren said, “have dedicated themselves to making the rich even richer.”49

In addition, executive pay rose in the last two decades of the 20th century and union membership continued its steady decline.

In 1955, one-third of America's wage and salaried workers were unionized, according to the Congressional Research Service. By 1980, that percentage was about one in five. By 1992, it was down to about 14 percent.50 The gap between the wages paid to executives and laborers grew to high levels. In 1965, CEOs at major U.S. companies were paid 16 times what the average worker was paid, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank. That ratio rose to 45-to-1 by 1989. In 2018, it was 221-to-1.51

Business Scandals

In the early 2000s, major accounting scandals at energy broker Enron, telecommunications corporation WorldCom and other companies unleashed a wave of upheaval to corporate governance and internal oversight, changing how boards and executives managed their organizations. When the crises in subprime lending and real estate gave rise to a deep recession beginning in late 2007 and lasting almost two years, another cycle of change began.

After signing a measure to overhaul business regulation in 2010, President Barack Obama points to co-sponsors Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn. (center), and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. (Getty Images/Bloomberg/Chip Somodevilla)

In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a bill that ran to hundreds of pages and ushered in new rules and overhauled nearly every corner of the regulatory system. For example, it required large financial institutions to increase disclosure and submit to a regular “stress test” to indicate whether they could survive a crisis. A decade later, both regulators and the industry are still adjusting.52

Yet, one of the largest changes in American business did not come about by an act of Congress or under orders from federal watchdogs. Over the past decade, consumer sentiment began to change — and the belief in Friedman's vision of U.S. corporations began to fray — as Millennials and Generation Z reshape the workforce and the marketplace.

As these generations came of age, technology empowered an educated consumer base, capable of doing quick, extensive research on price, quality and reputation. Consumers could also conduct deep research into companies' activities — and the executives that run them — on topics that go beyond products. Almost anyone could pull up a company's annual report, its spending on lobbying or its hiring record, all with a smartphone.

That same technology allowed consumers to interact with companies in new ways, leaving instant feedback on products, connecting with other consumers to form communities and issuing requests and demands. Collectively, it was a force that brands simply could not ignore.

Today, a majority of Americans believes the purpose of a corporation extends beyond making money. Almost nine out of 10 Americans (87 percent) now believe that serving stakeholders, rather than shareholders, is most important to long-term success, according to the Edelman Trust Barometer.53

Among those stakeholders, respondents ranked customers first in importance with 38 percent and employees second with 37 percent. Shareholders came in third with 13 percent. Significantly, 73 percent of respondents said they believed companies can increase profits and also improve conditions in the communities where they operate.54

Just as Woolworth integrated the lunch counter, many American corporations have responded to this change in consumer sentiment. Nike weighed in on race relations. Target championed LGBTQ rights. Patagonia stepped up its decades-long commitment to the environment. Tech companies lobbied for changes in immigration policy.

And in August 2019, the Business Roundtable redefined its definition of the purpose of a corporation, asserting that companies should benefit all stakeholders, including customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders; 181 CEOs signed the statement.

“The American dream is alive, but fraying,” said Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and then-chairman of the Business Roundtable. “Major employers are investing in their workers and communities because they know it is the only way to be successful over the long term. These modernized principles reflect the business community's unwavering commitment to continue to push for an economy that serves all Americans.”55

Tricia Griffith, president and CEO of the insurance company Progressive, explained the new ethos: “CEOs work to generate profits and return value to shareholders, but the best-run companies do more. They put the customer first and invest in their employees and communities. In the end, it's the most promising way to build long-term value.”56

Go to top

Current Situation

Growing Advocacy

In response to the COVID-19 crisis, Congress is spending trillions of dollars on aid to companies, institutions, industries and government, setting off an advocacy boom in Washington and state capitals nationwide. Companies and their trade associations are driving much of the activity.

In the days after Congress passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act on March 18, companies, associations and nonprofits undertook more than 1,000 advocacy campaigns, according to Phone2Action. They pushed for everything from protective gear for frontline heath workers to government funding for industries hit hard by the pandemic.57

These efforts were not traditional lobbying campaigns, in which companies sent their lobbyists to Capitol Hill to meet with lawmakers and staff. Prevented from doing so by social distancing guidelines and pandemic-related travel difficulties, organizations turned to grassroots advocacy, calling upon their employees and customers to send emails, place phone calls and post messages on social media.

Those campaigns moved almost 1 million people to send nearly 2.4 million messages and calls to Congress from March 17 to 24, Phone2Action said.58

The most active industry was health care. When the coronavirus reached U.S. shores, it became clear that test kits were in short supply, masks and ventilators were scarce and a vaccine was months or years away.

The pandemic crisis led to a frenzy of advocacy by trade groups, as doctors and nurses called for protective gear and hospitals sought funding and equipment. Companies took part as well. For example, pharmaceutical company Pfizer helped drive the conversation around vaccination and treatment. It released a five-point plan and a declaration from its CEO, Albert Bourla, that the company would develop medicines to tame the virus.

“Pfizer has created a SWAT team of our leading virologists, biologists, chemists, clinicians, epidemiologists, vaccine experts, pharmaceutical scientists and other key experts to focus solely on addressing this pandemic,” the company said. “This team is applying their passion, commitment and expertise to a single focus of accelerating the discovery and development process that will deliver therapies and vaccines to patients as soon as possible.”59

Pfizer then backed those efforts up with a grassroots email campaign, sending a petition that asked people to support their work and building a list of supporters in the process. Thousands of people signed.

The advocacy continues as Congress considers additional relief efforts and federal regulators make changes to help industries adapt. Advocacy also is spreading to state and local governments, which have a major role in regulating some industries and will play an even bigger part in managing the COVID-19 recovery. In 42 states, lawmakers have introduced more than 1,600 pieces of legislation relating to the pandemic, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.60

Corporate Activism and the Recession

Consumer expectations about corporate activism might change because of the pandemic and economic recession, Edelman Intelligence's Bersoff says. It will depend on how companies perform during the recovery. “They put business on a pedestal and business was embracing it. Now, we're at the moment of truth,” he says. “Brands will either step up and become the hero or reveal that they have clay feet.”

Lobbyists attend a community meeting debating the California Consumer Privacy Act in Sacramento in 2019. Corporate lobbying has increased nationwide in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. (Getty Images/The Washington Post/Mason Trinca)

Many marketing experts expect brands to become more active, rather than shrink back to care for their core business.

“Now is not the time to walk away,” says Kenna of Patagonia. “It's more important than ever to double down. Companies will be rewarded for it if they do.”

But Mildenhall, formerly of Airbnb, says companies are likely to get more involved in meeting immediate needs rather than taking on larger ideological issues.

“Communities all over the world are looking for brands just to help them make ends meet,” he says. “Get food. Get shelter. Stay healthy.”

Della Volpe, of RealClear Opinion Research, says it will be important for companies to develop strong relationships with customers and stakeholders and demonstrate their value.

“Showing corporate values is as important as it has ever been,” he says. “This is what the market of the future is demanding.”

2020 Election

The 2020 election will shape the government that is responsible for the nation's recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, deciding who will control the White House, Congress and thousands of state offices nationwide.

From immigration and gun control to trade and the pandemic itself, the election will also present voters with many divisive social and economic issues. The extent to which companies speak out during the campaign could be a barometer for corporate activism in 2021. When President Trump and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden begin campaigning full time, the election will become a prime stage for this type of activity.

For companies, elections can be a gateway to activism. Many brands start with civic engagement, promoting voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives among employees, customers and other audiences, election experts say. It is a safe way for companies to participate in elections, build voter lists and get comfortable with advocacy. From there, it is a short step to speaking out on issues and conducting grassroots campaigns.

A 2019 Harvard case study, “Civic Responsibility: The Power of Companies to Increase Voter Turnout,” analyzed voter engagement programs at eight companies that were active around the 2018 midterm elections: Endeavor, Gap Inc., Patagonia, Snap Inc., Spotify, Target, Twitter and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota.61

“Our study finds a sweet spot for firms: being pro-democracy and pro-voter, without being partisan,” authors Sofia Gross and Ashley Spillane wrote in a Harvard Business Review article. They also found that at many companies, encouraging voter registration and turnout produced business benefits.62

“We found that companies encouraging voter participation do so because senior leadership believes the effort is not only good for democracy, but also good for business,” the authors wrote. “[The benefits] included meeting consumer expectations for engagement in social and political issues, raising brand awareness with new audiences and increasing employee satisfaction.”63

Few companies openly support candidates, especially in the presidential contest, although executives often do. But there are many ways for businesses to get involved, even if they do not weigh in on issues or engage employees directly.

In the 2018 midterms, a group of companies formed Time to Vote, a nonpartisan organization that promoted giving employees paid time off to vote on Election Day. “Workers shouldn't have to choose between earning a paycheck and voting,” the organization said.

This year, Time to Vote already has more than 450 companies signed up, including well-known names such as Warby Parker, The North Face, Priceline, Kaiser Permanente and JPMorgan Chase.64

Go to top

Outlook

Economic Uncertainty

The future of corporate activism is up in the air as the nation sinks into a recession caused by the coronavirus pandemic. While companies have been embracing social issues in ways not seen in previous years, experts say the economic landscape is changing in unprecedented ways.

Sales and revenues have plummeted in many industries as Americans quarantined. Joblessness is exploding. The Trump administration warns that nationwide unemployment, which was 4.4 percent in March and shot to 14.7 percent in April, could exceed 20 percent in coming months. If that happens, it will be nearing the levels seen in the Great Depression in the 1930s, when unemployment was estimated to top out at 24.9 percent.65

Experts in marketing and politics have two opposing schools of thought on how that will affect companies forced to go to market in a downturn. Some believe that a recession will have a chilling effect on the corporate appetite for social issues as companies focus on sales and survival. In this scenario, companies will retrench, focusing less on brand identity and more on nuts-and-bolts business strategies, not the least of which is how to manage the coronavirus recovery.

“There will be a leadership role in terms of how we come back and how we recover,” Politico's White says, adding that, “a lot of the onus is going to fall on corporate leadership to make these decisions, how you bring your workforce back and what your standards are for safety.”

Others argue that as Americans recover from the pandemic — and their need for health care, unemployment assistance, loan forbearance and other aid will be at its greatest — companies will find it an optimal time to weigh in on social issues, reinforce relationships with customers and stand out as part of the solution.

“Brands always position themselves in aspirational ways, but I don't feel that approach will be relevant,” says Mildenhall, formerly of Airbnb. “In the next 12 months, we'll see chief executives take public narratives that make them really helpful to the short-term needs of their communities.”

Companies in many industries will emerge from the COVID-19 crisis with good stories to tell about their performance, stories of adjusting quickly to a new reality and working hard to help their communities, Mildenhall says.

The health care, biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors are all good examples. Associations representing doctors and nurses advocated aggressively for protective gear. Biotech and pharmaceutical companies moved fast to pursue treatments and vaccines. An official at Pfizer said they are already “having a moment.”66

When the pandemic subsides, companies and associations in these industries may emerge as highly credible voices, marketing experts say. And as voters go to the polls, social issues are likely to arise.

In the long term, there is little reason to believe that the corporate appetite for social issues will recede, many marketing experts say. So long as Millennials and Generation Z-ers continue to want to do business with companies that reflect their values, companies will be eager to make that connection.

“We live in a consumer society where everyone is obsessed with brands,” White says. “The people who run them do have a role to play.”

Go to top

Pro/Con

Should companies advocate on political and social issues?

Pro Jeb Ory CEO, Phone2Action. Written for CQ Researcher, June 2020 Brands that take a stand for something beyond the good or service they represent find deeper connections with Americans. But taking a stand on an issue doesn't mean that an organization has to embrace a major social or political issue. Rather, it means that the brand needs to be authentic about what its organizational values are and to give its stakeholders — from service providers to consumers to employees — an opportunity to engage on its behalf. According to the 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer, companies that take stands on issues are 21 points more trusted than those that do not. At Phone2Action, a software platform that enables grassroots advocacy, we've seen firsthand how the shift is happening in real-time, as more companies look to provide civic engagement opportunities to their stakeholders. Companies such as Fidelity and Walmart are deploying voter education centers to help employees check their voter registration, get registered, request absentee ballots and make plans to vote. Companies such as Caterpillar and Ford, which have a long history of employee engagement, are giving their workers an opportunity to voice opinions about issues such as free trade. And companies such as Consumer Reports and Beautycounter are enabling customers and consultants to engage on key issues that will improve the safety of consumer products. Each of these initiatives aligns with the brands' role in our society and feels authentic. That resonates well, just as Patagonia's stance on promoting policies to support the environment resonates with the company's employees and consumers. Detractors worry that these stands might turn off a segment of customers. It's true that some people might react negatively. But in today's world, people are looking for a deeper relationship with their employer or preferred brands, and this is a way to stand out and deliver more than just a good or service or job. As brands take stands and build trust, loyalty follows. People are willing to pay more and defend the brand they trust. The business community recognizes that its role today is to provide more than returns to shareholders. In 2019, the Business Roundtable issued guidance that 181 companies signed onto, acknowledging that companies' role in society has expanded, with a responsibility to more stakeholders than ever. Taking stands on issues is a real manifestation of that. It's authentic, aligned with a company's brand ethos, and can be a powerful reminder of the role companies play in promoting little “d” democracy.

Con Bruce Freed President, Center for Political Accountability. Written for CQ Researcher, June 2020 While it's increasingly popular for companies to portray themselves as socially and environmentally conscious, they face concealed risks if they ignore the consequences of their spending to influence politics. Companies recognize that the public is paying greater attention to diversity policies and the makeup of their workforce and is looking for them to protect the environment and be good corporate citizens. These trends are discussed in the Center for Political Accountability's “Collision Course” report released in 2018. The report also highlights the flip side of corporate activism: When there's a disconnect between company rhetoric and the impact of their political spending, it creates heightened risk. Walmart is a prime example. It presents itself as green, reaffirming support for the Paris climate accord after President Trump withdrew the United States from the pact. Walmart also touts its commitment to diversity and affordable health care. However, Walmart's election-related spending, running into the millions of dollars over the past decade, has had an opposite impact. A review of the company's contributions to partisan 527 political committees — tax-exempt political groups organized under Section 527 of the IRS Code — found that they facilitated: Outright gerrymandering. Walmart's 2010 contributions totaling $747,270 to two Republican 527 committees helped change control of a raft of state legislatures that in turn undertook highly partisan redistricting. These states are election battlegrounds in 2020. In Alabama and North Carolina, courts found the 2010 redistricting to be racially motivated. Attacks on efforts to address climate change. Attorneys general elected in 2010 sued the Environmental Protection Agency over its Clean Power Plan, a centerpiece of federal efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Walmart contributed $373,500 in 2010 and 2014 to 527 committees that supported election of these Republican attorneys general. A threat to access to health care. Walmart gave $182,000 in 2018 to a Republican 527 committee that helped elect 12 attorneys general who filed suit to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. It awaits argument before the U.S. Supreme Court. Exacerbating the risk for companies is the rise of social media and Millennial activism. Criticism of companies quickly goes viral. Millennials have shown they'll change their buying habits, quit a company's employ or protest when they disagree with its behavior. In our hypercharged political climate, if companies don't put their money where their mouth is, they'll face serious reputational and bottom-line consequences.

Go to top

Go to top

Short Features

Corporate Activism Can Misfire

In a #MeToo era, Gillette began an advertising campaign in 2019 that played off the razor company's longtime slogan (“The best a man can get”) and called on men to be the best they can be.

“By holding each other accountable, eliminating excuses for bad behavior, and supporting a new generation working toward their personal ‘best,’ we can help create positive change that will matter for years to come,” said Gary Coombe, CEO of global grooming at Procter & Gamble, Gillette's parent company.

The nearly two-minute-long ad, which denounced sexual harassment and other aggressive male behavior, garnered 2 million views on YouTube within 48 hours. But the reviews were far from positive, with many men believing the ad was critical of masculinity itself or constituted “feminist propaganda.” “In less than two minutes you managed to alienate your biggest sales group for your products. Well done,” one viewer said. Gillette defended the ad campaign, while pledging to donate $3 million to “nonprofit organizations executing the most interesting and impactful programs designed to help men of all ages achieve their personal best.”1

Gillette's “The Best Men Can Be” advertisement denounced sexual harassment and male aggression toward women, but the company faced a backlash from customers. (screenshot)

Companies' forays into social issues can be risky, producing boycotts, backlash and condemnation of all kinds, according to marketing experts and business leaders.

“Taking a stand does involve risk,” says Vincent Stanley, director of philosophy at outdoor retailer Patagonia — a company known for its stances on environmental issues — and co-author of the book The Responsible Company. “You need to make sure that if you take on an issue, you are willing to face down the criticism. I do think that some companies can get bit by some of this.”

Companies have, indeed, been bitten in ways large and small — in some cases for consciously wading into controversial issues, in other cases for mistakenly creating a firestorm.

DiGiorno Pizza, known for its clever tweets promoting its products, wound up red-faced in 2014 when it used the hashtag #WhyIStayed, apparently unaware that it was created to chronicle stories about domestic violence. The company tweeted, “#WhyIStayed You had pizza.” Immediately recognizing the mistake, the company deleted the tweet and apologized profusely.

“This tweet was a mistake, quickly realized as such and deleted seconds later,” the company said in a statement. “Our community manager — and the entire DiGiorno team — is truly sorry. The tweet does not reflect our values and we've been personally responding to everyone who has engaged with us on social media. We apologize.”2

Other misfires can get more complicated.

Target has gone out of its way to support LGBTQ rights, creating a “pride manifesto” in 2015 stating its support, which included a #TakePride With Target campaign and Pride Month merchandise.3 The company also supports the Equality Act, which would amend the federal Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, among other things. The House of Representatives passed the bill in 2019, but it has yet to clear the Senate.4

However, the company endured a heavy backlash — including from LGBTQ groups — and a consumer boycott because it had given money years earlier to a group that funded a Republican gubernatorial candidate who did not support same-sex marriage.5

Target weathered the controversy and has continued to support LGBTQ rights, but the experience serves as a cautionary tale, experts say. A mismatch of interests, in which the company is saying one thing and doing another, can be damaging to both reputation and business.

“It's very important for … companies to take these positions, but it has to be aligned,” meaning that company advertising, political spending and its actions should not contradict one another, says Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability, a nonprofit that works for corporate transparency in politics. “That alignment has to come from the top, and the top has to insist on it all the way down.”

So, why not just stay out of social issues altogether? Many companies do. But marketing experts say failing to appear engaged, to address customer expectations or to create a modern brand identity carries risks as well.

“There's a risk in taking positions, and there's a risk in not taking positions,” says John Della Volpe, director of polling for RealClear Opinion Research, which released a poll that addressed these questions in February. “Everything is politicized: sports, the weather, entertainment — everything. American corporations are no different.”

For companies that successfully raise social issues, the benefits can be substantial. Nike unveiled an ad in 2018 featuring former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who attracted both praise and outrage for kneeling during the national anthem at games to protest racial injustice. President Trump criticized Kaepernick for his protests and the NFL for its handling of the controversy. The president called Nike's commercial praising Kaepernick a “terrible message.”6 The sports apparel company also faced a backlash online, with some customers swearing off the brand or destroying Nike gear.

However, multiple reports showed that Nike's union with Kaepernick was good for business, increasing sales and shareholder value. One study by Apex Marketing Group found that Nike received roughly $43 million in media exposure in less than 24 hours after the campaign launched.

“Nike is, at the same time, one of the world's best product companies and one of the world's best marketing companies,” Simeon Siegel, a senior retail and e-commerce analyst, told Bloomberg. “This has been their strength. They understand impressions, they understand brand image, perhaps as good, if not better, than anyone.”7

— Glen Justice

[1] Michael Baggs, “Gillette faces backlash and boycott over ‘#MeToo advert,’” BBC, Jan. 15, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/ycmot94t; “#TheBestMenCanBe,” Gillette, https://tinyurl.com/taozgfe.

[2] Todd Wasserman, “DiGiorno Pizza Accidentally Makes Light of a Domestic Violence Hashtag,” Mashable, Sept. 9, 2014, https://tinyurl.com/yav5patz.

[3] “#TakePride With Target,” Target, June 8, 2015, https://tinyurl.com/p7kjx2l.

[4] “Stronger Together: Target Signs on in Support of the Equality Act,” Target, Sept. 10, 2015, https://tinyurl.com/y7cp8jxp; “H.R.5 — Equality Act,” Congress.gov, https://tinyurl.com/y4rp4hfd.

[5] Brian Montopoli, “Target Boycott Movement Grows Following Donation to Support ‘Antigay’ Candidate,” CBS News, July 28, 2010, https://tinyurl.com/y8eh4jy8.

[6] Des Bieler, “Trump calls Nike's Colin Kaepernick ad ‘a terrible message’ but tempers criticism,” The Washington Post, Sept. 4, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/y87jgkgl.

[7] Eben Novy-Williams, “Kaepernick Campaign Created $43 Million in Buzz for Nike,” Bloomberg, Sept. 4, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/y8rfveqz.

Go to top

Employees Play Important Role in Corporate Activism

In late 2019, Amazon became the first signatory of the Climate Pledge, designed to encourage companies to comply with the Paris Agreement on climate change by reducing their carbon emissions.8

The online retail giant got a push from an especially vocal group of activists: its workers, who in 2018 had formed Amazon Employees for Climate Justice. The group hailed Amazon's decision as a “huge win” for employees working to make the company more environmentally friendly.

Amazon Employees for Climate Justice participate in a global climate march in September 2019 in Seattle. (Getty Images/Karen Ducey)

“We're thrilled at what workers have achieved in under a year,” the group tweeted on Sept. 19. “But we know it's not enough. The Paris Agreement, by itself, won't get us to a livable world. Today, we celebrate. Tomorrow, we'll be in the streets.”9

The next day, the group estimated that more than 1,800 Amazon workers in 14 countries walked off the job to urge the company to commit to zero emissions by 2030 and to use electric vehicles in communities most affected by pollution. Amazon said it is taking numerous steps to help the environment, including reducing its reliance on air transportation to ship merchandise.10

The Amazon experience demonstrates the important role that employees often play in determining what a company does — or does not do — on social and political issues, marketing experts said.

“The employer has a very special relationship with employees,” says David M. Bersoff, head of thought leadership research at Edelman Intelligence, a research and analysis firm.

Trust between employers and their workers is important, analysts say. In the Edelman Trust Barometer, which surveys the public on the credibility of major institutions, 76 percent said they trusted their own employers, far more than the percentage who trusted government, media or nongovernmental organizations. The company surveyed more than 34,000 people globally in October and November of last year.11

But the relationship goes further. Almost 73 percent of respondents said they expect companies to help shape society, and 92 percent said it is important for their CEO to speak out on social issues.12

Seen through a certain prism, it makes sense, according to Bersoff. The personal relationship with an employer represents a tie to an institution with comparatively large resources that is often willing to listen. “People become attached to the idea that they can work with an employer to get things done,” he says.

In a global study by the international law firm Herbert Smith Freehills, in which 375 top business executives were surveyed, 81 percent said they anticipated a rise in employee activism.13

Employees “are becoming more vocal in articulating their views — about the workplace, their employer and about wider social issues — enabled and amplified by social media,” the study said. “The voice of the workforce will insist on being heard as never before.”14

Employees at the Hachette Book Group (HBG) staged a walkout in New York City in March over the publisher's plans to bring out filmmaker Woody Allen's controversial memoir. The protests by employees and others who were upset over allegations that Allen had once molested his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow — allegations that Allen has strongly denied — led Hachette to drop the book the day after the walkout. It was later released by Arcade Publishing.15

A Hachette spokeswoman said executives discussed the matter with employees and, “after listening, we came to the conclusion that moving forward with publication would not be feasible for HBG.”16

Employees, of course, do not always get their way. At Wayfair in 2019, some workers protested when the home goods company sold beds and furniture to a federal immigrant detention center in Texas.

Hundreds of employees signed a letter saying, “We believe that the current actions of the United States and their contractors at the southern border do not represent an ethical business partnership Wayfair should choose to be a part of.”

Management wrote back: “As business leaders, we also believe in the importance of respecting diversity of thought within our organization and across our customer base. No matter how strongly any one of us feels about an issue, it is important to keep in mind that not all employees or customers agree.”

Employees in Wayfair's Boston headquarters staged a walkout, but management moved forward with the contract.17

Surveys find that customers care whether employees are involved in the company's decision to take a stand. In a 2019 report by Global Strategy Group, a public affairs and research firm, 64 percent of those surveyed said they would be more likely to support a company's position if they knew employees encouraged the company's leadership to respond.18

“Americans have an outsized appetite to take action on issues and drive change,” the report said. “They expect brands to do the same — and to engage with them as consumers and employees.”19

— Glen Justice

[8] Rachel Siegel and Jay Greene, “Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos announces new ‘Climate Pledge’ ahead of employee protests,” The Washington Post, Sept. 19, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/y6vfbzfw.

[9] Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, Twitter post, Sept. 19, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/y9w4vve7.

[10] Ahiza Garcia, “Amazon workers walk out to protest climate change inaction,” CNN, Sept. 20, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/y5wyjkk4; Siegel and Greene, op. cit.

[11] “Edelman Trust Barometer 2020,” Edelman, January 2020, p. 28, https://tinyurl.com/ya3znem6.

[12] Ibid., pp. 26–28.

[13] “The Rise of Workforce Activism,” Herbert Smith Freehills, Nov. 25, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/ydeczk6d.

[14] Ibid.

[15] John Williams, “Hachette Says It Won't Publish Woody Allen's Book,” The New York Times, March 6, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/yd2q6qad; Alexandra Alter and John Williams, “Woody Allen's Memoir Is Published,” The New York Times, March 23, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/sfvxj2v.

[16] Williams, ibid.

[17] Meghan B. Kelly and Laney Ruckstuhl, “Wayfair Employees Protest Sale Of Furniture To Migrant Detention Center,” NPR, June 26, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/y4co7dch.

[18] “Doing Business in an Activist World, 6th Annual Business & Politics Study,” Global Strategy Group, March 2019, p. 14, https://tinyurl.com/y82kspnm.

[19] Ibid., p. 3.

Go to top

Bibliography

Books

Chouinard, Yvon, and Vincent Stanley , The Responsible Company: What We've Learned From Patagonia's First 40 Years , Patagonia Inc., 2016. The founder of Patagonia (Chouinard) and the outdoor clothing and gear retailer's director of philosophy (Stanley) explain how the company's social agenda has helped its business.

Gentempo, Patrick , Your Stand Is Your Brand: How Deciding Who to Be (Not What to Do) Will Revolutionize Your Business , Hay House, 2020. An entrepreneur argues that company identity is more vital to success than individual marketing.

Sarkar, Christian, and Phillip Kotler , Brand Activism: From Purpose to Action, Idea Bite Press, 2018. A veteran consultant (Sarkar) and a marketing expert (Kotler) detail how companies can market their businesses by addressing social issues.

Articles

Bhattarai, Abha , “Wayfair is supplying beds to Texas detention centers for children — and its employees are protesting,” The Washington Post, June 25, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/y8jwjvyz. Wayfair employees protested the home goods company's decision to supply furniture to a federal immigrant detention center.

Cannon, Carl M. , “‘Woke Capitalism’ and the 2020 Election,” RealClear Politics, Feb. 27, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/y7jsono3. A poll finds consumers are divided over whether businesses should take positions on political and social issues.

Draper, Kevin, Julie Creswell and Sapna Maheshwari , “Nike Returns to Familiar Strategy With Kaepernick Ad Campaign,” The New York Times, Sept. 4, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/yd532l5q. “Journalists detail the strategy behind Nike's advertising campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick, the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback who protested racial injustice by kneeling during the national anthem at NFL games.

Gelles, David , “Patagonia v. Trump,” The New York Times, May 5, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/y6vcdgwl. A reporter takes a deep look inside efforts by Patagonia to fight the Trump administration's environmental policies.

Meyersohn, Nathaniel , “Walmart ends all handgun ammunition sales and asks customers not to carry guns into stores,” CNN, Sept. 3, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/yygl8hu8. In response to mass shootings, Walmart lobbied for gun safety legislation and announced it will stop selling handguns and some types of ammunition.

Rodriguez, Salvador, and Jeffrey Dastin , “Tech companies to lobby for immigrant ‘Dreamers’ to remain in U.S.,” Reuters, Oct. 19, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/y72zec4m. Two dozen tech companies formed the Coalition for the American Dream to advocate for the rights of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children.

Sorkin, Andrew Ross , “‘Simply Unacceptable’: Executives Demand Senate Action on Gun Violence,” The New York Times, Sept. 12, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/y5bsb275. Nearly 150 corporate CEOs wrote to Congress supporting gun control measures.

Spillane, Ashley, and Sofia Gross , “Why and How Companies Invest in Get-Out-the-Vote Efforts,” Harvard Business Review, Aug. 6, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/yb4939k8. A Harvard case study analyzes how eight U.S. companies approached civic engagement in the 2018 midterm elections.

Victor, Daniel , “Pepsi Pulls Ad Accused of Trivializing Black Lives Matter,” The New York Times, April 5, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/mujtgk7. An article explains Pepsi's controversial advertisement depicting a social protest movement and why the ad drew criticism.

Reports and Studies

“Collision Course: The Risks Companies Face When Their Political Spending and Core Values Conflict and How To Address Them,” Center for Political Accountability, June 19, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/ybtrcw4d. A report by an advocacy group seeking greater corporate accountability details the perilous climate facing American business as trust in government declines and expectations for social activism rise.

“Doing Business in an Activist World: 6th Annual Business & Politics Study,” Global Strategy Group, March 2019, https://tinyurl.com/y82kspnm. A report by a public affairs firm finds that 92 percent of Americans agree that companies should take positions on issues that align with their corporate values.

“Edelman Trust Barometer 2020,” Edelman Intelligence, January 2020, https://tinyurl.com/ya3znem6. A study by a research firm that examines public attitudes toward corporations finds that a large majority of Americans say corporate CEOs should take the lead on making change, rather than waiting for government to act.

Go to top

The Next Step

Controversies

Baggs, Michael , “Gillette faces backlash and boycott over ‘#MeToo Advert,’” BBC, Jan. 15, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/ycmot94t. The razor maker's controversy-provoking ad depicted scenes of bullying, sexual harassment and sexism, then showed examples of men stepping in to squelch such behavior.

Ennis, Dawn , “Chick-fil-A Gets Grilled By Both Sides In LGBT Funding Flap,” Forbes, Nov. 22, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/ybnlnwd5. After ending donations to nonprofits some consider homophobic, fast-food chain Chick-fil-A was criticized by conservatives for giving in to pressure and by gay activists for not apologizing for the previous donations.

Sweney, Mark , “Watchdog bans Burger King tweet about ‘milkshaking’ Nigel Farage,” The Guardian, Oct. 1, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/y376l8g8. A British advertising watchdog banned a tweet from Burger King that seemed to imply the company supported dousing certain politicians with milkshakes.

Employees

Arnold, Amanda , “Equinox Tried to Comfort Employees on an Internal Call. It Didn't Go So Well,” The Cut, Aug. 9, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/ybx5th2x. Equinox employees complained to upper management and threatened protests after the fitness company's founder held a fundraiser for President Trump.

Fischer, Sara, and Courtenay Brown , “Employees revolt over immigration,” Axios, Aug. 16, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/yc4uju6r. Employees of Whole Foods, Google and Ogilvy, a public relations firm, urged their employers to cut ties with U.S. immigration enforcement agencies.

Wee, Sui-Lee, and Raymond Zhong , “China Pressures Business Over Hong Kong. Workers Get Caught in the Middle,” The New York Times, Aug. 18, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/yb7eo35w. Staff members at four global accounting firms published an ad in a Hong Kong newspaper supporting pro-democracy protesters, but the firms' management distanced themselves from the ad.

Lobbying

Gelles, David , “The C.E.O. Taking On the Gun Lobby,” The New York Times, Oct. 25, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/y2wjyorc. Ed Stack, CEO of the Dick's Sporting Goods retail chain, says he has tried to persuade lawmakers to enact stronger gun control laws and is frustrated that Congress is doing little on the issue.

Geman, Ben , “How to change corporate climate lobbying,” Axios, Jan. 24, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/y8wtwszd. Some multinational companies back strong climate policy in principle, but do not pressure lawmakers to make changes, according to a business consultant.

Spencer, Jim , “Effort to deport ‘Dreamers’ gets pushback from Minnesota companies,” StarTribune, Oct. 20, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/ycpdlryt. Target, UnitedHealth Group and other businesses asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block a Trump administration attempt to deport undocumented immigrants brought into the country as children.

Young Consumers

Cannon, Carl M. , “‘Woke’ Capitalism and the Impact of Coronavirus,” Real Clear Politics, March 22, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/y72ekecr. Companies, as well as political leaders, will be judged by the public on how they meet the challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic.

Elan, Priya , “Shopping habits of generation Z could spell the end of fast fashion,” The Guardian, May 5, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/y9gwdqu2. Generation Z's already high interest in sustainable clothing has increased during the coronavirus pandemic.

Nelson, Kriss , “Millennials and milk,” The Messenger, March 22, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/ybozpmm6. Dairy industry organizations have found that Millennial grocery shoppers are concerned about the treatment of cows and farm sustainability.

Go to top

Contacts

AdAge
529 14th St., N.W., #814, Washington, DC 20045
877-320-1721
adage.com
Publication that covers the advertising industry.

Business Roundtable
1000 Maine Ave., S.W., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20024
202-872-1260
businessroundtable.org
Association of chief executive officers representing the United States' largest companies; helps establish corporate guidelines and principles.

Center for Political Accountability
1233 20th St., N.W., Suite 205, Washington, DC 20036
202-464-1570
politicalaccountability.net
Advocacy group that works to increase corporate political disclosure and accountability.

Center for Responsive Politics
1300 L St., N.W., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20005
202-857-0044
opensecrets.org
Organization that tracks political influence.

Edelman Intelligence
250 Hudson St., 9th Floor, New York, NY 10013
212-704-8294
edelmanintelligence.com
Research and analysis firm affiliated with Edelman, the world's largest communications and marketing firm, that studies public attitudes toward corporations.

Public Citizen
1600 20th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20009
202-588-1000
citizen.org
Advocacy group that lobbies for consumer rights.

RealClear Opinion Research
2232 N. Claybourn Ave., Chicago, IL 60614
773-687-9702
realclearmediagroup.com/realclearopinionresearch
Polling firm owned by the publisher of RealClear Politics, a political news site and polling aggregator.

Go to top

Footnotes

[1] Andrew Ross Sorkin, “‘Simply Unacceptable’: Executives Demand Senate Action on Gun Violence,” The New York Times, Sept. 12, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/y5bsb275.

[2] CEOs' letter to Congress, Sept. 12, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/y4na8g62.

[3] Ross Sorkin, op. cit.

[4] Tiffany Hsu, “Corporate Voices Get Behind ‘Black Lives Matter’ Cause,” The New York Times, May 31, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/y76zgham.

[5] Ross Douthat, “The Rise of Woke Capital,” The New York Times, Feb. 28, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/y8fkbo9x.

[6] “Edelman Trust Barometer 2020,” Edelman, January 2020, https://tinyurl.com/ya3znem6.

[7] Kevin Draper, Julie Creswell and Sapna Maheshwari, “Nike Returns to Familiar Strategy With Kaepernick Ad Campaign,” The New York Times, Sept. 4, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/yd532l5q.

[8] Nathaniel Meyersohn, “Walmart ends all handgun ammunition sales and asks customers not to carry guns into stores,” CNN, Sept. 3, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/yygl8hu8.

[9] David Gelles, “Patagonia v. Trump,” The New York Times, May 5, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/y6vcdgwl.

[10] Terence Corcoran, “Milton Friedman is right, profit is a company's only purpose,” Financial Post, Jan. 18, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/ya7mkfbb.

[11] Danielle Wiener-Bronner and Julia Horowitz, “Amazon and 16 other companies Trump has attacked since his election,” CNN, April 4, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/y7tpzh4s.

[12] “Woke Capitalism,” RealClear Opinion Research, Feb. 27, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/ydxl8psy.

[13] Edelman Trust Barometer, pp. 17, 27, op. cit.

[14] “Business, Labor & Ideological Split in Lobbying Data,” Center for Responsive Politics, accessed June 1, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/y8zkwkp5.

[15] Simon Sinek, “How Great Leaders Inspire Action,” TED, September 2009, https://tinyurl.com/no2amqu.

[16] “The most popular talks of all time,” TED, accessed June 1, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/lsqkhse.

[17] “Doing Business in an Activist World, 6th Annual Business & Politics Study,” Global Strategy Group, March 2019, https://tinyurl.com/y82kspnm.

[18] Jonathan Maze, “Chick-fil-A's Gay Marriage Controversy Rises Again,” Restaurant Business, June 12, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/y847cyn9.

[19] Clare O'Connor, “Chick-fil-A CEO Cathy: Gay Marriage Still Wrong, But I'll Shut Up About It And Sell Chicken,” Forbes, March 19, 2014, https://tinyurl.com/ycbdnlpn.

[20] Sofia Gross and Ashley Spillane, “Civic Responsibility: The Power of Companies to Increase Voter Turnout,” Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard University, June 2019, p. 15, https://tinyurl.com/y7fpx7ll.

[21] Matt Egan, “CVS banned tobacco. Now its sales are hurting,” CNN, Aug. 4, 2015, https://tinyurl.com/y3w3fkfy.

[22] “Message from Larry Merlo, President and CEO,” CVS Health, Feb. 5, 2014, https://tinyurl.com/y9fnwwtk; “CVS Health Reports Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2019 Results,” CVS Health, Feb. 12, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/y8f5wugm.

[23] Daniel Victor, “Pepsi Pulls Ad Accused of Trivializing Black Lives Matter,” The New York Times, April 5, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/mujtgk7; Bernice King, Twitter post, April 5, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/y99bthky.

[24] Victor, ibid.

[25] “Business, Labor & Ideological Split in Lobbying Data,” op. cit.

[26] “Business-Labor-Ideology Split in PAC & Individual Donations to Candidates, Parties, Super PACs and Outside Spending Groups,” Center for Responsive Politics, accessed June 1, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/ycngbyjd.

[27] Anand Giridharadas, “Beware Rich People Who Say They Want to Change the World,” The New York Times, Aug, 24, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/y8fabhmd.

[28] Elizabeth Warren, “Companies Shouldn't Be Accountable Only to Shareholders,” The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 14, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/y952hesw.

[29] Liam Stack, “He's a Long-Shot Candidate With a Message: ‘Capitalism Unchecked Is a Complete Disaster,’” The New York Times, Oct. 22, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/y7j74yag.

[30] Salvador Rodriguez and Jeffrey Dastin, “Tech companies to lobby for immigrant ‘Dreamers’ to remain in U.S.,” Reuters, Oct. 19, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/y72zec4m.

[31] Caroline Cakebread, “Mark Zuckerberg is personally responding to Facebook users that criticize his support for ‘Dreamers,’” Business Insider, Sept. 1, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/ydc55l62.

[32] Dami Lee, “Apple says there are 1.4 billion active Apple devices,” The Verge, Jan. 29, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/ycgynutz; “Apple Revenue 2006–2020,” Macrotrends, https://tinyurl.com/yb3ntmbt; and “Industry Profile: Electronics Mfg & Equip,” Center for Responsive Politics, accessed June 1, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/y8ct2z2p.

[33] Jeb Ory, “Why Leading Brands are Embracing Grassroots Activism,” Phone2Action, June 20, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/ydezombq.

[34] Charlotte Mceleny, “Airbnb to debut ‘Is Mankind?’ ad during Caitlyn Jenner's ESPN bravery award,” PR Week, July 15, 2015, https://tinyurl.com/ya79kfx3; “Bathroom Bills on Trial,” National Conference of State Legislatures, Jan. 1, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/ycqndfgn.

[35] Mceleny, ibid.

[36] “1% for the Planet,” Patagonia, https://tinyurl.com/y2hrbren.

[37] Lindsay Blakely, “Patagonia's Unapologetically Political Strategy and the Massive Business It Has Built,” Inc., Nov. 30, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/ya7xpm6q; Aaron Kahlow and Rachel Zurer, “Patagonia's CEO Says Conscious Leaders Need to Stand for Something,” Conscious Company, March 1, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/yakhdfj2.

[38] Paul Hiebert, “A look at the type of person who shops at Patagonia,” YouGov, July 10, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/yajvro3e.

[39] “Should Companies Take Social Or Political Stands? 12 Agency Pros Weigh In,” Forbes, April 3, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/yat9ho7w.

[40] Jerry Davis, “What's Driving Corporate Activism?” The New Republic, Sept. 27, 2016, https://tinyurl.com/gozfyt4.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Christine Mai-Duc, “The 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill that changed oil and gas exploration forever,” Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2015, https://tinyurl.com/y3rxwepx.

[44] “Social Responsibilities of Business Corporations,” Committee for Economic Development, 1971, p. 14, https://tinyurl.com/y9gnac4m.

[45] Milton Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits,” The New York Times Magazine, Sept. 13, 1970, https://tinyurl.com/yd9rza5t.

[46] Ibid.

[47] “Digest of Education Statistics,” National Center for Education Statistics, https://tinyurl.com/y4a4rhgn.

[48] “Business Roundtable Redefines the Purpose of a Corporation to Promote ‘An Economy That Serves All Americans,’” Business Roundtable, Aug. 19, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/y5ygufqs.

[49] Warren, op. cit.

[50] Gerald Mayer, “Union Membership Trends in the United States,” Congressional Research Service, Aug. 31, 2004, https://tinyurl.com/y86tclc8.

[51] Lawrence Mishel and Julia Wolfe, “CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978,” Economic Policy Institute, Aug. 14, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/yxzgzt44.

[52] David S. Huntington et al., “Summary of Dodd-Frank Financial Regulation Legislation,” Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, July 7, 2010, https://tinyurl.com/lafwqta.

[53] Edelman Trust Barometer, op. cit.

[54] Ibid.

[55] “Business Roundtable Redefines the Purpose of a Corporation to Promote ‘An Economy That Serves All Americans,’” op. cit.

[56] Ibid.

[57] Will Lopez, “COVID-19 Launched an Advocacy Boom,” Phone2Action, March 26, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/y8kzfdou.

[58] Ibid.

[59] “Pfizer Outlines Five-Point Plan to Battle COVID-19,” Pfizer, March 13, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/ybb66khp.

[60] “COVID-19 Legislation,” National Conference of State Legislatures, last updated May 28, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/y96etvat.

[61] Gross and Spillane, “Civic Responsibility: The Power of Companies to Increase Voter Turnout,” op. cit.

[62] Ashley Spillane and Sofia Gross, “Why and How Companies Invest in Get-Out-the-Vote Efforts,” Harvard Business Review, Aug. 6, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/yb4939k8.

[63] Ibid.

[64] “Time to Vote,” Time to Vote, https://tinyurl.com/ybgm3kwo.

[65] Devan Cole, “Hassett says unemployment rate could be ‘north of 20%’ in May with possible double-digits in November,” CNN, May 24, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/y7euosn2; Chuck Jones, “3 Reasons Unemployment Is Already At Great Depression Levels,” Forbes, May 19, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/ycsll2yb.

[66] Phil Carey, “Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology Companies are Out Front on COVID,” Phone2Action, May 11, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/ycl4la8k.

Go to top

About the Author

Glen Justice has covered advocacy and political influence for two decades, working on staff at The New York Times and other publications. He currently runs Outside Voice, the custom content company that he founded, and writes for numerous publications.

Go to top