Corporate Advocacy

Introduction

McDonald's shuttered its Russian restaurants, including this flagship location at Pushkinskaya Square in Moscow, in March in response to President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Companies are increasingly being pressured to take positions on social and political issues, but some think such corporate advocacy is divisive. (AFP/Getty Images/Contributor)

Go to top

Overview

“[I]n this instance, I personally, as a woman in Texas, could not keep silent,” wrote Shar Dubey, CEO of the Dallas-based online dating company Match Group, in an email to her employees. “[T]his particular law is so regressive to the cause of women's rights that I felt compelled to speak publicly about my personal views.”

After Texas enacted one of the strictest abortion laws in the country, which took effect on Sept. 1, 2021, Dubey established a fund to help employees and their dependents seek abortion care in other states. She then emailed employees about her decision, acknowledging that Match Group rarely takes a political stand on issues.1

Many other companies also stood up against the law, which bans abortions as early as the sixth week of pregnancy and allows individuals to sue abortion providers and anyone who aids in abortions. The internet software company Salesforce promised to help employees relocate if they have concerns about access to reproductive health care. Ride-sharing companies Lyft and Uber said they would pay the legal fees of their drivers sued under the law. Yelp announced it will cover expenses for employees who must access out-of-state abortion care.2

Abortion rights demonstrators protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court last November, as oral arguments begin on challenges to Texas’ restrictive abortion law. Many companies operating in Texas opposed the law and some offered to help employees who may be affected by it to relocate. (Getty Images/Anadolu Agency/Yasin Ozturk)

Abortion is not the only issue on which corporations are speaking out. In September 2019, about a month after back-to-back mass shootings in Ohio and Texas killed more than 30 people, nearly 150 company leaders signed a letter to Congress demanding stronger gun control. Congress did not heed their call — and has done little on gun control legislation since 1994, when it enacted a federal ban on possession, sale and manufacture of assault weapons that expired in 2004.3

Despite Congress’ inaction, the private sector has not been dissuaded from trying to influence policy on other issues, including the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, climate change and international conflicts such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine. These efforts matter, because as public trust in the government and media declines, many Americans are placing greater trust in their employers.

More than 60 percent of 36,000 survey respondents listed communications from their employer as a trusted news source, more than either the federal government or the media, according to the 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer. In addition, 60 percent of those surveyed said that when they are considering a job, they expect the company CEO to speak publicly about controversial social and political issues that they care about.4

Companies are getting a deeper understanding of how these issues influence their ability to attract and retain talent, says Jonas Kron, chief advocacy officer for Trillium Asset Management, a global investment firm based in Boston that focuses on socially responsible investing. “They are understanding from a racial lens, gender lens and, more broadly, what a happy, productive, engaged workforce looks like,” he says.

In fact, job site company Monster's 2022 Future of Work report found that nearly half (47 percent) of younger job candidates (ages 18 to 24) ranked an employer's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, gender pay equity and proactive response to social issues as increasingly important.5

But it is not just employees’ feelings that companies are taking into account; it is consumers. Younger consumers expect the brands they purchase to align with their values, and they expect CEOs to speak out on issues. In a 2021 survey from market research firm Forrester, 35 percent of respondents said they are more likely to trust a brand when it takes a stand, and 43 percent prefer companies that do so on social, political and environmental issues.6

Long Description

However, some argue it is inappropriate for corporations to weigh in on political issues. “CEOs and leaders have positions of considerable power; they shouldn't weaponize their influence to divide Americans or support legislation that undermines free speech or promotes anti-religious bigotry,” said Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel and senior vice president of corporate engagement for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a faith-based nonprofit that focuses on legal advocacy.7

The pendulum on whether companies should speak out or not has swung toward engagement in the last few years. After the police killing of George Floyd in 2020, numerous companies — including Nike, Netflix, WarnerMedia and Citigroup — expressed support for the BLM movement, which protests the death of Black people while in police custody and other racial inequalities. In addition, 80 of S&P 100 companies promised to be more inclusive in their hiring and promotion practices.8

Widespread protests and corporate support for BLM put pressure on states to pass police reforms. Multiple states enacted laws banning the use of tear gas, chokeholds and no-knock search warrants that allow police to enter without prior notification.9

Companies are taking a similar approach with Ukraine, showing support for the Ukrainian people by putting economic pressure on Russia in hopes of ending the conflict. Numerous companies, including Apple, IKEA, McDonald's and Nike, have either paused sales in Russia or closed their Russian facilities; General Motors and Honda have stopped exporting cars to Russia.10

Major political events such as the conflict in Ukraine often push corporations to take action. For instance, after the Jan. 6, 2021, siege of the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump, many companies, including AT&T, PricewaterhouseCoopers and General Electric, announced they would no longer make political donations to the 147 Republican members of Congress who voted to oppose certifying Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election.11

However, there can be a divergence between a company's position and the actions of its employees. Government affairs staffers for at least 13 companies that had pledged to suspend donations gave their personal money to those same Republicans.12

Some observers saw this as a significant dilution of the corporate stand. “If a company is serious about not giving a campaign contribution to insurrectionists, then they can't allow people who are in senior executive positions who represent the company to make those same contributions,” said Craig Holman, a government ethics expert at the progressive consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen.13

One of the companies involved, Dow Chemical, rejected the criticism, saying it did not seek to impose its standards on individual employees. “We respect our colleagues’ freedom of choice to participate in the political process in a manner that they see fit,” Dow said in a statement.14

Some companies that pull back from donations to federal officeholders keep giving to state and local lawmakers who support restrictive legislation on voting rights, abortion and LGBTQ issues, says Heidi Welsh, executive director of the nonprofit Sustainable Investments Institute. “If you look at politicians at the state level, the funding for them comes from companies, and some companies are all-in with whoever is in power in the red states,” Welsh says.

There also can be a disconnect between statements made by CEOs and the behavior of company political action committees (PACs). For example, AT&T CEO John Stankey issued a statement in April 2021 supporting voting rights and “fair and secure elections.” Yet AT&T-affiliated PACs donated to the campaigns of several Texas politicians, including a $100,000 donation to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. The contribution was made on the same day Abbott called for a special session to pass legislation that supporters called a measure to protect election integrity, but opponents condemned as an attempt to restrict voting rights.15

“Companies will say they don't control their PACs,” says Fabrice C. Houdart, managing director for global equality initiatives at Out Leadership, a global coalition that advocates for LGBTQ rights. When a CEO expresses support for a cause, but the company's PAC makes a contribution that contradicts that statement, “it's hard to determine who is a friend and who is foe,” he says.

After articles were published about the PAC, an AT&T spokesperson said, “Our employee PACs contribute to policymakers in both major parties, and [they] will not agree with every PAC dollar recipient on every issue.”16

Corporations also need to realize they are doing business across the country, not just in the state where they are headquartered, Welsh says. “Spending at the state level is unexamined, but I expect it to be looked at more carefully,” she says.

As companies continue to advocate and speak out on a variety of topics, here are some of the questions business leaders, experts and others are debating:

Should U.S. corporations take a stand on political issues?

The Business Roundtable, a nonprofit comprised of U.S. CEOs from top companies, issued a statement in August 2019 redefining the purpose of a corporation. Signed by 181 CEOs, it declared that corporations should seek to promote “an economy that serves all Americans” and serve a variety of stakeholders: investors, employees, communities, suppliers and customers.

The statement was a marked departure from the Roundtable's previous position, which emphasized maximizing shareholder value. Since issuing the new statement, the Roundtable has taken positions on a number of issues, including racial equity and justice and encouraging people to get COVID-19 vaccines and use masks.17

President Biden speaks at the Business Roundtable's CEO quarterly meeting in March. The business lobbying group issued a statement in 2019 saying corporations should promote an economy that serves all Americans, not only shareholders. (AFP/Getty Images/Nicholas Kamm)

Larry Fink, founder of the investment management company BlackRock, was among those who signed the statement. He continues to speak out on the need for companies to make a positive contribution to society. “Capitalism has the power to shape society and act as a powerful catalyst for change,” Fink wrote in a 2022 open letter to fellow CEOs.18

He is not the only one who believes that companies can play a valuable role on issues. “I think that CEOs today and business leaders are as important as political leaders and that they have a role like political leaders, which is that they have to stand for something,” Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce, said in an interview with Bloomberg News. 19

There are signs that corporate advocacy is now expected to be a normal business practice. CEOs are increasingly under pressure to comment on issues such as climate change, immigration, LGBTQ rights and state voting laws, wrote former Medtronic CEO and Harvard Business School professor Bill George in Fortune: “[B]usiness leaders are learning the hard way that they will be criticized regardless of whether they speak out or remain silent.”20

But many CEOs are not comfortable talking about controversial issues, according to a survey of Fortune 500 chief executives. They were almost evenly divided when asked whether CEOs have a responsibility to speak up on important issues, or if they have become too involved in those issues and should rein in comments.21

Although at many times companies are expected to be vocal, some advise against taking a stand just for the sake of it. The decision to speak out needs to be thoughtfully evaluated through the lens of the company's values, mission and purpose, says strategic communications expert Su-Lin Cheng Nichols of Lafayette Strategies.

Long Description

“Leaders need to ask: Can we move the needle on this issue because of our unique resources, expertise and voice? And how will our voice support our employees, customers and the community we serve? Equally important, what are the consequences of staying silent?” Nichols says.

Tedesco, of the Alliance Defending Freedom, says that corporations should not mix politics with business. “Businesses run the risk of alienating their employees, customers and shareholders,” he says.

Refraining from making political statements would allow corporations to help bridge the political divide in the country, rather than further polarizing it, Tedesco says. “We don't think corporations should be political activists for one side or the other,” he says. “We want businesses to provide their services, products and the amazing things they produce to make our lives better.”

Some on the left, such as former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, question the motivations of CEOs who do speak out. “CEOs won't do anything that hurts their bottom lines,” Reich wrote in The Guardian. “They're in the business of making as much money as possible, not solving social problems.”22

Yet, investors are increasingly putting pressure on corporations to take a stand on issues and are filing shareholder resolutions to encourage boards to engage on such topics. Each year, between mid-April and mid-June, the period known as the proxy season, most large publicly traded companies host an annual meeting where shareholders review the company's financial performance and vote on shareholder resolutions — non-binding recommendations presented to a company's board of the directors.

The resolutions that call on companies to take stands on issues tend to fall into five main categories: climate change, human rights, corporate political influence, workplace diversity and a decent working environment, which includes sexual harassment, pay equity and work conditions. Even if a resolution is approved, the board is not legally obligated to carry out its terms. However, such resolutions indicate the direction that those who own the company's stock want it to take. They typically state the financial cost associated with the company's action or inaction on an issue.23

Boards do not always accept such initiatives. Last year, Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett and his board rejected two shareholder resolutions that called for annual reports on how its companies are responding to the challenge of climate change, as well as reports on diversity and inclusion in the workplace.24

This year, 529 shareholder resolutions on environmental and social issues have been filed for the 2022 proxy season, up by more than 20 percent from last year. However, not all resolutions will be presented to shareholders for a vote, because each needs to be approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Welsh says. The SEC reviews proposals to ensure they are business-appropriate and would not cause illegal activity.25

Trillium Asset Management filed a shareholder resolution with TJX Companies, which owns retailers TJ Maxx, Home Goods and Marshalls and employs thousands in all 50 states. The resolution asks TJX to issue a report on how the company will manage the impact if the Supreme Court reverses its Roe v. Wade abortion decision, including questions on what the company will do about employees in states where abortion is banned and how it will think about executive recruitment and the ability to staff stores in those states.26

A conservative political group, the National Center for Public Policy Research, has introduced resolutions asking companies to report on the effects of diversity training programs, arguing that such training discriminates against white people.27

Does corporate advocacy influence policy decisions?

Corporations have been lobbying politicians for decades on various economic and trade issues. In recent years, some companies began using their political clout to lobby for social change.

Many believe corporations can be a powerful influence. “The message of the private sector can signal that the country is ready for change,” says Out Leadership's Houdart. Take, for example, the corporate response to North Carolina's House Bill 2 (HB2), known as “the bathroom bill,” which banned transgender people from using public bathrooms that match their gender identity.

Soon after the law was passed in 2016, 90 large corporations signed a letter stating that the measure will make it more challenging for businesses across the state to recruit and retain talent, as well as diminish the state's ability to attract tourists, new business and economic opportunities. Online payment company PayPal even canceled its plans to open a Charlotte office. Estimates showed that the new law would cost the state more than $3.76 billion in lost business revenue over 12 years.28

Facing mounting economic loss and business pressure, state legislators repealed the law in April 2017 and replaced it with a compromise bill. Houdart says the repeal of HB2 is a testament to what businesses can achieve when they take a stand.29

Signs such as this one began popping up in 2016 in businesses throughout North Carolina after passage of the “bathroom bill,” which banned transgender people from using the restroom corresponding with their gender identity. The law was eventually repealed following corporate opposition. (Getty Images/Sara D. Davis)

“It's not so much what happened in North Carolina, but what didn't happen in other states,” he says. No other legislature introduced a similar bill because lawmakers did not want to generate headlines that they were creating a bad business environment in their state, he says.

Neeru Paharia, an associate business professor at Georgetown University, agrees. “Companies have the power to change the narrative,” she says. When a company such as PayPal decides not to open an office because of a new law, that has an impact, she adds.

Other corporate efforts have had limited success.

For example, when CEOs from Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines expressed concern last year about a Georgia law that critics said restricted voting rights and Major League Baseball moved its All-Star Game from Atlanta to Colorado, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned businesses to stay out of politics. “You know, Republicans drink Coca-Cola, too,” McConnell said at a news conference. The law remained in place.30

Additionally, last year, more than 500 major U.S. corporations joined the Business Coalition for the Equality Act, which would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to ensure protections for LGBTQ Americans in employment, housing and more. Although the House passed the bill in February 2021, the Senate never considered the legislation because it lacked the necessary 60 votes to overcome a filibuster waged by opponents.31

Beyond politicians, some CEOs themselves wonder about the effectiveness of corporate advocacy. Following the passage in March of a Florida law limiting what schoolteachers can tell their students about LGBTQ issues, Walt Disney Co., CEO Bob Chapek sent a memo to employees saying he and the company stood with their LGBTQ employees but that Disney did not plan to release a public statement about the measure.32

Long Description

“As we have seen time and again, corporate statements do very little to change outcomes or minds,” Chapek wrote. “Instead, they are often weaponized by one side or the other to further divide and inflame. Simply put, they can be counterproductive and undermine more effective ways to achieve change.”33

But Chapek soon faced blowback. Since writing that memo, Chapek has halted all political donations in Florida and apologized to employees. More than 100 employees protested his memo by staging 15-minute walkouts daily for eight days beginning on March 15. Disney, one of the largest employers in the state, then vowed to work for repeal of the law.34

Does corporate advocacy broaden the consumer base?

As consumers lose faith in the political process, they are increasingly turning to corporations to fill the void. “Consumers have less faith in the traditional political process, and corporate advocacy is one way to exert some type of power,” says Georgetown's Paharia.

Since Trump took office in 2017, the number of companies taking a stand on political issues has increased, Paharia says. High-profile events such as the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., in 2018, and the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, have spurred corporations to speak out, she says. “Once your competitors start doing this, it creates an expectation that you will do it as well,” she adds.

But companies are engaging in advocacy not only to stay relevant, but because it is what consumers say they want. Nearly half of consumers make purchasing decisions based on whether a brand's company supports issues they care about, according to a 2021 survey conducted by market research firm Forrester. When choosing between two companies offering similar products, 43 percent of U.S. adults will favor the company that takes a stand on social, environmental or political values that align with their own, Forrester found.35

Studies also show that consumers are more likely to support corporate advocacy when it appears the company is motivated by public interest, rather than self-interest or financial gain.

“When a company advocates for an issue that is relevant to its business mission, consumers are more likely to perceive the company as legitimate, trustworthy and dedicated to contributing to public service,” says Leping You, an assistant professor of strategic communication at Miami University in Ohio.36

For instance, she says, most consumers might not support Home Depot advocating for abortion rights because they would not find that stance legitimate from a home improvement retailer, while they would be more accepting of such a position from a pharmacy such as Walgreens or CVS.

Brayden King, a professor of management and organizations at Northwestern University, recommends that companies think about how their political statements align with the company's mission and values. “If you don't see an alignment, then it's probably not smart to make those kinds of statements,” he said.37

Consumers also expect company CEOs to take a stand on issues as individuals. The Forrester survey found that 47 percent of all respondents, and 51 percent of Generation Z participants — people born between 1997 and 2012 — associate the views of a company CEO with the company and its brands.38

Bill Penzey Jr., CEO of Penzeys Spices, is known for taking a stance on social issues, using the brand's platform to advance his political views. After Trump's election, Penzey criticized the outcome in his weekly Friday email to customers.

“The open embrace of racism by the Republican Party in this election is now unleashing a wave of ugliness unseen in this country for decades…. The American people are taking notice,” he wrote. Initially, Penzey thought he might lose customers over his comments; instead, online sales rose nearly 60 percent within two weeks of his post-2016 election newsletter. 39 (See Short Feature.)

This type of consumer growth response is not unique to Penzey. When companies engage in social advocacy, they earn on average a statistically significant positive stock return of 2.68 percent in the four days immediately after their announcements a 2021 study found.40

Sometimes a CEO's stance can push consumers away. For instance, when real estate developer Stephen Ross, who owns fitness company SoulCycle and Equinox gyms, announced in August 2019 that he would host a fundraiser for Trump's re-election campaign, charging up to $250,000 for a ticket, some celebrities and activists said they were canceling their SoulCycle memberships and urged other customers to do the same. It appears the boycott had an impact. In August 2019 the number of purchases at SoulCycle dropped 12.8 percent compared to the previous month, according to the data analysis firm Second Measure.41

The COVID-19 pandemic further accelerated the belief that the private sector has a role to play in protecting the public, according to a 2021 report by business marketing consultants Derrick Feldmann and Michael Alberg-Seberich. When there is a crisis, the public increases its expectations for companies to use their influence to make societal changes, the report found. In fact, businesses influenced consumers to support a broad range of social issues in 2021, including animal rights, gun control, civil rights and health care reform, and to take action such as donating goods, learning more about an issue and purchasing certain products or services.42

Nearly 60 percent of U.S. consumers say they want the companies they patronize to take a stand on issues such as racial discrimination and social justice, according to a survey of more than 1,000 consumers by The Feldman Agency. Roughly 50 percent of the survey's respondents said they often do online research to see how a brand is reacting to social issues.43

“There is an expectation that the company itself is going to be more mindful of not only the impact on the environment, but on its employees or on race and all these other things,” Feldmann, lead researcher of the report, said in an interview with Barron's. 44

There appears to be a societal shift among consumers, especially younger and ethnically diverse consumers, about their expectations for corporate advocacy. (See Short Feature.)

“Yes, we want to see companies funding causes against social injustice,” said Nupol Kiazolu, a Generation Z activist from the Black Lives Matter movement, in a BBC interview. “But we also want to [see] these businesses pushing elected officials to adopt policies that will result in real change, not giving money to those politicians who are not helping us, despite being elected to represent the people,” she said.45

Go to top

Background

The Power of Protest Culture

The 1960s and early 1970s are known for several large-scale social movements — including those advocating civil rights protections for Black people and opposing the Vietnam War — and businesses often found themselves at the center of protests. Corporations were seen as part of “the Establishment,” a dominant group with the ability to control society, promote U.S. imperialism abroad and ignore injustice at home.

For instance, a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement came in February 1960 when four Black students sat down at a lunch counter in an F. W. Woolworth Co., department store in Greensboro, N.C., to protest the company's segregation policy. At the time, Black customers were not allowed to sit at the counter and had to take their orders to go. The four men were denied service.46

Activists stage a sit-in at a Woolworth's lunch counter in Little Rock, Ark., in 1963 to protest the chain's refusal to serve Black people. The Woolworth's lunch counter sit-ins, which began in 1960 in Greensboro, N.C., became a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement. (Getty Images/Bettmann)

Similar protests ignited throughout the South. By March 1960, lunch counter sit-ins had spread to 55 cities in 13 states, bringing increased attention to the civil rights movement and negative publicity to Woolworth's. By July 1960, the Greensboro Woolworth's integrated its lunch counter. Eventually, the company ended its segregation policy, showcasing the power of consumer protest and action.47

Consumers became more aware of their rights in 1965 after Ralph Nader, a lawyer and political activist, published his book, Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile, which argued that American cars were designed for style, not safety. Nader's book sparked an outcry and prompted questions about the relationship between the government, which is charged with protecting the public interest, and industries, which often act to protect their own economic interests.48

Five months after its publication, Congress created the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to investigate safety defects in motor vehicles. Today, it also sets and enforces fuel economy standards, helps reduce the threat of drunk drivers and promotes the use of safety belts, child safety seats and air bags.49

In the late 1960s, the escalating military involvement in Vietnam led to an anti-war movement. Protesters argued that U.S. corporations were profiting from the war with sales of ammunition, aircraft and napalm, a chemical agent used in combat.50

Initially, protesters focused on the U.S. government, but in 1970, they shifted their attention to businesses, such as the annual shareholder meeting of Honeywell Corp., which manufactured cluster bombs and other weapons for the Pentagon. Corporate recruiters from Dow Chemical Co., which produced napalm, were often met by angry protestors when they arrived on college campuses.51

Businesses began to feel the impact of the public's political activism when Congress passed a series of laws that imposed regulations on industries, including:

• The Truth in Lending Act (1968), which required lenders to provide loan cost information to allow consumers to compare loans.52

• The Fair Credit Reporting Act (1970), which regulated the way credit reporting agencies can collect, access use and share data.53

• The Clean Air Act (1970), which authorized the development of comprehensive federal and state regulations to limit emissions from both industrial and transportation sources of air pollution.54

• The Clean Water Act (1972), which established regulation of pollutants discharged into U.S. waters and mandated water quality standards.55

The proliferation of legislation that focused on environmental and consumer protections prompted a larger discussion about the role of corporations in bringing about social change. To help keep industries in check, advocacy and watchdog groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace and Public Citizen emerged throughout the 1960s and early 1970s.

The Rise of Corporate Lobbying

In response to a struggling economy, public activism and increased government regulations, corporations began to push back by funding political campaigns and engaging in more direct and focused lobbying efforts. Prior to 1970, very few companies had their own Washington lobbyists.56

That began to change in 1972 when CEOs came together to create the Business Roundtable to give companies an active role in forming public policy and to foster “more cooperation and less antagonism between policymakers and the business community.” With the help of lobbyists and big budgets, major corporations were able to thwart major labor law reforms, roll back regulations and lower their tax burden.57

Police use tear gas and nightsticks to break up anti-Vietnam War demonstrations at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, in 1967. Opposition to the war initially focused on the U.S. government but shifted to businesses, such as those that made bombs or chemicals used in combat. (AP Photo/Neal Ulevich)

Around the same time, the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce became powerful lobbying groups that advanced industry's interests. These groups advocated on issues related to consumer protection, environmental regulation, tax policy, foreign trade and policies concerning inflation and unemployment.58

Initially, companies just wanted to keep the government out of their business, but gradually corporations realized the financial benefits of working with government to create policies that were favorable to business owners — a practice that is now seen as fundamental by most major U.S. corporations.59

Corporate lobbying paid off for many industries. For instance, in the 1990s, tobacco companies lobbied state legislatures and succeeded in increasing the number of states that enacted pre-emptions of stricter local tobacco control laws and prevented the passage of many state tobacco control policies, minimizing tax increases on selling tobacco and preserving the industry's right to advertise tobacco.60

Pressure Over Apartheid

Protests focused not only on U.S. policy but addressed issues abroad as well. College students began demonstrating against South Africa's system of apartheid in the late 1960s, bringing attention to the country's racially segregated government and society by building shanties on campuses to represent the unequal living conditions of Black South Africans.61

By the 1980s, companies that did business in South Africa faced intense pressure from shareholders, political leaders and activists to cut their ties. Students campaigned for universities to rid their endowments of stock in corporations that failed to pull out of South Africa. More than 200 U.S. companies cut ties with the country between 1985 and 1990, costing South Africa $1 billion in investment.62

The economic problems that resulted from this capital flight played a major role in forcing white South Africans to scrap apartheid and agree to majority political rule.63

Public Trust Erodes

The 2000s saw a number of notorious scandals, which would influence consumer beliefs and behaviors toward corporate America:

• Energy broker Enron tricked federal regulators into believing the firm was more profitable than it actually was by creating fake holdings and using off-the-books accounting practices. The company declared bankruptcy in 2001, taking away thousands of jobs.64

• Telecommunications company Worldcom overstated its earnings by $3.8 billion, and, in 2002, its CEO, Bernard Ebbers, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for fraud.65

• Wall Street financier Bernie Madoff embezzled billions of dollars from thousands of people across the country. He pleaded guilty to fraud in 2009 and died last year in federal prison.66

But the most influential corporate downfall of this period was the 2007 housing market crash. A number of global financial service firms were investing significantly (and somewhat irresponsibly) in subprime mortgage debt — risky loans given to consumers with poor credit records. When the market collapsed, several of these firms went down with it, such as Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and AIG. They either went bankrupt or had to be bailed out by the government.67

A trader works on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Sept. 15, 2008, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell over 500 points after news broke that several financial giants were in trouble because of risky investments. The resulting financial crisis caused widespread unemployment and economic hardship. (Getty Images/Spencer Platt)

The fall of these giant corporations created the 2008 financial crisis. Millions of people lost their jobs and saw their investments wiped out as the stock market crashed in September 2008, leading to what is now known as the Great Recession.68

To avoid a worldwide financial crisis, Congress in September 2008 passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which established the Troubled Asset Relief Program and authorized the U.S. Treasury Department to spend up to $700 billion to buy toxic assets from companies. Congress also authorized an $80 billion bailout of auto manufacturers General Motors and Chrysler, allowing the companies to pay their bills, including their payrolls, and then enter a structured bankruptcy process that allowed them to continue paying staff and producing vehicles.69

Public anger over Congress’ decision to bail out businesses clouded views of both institutions. “Anger at Wall Street is the highest since the early and mid-1930s,” said Charles R. Geisst, a finance professor at Manhattan College and a historian of Wall Street.70

Public trust in companies crumbled, with 62 percent of adults ages 25 to 64 indicating that they trusted businesses less than they did the year before, according to the 2009 Edelman Trust Barometer.71

In response to the Great Recession, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010, a bill that put in place a number of regulatory compliance requirements designed to protect consumers and their finances.72

Despite the federal government's new regulation efforts, the public continued to see businesses and CEOs as untrustworthy — and had an even more negative view of Washington. In 2015, the Edelman report found that CEOs (43 percent) and government officials (38 percent) were seen as the least credible information sources, lagging far behind academic or industry experts, who were rated at 70 percent. Only a fifth of respondents thought business leaders were the most trusted influencers to communicate purpose and engagement.73

CEOs Speak Out

Public trust in business began to rise again in 2016, but that vote of confidence came with the expectation that the private sector would help solve societal issues. The 2016 Edelman report found that 80 percent of people expected businesses to balance their increased profits with improving the economic and social conditions in the communities where they operate.74

Trump's election in 2016 both reflected and increased the growing polarization among the country's electorate. That divide created an opportunity for the private sector to bridge the gap.

“Business can be a big part of the solution because it is apolitical, fast and tracks its progress,” Kathryn Beiser, an Edelman public relations firm spokeswoman at the time, told the World Economic Forum. “The new model CEOs are taking [is] action by addressing the issues of our time and taking a personal interest in the success of society.”75

CEOs embraced their new role and issued more than 425 corporate statements in response to five controversial Trump administration actions and statements in 2017, such as a ban on travelers from several majority-Muslim nations, the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change and the ban on transgender people from serving in the U.S. military.76

In May 2020, the police killing of George Floyd, a Black man, in Minneapolis ignited the largest racial justice protests in the United States since the 1960s civil rights movement. Many CEOs responded, promising to create a culture of inclusion at their workplaces and pledging to fight racism and injustice in their communities. America's 50 biggest publicly traded companies and their foundations collectively pledged to invest at least $49.5 billion to address racial inequality.77

For instance, Apple earmarked $100 million for a Racial Equity and Justice Initiative that included creating a learning hub for historically Black colleges and universities. It also launched an Apple Developer Academy to teach coding skills in Detroit, a predominantly Black city, and contributed $10 million toward venture capital funding for entrepreneurs of color.78

Go to top

Current Situation

Advocacy Efforts

More than 60 percent of Millennials favor “brands that have a point of view and stand for something,” according to a 2020 report by Kantar Consulting, which surveyed 20,000 U.S. consumers.79

CEOs and corporate leaders are paying attention. Businesses are taking steps to speak out on controversial topics and to encourage their consumers to learn more about the pivotal issues impacting their communities.

The business community has had an unprecedented response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with more than 600 companies suspending various operations in Russia, including Disney, MasterCard and General Mills, in addition to McDonald's. Other companies, such as Delta Air Lines, Exxon and Netflix, are withdrawing altogether.80

“You basically have Russia becoming a commercial pariah,” economist Mary Lovely of the Peterson Institute for International Economics told CBS News. “Pretty much no company, no multinational, wants to be caught on the wrong side of U.S. and Western sanctions.”81

In addition, a growing number of companies are providing financial support and aid to Ukrainian refugees. For instance, vacation rental company Airbnb has pledged to provide temporary housing for up to 100,000 Ukrainian refugees, and the Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Company pledged to donate 100 percent of its sales to the nonprofit World Help, which is working with Ukrainian organizations to provide food and water to refugees.82

Missile strikes against civilian targets during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, such as this apartment building in Borodyanka, have sparked global condemnation and prompted more than 600 companies to suspend business with Russia. (Getty Images/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Matthew Hatcher)

Meanwhile, on the national stage, the latest round of anti-LGBTQ bills being introduced and passed in state legislatures has sparked much corporate activism.

On March 1, Texas Gov. Abbott directed the state's Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate any parents for child abuse who provide their transgender teenagers with puberty-suppressing drugs or other medically accepted treatments.83

More than 50 businesses, including Yelp, Corning and Johnson & Johnson, signed a letter calling on Abbott to end the effort. “We call on our public leaders — in Texas and across the country — to abandon efforts to write discrimination into law and policy,” they said in the letter, which was published in The Dallas Morning News. “It's not just wrong, it has an impact on our employees, our customers, their families, and our work.” The investigations were stopped when a state court ruled the policy was improperly adopted and violates the state constitution.84

The Florida Legislature drew fire from some business leaders over its passage of the Stop Woke Act, which prevents the state's public schools and private businesses from providing any training or content that makes people feel uncomfortable or guilty over their race, sex or national origin, allowing anyone to object for whatever reason.85

Thirteen companies, including J. Crew, Ben & Jerry's and Lush Handmade Cosmetics, signed a letter opposing the measure, saying it would create an environment in which meaningful diversity and inclusion trainings could be cause for frivolous lawsuits.86

The Florida Legislature also approved legislation banning classroom instruction about sexual orientation and prohibiting teachers from discussing gender identity with students from kindergarten through third grade. In response, more than 45 companies signed an existing petition against anti-LGBTQ legislation, including Starbucks and Target. But critics complained that many major tech companies have been either silent or slow to respond to the issue.87

Out Leadership's Houdart attributes the mixed corporate response to several factors. “There are so many requests for companies to speak out on a variety of issues — abortion bans, Ukraine, LGBTQ and voting rights — that companies are feeling a bit overwhelmed,” he says.

Another issue companies are collectively tackling is voting rights. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, signed a law in March 2021 that requires voters to present either a driver's license or state ID card when voting in person or by mail; prohibits election officials from sending out absentee ballot applications unless a voter specifically requests one; limits each county to only one ballot drop box, which will only be available during voting hours; and makes it a misdemeanor for people to hand out food or drinks to anyone standing in line to vote.88

In response, more than 100 CEOs and corporate leaders gathered online to discuss how to advocate for voter rights. The group considered ending political donations to legislators who support restrictive voting rights bills and delaying investments in any states that pass restrictive voting rights bills.89

Four months later, the Business for Voting Rights initiative was formed. Currently, more than 251 companies, which collectively employ 4.5 million people, including Amazon and Google, are asking Congress to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to expand protections for minority voters. “We are calling upon you, our country's leaders, to rise to the moment, transcend partisanship and find a path forward to protect the right to vote,” the companies said.90

Meanwhile, following enactment of the Texas abortion law, other states are looking to follow suit. At least 26 are likely to ban abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a Mississippi law that seeks to bar most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Oklahoma legislators have already moved forward, approving a bill on April 6 that makes performing an abortion procedure illegal, unless the mother's life is in jeopardy. Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, signed the bill into law shortly after. Several companies are taking steps to discuss the issue with their consumers in advance of any action.91

Yelp, for instance, is helping consumers distinguish between crisis pregnancy centers, which offer counseling services, and centers that provide reproductive health care services. Lush Handmade Cosmetics trained employees at stores in Florida, Ohio and Texas to speak with customers about the need for comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion, and to encourage them to take action by contacting their local state representatives.92

Not all companies advocate for progressive causes. For instance, arts and crafts store Hobby Lobby asserts that its owner's religious beliefs gives the company the right to refuse to pay for insurance coverage for contraception, such as birth control pills, for its employees. Last July 4, Hobby Lobby ran an advertisement in many newspapers across the country advocating for a Christian-run government.93

Consumer Backlash

Sometimes corporate advocacy backfires.

Nike first supported the Black Lives Matter movement with a 2018 ad featuring former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who has not played in the league since 2016, when he kneeled during the national anthem at games to protest racial injustice. The ad features a close-up of Kaepernick's face with the tagline: “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”94

Reactions to the ad included a call for consumers to boycott Nike, as well as videos and photos on social media of people destroying their Nike gear. However, the backlash seemed limited in scope. Despite the social media outrage, Nike's online sales increased by 31 percent after the ad ran.95

But oftentimes a backlash does affect a company. Sports equipment company Under Armour's stock dipped in 2017 when CEO Kevin Plank appeared to praise President Trump in an interview with CNBC. His comments also enraged some of Under Armour's celebrity endorsers, including NBA superstar Stephen Curry.96

After MyPillow founder and CEO Mike Lindell, a Trump supporter and a proponent of unfounded 2020 election fraud conspiracy theories, promoted the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, major U.S. retailers dropped his products.97

After years of enduring a backlash for donating money to organizations that advocate against LGBTQ rights, fast food retailer Chick-fil-A announced in 2019 it was taking a different approach to its charitable donations. The Chick-fil-A Foundation would donate $9 million split between three initiatives: promoting youth education, combating youth homelessness and fighting hunger, President and CEO Tim Tassopoulos announced.98

While the company never explicitly stated it was no longer giving money to anti-LGBTQ organizations, Tassopoulos did make it clear the company changed its charitable donations because of the criticism the company had faced.99

Go to top

Outlook

A Cycle of Advocacy

For now, it appears corporate advocacy is here to stay, as consumers actively embrace brands that take a stand on issues.

“The private sector is filling a gap as we navigate a global crisis of trust,” says Out Leadership's Houdart. Until trust is restored in other institutions, such as the government and media, the public will continue to expect corporations to take the lead on societal change, he says.

The public will continue to call upon corporate leaders to step in and solve problems if Congress is unable to compromise, says Georgetown University's Paharia. “If our country remains polarized and in a state [of] political impasse, I feel like corporate advocacy will keep growing,” she says.

Others warn this type of advocacy could be a dangerous path. Just as states have been divided into conservative (red) and liberal (blue), consumers may expect corporations to do the same, wrote Jerry Davis, a professor of business administration at the University of Michigan. That could lead to the creation of red and blue companies, with consumers and employees only working for and purchasing goods and services from companies that align with their views, he wrote.100

Investors also will continue to push corporate America to take a stand on social and environmental issues, says Sustainable Investment Institute's Welsh. “Shareholder proponents have been pushing the envelope ever since they filed the first resolutions asking companies to address [South African] apartheid in the early 1970s,” she says. “Mainstream investors are affirming, with higher and higher votes, that companies cannot navigate the perils of the 21st century if they ignore social and environmental issues.”

But will politicians respond to corporate advocacy moving forward?

Government already responds to corporate lobbying, especially when it comes to corporate tax policy and other policies that raise revenue from big business, says Jen Stark, senior director of corporate strategy at Tara Health Foundation, an organization that advocates for women's rights. While it may appear that government does not always respond to corporate advocacy for political and social issues, Stark believes corporations can have more of an impact in the future.

If companies advocated on the federal and state level over issues that affect workers, ranging from national paid leave policy to abortion restrictions and LGBTQ protections, “we would see meaningful changes,” she says.

However, most trends are cyclical, and every 20 years or so the public's attitudes toward the private sector and government changes, said Klaus Weber, an associate professor of management and organizations at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. In the early 1970s, the public believed companies played a role in improving society, but public opinion shifted in the 1980s and early 1990s as companies focused on profits rather than people, Weber said.101

The pendulum keeps swinging back and forth on whether the private sector has a role to play in social responsibility. “I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it is going to swing back — social responsibility is going to again come under scrutiny for being a cost item that isn't worth it,” Weber concluded.102

Go to top

Pro/Con

Should U.S. corporations take a stand on political issues?

Pro Fabrice Houdart Managing Director, Out Leadership. Written for CQ Researcher, April 2022 Corporate America must pick up where other institutions left off. The question of whether companies should take a stance on social issues is dead. Companies no longer have a choice. In March, we witnessed a staff revolt over the Walt Disney Company's leadership on a controversial LGBT bill in Florida that it had not opposed. That same week, Disney announced it suspended business in Russia, following the invasion of Ukraine, under similar consumer scrutiny. Earlier in March, Disney shareholders owning 59 percent of the company backed a resolution calling for more transparency on racial and gender pay gaps. Disney is not alone in experiencing these intense pressures. Americans are finding more agency as employees, consumers and investors to shape the world than in the Democratic process. This translates into a demand that companies take a public stance on societal issues, which typically would have required governmental action in the past, such as human rights, environmental protection, labor rights, health care and international security. When companies decline to do so, they face boycotts, walkouts and divestments. This is not a bad thing. The private sector is the best positioned to address social problems in 2022. The 2022 Edelman Trust Survey shows that the private sector is the only “trusted” institution, while government, media and nongovernmental organizations lag behind. This is not unwarranted: politics has been less functional and increasingly polarized. The media has often traded a commitment to truth for market shares. Civil society is increasingly co-opted by donors, whereas the private sector is perceived as more neutral and pragmatic. Companies are often influential. In 2016, the private sector's strong stance against North Carolina's “bathroom bill” — which prevented trans people from accessing the bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity — led to similar legislation being dropped in other states and, ultimately, the law's repeal. Today, we observe how the private sector's response to the invasion of Ukraine might be more effective than the military response in applying pressure on Russia. Companies cannot thrive where tensions, inequalities and human rights violations affect economic outcomes. Similarly, the Black Lives Matter movement emphasized to companies how racial inequalities outside their walls affect staff hiring, retention and productivity. The world is facing a crisis of trust and democracy. Until it is resolved, companies must pick up where government and other intuitions left off. Incidentally, that means the private sector is acquiring a “social license to operate” — a development that is transforming capitalism for the better.

Con Jeremy Tedesco Senior Counsel and Senior Vice President of Corporate Engagement, Alliance Defending Freedom. Written for CQ Researcher, April 2022 As we approach the 2022 midterms, we are once again reminded of our nation's deep divisions. But as many politicians and public figures continue to aggravate and profit from this growing disunity, business leaders should take a different approach. They should help dial down the polarization, or at least not contribute to it, by steering clear of controversial social and political issues. This approach is not only good for business but society as a whole. Consider, for example, the breadth of religious, political and social views represented by a major corporation like Apple. The company boasts over 150,000 employees. As a publicly traded company, Apple is owned by thousands of shareholders and investors. It serves billions of customers worldwide. Apple's employees, customers and shareholders represent the full spectrum of views on a host of hot-button issues. What brings them together is Apple's products, which engage employees’ skills and ingenuity, grow shareholders’ investments and make customers’ lives better. Yet, Apple's leadership shows remarkable disrespect for a large segment of its employees, customers and shareholders by using corporate assets to advance a narrow set of political interests. In particular, Apple has joined a business coalition that supports the so-called “Equality Act,” a federal bill that poses a deliberate and unprecedented threat to free speech, religious freedom and the progress that women have made toward true equal treatment under the law. In addition to spelling the end to women's and girls’ sports, the Equality Act would deprive women and girls of their privacy in shelters for abused women and in locker rooms. The legislation would also threaten free speech and religious freedom for every American by forcing them to compromise and even contradict their deepest beliefs in a variety of everyday situations. The Equality Act is so radical that it faltered even in a Democratic-controlled Congress, where House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., identified it as a top priority. So why does Apple — along with its 400 fellow coalition travelers — support this coercive, divisive bill? Surely its cultural and financial capital is better spent on serving its broad customer base. A business may mean well by signaling a position on a controversial issue, but corporate leaders need to avoid alienating their key stakeholders and the public. Instead of using the cultural power of their brands to drive polarization, business leaders should commit to respecting everyone, regardless of their religion or ideology.

Go to top

Discussion Questions

Here are some issues to consider regarding corporate advocacy:

• What are some of the arguments in favor of CEOs speaking out on social issues?

• When has corporate advocacy effectively changed public policy?

• Many younger consumers say they prefer to buy from brands that align with their own beliefs. Do you feel the same way? Why or why not?

• The 1960s and 1970s were marked by several major social movements. How did this change the relationship between consumers and companies?

• Why did corporations start lobbying? Why has this been so significant?

• How can consumer backlash affect a company? Do you agree with such responses?

Go to top

Go to top

Short Features

CEO Says Speaking Out Spices Up Sales

Penzeys Spices is one of America's largest independent spice retailers. Its CEO, Bill Penzey Jr., is known for taking a stance on social issues and using the brand's platform to support his political views.

Has his advocacy hurt the bottom line? The company says no.

Penzey has spoken out on issues ranging from gun control to increasing teachers’ wages. His advocacy is now embedded in the company mission, seen in its messaging — the trademarked slogan “Season Liberally” — as well as its marketing and products. In 2010, Penzeys created a spice blend called “Arizona Dreaming” in support of the Dream Act, which would protect from deportation the children of undocumented immigrants if they arrived in the United States before age 16.

After the 2016 presidential election, Penzey became even more vocal, denouncing the victory of Donald Trump in his weekly Friday email to customers that typically includes recipes and product giveaways.

“The open embrace of racism by the Republican Party in this election is now unleashing a wave of ugliness unseen in this country for decades…. The American people are taking notice,” he wrote. “Let's commit to giving the people a better choice.”

Many, including Penzey himself, expected his newsletter to alienate 10 to 30 percent of the company's customers. Instead, Penzeys said it lost only 3 percent of its customers and its online sales rose nearly 60 percent within two weeks of the post-election newsletter.1

“As much as I believed this would cost us business and we would pay a price for our activism, what we've found on the other side was something unexpected,” Penzey said. “Today, doing the right thing for humanity is doing the right thing for business as well.” In a Facebook post, Penzey urged other CEOs to find their voice.2

Heartened by its success, the company went a step further when it started advertising in favor of impeaching Trump on charges that he solicited foreign interference from Ukraine in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

The company spent $92,000 from Sept. 29 to Oct. 5, 2019, on Facebook ads championing impeachment. That was the second-highest amount spent on advertising related to the impeachment, according to Axios; Trump's campaign was the top spender. In fact, Penzey told The Washington Post that advertising mentioning impeachment outperformed any other ads he has run.3

Penzeys Spices operates retail outlets, such as this one in St. Paul, Minn., and sells its products online. CEO Bill Penzey Jr. is known for taking stances on social issues, but the company says his advocacy has not hurt its bottom line. (AP Photo/Janet Hostetter)

However, the ad campaign did spark open resentment from some consumers. More than 1,000 people formed a Facebook group called “Goodbye Penzeys” boycotting the brand.4

Penzey often creates a connection between current events and the spices he sells. On the one-year anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters, Penzey called Republicans the “No. 1 threat to this country” in an email to customers. He also held a sale for Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) Day in 2022 called “Republicans Are Racists Weekend.”5

Some conservatives say the company has gone too far. Republican state Sen. Julian Bradley of Wisconsin, where the company is headquartered, took issue with the MLK weekend sale. “Penzeys has been grifting off terrible political takes and low name-calling for a decade,” he said. “These lies are news?”6

Penzey shrugs off such criticism.

Following the MLK Day sale, Penzey reported that 1.13 percent of customers unsubscribed from the company email list. However, he said, he was not worried because he was confident new subscribers would make up the loss, especially as he sees liberal consumers sharing and forwarding these company emails to their personal networks.

Companies that stay silent while their competitors take a stand might find themselves losing customers, Penzey said. He argued that it is time for CEOs to reconsider the conventional wisdom that business and politics do not mix. “If your business relies on We the People, it is time to give serious thought to standing up for them,” he said.7

— Lisa Rabasca Roepe

[1] Terry Nguyen, “A spice retailer is spending more on pro-impeachment Facebook ads than anyone else,” Vox, Oct. 9, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/2p9f2mzk.

[2] Erik Gunn, “Spicing up the political discourse,” Wisconsin Examiner, Feb. 26, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/467b89ex.

[3] Emily Heil, “A spice company spent more money on impeachment ads on Facebook than anyone not named Trump,” The Washington Post, Oct. 9, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/rb23bbwj.

[4] “Goodbye, Penzeys,” Facebook page, Jan. 14, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/2p82mrus.

[5] Breck Dumas, “Penzeys Spices CEO calls Republican voters ‘#1 threat to this country’ in Jan 6 promotional email,” Fox Business, Jan. 6, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/3y6xjnvm; Melissa Koenig, “Penzeys Spices CEO sparks fury by renaming MLK Day ‘Republicans are RACIST Weekend’ in letter to customers — just two weeks after branding the GOP the ‘number one threat to this country,’” Daily Mail, Jan. 18, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/y27rcp23.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Heil, op. cit.

Go to top

Corporate Advocacy May Help Attract Younger, Diverse Workers

Companies are struggling to hire workers. There were 11.3 million job openings nationwide in February, close to a historic high, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.8

There are many reasons why people may be reluctant to fill openings, including low pay, lack of sufficient child care and concerns about COVID-19. However, one key to attracting workers, particularly younger and more diverse employees, could be corporate advocacy.

The job search site Monster's 2022 Future of Work report found that nearly half (47 percent) of job candidates ages 18 to 24 ranked an employer's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, gender pay equity and proactive response to social issues as increasingly important when deciding whether to take an employment offer.9

Similarly, a 2021 CNBC/SurveyMonkey poll found that 6 in 10 U.S. workers approved of business leaders taking a stand on political or social issues — and that younger employees and workers of color were especially eager to see corporations and CEOs make a political statement. However, 22 percent of respondents said they would be supportive of an executive taking a stance only if they agreed with the CEO's position on the issue. And older workers were generally less supportive, with 55 percent of those ages 55 and older saying they approved, compared to 65 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds.10

“With the current war for talent, it's important that companies create a workplace that employees, particularly younger employees, feel engaged and happy working in,” says Jonas Kron, chief advocacy officer at the Portland, Ore, office of socially responsible investment firm Trillium Asset Management.

Many younger employees say they want to work for a company that shares their values, and they want their beliefs to align with the company's mission. “[W]e've always known the importance of taking a stand. For us, it's more about our values and expectations of social justice than politics,” wrote Kahlil Greene in an open letter to CEOs last year when he was a senior at Yale University.11

Three young tech workers take a lunchtime walk at Google's Silicon Valley headquarters in 2017. Younger workers say they want companies to advocate for issues such as workplace diversity. (Getty Images/Smith Collection/Gado/Contributor)

A company's commitment to DEI became increasingly important to job candidates following the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests in 2020 in response to the police killing of George Floyd. Many CEOs responded to the public outrage with statements pledging to create a culture of inclusion at their workplaces and to fight racism and injustice in their local communities.

Since then, Black and Latino professionals have expressed an interest in working for corporations that publicly support diversity and inclusion, with 68 percent of Black professionals and 66 percent of Latino professionals saying they would be more interested in working for an organization that makes a public commitment to equity and racial justice, according to 2021 market research.12

Engaging in corporate advocacy goes beyond attracting new workers; current employees can be driven away if they believe important issues are not getting enough attention. A 2021 survey of 3,000 U.S. employees found that 68 percent of respondents would consider quitting their current job and looking for work at an organization that expresses a stronger viewpoint on the social issues that matter most to them.13

CEOs are often asked about issues such as the BLM movement or voting rights during town hall meetings and investor calls. And employees say they expect CEOs to back up what they say with action, whether that means suspending political donations to politicians who support bills that limit the rights of others or setting internal corporate goals for diverse hiring practices.14

Many employees expect their employers to take a stand on other issues beyond racial justice, such as voting rights, climate change and gender equality.

In a 2019 study of more than 30,000 people worldwide by research firm Gartner, 87 percent of employees said companies should take a public position on societal issues relevant to their business. And 74 percent said businesses should even take a position on issues that are not directly relevant.15

Members of Generation Z — people born from 1997 to 2012 — are particularly interested in ecological consciousness and social equality and often put added pressure on companies to demonstrate their support for social issues, according to a recent survey by the employment site LinkedIn.16

However, some warn that taking a position on an issue could offend some employees. “Businesses should respect their customers’, employees’ and shareholders’ basic freedoms,” says Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel and senior vice president of corporate engagement for Alliance Defending Freedom, a faith-based nonprofit that focuses on legal advocacy.

Many employees see access to reproductive health care as an equity issue. Roughly 7 in 10 respondents said access to reproductive health care, including abortion, should be part of gender equity in the workplace, according to a national survey by nonpartisan research firm PerryUndem.17

In response to concerns about restrictive abortion laws, such as the one enacted in Texas that bans the procedure as early as the sixth week of pregnancy, the social impact investment firm Rhia Ventures has filed a number of shareholder resolutions with publicly traded companies that call for providing access to reproductive health to employees.

“We want to motivate companies to communicate with lawmakers in states and register that this would be bad for the business community and bad for the workforce, because it weakens the talent pool for hiring,” says Shelley Alpern, director of corporate engagement for Rhia Ventures.

— Lisa Rabasca Roepe

[8] “Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary,” news release, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 29, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/2p9xntfe; “United States Job Openings,” Trading Economics, accessed April 6, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/yp7whjy6.

[9] “The Future of Work,” Monster, January 2022, https://tinyurl.com/56nzdk6j.

[10] Laura Wronski and Jon Cohen, “Workers eager to see corporate bosses speak out on politics: Poll,” CNBC, April 30, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/56tbkj5z.

[11] Peggie Pelosi, “Millennials Want Workplaces With Social Purpose. How Does Your Company Measure Up?” Talent Economy, Feb. 20, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/3n4fcdds; Kahlil Greene, “Dear CEOs: A Gen Zer's Open Letter to His Future Employers,” Harvard Business Review, June 29, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/44bj9jfh.

[12] Sabry Tozin, “Building Pathways to Workplace Equity: Part 1 of Our Black History Month Series,” LinkedIn, Feb. 8, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/mn57w8a; Illianna Acosta, “Dismantling Barriers to Career Advancement for Latinos,” LinkedIn, Sept. 16, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/9m4ajdry.

[13] “Gartner HR Research Finds 68% of Employees Would Consider Leaving Their Employer for an Organization That Takes a Stronger Stance on Societal and Cultural Issues,” news release, Gartner, March 3, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/ybbeufmt.

[14] Thomas A. Cole, “Business and Politics: When Should Companies Take a Public Position?” Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, May 6, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/w95vwcmh.

[15] Jordan Bryan, “Corporate Advocacy of Social Issues Can Drive Employee Engagement,” Gartner, Nov. 5, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/36fx628x.

[16] Lisa Sy and Connie Chen, “Everything Marketers Should Know About the Fastest-Growing Audience Demographic on LinkedIn,” LinkedIn, Nov. 15, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/yc4k5b3m.

[17] “What Does ‘Top Talent’ Think about Working in States that Ban Abortion?” PerryUndem, Aug. 31, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/y2ubkvdv.

Go to top

Bibliography

Books

Feldmann, Derrick, and Michael Alberg-Seberich, The Corporate Social Mind: How Companies Lead Social Change from the Inside Out, Fast Company Press, 2020. Two experienced marketing consultants identify the eight traits a company needs to develop an authentic corporate social mind.

Henderson, Rebecca , Reimagining Capitalism in a World on Fire, PublicAffairs, 2020. An economic researcher and corporate consultant suggests reimagining capitalism as a system in harmony with the demands of truly democratic institutions.

Lin, Tom C.W. , The Capitalist and The Activist: Corporate Social Activism and the New Business of Change, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2022. A law professor addresses whether corporations have social responsibilities and the effectiveness of corporate attempts to confront the most vexing social issues.

Articles

Bailey, James R., and Hillary Phillips, “How Do Consumers Feel When Companies Get Political?” Harvard Business Review, Feb. 17, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/nhbx6j5r. Researchers surveyed 168 managers across industries and advanced MBA students to find out how business activism affects consumer perceptions.

Birnbaum, Emily, Megan Wilson and Hailey Fuchs , “These companies stopped campaign donations to election objectors. Their lobbyists did not,” Politico, Feb. 15, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/mwkxsbjc. In 2021, government affairs staffers personally donated thousands of dollars to congressional Republicans after their employers suspended corporate campaign donations to these individuals.

Davis, Jerry, “What's Driving Corporate Activism?” The New Republic, Sept. 27, 2016, https://tinyurl.com/36a4fmsv. The author reflects on the interactions between social movements and corporations and how that has changed with social media and Millennials.

Del Valle, Gaby, “Chick-fil-A's many controversies, explained,” Vox, Nov. 19, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/yn7thwfh. Although Chick-fil-A's business model was rooted in its owner's religious beliefs, backlash against corporate donations to anti-LGBTQ groups resulted in the company changing its approach to charitable giving.

Drutman, Lee, “How Corporate Lobbyists Conquered American Democracy,” The Atlantic, April 20, 2015, https://tinyurl.com/2p954vbb. A detailed look at the evolution of corporate lobbying over the past 40 years.

Duarte, Fernando, “Black Lives Matter: Do companies really support the cause?” BBC, June 12, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/ycxafxk4. Companies often engage in “brand activism” as a means of increasing business, but the author wonders if their intentions are authentic.

Gaines-Ross, Leslie, “What CEO Activism Looks Like in the Trump Era,” Harvard Business Review, Oct. 2, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/5e2rwf2y. The author analyzes company responses to five controversial Trump administration actions and statements in 2017.

Gray, Alex, “4 ways businesses can build customer trust,” World Economic Forum, Jan. 27, 2016, https://tinyurl.com/2p992vxt. The Edelman Trust Barometer offers four ways businesses can bridge the trust gap that institutions face with consumers.

King, Brayden, “In an Era of Easy Outrage, When Should Brands Take a Stand?” KelloggInsight, Nov. 1, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/yckz6u5h. A sociology and management professor acknowledges that taking a moral stance can be good business, but the key for companies is to know what their core stakeholders believe in.

Soergel, Andrew, “Corporate Activism and the Rise of the Outspoken CEO,” U.S. News & World Report, April 8, 2016, https://tinyurl.com/mrx42kur. The author examines how chief executive officers are increasingly outspoken on social issues.

Reports and Studies

“Edelman Trust Barometer 2022,” Edelman Trust Institute, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/bddkubfd. An annual global survey that measures the public's trust in business, media, government and organizations.

“Hollow Policies: When Corporations’ Political Spending and Emissions Goals/Policies Conflict,” Center for Political Accountability, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/yc3xcyzn. A nonpartisan nonprofit analyzes the corporate contributions to state attorney generals during the 2016, 2018 and 2020 presidential election cycles.

Hydock, Chris, Neeru Paharia and Sean Blair, “Should Your Brand Pick a Side? How Market Share Determines the Impact of Corporate Political Advocacy,” Journal of Marketing Research, Sept. 10, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/55u3tnky. Researchers consider whether corporate political advocacy is more likely to repel existing customers than to attract new ones.

Welsh, Heidi, and Michael Passoff, “Proxy Preview 2022,” As You Sow, Sustainability Investments Institute and Proxy Impact, https://tinyurl.com/3eb57c5x. An annual analysis of the proposed shareholder resolutions to be considered at upcoming corporate board meetings.

Go to top

The Next Step

Consumers

Abad-Santos, Alex, “Disney's ‘Don't Say Gay’ stance wasn't the first time it betrayed its LGBTQ fans,” Vox, March 16, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/mvvxbk42. LGBTQ Disney consumers felt betrayed by the company's initial hesitation to oppose the new Florida law limiting what schoolteachers can tell their students about LGBTQ issues, because the company has increasingly used LGBTQ influencers to advertise its products and sells rainbow-inspired merchandise.

Peters, Jeremy W., “That Russian Business You're Boycotting Isn't Actually Russian,” The New York Times, March 12, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/2pyex8p6. Many companies and small businesses seemingly associated with Russia are being boycotted or vandalized by consumers upset about the invasion of Ukraine, even if the brands or owners have no actual ties to Russia.

Rice, Travis, “Hundreds claim ‘woke agenda’ in protest against Disney Studios in Burbank,” Fox11, April 7, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/yrae7et6. Hundreds of conservative activists protested outside Walt Disney Studios in Burbank, Calif., calling for a boycott of the company after it reversed course and spoke out against Florida's anti-LGBTQ law.

Employees

Faughnder, Ryan, “Disney is not alone. Young employees in revolt are holding bosses’ feet to the fire,” Los Angeles Times, March 12, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/bdh6haxs. Business executives are increasingly contending with young employees who want workplaces to reflect their beliefs and are willing to say so online.

Simons, John, “Chipotle's CEO on Fighting the Tide of Quitting Workers: It's About More Than Higher Pay and Better Benefits,” Time, Dec. 12, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/4x9x4rxm. The CEO of Chipotle says the restaurant chain is focusing on diversity and inclusion efforts and highlighting its support of environmental sustainability efforts to attract young workers in a competitive job market.

Webb, Bella, “Want sustainable change? Convince your staff,” Vogue Business, March 10, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/232j5wcn. Some fashion brands are combining the personal values of their employees, including through volunteer work or feedback, with company sustainability strategies.

LGBTQ Rights

Birnbaum, Emily, “Apple wields its lobbying might against LGBTQ laws,” Politico, April 1, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/meyp92nx. Tech giant Apple is lobbying and filing court briefs to oppose bills targeting gay and transgender people in Iowa, Texas and Florida.

Johnson, Ted, “Disney Takes Heat Over Public Stance On Florida's ‘Don't Say Gay’ Law, But NBCUniversal And Other Studios Keep Away The Fray,” Deadline, April 6, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/2p86r8zy. Major entertainment studios such as Paramount, Netflix and NBCUniversal, which owns a theme park that competes with Disney in Orlando, have not faced a consumer backlash even though they have made no public comment on recent LGBTQ-related bills.

Whitten, Sarah, “Disney's networks among outlets that will air new PSA featuring trans teen,” CNBC, April 6, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/2s43yejt. Disney, Comcast, WarnerMedia and Paramount will air a new public service announcement on their television networks featuring a transgender teen to call for nationwide support of LGBTQ youth.

Russia and Ukraine

Hetzner, Christiaan, “Nestlé denies it was hacked by Anonymous, claiming it accidentally leaked data dump itself — but it will stop selling Russians Kit Kats and Nesquik,” Fortune, March 23, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/4rawkmnj. After initial resistance, Nestlé began reducing the sale of its products in Russia amid mounting consumer pressure and a claim by the activist hacker group Anonymous that it had released company data.

Liaukonyte, Jura, “Foreign companies continue to prop up the Kremlin,” The Washington Post, April 8, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/bdesz6cy. Some economists say pressure against Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine could fade, given that businesses gradually renewed cooperation with Russia after it annexed the Crimea in 2014.

Solis, Marie, and Jason Karaian, “Shell says it expects to lose up to $5 billion for pulling out of Russia,” The New York Times, April 8, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/jh8p2avp. Oil company Shell told investors that its decision to pull out of Russian projects, including a joint venture with Russian gas monopoly Gazprom, would slash quarterly profits by up to $5 billion.

Go to top

Contacts

Alliance Defending Freedom
15100 N. 90th St., Scottsdale, AZ 85260
800-835-5233
adflegal.org
A faith-based nonprofit that focuses on legal advocacy around freedom of religion and the First Amendment.

Arthur W. Page Center for Integrity in Public Communication
2 Carnegie Building, University Park, PA 16802
814-863-3065
bellisario.psu.edu/page-center
A research center at Penn State University dedicated to the study and advancement of ethics and responsibility in corporate communication.

Business Roundtable
1000 Maine Ave., S.W., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20024
202-872-1260
businessroundtable.org
A lobbyist association of chief executive officers of major U.S. companies.

Edelman Trust Institute
111 N. Canal St., Suite 1100, Chicago, IL 60606
312-240-3000
edelman.com/edelman-trust-institute
The research arm of a global public relations firm that shares data-driven insights on trust to inform institutions; publisher of the Edelman Trust Barometer.

Forrester Research, Inc.
60 Acorn Park Dr., Cambridge, MA 02140
617-613-5730
forrester.com/bold
A research and advisory company that offers a variety of services for businesses, including research, consulting and events.

Kantar Group
3 World Trade Center, 175 Greenwich St., 35th Floor, New York, NY 10007
866-471-1399
kantar.com/north-america
A marketing agency that works in various research disciplines, such as public opinion and consumer behavior.

Out Leadership
636 11th Ave., New York, NY 10036
917-336-0604
outleadership.com
A coalition of 100 companies advocating for global LGBTQ equality.

Sustainable Investments Institute
21122 Park Hall Road, Boonsboro, MD 21713
301-432-4721
siinstitute.org
A nonprofit that publishes reports on organized efforts to influence corporate behavior on social and environmental issues.

Trillium Asset Management
Two Financial Center, 60 South St., Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02111
617-423-6655
trilliuminvest.com
A global management firm that advises socially responsible investing to support a global sustainable economy.

Go to top

Footnotes

[1] Dom DiFurio, “Match Group CEO creates fund for Texas employees seeking out-of-state abortion care,” The Dallas Morning News, Sept. 2, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/33r8ke3u.

[2] Jordan Williams, “Salesforce offers to help relocate employees in Texas due to the new abortion law,” The Hill, Sept. 11, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/yy6yvn5u; Connor Perrett, “Uber and Lyft will pay the legal fees of drivers sued under Texas’ new abortion law,” Insider, Sept. 4, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/y2zp4wt7; and Alisha Haridasani Gupta and Lauren Hirsch, “Yelp Will Pay for Employees to Travel for Abortion Access,” The New York Times, April 12, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/mr48x5ub.

[3] Andrew Ross Sorkin, “‘Simply Unacceptable’: Executives Demand Senate Action on Gun Violence,” The New York Times, Sept. 13, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/3636dxdv; Pete Gelling, “The last time the US federal government limited gun ownership was 25 years ago,” Quartz, Aug. 4, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/3zpb7njp.

[4] “Edelman Trust Barometer 2022,” Edelman, Jan. 18, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/bddkubfd.

[5] “The Future of Work 2022 Global Report,” Monster, January 2022, https://tinyurl.com/56nzdk6j.

[6] Marty Swant, “Silence Is Not An Option: Research Shows Consumers Expect CEOs To Take A Stand On Political Issues,” Forbes, April 19, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/34zf7n87.

[7] Lisa Rabasca Roepe, “LGBTQ Rights,” CQ Researcher, Nov. 4, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/2epaxccs.

[8] Tiffany Hsu, “Corporate Voices Get Behind ‘Black Lives Matter’ Cause,” The New York Times, June 10, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/27jwjt8t; Jeff Green, “Floyd Killing Forces U.S. Business to Examine Its Record on Race,” Bloomberg, April 21, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/pnhmww66.

[9] Orion Rummler, “The major police reforms enacted since George Floyd's death,” Axios, Sept. 30, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/4dnajzbs.

[10] Brian Sozzi and Alexandra Semenova, “Russia-Ukraine war: Companies that have taken action against Russia,” Yahoo Finance, March 8, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/ycktuxkr.

[11] Douglas MacMillan and Jena McGregor, “Lawmakers who objected to election results have been cut off from 20 of their 30 biggest corporate PAC donors,” The Washington Post, Jan. 19, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/mprtdn57.

[12] Emily Birnbaum, Megan Wilson and Hailey Fuchs, “These companies stopped campaign donations to election objectors. Their lobbyists did not,” Politico, Feb. 15, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/mwkxsbjc.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ted Johnson, “ViacomCBS Issues Statement Opposing Georgia Voting Bill; Comcast, AT&T Also Weigh In,” Deadline, April 1, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/mrybr8uw; Celine Castronuovo, “Watchdog says AT&T gave over $100K to Abbott, GOP lawmakers after vowing to support voting rights,” The Hill, July 17, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/37329cer.

[16] Michael Murney, “AT&T Donated $100k to Abbott on Same Day He Vowed to Pass Voting Restrictions,” Dallas Observer, July 21, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/mryy8r2n.

[17] “Business Roundtable Redefines the Purpose of a Corporation to Promote ‘An Economy That Serves All Americans,’” news release, Business Roundtable, Aug. 19, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/2p8wf37z.

[18] Larry Fink, “The Power of Capitalism,” BlackRock, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/2p8u8jmx.

[19] Andrew Soergel, “Corporate Activism and the Rise of the Outspoken CEO,” U.S. News & World Report, April 8, 2016, https://tinyurl.com/mrx42kur.

[20] Bill George, “When should CEOs speak out on public issues?” Fortune, May 12, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/bdfmhdbw.

[21] Alan Murray and David Meyer, “Should CEOs speak out about controversial social and political issues?” Fortune, May 18, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/2bdaahd6.

[22] Robert Reich, “Why corporate social responsibility is BS,” The Guardian, Sept. 26, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/2p8z6zbv.

[23] Heidi Welsh and Michael Passoff, “ProxyPreview 2022,” As You Sow, https://tinyurl.com/3eb57c5x.

[24] Jessica DiNapoli, Ross Kerber and Jonathan Stempel, “Analysis: Buffett's ESG snub risks alienating Wall Street,” Reuters, May 4, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/456hbnxe.

[25] “Shareholder proposals,” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Nov. 4, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/bn59nhdv.

[26] Lisa Rabasca Roepe, “An abortion or a job? Companies and investors are forced to weigh in on the Roe v. Wade debate,” Insider, Jan. 21, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/24m66jer.

[27] Richard Vanderford, “Shareholder Voices Poised to Grow Louder With SEC's Help,” The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 11, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/3ezdhkzu.

[28] Elise Foley, “90 Big-Name Business Leaders Just Took A Stand Against North Carolina's Anti-LGBT Law,” Huffington Post, March 30, 2016, https://tinyurl.com/22wr333v; Marisa Taylor, “Inside corporate America's stand against transgender discrimination,” The Guardian, Oct. 1, 2016, https://tinyurl.com/yu3ev2j2; and “‘Bathroom bill’ to cost North Carolina $3.76 billion,” The Associated Press, CNBC, March 27, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/msz7hb6.

[29] Gabriel Rosenberg, “HB2 replacement makes all the wrong compromises,” The Hill, March 31, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/34v7r83j.

[30] Todd C. Frankel, “More than 100 corporate executives hold call to discuss halting donations and investments to fight controversial voting bills,” The Washington Post, April 11, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/3pedd5ft.

[31] Chris Johnson, “Biden calls for passage of Equality Act in speech to Congress,” Washington Blade, April 28, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/5cuk8et2.

[32] Alex Weprin, “Disney CEO Bob Chapek Plans to Meet With Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to Discuss ‘Don't Say Gay’ Bill,” The Hollywood Reporter, March 9, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/529fsktt.

[33] Alex Weprin, “Disney CEO Bob Chapek Addresses Company's Response to Florida's ‘Don't Say Gay’ Bill,” The Hollywood Reporter, March 7, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/yckk7puw.

[34] Eli Pacheco, “Disney Employees ‘Hurt’ And ‘Angry’ Over CEO's Response To Florida LGBTQ Bill,” TechiLive, March 13, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/2w3jun49; Devan Coggan, “Disney condemns Florida's ‘Don't Say Gay’ law, says bill ‘should never have passed,’” Entertainment Weekly, March 28, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/5n8b3va2.

[35] Mike Proulx, “A Brand's Values Must Withstand The Pressure Of Politics,” Forrester, April 8, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/psrt5b7n.

[36] Linda Hon and Leping You, “Antecedents and outcomes of corporate political advocacy among consumers,” The Arthur W. Page Center, March 10, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/2chf8x4d.

[37] Brayden King, “In an Era of Easy Outrage, When Should Brands Take a Stand?” KelloggInsight, Nov. 1, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/yckz6u5h.

[38] Swant, op. cit.

[39] Terry Nguyen, “A spice retailer is spending more on pro-impeachment Facebook ads than anyone else,” Vox, Oct. 9, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/2p9f2mzk.

[40] Pyemo N. Afego and Imhotep P. Alagidede, “What does corporate social advocacy signal? Evidence from boycott participation decisions,” Journal of Capital Markets Studies, Emerald Insights, March 16, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/mpprkdas.

[41] Maggie Severns, “Billionaire Stephen Ross gets backlash for Trump fundraiser,” Politico, Aug. 7, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/4as4a8w3; Ruth Reader, “After boycotts over a Trump fundraiser, SoulCycle customer numbers plummet,” Fast Company, Sept. 19, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/yfe65288.

[42] Derrick Feldmann and Michael Alberg-Seberich, “The Corporate Social Mind Annual Review: Consumer Expectations of Companies to Address Social Issues,” The Corporate Social Mind, December 2021, https://tinyurl.com/2p9e8nmb.

[43] Kantaro Komiya, “A Majority of Consumers Expect Brands to Take a Stand on Issues Before Purchasing, Survey Finds,” Barron's, July 7, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/5n7nc6by.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Fernando Duarte, “Black Lives Matter: Do companies really support the cause?,” BBC Worklife, June 12, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/ycxafxk4.

[46] Christopher Wilson, “The Moment When Four Students Sat Down to Take a Stand,” Smithsonian Magazine, Jan. 31, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/364w8z6r.

[47] “Greensboro Sit-In,” History Channel, Jan. 25, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/bdhhnzaf.

[48] Mark Green, “How Ralph Nader Changed America,” The Nation, Dec. 1, 2015, https://tinyurl.com/5fhmw6te.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Benjamin C. Waterhouse, “The Personal, the Political and the Profitable: Business and Protest Culture, 1960s–1980s,” Financial History, Museum of American Finance, Spring 2017, https://tinyurl.com/52nhdybu.

[51] Ibid.

[52] “Truth in Lending (Regulation Z),” Federal Register, updated Nov. 30, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/244u94xa.

[53] “Fair Credit Reporting Act,” Federal Trade Commission, revised September 2018, https://tinyurl.com/bdfetmtn.

[54] “Evolution of the Clean Air Act,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dec. 7, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/2p9zswfp.

[55] “Summary of the Clean Water Act,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oct. 22, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/bdh5tvt9.

[56] Waterhouse, op. cit.; Lee Drutman, “How Corporate Lobbyists Conquered American Democracy,” The Atlantic, April 20, 2015, https://tinyurl.com/2p954vbb/.

[57] “History,” Business Roundtable, accessed March 11, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/26ctbz9d.

[58] Waterhouse, op. cit.

[59] Drutman, op. cit.

[60] Michael S. Givel and Stanton A. Glantz, “Tobacco lobby political influence on US state legislatures in the 1990s,” Tobacco Control, BMJ Journal, June 1, 2001, https://tinyurl.com/3b3ymr6s.

[61] Gregory Gethard, “Protest Divestment and the End of Apartheid,” Investopedia, June 25, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/yc44kc6e.

[62] Ibid.

[63] Ibid.

[64] Troy Segal, “Enron Scandal: The Fall of a Wall Street Darling,” Investopedia, Nov. 26, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/mtjuds47.

[65] “The Worldcom Scandal (2002),” International Banker, Sept. 29, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/y9nsnbjh.

[66] Diana B. Henriques, “Bernard Madoff, Architect of Largest Ponzi Scheme in History, Is Dead at 82,” The New York Times, April 15, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/bdhjjkmn.

[67] Steve Fiorillo, “What Was the Subprime Mortgage Crisis and How Did it Happen?” The Street, Sept. 7, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/37utacxc.

[68] Kimberly Amadeo, “The Stock Market Crash of 2008,” The Balance, Jan. 28, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/8ww8fyww.

[69] Marc Davis, “U.S. Government Financial Bailouts,” Investopedia, Oct. 31, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/4vw4zfyd; Mitchell Hartman, “What did America buy with the auto bailout, and was it worth it?,” Marketplace, Nov. 13, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/565yhusn.

[70] Sewell Chan, “Both Parties Play the Wall Street Card, Sometimes From the Bottom of the Deck,” The New York Times, Nov. 1, 2010, https://tinyurl.com/ynffjv7x.

[71] Scott Malone, “Global trust in business plummeted in 2008: survey,” Reuters, Jan. 27, 2009, https://tinyurl.com/yck9anzh.

[72] Adam Hayes, “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,” Investopedia, Feb. 7, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/bdew4j2m.

[73] Jo Confino, “Public trust in business hits five-year low,” The Guardian, Jan. 21, 2015, https://tinyurl.com/2p48mccx.

[74] Alex Gray, “4 ways businesses can build customer trust,” World Economic Forum, Jan. 27, 2016, https://tinyurl.com/2p992vxt.

[75] Ibid.

[76] Leslie Gaines-Ross, “What CEO Activism Looks Like in the Trump Era,” Harvard Business Review, Oct. 2, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/5e2rwf2y.

[77] Tracy Jan, Jena McGregor and Meghan Hoyer, “Corporate America's $50 billion promise,” The Washington Post, Aug. 24, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/munewpb9.

[78] Jessica Bursztynsky, “Apple announces latest efforts for $100 million Racial Equity and Justice Initiative,” NBC News, Jan. 13, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/4uf6urs8.

[79] “Purpose 2020: Inspiring Purpose-Led Growth,” Kantar Consulting, November 2019, https://tinyurl.com/y4nxkwmm.

[80] Jeffrey Sonnenfeld et al., “Over 600 Companies Have Withdrawn From Russia — But Some Remain,” Yale School of Management, April 8, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/5n7w5cev.

[81] Irina Ivanova and Kate Gibson, “These are the companies that have pulled out of Russia since its invasion of Ukraine,” CBS News, March 11, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/2p8v3nan.

[82] Rebecca Deczynski, “How Companies Are Aiding the Ukrainian Relief Efforts, From Supporting Refugees to Funding the Armed Forces,” Inc., accessed April 8, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/392rvwdh.

[83] J. David Goodman and Amanda Morris, “Texas Investigates Parents Over Care for Transgender Youth, Suit Says,” The New York Times, March 1, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/3vkf77yu.

[84] “Discrimination is Bad for Business,” Human Rights Campaign, March 10, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/d77s2t7r; J. David Goodman, “Texas Court Halts Abuse Inquiries Into Parents of Transgender Children,” The New York Times, March 11, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/2p8dd8wn.

[85] Larissa Scott, “Florida's ‘Stop WOKE Act’ could limit talks on racism in schools and work,” ABC Action News, March 3, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/2p8n3rbj; Delphine Luneau, “Breaking: Florida Senate Passes ‘Stop WOKE Act,’ Bill Heads to DeSantis’ Desk for Signature or Veto,” press release, Human Rights Campaign, March 10, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/2p8rs5b2.

[86] “24 local chambers of commerce join state wide businesses to oppose HB7/SB148, the so-called Stop WOKE Act because it is bad for business,” Tampa Bay LGBT Chamber, Feb. 28, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/ytxxts2a.

[87] Wynne Davis, “Florida Senate passes a controversial schools bill labeled ‘Don't Say Gay’ by critics,” NPR, March 8, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/5fmazwwe; Annika Kim Constantino, “Businesses oppose Florida's ‘Don't Say Gay’ ban on discussion of LGBTQ issues in public schools,” CNBC, March 31, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/yxbmbbfy; and Veronica Irwin, “Florida's ‘Don't Say Gay’ bill is about to become law. Tech companies have next to nothing to say about it,” Protocol, March 8, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/mubzef58.

[88] “Breakdown: What is in Georgia's new voting law, also known as SB 202?” WSBTV, April 22, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/3dnewd5x.

[89] Frankel, op. cit.

[90] Tucker Higgins, “More than 150 companies call on Congress to strengthen Voting Rights Act,” CNBC, July 14, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/2k6p8ptt; “Business Letter Urging Congress to Continue Protecting Voting Rights,” Business for Voting Rights, Feb. 1, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/4pdj9u7d.

[91] Mary Kakatos, “Oklahoma passes bill that would make it a felony to perform abortions,” ABCNews, April 5, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/3rm8s4kw; Elizabeth Nash, “26 States Are Certain or Likely to Ban Abortion Without Roe: Here's Which Ones and Why,” Guttmacher Institute, Oct. 28, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/488ydnc7.

[92] Roepe, “An abortion or a job?” op. cit.

[93] Barbara Farfan, “Political Affiliations of Retail Leaders,” The Balance Small Business, Feb. 16, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/2p8ryxxw; Sarah Al-Arshani, “Hobby Lobby advocates for a Christian-run government in Independence Day ads placed in many national newspapers,” Insider, July 4, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/2p85hpbm.

[94] Daphne Howland, “Nike taps Kaepernick for latest ‘Just Do It’ campaign, setting social media ablaze,” MarketingDive, Sept. 4, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/5cbmahue.

[95] Alex Abad-Santos, “Why the social media boycott over Colin Kaepernick is a win for Nike,” Vox, Sept. 6, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/bdfyua2m; “Nike sales defy Kaepernick ad campaign backlash,” BBC News, Sept. 10, 2108, https://tinyurl.com/3abvxc5z.

[96] Daniel Roberts, “There's more to Under Armour CEO's resignation from Trump's council,” Yahoo Finance, Aug. 15, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/bdds3xk9.

[97] Tony Jaques, “Lessons from the MyPillow Guy: Should CEOs take a stand on political and social issues?” Smart Company, Feb. 3. 2021, https://tinyurl.com/mwvasr88.

[98] Gaby Del Valle, “Chick-fil-A's many controversies, explained,” Vox, Nov. 19, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/yn7thwfh.

[99] Ibid.

[100] Jerry Davis, “What's Driving Corporate Activism?” The New Republic, Sept. 27, 2016, https://tinyurl.com/36a4fmsv.

[101] Brayden King and Klaus Weber, “Corporate Activism Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,” KelloggInsight, March 3, 2014, https://tinyurl.com/4z3a2txh.

[102] Ibid.

Go to top

About the Author

Lisa Rabasca Roepe is a journalist who writes about the culture of work, personal finance and technology. Her work has appeared in Fast Company, Ozy, Family Circle, Good, Quartz, The Week, HR Magazine, Men's Journal, Eater and The Christian Science Monitor. She is on the board of directors of the American Society of Authors and Journalists. Her work for CQ Researcher includes reports on corporate diversity and inclusion and the gender pay gap.

Go to top