Rule Of Thumb: Should Our Favorite Companies Take A Political Stance?
Robert Alexander
Companies are no stranger to making strategically controversial decisions regarding publicizing their response to our society's ethical dilemmas. Nike decided to make Colin Kaepernick, the football outcast and civil rights activist, the face of its 2018 advertising campaign. Dick's Sporting Goods destroyed $5 million worth of rifles as part of its tough stance on gun violence in America. Audi aired a pro-gender equality commercial during the 2017 Superbowl.
As our polarized society continues to bring up ideologies that give anyone the power to make their opinions public, companies are also put in that position and forced to take a stance that demonstrates their view to the public. Consumer perceptions have been found to be swayed by business activism. How much of an impact does this have on our alignment with brands?
The Harvard Business Review surveyed managers across industries and MBA students to understand the influence companies' political viewpoints had on consumers. They found that people are less swayed by corporate advocacy than has been widely reported. For example, participants, who identified as varying degrees of Republicans and Democrats, when told that a company had conservative values, it was more negatively perceived, but when they were told a company had liberal values, their opinions remained neutral.
Forty-year-olds were less likely to buy products with the knowledge of the company’s political stance than twenty- and thirty-year-olds. Women perceived organizations that are involved in political activity more negatively than men. The survey surprisingly found that political advocacy of companies was viewed to be both genuinely held and designed to build loyalty by the majority of participants. The results demonstrated a shift from previous opinions about overlapping commercialism with politics and what is acceptable for companies to advocate.
One of the characteristics of bad business used to include endorsing political opinions. The goal was to focus on avoiding offending one side by sharing sentiments and focus on sales. The shift for businesses to consider their impact on society and the environment started in the 1980s with the corporate social responsibility movement. At this time, companies more so advocated products and processes rooted in ethics rather than politics. However, as society becomes more politically involved, organizations are expected to take a stance on the topics.
Ben & Jerry’s third tab on their website displays their values on the companies. The page details issues the company cares about such as criminal justice reform, LGBT+ rights, climate justice, and refugee rights. The ice cream company states as its mission that they are “founded on and dedicated to a sustainable corporate concept of linked prosperity.” Their political stance generates social engagement and contributes to its status as the top-selling ice cream brand in the US. Making their values well-known has given them a loyal following, both when engaging with their content and buying their products.
Why would a company choose to publicize its political stance or decide not to?
Ultimately it is a form of advertisement. It is a way to reach different audiences. Especially with politics, the people who like and dislike a party are observing the same story. Both those in support and against a party are watching to strengthen their sides. Those in support are looking for information that reinforces their values. Those opposed to a party are watching to look for faults to argue.
What happens when a company, or even just the face of a company, takes a stance or makes a political opinion public?
It draws attention. Take what happened when Chick-fil-A's CEO announced that he opposed gay marriage, for example. With the CEO’s viewpoint associated with the company, protesters, both for and against LGBT rights, took to Chick-fil-A locations nationwide to voice their opinions. Some were boycotting, while others showed up to buy food. However, as the enthusiasm dissipates, so do the customers who purchase sandwiches in support, while the people who boycott hold on to their opinions. The negative feelings towards something seem to linger with people's decisions longer than positive feelings.
Companies have often had business interests that they want to achieve by influencing laws, policies, or regulations. For large, progressive companies, their consumers' opinions matter, but sometimes, more importantly, their employees' feelings matter. For example, Google is so prevalent in our lives that it is hard for the consumer to boycott. Therefore, Google is concerned about any potential distrust or disagreement of its employees. The reputation of the company as a whole is essential to gaining desired support from investors and politicians.
What happens when companies take a stance that objects to what may be asked of them by authorities?
Sometimes companies take a stance that is challenged by law enforcement or politics. Such as when Apple became entangled with the FBI regarding unlocking the iPhone used by the shooter of the San Bernardino attacks. A federal judge asked Apple to provide "reasonable technical assistance" to the FBI to unlock the iPhone belonging to Syed Farook, who was responsible for the death of 14 people in San Bernardino. Apple denied the request because it would require overhauling the system that disables the phone after ten unsuccessful password attempts. That feature usually disables the iPhone and makes the data on it inaccessible. Apple's chief executive noted that creating new software to do so would give the FBI a "master key" that has the potential to access any iPhone. Apple describes one of its core values as maintaining privacy, as it is a human right.
A case was opened that debated data privacy and encryption between the government and technology companies. Law enforcement claimed encryption technology made it harder for them to solve issues, while technology firms claimed encryption is essential to protecting user data. In the end, Apple objected to providing access to the phone to defend civil liberties. However, the FBI accessed Farook's phone using a third-party service, raising questions about the effectiveness of Apple's security.
This high-profile decision threw Apple into the spotlight, which, in turn, demonstrated the message that the company wanted to be known by its employees, the public, and the investor market. In addition, Apple's decision communicated that they would not let the U.S. government interfere with user privacy.
Moving forward, companies will be faced with decisions on political grounds. It is then up to how these companies portray their stance to shape their image to the public and achieve consumer support. The decisions will have to become more strategic as activists and stakeholders pressure companies to take a stance as they realize the power they hold in our society.
