Corporate activism may be one of the rare cases where coming late to the table is worse than not showing up at all.
Corporate involvement in politics has become common practice for many businesses attempting to gain an edge on their competitors. It has been proven time and time again that the choice to get involved in social and political issues can be a way to draw in consumers. Still, whenever a name brand releases a commercial addressing social issues, the question of whether or not it is a corporation’s responsibility to perpetuate ideology seems to arise over and over again.
Many see the corporate purpose as solely focused on making as much money as possible. There is a distinct belief in the mind of the consumer that any social message a company propagates is performative fluff designed to simulate activism without creating real change.
Businesses have an easier time navigating corporate social responsibility (CSR), as it mainly addresses nonpartisan issues of ethical practice and can be implemented without much backlash.
Yet, many profit-hungry corporations still fail to devote ample resources, coordination and investment to CSR, falling short of meager promises to combat the urgent threat of climate change. The deficiencies of CSR in business then trickle down to the customer in a deceitful guise aimed to portray corporate pollution as consumer concern.
But corporate activism is another issue entirely. Corporate activism is when businesses advocate for divisive moral issues, petitioning for governmental or structural change while risking the alienation of those who may disagree. Conservatives are less likely to let a company’s political affiliation impact their preference, so there is a clear advantage of displaying liberal views that can come off as a ploy to appear “woke.”
Bandwagon activism plagues corporate America, and—during a period where the call for justice has become louder than ever—it has never been more evident.
Take the poorly-thought-out Pepsi commercial from 2017 where Kendall Jenner offers a can of the soda to a police officer. The advertisement was utterly tone-deaf and shows a blatant misunderstanding of the issue. Its message is ambiguous at best and was received with outrage by African Americans who have to deal with pervasive police brutality that cannot be solved by simply handing a cop a Pepsi.
Or take Starbucks, a company that has dealt with allegations of racial profiling in the past. Only after facing backlash from employees did the company allow for their employees to wear BLM clothing. The ban was instituted despite Starbucks encouraging employees to wear LGBTQ+ pins and clothing. Supporting queer communities was deemed acceptable, but the Black community was too far.
It seems like countless CEOs approach issues of social justice—especially the recent call to eradicate racial injustice—with apprehensive apathy. It doesn’t seem like they cared until this crucial moment. Once the moment passes, it seems likely they will return to neutral noncommitment. A quick look at the racial makeup of executive leadership will tell you exactly why.
Noncommittal activism has been a persistent problem for racial minorities specifically. Many companies seem to spring to support Black people when it benefits their brand in the newsreel, but their track-records unveil a dicey history. Arguments hailing the recent conversation about race as an illuminating moment for corporations should be appraised with a skeptical eye.
Executive diversity is, at this point, something that needs to be reached instead of sought. However, the white men who make up much of corporate America do not get an excuse. Ben and Jerry’s is one example of corporate activism done right.
For an ice cream company founded by two hippies, Ben and Jerry’s has been spearheading political change and redefining what corporate activism means. Rather than quickly doling out convenient sympathies that did not aim to address the underlying problem, the company released a no-nonsense response to police brutality and entrenched white supremacy after the recent murder of George Floyd. This was only a continuation of the support it has given to BLM for years.
Ben and Jerry’s recognizes its own lack of diversity. But based on track record alone, consumers are more inclined to trust that it knows it has work to do and sets out to do it. Even still, this is a mere band-aid trying to stop a severed artery. The wound of injustice must be cauterized with deliberate, reformative action.
To see what can be possible when invested CEOs pursue effective activism, look no farther than Chobani CEO, Hamdi Ulukaya. Famed as an “anti-CEO,” Ulukaya runs his company based on heart rather than profit.
A Turkish immigrant himself, Ulukaya makes a conscious effort to provide immigrants with well-paying, secure jobs—even while receiving hate and islamophobic threats from far-right groups. It is an admirable display of devotion in stark contrast to the ad-hoc activism exhibited by other corporations. Ulukaya’s lived experience assures his long-term commitment.
Until the racial makeup of corporate America represents this country, any activism will be performative. Just as any call for racial justice without substantial action is. Corporate activism is one thing. Corporations taking action to solve systemic problems is another, and a solution can only be achieved through structural reform.
