#BoycottGoya, #Goyaway. Minutes after Goya Foods’ CEO spoke at the White House Roundtable of Hispanic Leaders and praised President Donald J. Trump on July 9, beans, spices, His company, known for its other Hispanic food staples, came under fire on social media. . “We are all so lucky to have a leader like President Trump,” Robert Unanyu said.
Tony Award Winner hamilton Star Lin-Manuel Miranda begged for opposition, tweeting:During this pandemic we learned to bake bread, and we can learn to make our own adobo con pimienta” Soon, Trump and his supporters were proudly showing their support. The company sparked further anger against Goya from Trump opponents. With just a few words, Mr. Unanue thrust his company into the center of one of the most polarizing elections in recent memory.
Our political affiliation can influence much of our behavior, from where we shop to who we date. His OkCupid report, an online dating service, found that since the 2016 election, nearly half of all users have mentioned Trump positively or negatively in their profiles. For companies, from self-employed contractors to global corporations, getting involved in politics or speaking out on social issues can be like stepping on a landmine, as Unanue discovered. there is. Donations to business-friendly candidates can anger voters or customers outraged by that politician’s positions on other issues. A CEO’s one-off tweet on a hot topic like gun control can spark praise or boycotts. However, using corporate platforms to speak out against perceived injustices is increasingly common and expected.
Few companies are exempt from negotiating this new (and confusing) reality. Even Zoom calls aren’t safe. More employees than ever are discussing politics during work hours. So how can companies stand up for the topics they care about, lobby politicians on issues that affect their bottom lines, and make sure their employees vote for them without alienating customers or dragging their reputations into political mire? What can you do to remain friendly even when you are in a relationship? Or will it lower morale in the workplace? We spoke to experts at Questrom School of Business about how business and politics come together.
raise your voice
While companies may be nervous about taking a stand on political and social issues, consumers are pretty clear about what they want. According to social media management platform Sprout Social, more than two-thirds of consumers say it’s important for companies to be involved in sociopolitical issues. . Of course, many companies find that their brand is more They don’t have a choice about whether or not to get involved in a big political debate. Go on strike. And some think taking a stand is inevitable.
“I don’t think the problem is that should Companies no longer speak out on social or political issues,” says Cabrina Chan (CAS’92), a clinical associate professor of markets, public policy, and law. “Demands will come from one or more stakeholders, and when that happens, he is likely to disappoint one of many stakeholder groups, and this is an unavoidable drawback. is.”
Hallmark discovered this the hard way in late 2019. Three days after airing an ad featuring a lesbian couple kissing at a wedding, the company pulled the ad after complaints from conservative activist groups, but the next day its CEO apologized and pulled the ad. revived.
“Hallmark made a statement that they wanted to avoid controversy,” said Michael Salinger, the Jacqueline and Arthur Barr Professor of Markets, Public Policy, and Law. “But given the problem, there was no way to do that.”
If a company decides to actively participate in the political conversation, it is imperative that executives first consider their brand’s history, core values, and most importantly, their audience. “If a company knows its customer base and market segments well, and it’s relatively homogeneous, taking political positions that align with its core customers can ensure support,” said Associate Professor of Information Systems. says Dylan Walker. . One example is outdoor clothing company Patagonia.
In 2017, Patagonia publicly joined the fight for public land after President Trump ordered an 85 percent reduction in the size of Utah’s Bears Ears National Monument. The designer and retailer positions itself as an activist, frequently involved in politics, from publicly endorsing candidates to suing governments.
The company has been donating to climate change organizations for many years. As a result, speaking out about Bears Ears was consistent with the values of Bears Ears and its customers.
“We know that companies cannot satisfy all stakeholders when making statements on controversial issues.The most honest thing for a company to do is to be consistent in what it stands for. It’s about taking action,” says Chan.
At a time when consumers are both getting smarter and more jaded about what motivates companies to take sociopolitical stances, a 2019 Edelman Trust report found that 56 percent of people believe that too many brands They believe that the suspects are using social media to conduct a “stimulant drug cleanse”. The question of justice is gaining favor with the public for the sole purpose of selling more goods. That consistency is extremely important.
“Associating your brand with political trends can have positive outcomes, but it can also lead to damaging customer reactions, a diminished brand reputation, and internal repercussions such as the ouster of a CEO. ” says Shuva Srinivasan, Norman and Adele Baron Professor. She is a business executive and marketing professor. “We advise companies not to take a stand if their brand does not fit socio-economic-political, or SEP, trends. It is about assessing whether one can claim a political category.”
When a company’s political or social positions are dishonest or inconsistent with established values, the public takes notice and condemns them on social media. Take, for example, a tone-deaf 2017 PepsiCo ad featuring Kendall Jenner that came under fire for trivializing protests and plagiarizing images from movements such as Black Lives Matter. The ad was widely criticized and only ran for one day. But the damage to the PepsiCo brand continued for nearly a year, with Millennials’ willingness to buy Pepsi plummeting to its lowest level in at least eight years, according to YouGov BrandIndex.
in the lobby
Many Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of using money and influence to sway policy decisions. Indeed, Trump’s ethics reform plan in Washington, D.C., and his call to “drain the swamp” became a cornerstone of his 2016 presidential campaign. Still, you’d be hard-pressed to find a lawmaker in Washington, D.C., who doesn’t meet with special interests. Last year, many companies, especially big tech companies like Amazon, Apple and Facebook, sensing enthusiasm from the press and lawmakers, increased their lobbying spending, some by as much as 32 percent.
“It is not only appropriate but necessary for companies to lobby and advocate for legislative and regulatory treatment that serves their commercial interests. There’s nothing corrupt about it,” says Salinger, a former director of the Federal Trade Commission. “When I was at the FTC, the commission always sought input from companies to help them understand their businesses, the markets in which they compete, and the impact of proposed regulations. Without that input, , I’m sure the committee would have made worse policy decisions.”
Many companies approach lobbying as an opportunity to improve public policy in ways that are good for society and business, but cash-driven political activity has never gained a bad name.
“It’s obviously naive to think that companies will or should do so in a fair way,” Salinger says. “They should be allowed to make their case. But I think it’s immoral and ultimately self-defeating for companies to make claims they know are false.” ” A prime example is Big Tobacco.
“For years, tobacco companies have tried to cast doubt on the evidence about the health effects of smoking, even though they knew the evidence was incriminating,” he says. Efforts by major energy companies to cast doubt on climate science are equally problematic. ”
Salinger advises companies to think carefully about what they are lobbying for.
“We should start by asking why it is in the interests of shareholders to use company funds for political activities,” he says. “You have to ask whether you’re there to clarify an issue, or whether you’re there to purposely muddy the waters. Honest answers may obscure what companies know to be true.” If they’re trying to do that or promote ideas that they know are wrong, that should be a big red flag.”
Even Zoom chats aren’t safe from the effects of political polarization. According to his 2019 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management, more than half of employees said “political discussion has become more common in the past four years,” and nearly half said it turned into a disagreement. He says he is connected.
Given the potential damage to morale, should companies clamp down on discussion of hot topics?
“Companies can set policies that prohibit political discussion or the wearing of MAGA hats or Feel the Bern shirts,” Chan says. “Political affiliation is generally not a protected category under state discrimination laws, with Mississippi and Washington, D.C. being exceptions. As a result, managers often ask workers not to talk about politics or refuse to do so.” They may even lay off employees.”
If companies don’t want to go that far, how can executives and company leaders encourage constructive political conversations?
“There are no simple answers,” Salinger said. “But I think companies should work harder to create a culture of respect for customers, suppliers, colleagues and others.”
And there is one politically-related measure that employers can support without creating controversy. It’s about giving employees time to vote.
“In an ideal world, employers would give employees time off to vote. Otherwise, voting day would be a holiday or weekend,” Chan said. “Other than that, employers can give employees the leeway to arrive late or leave early so they can get to their local polling place.”
Explore related topics: