What does McDonald’s have to do with gay marriage? Why should BMW take a stand in the American arms debate? And why does a financial group like Blackrock allow itself to be drawn into the conflict over a climate-friendly energy supply? Since political competition has degenerated into a religious war, especially in the USA, companies are becoming more and more involuntarily caught between the fronts. Almost every day someone, somewhere, is calling for a boycott of some company’s products for whatever reason. The accusations come from the right and left, they come out of nowhere or with an announcement, sometimes a single wrong word is enough to trigger a huge wave of protests.
Blackrock, for example, the world’s largest asset manager and otherwise not a corporation that one would have to regret in any way, has been harassed by the US state of Texas for days because, according to the ruling Republicans, he indulges in a perverted left-liberal zeitgeist, before buying shares the climate balance of the company in question checked and thus “boycotted energy companies”. Of course, this does not mean solar or wind power operators, but the oil and gas multinationals on the Gulf of Mexico. Climate awareness as a flaw, a reason for complaints and bullying – in view of heat waves, droughts and water shortages all over the world, one would like to hold one’s head together.
But how are companies supposed to deal with the constant accusations that they either “woke” or don’t “woke” enough? The simplest answer would probably be: duck away. Stay out. Don’t piss anyone off. But the days when that was possible are over. Yes, even more, the question if A company should position itself on fundamental issues is no longer an issue, because customers, employees, shareholders, politicians or lobby groups are demanding such an attitude more and more loudly. The question must therefore be how and according to which criteria one takes a stand.
Companies need a corset of values that serves as a framework in the event of a crisis
In order not to have to fire off quick shots in the event of a crisis, which then prove to be a boomerang, a board of directors should commit to basic ethical principles that serve as an anchor and guideline. This could include protecting the environment, promoting women, integrating minorities or fighting racism and sexism. Based on such a company credo, it is then easier to justify, in the case of concrete allegations, why one adopts this or that attitude. The fact that some of the customers find the positioning wrong and may call for a boycott falls under the category of residual risk. However, basic values and entrepreneurial action must absolutely be in harmony. Anyone who dedicates himself to the fight for human rights, for example, should not have his goods produced by Chinese forced laborers.
Now it is true that statements of ethics by large companies often seem implausible or politically forced. Many corporations also only discover their value compass when they realize that ethos is also financially worthwhile. The fact that Nike, for example, stuck with the controversial football star Colin Kaepernick, who was the first player to kneel down to follow the national anthem in protest against racism and was promptly ennobled by Donald Trump as a “son of a bitch”, certainly has to do with attitude. But also with calculation, because the public debate brought the sneaker company more publicity than any TV commercial could have done.
One can therefore find Nike’s behavior hypocritical. But you can also see it like this: why a group shows a socio-political stance is of secondary importance. The main thing is that he does it.