By Matt Underwood The ICE standoff in Minneapolis has become the political issue CEOs can’t ignore, at least not entirely.
CEOs, with their constant focus on the bottom line, are inherently driven by profit. They’re often criticized for being sociopathic, and it’s easy to see why. The pressure to generate revenue means that ethical considerations can take a backseat, especially when faced with shifting political landscapes. It’s a pragmatic world where a company’s stance can seem to change with the winds of public opinion, a reflection of their primary motivation. Take, for example, the recent history of major retailers, shifting their support for different groups based on the political climate. The appearance of fickle allegiances, driven by profit alone, inevitably makes consumers question the authenticity of corporate values.
However, the political climate is changing, and the question is whether the CEOs will again pivot. If a company adjusts its entire philosophy with every political shift, it’s clear the CEO has little loyalty to any cause beyond the pursuit of profit. It’s hard to ignore, therefore, how some of these corporations appear to be hedging their bets. Some will attempt to stay on the sidelines, waiting to see which way the money flows. But, a failure to act, or worse, siding with policies viewed as oppressive, can have consequences that directly impact their financial well-being.
The crucial point is that a corporation’s silence, or even tacit support, for controversial government policies, could be harmful. Many people now consider that such policies are not only morally wrong but also harmful to a corporation’s brand image and ultimately, its profits. The rise of conscious consumerism means that CEOs can no longer afford to be indifferent.
Corporations will only take a stand on an issue when it impacts their finances. This is not a judgment, merely an observation. Those seeking to promote a particular cause should make it economically advantageous for businesses to support that cause. Corporations can be useful tools in advancing a cause, but they’re not natural allies.
It’s critical not to confuse the corporate role with the role of genuine allies. While corporations can be allies in some ways at some times, their allegiance is solely to profit. Therefore, organizations should focus their efforts on those who are genuinely on their side. Small businesses and local employees often make the best allies because their interests align more naturally with those of the people. This is especially true since ICE operations often directly affect their employees.
The reality, as some point out, is that many CEOs contributed to the current political climate in the first place. Their donations and support helped build the conditions in which such actions are possible. As such, to pretend they can simply ignore it would be naive. It really just depends on the society they’re embedded in.
This brings us to a crucial question. Are CEOs truly powerless? It’s not a question of morality but of business. Publicly traded companies have one responsibility: to increase profits for their shareholders. This is not a political statement, it is a legal one. When such efforts happen to align with ethical principles, it’s more of a coincidence than a virtue. And, as history shows, if it would generate profits to work with unethical sources they will.
We are talking about CEOs whose only concern is money. They will change their views on LGBTQ rights or Black Lives Matter, as long as it brings in money. They might do anything from selling MAGA hats to LGBTQ flags if it makes a profit.
They are already getting what they want: tax cuts, lax regulations, and weakened labor laws. But it will take decades to fix the damage. Yet still, these same corporations will be able to survive and thrive. One must remember that many of the companies that supported the Nazi regime still exist today. The bottom line is all that matters.
The corporations must care now. People are increasingly aligning themselves with companies based on their political stances. Corporations are now being weaponized by the current administration. And they are already being asked to align with certain agendas to allow mergers and acquisitions to occur.
However, the question is how much this really matters. The actions of consumers can influence their behavior. A week-long boycott could influence a company’s actions. But, even if they do change course, is it enough? How long will it take for the damage to be undone? And, in the end, can we really expect any better from those whose primary motivation is the bottom line?