The Downfall of Historic Corporate Responsibility
by Miki Saxon
I wrote yesterday’s Oldie back in 2007; it ended with this comment,
Corporate responsibility is a major buzzword these days, but it’s hard to tell whether it’s tied more closely to
- doing what’s right;
- doing what you can get away with; or
- not getting caught.
It’s taken 13 years for practitioners of the second and third approaches to even consider changing.
The pressure they face to take such steps is real; the industry’s years of reliance on hypocrisy, lobbying, and misleading public relations tactics is eerily reminiscent of the approach taken by tobacco companies, and its litigation risks are set to follow a similar trajectory, with lawyers and activists framing failure to address climate change as a human-rights violation.
The changes certainly aren’t being driven by the Feds (consider the EPA’s decision to limit scientific research when drafting environmental and public health regulations), but by people.
The corporate responsibility façade is—finally, thankfully—crumbling. Activist investors and angry citizens have forced a reckoning. The Conference Board views the upcoming 2020 proxy season as a tipping point for disclosure of corporate political activity.
Even more potent are Gen Z’s and many Millennial’s attitude on choosing a place to work.
Young graduates evaluating prospective employers know that the true narrative of a corporation’s purpose can be found by reviewing who it does business with and which politicians it backs [emphasis mine].
There is no company that can survive without an adequate workforce and there is no Generation in history as suspicious and downright cynical about corporate America, including Big Tech, unicorns and startups in general than Gen Z — an attitude already infecting other generational segments.
Amazon employee reaction to CEO Jeff Bezos’ climate change initiative is a good example.
Amazon Employees for Climate Justice responded to Jeff Bezos’s recent $10 billion commitment to fight climate change by reminding their CEO that “one hand cannot give what the other is taking away.”
That two-faced approach isn’t unusual; in fact, it’s common practice — more plainly described as talk the talk, but screw the walk.
It will be difficult for that approach to continue working when it seriously limits recruiting efforts, not to mention paying customers.
Image credit: Frits Ahlefeldt
