Julia Liu

In a world overwhelmed by passionate debates over controversial issues such as LGTBQ+ rights and abortion, companies constantly grapple over whether they should take a stance. Whichever side they take, they are bound to offend someone. They could boost their reputation and receive praise, while at the same time experience backlash and lose business. When issues begin to consume society and enter homes and workplaces, it becomes impossible for corporations to remain silent. Ultimately, companies that speak out on political and social issues use their positions to connect with their customers and make it clear that their mission and values are in harmony with the people’s vision of creating a better society.  

Businesses strive to become a recognizable brand in society, and Nike is by far one of the biggest brands in the world today. Nike’s website states their mission is to “bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world”. So when Nike decided to feature an ad around Colin Kaepernick, a highly polarizing football player among society for his decision to kneel during the national anthem, people began to heavily criticize Nike. Kaepenerick had begun kneeling during the anthem to bring awareness to police brutality and social injustice in the US. The NFL did not take kindly to his actions, and blacklisted the athlete, ending his pro-football career. Nike’s decision to align their brand with someone so divisive unsurprisingly created debate among many pundits and criticism from prominent individuals like former President Trump, as reported by the New York Times. Yet, according to a Quinnipiac University poll, voters were in favor of Nike featuring Kaepernick in their ad campaign, 49 percent to 37 percent. The poll also revealed a recognizable age gap, with those aged 18 to 34 standing with Nike’s decision in a 67-21 margin, while those 65 and older stood against the decision in a 46-39 margin. Nike took a massive risk, and it worked out to be more of a success than a failure. Nike saw Colin Kaepernick as a figure that embodied their belief in fighting for the greater good, even if it requires greater sacrifice. That kind of statement resonated with young individuals all across the country, because to them, Nike was more than just a brand for athletics––it was a community of inclusivity and acceptance. 

Life may be simple within the workplace; however, outside of it, the world can be far more complicated. It is easy to forget that employees are not just employees: first and foremost, they are people. They are affected everyday by the harsh realities of the world around them, and sometimes, they need someone to stand up for them, often their employers. As reported by a 2019 Garner study of more than 30,000 people worldwide, around 87% of employees said that businesses should take positions on social issues relevant to their business. Employees are the backbone of every business; without their trust, a positive workplace culture cannot exist. To be silent indicates to employees that their employers do not care about them. When a company with more female employees speaks up about women’s rights or a corporation with immigrant workers defends minority rights, they make it clear that they value their employees. They show that they are committed to diversity and inclusion within the workplace. 

Any stance that a company takes is certain to enrage certain groups of people, either those who do not agree with their stance or believe that a company shouldn’t say anything at all. People are not keen on corporations weighing in on sensitive issues such as abortion or LGTBQ+ rights, with the percentage of people saying they should standing at 37% and 26% saying they shouldn’t. It is understandable that companies may want to avoid any risk to their business. However, the silence can be just as deafening. Corporations with a national presence may feel the need to address a sensitive topic in some capacity, because there is simply no way to avoid it. As reported by NBC News, a Massachusetts company chose to inform their employees about abortion options because over 60% of their workers were female. Although this was an internal announcement, the external reporting of the business’s action made it clear that its employers looked out for their employees. This is an excellent case in which a corporation approached the issue of abortion without ever touching the moral side of it. Delicate issues require a delicate approach that ensures the safety and trust of employees and helps the business avoid falling onto a particular side in a fierce moral debate. 

The existence of corporate advocacy continues to be a debate in society, as people question whether it is a beneficial practice to raise awareness for controversial issues or simply a manipulative scheme to solely enrich the business. Companies have to tread carefully in the modern age, and know what to say and when to say it. It is near impossible for any business to ignore issues that directly impact society on a daily basis. Taking a public stance can be advantageous not only to the business, but to the people. It helps to build a relationship with the customers, showing that they are in touch with the community. Companies should not fear the backlash because in the end, only one thing matters––having a positive impact on society.