Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Why companies are losing the culture wars
Over the last decade, we’ve gotten used to seeing some of the world’s largest companies weighing in on hot-button social and political issues.
Following George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer, large numbers of big multinationals expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement. Nike drew ire from conservatives who demanded Colin Kaepernick be blacklisted over his protest of racial injustice. Last April, Republicans vowed retribution against Major League Baseball over its decision to move its All-Star game from Atlanta to Denver in protest of Georgia’s restrictive new voting law. And in the summer, Heineken sparked a boycott when it came out in favor of the highly controversial *checks notes* Covid vaccines.
Most recently, you’ll remember how in the aftermath of Jan. 6, many major corporations and industry groups issued statements condemning the insurrection and pledging to suspend donations to the “Sedition Caucus,” the 147 Republican members of Congress who had voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Want to understand the world a little better? Subscribe to GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer for free and get new posts delivered to your inbox every week.
(Sure enough, that didn’t last. According to a watchdog group, many companies have since reneged on their promise.)
The initial reaction to Jan. 6—which featured brands like AXE, the deodorant maker, voicing support for the peaceful transition of power—is a bellwether of a much bigger trend in American life: extreme polarization making it harder and harder for companies to keep politics out of business.
As Red vs. Blue divisions have grown to become a matter not just of disagreement but of personal enmity, it’s gotten much more difficult for corporates to steer clear of the nation’s culture wars. Why? Because Americans are demanding that the companies they buy from and work for take a strong stance—the “correct” stance—on social and political issues they care about.
Part of this phenomenon is a natural outgrowth of our country’s growing polarization, which has spilled out the realm of electoral politics and infected all aspects of everyday life. Yet some of it is also due to a generational shift. Millennials and Gen Zers pose a triple threat to brands: many are woke, expect corporates to align with them on values, and know how to leverage their voices and their pocketbooks to punish them when they don’t. They are able to get away with it in large part thanks to the amplifying power of social media and, in recent times, to their newfound bargaining power brought about by the Great Resignation.
For most companies, taking sides in political debates is risky, a double-edged sword. Because our country is so divided on everything, speaking up often means alienating a non-negligible proportion of your consumers, employees, and investors. Americans of both parties (that’s right, it’s not just woke lefties) are eager to cancel brands they disagree with on issues that have nothing to do with the goods and services these companies provide. According to a recent study, 64% of consumers will buy or boycott a brand solely because of its position on a social or political issue.
Damned if they do, damned if they don'tSproutSocial, 5WPR, CNVC/SurveyMonkey, Gartner, Glassdoor/Harris
But not taking sides is often riskier, because neutrality is viewed as complicity. If a company takes a stand against abortion bans, it’ll face fury from conservatives. If it comes out in favor of abortion bans, it’ll invite backlash from liberals and progressives. But if it doesn’t take a stand at all, it could take flak from everyone. The blowback can be severe even for companies that put forth certain stances but fail to back them up with credible action (aka virtue signaling).
The upshot? Politics has become so toxic and so insidious that no matter how brands position themselves on a given issue, they are angering a big chunk of their consumers and employees.
This year features a particularly mined calendar, full of ready-made flashpoints like the Beijing Winter Olympics and the US midterm elections. The abortion law in Texas, the voting law in Georgia, the bathroom bill in North Carolina, the transgender law in Arkansas—these are issues where Americans will be looking at corporates and asking where they stand.
They’d better have an answer.
🔔 And if you haven't already, don't forget to subscribe to my free newsletter, GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer, to get new posts delivered to your inbox.
Learnings from working post-COVID: economy, work-life, leadership
Kevin Sneader, Global Managing Partner at McKinsey, shares his perspective on corporate business leadership on Business In 60 Seconds:
What do we know now that we did not know four months ago when the coronavirus struck with vengeance?
I think there's a lot. First, we've learned about our economy. We know that we've now taken the elevator down and we're taking the stairs back up. We're seeing a return, as I observe what's happening across the world, but from a very low base. And the letter of choice is not an L, a V or a U, but I think it's a big question mark.
Secondly, we've learned about what we like in the workplace and what we do not. Indeed, much that has proven attractive about remote working has stuck. Time with family. The ability to source expertise wherever it may be located. But there's much that's not. After all, as many have said to me, there's a fine line between sleeping at the office and working from home.
Third, we've learned about leadership. As one CEO suggested, all the traditional stuff does matter. Being a good listener. Being aware of the details, able to see the big picture. But perhaps the most valuable capability is one that's not often associated with CEOs, it's being able to show some love, to show some love. We've learned that first and foremost, this is a humanitarian crisis and one where empathy and understanding have really proven to be the leadership qualities that matter.
How should business leaders manage the return to work?
As workplaces reopen, how should leaders manage the return to work?
Well, let me start by saying that first, return is not a date, it's a muscle. We've seen cities with the tightest of rules and disciplines experience a second or third wave of the coronavirus. Indeed, Melbourne and Hong Kong bring this life today, for all of us. Therefore, it's not a question of announcing a date for return and saying everything is done. Instead, it's about a process, one that will have a series of ups and downs. In fact, two steps forward, one step or more back, maybe the story of our times. We need to be able to live with disruption as usual and respond with a tailored, relevant set of actions.
As one CEO said to me, "it's really a combination of fast twitch and slow twitch." Fast twitch characteristics include the willingness to change plans and adjust based on refreshed data and insights. Slow twitch features include managing fundamental shifts that must impact the long term thinking of any business. And indeed, this will be the true test of leadership. After all, for many, this has been the real leadership moment for business leaders everywhere.
Business implications of post-COVID government deficits
Kevin Sneader, global managing partner for McKinsey & Company, provides perspective on how corporate business leaders think in response to the global coronavirus crisis:
What are the implications for business of the deficits resulting from governments stepping in to save the economies around the world in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis?
Over the last three months, the ramp up of relief and stimulus spending has occurred just as tax revenues have stopped. Indeed, government deficits could reach around $10 trillion this year and as much as $30 trillion by 2023. There's a real risk of a debt crisis that could compound the already existing economic crisis.
The challenge, therefore, is how to manage these deficits while addressing inequality and driving for sustainable and inclusive growth. Printing money at scale could prompt a rise in inflation. A big rise in taxation could hamper innovation and growth. So, the answer is two parts. On the one hand, manage the entire balance sheet of government. Take a hard look at assets such as land and property in order to strengthen fiscal sustainability and support broad based economic recovery. And on the other hand, work in partnership with the private sector to prepare workforces for a technology driven future and to improve long term competitiveness and resilience. In short, the message is clear. It's avoid the risk and the temptation to tax and print and instead seek to balance and partner.