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.
Top Risks 2022
Every year, Eurasia Group, our parent company, produces its list of the top 10 geopolitical risks for the coming year. The report is authored by Eurasia Group's president, Ian Bremmer, and its chairman, Cliff Kupchan.
#1 — No zero COVID
We’re done with the pandemic, but it’s not yet done with us, and the finish line depends on where you live. Critically, China’s “zero-COVID” policy will fail.
In the developed world, the end is near. The highly transmissible omicron variant is colliding with highly vaccinated populations that are bolstered by highly effective mRNA vaccines and COVID treatments. That’s why the pandemic will likely become endemic for advanced industrial economies in the first half of this year. Yet even in the developed world, the economic hangover from the pandemic will endure this year with disrupted supply chains and persistent inflation.
But China, the primary engine for global growth, will face highly transmissible COVID variants without the most effective vaccines, and with far fewer people protected by previous infection. China’s policy will fail to contain infections, lead to larger outbreaks, and require more severe lockdowns. That means greater economic disruptions, lower consumption, and a more dissatisfied population at odds with the triumphalist “China defeated COVID” narrative of the state-run media. China’s problem will continue until sometime after it has rolled out domestically developed mRNA shots and boosters for the world’s largest population — at the end of the year by the earliest.
In general, developing countries will be hit hardest, and political incumbents will bear the brunt of public anger. Demand for booster shots in wealthier countries will prevent effective vaccines from becoming more widely available. New outbreaks will slow economic growth in emerging markets, and leave poorer governments with more debt.
In all these ways, COVID will continue to drive political and economic instability.
#2 — A technopolar world
That’s a reference to the intensifying conflict between governments and the world’s largest tech companies over who will set the rules in the digital space that’s playing an ever-larger role in our lives and our politics.
Today, warn Bremmer and Kupchan, the world’s biggest tech firms decide much of what we see and hear. They play a growing role in creating our economic opportunities and shaping our opinions on important subjects. Policymakers in Europe, China, and America will tighten tech regulation this year, but Big Tech will continue to make and enforce most of the rules in the digital sphere.
The trouble, the report’s authors warn, is that tech giants can’t yet effectively govern the tools they’re creating or the space they’re expanding. Disinformation will further undermine public faith in democracy, and as tech firms and governments fail to agree on how to protect data privacy, cyber-security and the safe and ethical use of artificial intelligence, tensions on these issues among the US, Europe and China will grow.
#3 — US midterms
In November, Republicans will probably win back majority control of the House of Representatives – and maybe the Senate. If so, Democrats will view GOP control as the illegitimate result of a voter-suppression campaign, and Republicans will see victory as further evidence of 2020 election fraud. Public trust in American political institutions will take an even larger hit.
More important is what the midterms mean for the 2024 presidential election. Donald Trump is signaling he will run for president in 2024, and he might well win. The more complex scenario, according to the report, emerges if he loses. If Republicans win both the House and Senate this November, if Trump responds to a defeat in 2024 by challenging the result, and if state-level officials submit alternative certifications that Republican congressional majorities accept, the 2024 US presidential election can be broken and a constitutional crisis will result, say Bremmer and Kupchan. That’s why the 2022 midterms are so important for the future of America’s democracy.
Here are summaries of risks 4-10.
#4 — China at home
An increasingly burdensome “zero-COVID policy” (see Risk #1) and President Xi Jinping’s reform plans will unsettle markets and companies in 2022. Xi’s vision of technological self-sufficiency, economic security, and social harmony — to “make China strong” — will collide with intensifying pushback from the West, an exhausted growth model, an overleveraged and unbalanced economy, and a rapidly aging population — and at a time when COVID variants continue to circulate.
#5 — Russia
A buildup of Russian troops near Ukraine has opened a broader confrontation over Europe’s security architecture. President Putin could send in troops and annex the occupied Donbas, but his current demand is for major NATO security concessions and a promise of no further eastward expansion. But a grand bargain is unlikely, and close encounters between NATO and Russian ships and planes will become more frequent and more dangerous, increasing chances of an accident. Add ongoing concerns about Russian cyber-attacks and interference in US elections.
#6 — Iran
Iran’s nuclear program is advancing rapidly. With diplomacy stalled, the Biden administration has few options. Israel will increasingly take matters into its own hands — which once again raises the specter of Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. These pressures will collide this year, leaving oil prices and regional states jittery, and increasing the risk of conflict.
#7 — Two steps greener, one step back
In 2022, continued upward pressure on energy costs will force governments to favor policies that lower energy costs but delay climate action. Rising energy prices will raise anxiety levels for both voters and elected officials — even as climate pressures on government increase.
#8 — Empty lands
With Washington and Beijing distracted by domestic priorities, and the EU, UK, and Japan unable to fill the resulting power vacuum, many countries and regions will be left with unmanaged crises. In Afghanistan, a disorganized and inexperienced Taliban will struggle to stop the Islamic State from drawing foreign militants into ungoverned expanses of the country. The risk of terrorism remains acute in the Sahel. Civil wars will create new risks in Yemen, Myanmar, and Ethiopia. Venezuela and Haiti risk growing refugee crises.
#9 — Corporates losing the culture wars
The world’s biggest brands look forward to record profits, but a more difficult year managing politics. Consumers and employees, empowered by “cancel culture” and enabled by social media, will force multinationals to spend more time and money navigating environmental, cultural, and political minefields.
#10 — Turkey
President Erdogan will drag Turkey’s economy and international standing to new lows in 2022 as he tries to reverse his plunging poll numbers ahead of elections in 2023. Unemployment and inflation are high, and the lira is weaker and more volatile, but Erdogan has rejected orthodox economic management. His foreign policy will grow more combative this year to distract voters from the economic crisis.
Agree with this list? Disagree? Tell uswhat you think, Signal readers!Biden's vaccine mandates caught in a growing culture war
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, shares insights on US politics:
What is happening with Biden's vaccine mandates?
Well, Biden put in place a mandate for employers to vaccinate or test, on a weekly basis their employees, if they have more than 100 of them. And there's been pushback from a lot of corners of society. Some smaller businesses have objected. Some governors, particularly Texas, Louisiana, have objected.
Texas said the mandate doesn't apply for large employers in its state, even though that puts the employers in a terrible situation of having to choose which level of government they should listen to. And these states have sued in federal courts. The federal courts have stayed the mandate, meaning it won't be implemented until the decision is made probably by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Labor Department overstepped its authorities in issuing this mandate, claiming that they have the ability to protect workplace safety.
A lot of large employers have embraced the mandate. They want their employees to be vaccinated, but they don't want to worry about people quitting in mass numbers. If everyone has to get vaccinated, that's not really an issue. The evidence shows vaccine mandates generally work. People respond to them. The numbers of people who have actually quit their jobs over vaccine mandates is relatively small, although you are seeing widespread protests.
Interestingly, as coronavirus cases have dropped in the country, the vaccine mandate has probably become a little bit less important, but it is growing as a culture war issue and fostering some backlash against President Biden.
Interestingly, the Democratic Governor of Kansas herself said she's against the vaccine mandate. Kansas is a pretty conservative state, but she claims it won't achieve the President's goals, at least in Kansas, and they want to find their own way.