Reverse Engineering "Wokeism" in Corporations
It Won't Be Easy; It Will Take More Than Boycotts. But Here's a Path.
Major League Baseball’s (MLB’s) ill-advised move of its annual All-Star game from Atlanta over Georgia’s perfectly reasonable new election law left plenty of casualties in its wake.
It started with Georgia-based international companies like Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines. They and others were consulted as the new law was being drafted, and in Delta’s case, their initial reaction to the law was generally positive. When so-called “civil rights” groups came calling, they folded like lawn chairs. Conservative outrage has been predictable but not very substantive or forward-looking.
But despite blistering fact-checks, social media mockery, and hypocrisy over their respective relationships with Communist Chinese companies, these and other corporations have chosen to double down.
Woke corporations, with a big assist from academia and consultants, are recruiting or joining other CEOs, most notably Mercks’s Kenneth Frazier. Mr. Frazier, an African-American, was the first CEO to resign from President Trump’s “Manufacturing Council” after the 2017 Charlottesville clash between white supremacists and counter-protesters. You know, the one where Trump was quoted as saying there were “very fine people” on both sides, including neo-Nazis. Except he wasn’t talking about that - he was actually referring to the debate over moving a statue of Robert E. Lee from a local park. But Frazier, followed by other CEO’s resigned and resulted in Trump eliminating the Council in about 24 hours.
Frazier and other CEOs based their actions on what has become the Charlottesville hoax. None of them, to my knowledge, has admitted their error. But Frazier is now back at it, this time by being part of a “historic” call with dozens of CEOs about how they’re going to fight “restrictive” state voting laws. CBS’s Ed O’Keefe, once a Washington Post reporter, has the most detailed story, even though it appears he relies mostly on a single source, a Yale professor who appeared to organize it. The CEOs themselves don’t seem to be saying much, and I’m betting they do not appreciate the publicity since it sure looks fishy from an anti-trust legal perspective (lots of lawyers were reportedly on the call, so there’s that).
Not much irony here:
“More than 100 of the nation's top corporate leaders met virtually on Saturday to discuss ways for companies to continue responding to the passage of more restrictive voting laws across the country, a signal that the nation's premier businesses are preparing a far more robust, organized response to the ongoing debate.
“With some CEOs chiming in from Augusta National Golf Club (emphasis added), site of the Masters golf tournament, attendees on the high-level Zoom call included leaders from the health care, media and transportation sectors and some of the nation's leading law and investment firms.
"The gathering was an enthusiastic voluntary statement of defiance against threats of reprisals for exercising their patriotic voices," said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale University management professor who helped organize the confab.”
Corporate CEOs may be very good at leading companies. And they are certainly very well paid for it. But their record of political awareness and engagement often leaves a lot to be desired. Especially when they’re cutting deals with Chinese communist-connected companies, lobbying against legislation that would place a US ban on manufacturing in China using forced labor (slavery), then attacking policymakers for enacting laws that strengthen both voter access and voting integrity.
Of course, this isn’t the first time or the first issue that woke corporations to have challenged state laws. Remember North Carolina’s and Texas’s “bathroom bills” from 2016? Those were legislative attempts to prevent biological males (the gender listed on your official birth certificate) from using women’s restrooms, at least in state facilities. Companies (none of whom were affected by the legislation in either Texas or North Carolina) went into full virtue signaling mode, citing their own LGBT-driven policies that allowed transgender people to use the bathrooms of their choice. The whole thing turned into a big mess with political consequences.
But a lot of corporations felt like they came out ahead on the issue, with canceled events, threats to cancel investments, and even issuing corporate travel guidelines and advisories to settle the fears of employees who felt “threatened” by North Carolina and Texas’s “bigotry.” They had scored points with groups of younger, millennial employees, especially ones who belong to politically active “affinity groups,” including LGBT employees. Many of those employees were clearly influenced by inflammatory communications and calls to action from outside organizations and legislation. They had no problem pressuring their company’s management to take action. And they did. It worked.
How did it get this way? I wrote about that recently, but the real question is, how do conservatives and Republicans counter or reverse engineer this epidemic of woke political activism at corporations? Is it too late, and is it worth the effort?
It is never too late, but leftist and “woke” activists have been at this for decades, and conservatives don’t even have their boots on yet. Let’s take a quick look at some of the ways the left succeeded on this front and see if there are lessons for those of us who would like to see public corporations refocus on increasing shareowner value and stepping away from cultural and political controversies.
Non-profit “advocacy” organizations
This is a large and interesting industry, much of which has changed strategies and tactics in recent years.
There exist traditional leftist nonprofits that still focus on holding corporations accountable on sets of issues. Attacking corporations is a good fundraising tool (whether right or left, it is always about the money). For example, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has long taken on traditional food companies over nutrition and other food-related issues. Their “Nutrition Action” newsletter is always chock of attacks foods they consider unhealthy, with a particular focus on higher sodium foods. CSPI staff will be glad to take calls or meeting with food companies who want their advice. But sit at a table to negotiate with food companies over public policy or regulatory issues? Highly unlikely.
But other non-profit organizations on the left, especially some environmental groups, have figured out how to leverage their influence with a “carrot and stick” approach with major corporations. A lobbyist for an environmental group might reach out to a corporate lobbyist and see if there may be common ground on a renewable energy issue. “You know, I’ve seen where you established renewable energy goals for your company. Perhaps we can work together on legislation to renew wind and solar tax credits that makes your conversion easier and cheaper.”
Those organizations have caught the attention of lobbyists and corporate affairs people and won invitations into corporate meeting rooms. It’s a win-win. Often strapped non-profit advocacy groups get well-heeled help on a legislative issue; in exchange, they offer praise from an environmental group - a “man bites dog'“ story.
Furthermore, individual employees are often members of these groups and are solicited and even recruited to influence their own companies.
Conservative non-profit groups operate much the same way but no longer have as much influence over corporations. For most companies, there is no benefit in being “praised” by anything remotely conservative or “pro-business.” It looks self-serving, especially with today’s woke, narrative-pushing corporate media. That’s a “dog bites man” non-story. Worse, Democratic legislators, for the most part, thanks in large part to partisan gerrymandering, are not interested in working with conservative or business groups to look more “centrist” or “bipartisan,” with increasingly rare exceptions. That’s the path to a primary challenge from a woke progressive candidate. And in the US House, every Member, Democrat or Republican, is looking over their shoulder at primary challenges from their party’s more extremist wing. That’s where energy and money are in politics these days.
But there is one way conservative or more pro-business-minded third party groups can have some influence - by carefully choosing issues that matter to influential groups of people such as shareowners and developing rating systems or indices that measure how they are doing. Maybe some can partner with our more creative policymakers, like US Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), and marry certain legislative ideas with grassroots campaigns and hold corporations accountable for their public support? Not a new idea, just rarely implemented. Some organizations are doing work in this space, but they have not gained traction. Republican legislators mostly do not build a multi-faceted campaign around a legislative idea; they seem happy enough to drop the press release, introduce the bill, hold a fundraising event, maybe even get a 10-minute segment on Newsmax or OANN.
And where is the conservative version of the Center for Political Accountability? CPA was created to give companies a score for their political spending. How transparent? How are decisions made? Is the board of directors informed or involved? I joined in during my corporate days but came to regret it. They kept moving the goalposts to fit their real agenda - getting corporate money out of politics (especially conservative/Republican politics). How about an index that rewards companies for being neutral or “responsibly engaged” on public policy issues? Maybe a “slave labor” index, or another one on Chinese inputs?
Academia
This one should not surprise you. Most people know how “woke” and left college campuses have become, especially the faculty. Who do you think inspires students to shut down speech and speakers they don’t like? What you may not know is that many academicians don’t teach all that much (they leave that work to the graduate assistants); they actually do a lot of research, some for companies, often funded through third parties (it is often verboten in some academic or research projects to take “tainted” corporate money).
During my days in the food industry, I found plenty of food and nutrition researchers - all PhDs - who were happy to work with me on research (always on the up and up, learn stuff, not drive narratives, although that certainly happens). In fact, academicians are approaching corporations all the time on research projects that fit their particular agenda. Often, that research helps them publish their own studies and publications (books).
Conservatives and Republicans are not well represented in academia, but they are out there. They are underutilized for conducting credible research on topics that can help bring sunshine to key public policy issues.
Consultants
Political consultants, in particular, are known for their work on campaigns. It’s how they get started and earn their chops. Especially when they win the big races, but it is not how they make their money.
Take Rick Wilson and Steve Schmidt, for example, a couple of now-former Republicans and the founders of the Lincoln Project, the anti-Trump effort that took money from Democratic funders and The Left to defeat Trump and pro-Trump Republicans. They demonstrated themselves to be grifters, printing and publishing often sub-standard mailings and media while profiting mightily in the process.
But that’s not all. They also make a lot of money serving as consultants to corporations. Steve Schmidt - who was the campaign manager for John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008 - advised at least one of his clients to withdraw from President Trump’s Manufacturing Council, based on what we now know was a lie (the aforementioned Charlottesville Hoax).
You might think larger public corporations would rely on their own government affairs experts for advice, and many do. But CEOs and other senior staff are often enamored by the big names with “big ideas” to provide them with “more seasoned” advice or an inside perspective based on their elaborate contacts (the same thing that outside lobbying firms do). They make big money this way, and it doesn’t show up on Federal Election Commission disclosures as campaign expenditures do. It is a great gig if you can get one. At a minimum, big-name political consultants get invited to speak at corporate conferences that almost always include some private time with the CEO and his/her leadership team and perhaps a longer-term relationship.
Some on the progressive left actually do not like Democratic political consultants working for corporations. There are purists on The Left and The Right. Those consultants probably do not care.
Lord of the Rings aficionados should consider these consultants akin to Grima Wormtongue from the final chapter, Return of the King, of JRR Tolkien’s brilliant series. Wormtongue (how apt) was the advisor to King Theodon, keeping him powerless and weak under a spell until freed to overcome the evil Saruman, for whom Wormtongue was an agent and spy.
Socially-responsible investor groups
This is an interesting area. Scores of “social venture” firms have emerged in recent years that cater to emotional appeals for investments “that appeal to your values.” These aren’t all left-wing groups, but they clearly favor causes embraced by them. The Left has figured out how, by investing funds in some companies, they can leverage that investment through “Corporate Social Responsibility” officers and “Investor Relations” directors and even some CEOs to influence public policy actions. The Right? Not so much. During my corporate experience, I was never aware of a single “conservative” minded investor group. I never heard from one. The Left? Oh, yes.
Conservative investors seem to think differently.
In 2013, a food and agriculture investor group, Ceres Partners, reached out to companies that belonged to the National Association of Manufacturers in hopes they would pressure the trade group to pull back on aspects of their agenda, especially its opposition to President’s Obama’s 2013 plan on “climate change.” After all, Nike and other “woke” manufacturers were all in on the Obama plan (never mind how Nike ignored what China was or was not doing, where Nike shoes are manufactured, allegedly some with slave labor). Ceres was highly supportive of the Obama climate agenda. And they could go public.
Are there “conservative” minded socially responsible investor groups? Yes, Ave Maria Fund (AVEMX) comes to mind, focused on “Catholic values.” Are other others? And if there are, are you investing in them? Are they reaching out to influence companies in which they exist on public policy issues? I doubt it.
These investor groups, on the right and the left, have questionable records of success. What are you doing to make sure your dollars are invested in companies that reflect your values, or at least aren’t attacking them? And does that make sense? Having the right financial advisor is a must since this area is complicated.
Still, it would be nice to have more mutual funds focused on companies that support “good” companies and hold them accountable for American values and truly responsible corporate behavior. This area needs a lot of thought and leadership with a lot more money and far more expertise than me.
Employees
When the Major League Baseball brouhaha broke out with major corporate support, US Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) suggested that conservative-minded employees email their CEOs; to get vocal.
“Sen. Tom Cotton said Monday he wanted conservative and Republican employees to get vocal and counter liberal activists pressuring corporations to oppose Georgia’s new election law.
“The Arkansas Republican said he has encountered many pro-Trump and conservative employees at Delta Airlines, for example, and called for those employees to speak up now.
“I would encourage all of those conservative and Republican employees who work in Delta’s workforce or Coca-Cola’s workforce to be more active themselves,” Mr. Cotton said on CNBC. “You should send emails to your CEO, the way the media reports suggest all of these left-wing employees were doing so. Encourage them to stick to running an airline or selling sugary beverages to Americans.”
What Sen. Cotton may not know is that conservative employees are keeping silent and minding their opinions to protect themselves. Woke and increasingly militant employee affinity groups are marauding about looking for the unwoke, with the support of their intimidated if not like-minded human resource officers to depower, deplatform, and cancel. These conservative employees know full well that just as soon as they email their CEO, depending on that CEO’s political proclivities, two people will be notified - the employee’s boss and someone in HR (human resources). They are unlikely to be friendly or appreciative. And as we all know, the “e” in email stands for “evidence.” As in, to be used against you by the marauders. Conservative employees are just not going to reach out that way, and who can blame them, especially 50-year-old white male middle managers with children in college?
Tom Cotton would have offered stronger advice by having non-employee individual shareowners mobilized to communicate with CEOs and other senior staff. Shareowners have more leverage over CEOs than do employees (duh), even though many senior employees are also shareowners. Leftist organizations have figured it out. It is not uncommon for tens of thousands of emails (many from bots) to be sent to senior staff of public companies when they want to pressure them to take action. They often look “organic.” They’re not. Some claim to be shareowners or customers. Yeah, right.
And there’s another way. Some smart companies use tools such as those provided by the nonpartisan Business-Industry Political Action Committee (BIPAC) to engage their employees on issues that actually matter to their jobs, on a non-partisan/bipartisan basis. They provide online tools and resources that allow companies to share information and even give employees an opportunity to contact their legislators. It’s voluntary, and it is effective. Employees actually trust their employers more than political parties or the media for information on issues. This, from a BIPAC survey in 2016. (Disclosure: I serve on BIPAC’s Board of Directors, but all of the views expressed here are mine, not theirs. BIPAC does NOT take positions on issues, especially ones that I profess).
(E2E means “Employer to Employee”)
Conservatives who want to get public corporations back on track had better get busy, combine forces, put their dollars where their values are, and support efforts to change woke corporate cultures. It will take smart leadership along with time, money, people, and talent. Lots of it. It is not a task for the faint-hearted, or as Thomas Paine might put it, the “summer soldier and the sunshine patriot.”
Boycotts are fine, but they rarely work and are frequently unsustainable (try boycotting all Google services and products). It takes much more than that - a smart, sustained, multi-pronged strategy with smart, dedicated leaders and followers, in several sectors.