Championing Social Issues

Examining the intersection between retailing and social issues.

To quote Madonna—the singer not the biblical figure—“Think before you speak.”

A rather odd posting for someone who has made a career pushing the edges of the societal envelope, but who better than the Material Girl to start a conversation about branding and its fragility.

Her remark came in the wake of published comments on same-sex parenting by Domenico Dolce, half of the Dolce & Gabbana fashion empire, who, though gay, said things like people “should be born to a father and mother,” and used terms like “synthetic children” and “uteruses for rent.” This unleashed a social media firestorm with high profile celebrities like Elton John, calling for a boycott of the company’s clothing. Like any good politician—or business leader—Mr. Dolce has since walked back his comments.

More recently, religious freedom bills in Indiana and Arkansas have raised the ire of activist groups—and the general public—turning both states into business pariahs.

My work often takes me outside the food industry and I have long been fascinated by political and social machinations within the fashion business. But there are parallels to be drawn. Most recently the failed attempt by Starbucks to start a national conversation on race by having baristas write “Race Together” on the cups of bleary-eyed customers who are more interested in getting their venti half-caff nonfat lattes than venting about social issues.

To some, this short-lived campaign launched by CEO Howard Schultz, was arrogant, inappropriate, ill-timed in the face of rising racial tensions and ill-conceived by an icon of gentrification whose presence in some communities was considered a racial wedge, not a bridge.

Personally, I believe Mr. Schultz to be a true man of true principle and social conscience who had the courage to stand up and acknowledge the elephant in the room—shame on those who would vilify him for trying.

It does raise concerns about the intersection of retailing and social issues. However, the question is not should-we-or-shouldn’t-we, but how-and-where and how much of a tolerance a company has for risk. To paraphrase Harry Truman: “If you can’t stand the heat, don’t tickle the dragon.”

There is nothing that breathes a hotter fire or deeper resentment than people who disagree with what you say, where you say it and whether they feel your opinions are being forced on them.

The first thing to consider is whether a CEO should use his company to promote any sensitive issue or simply keep attitudes as a personal choice. We have all heard the term “corporate social responsibility” thrown around over the years. But perhaps this applies more to ethical decision making within the organization rather than trying to shape the attitudes of employees and customers.

Whatever the issue, the danger is that people will see it as a marketing ploy to sell products or promote stores. Fortunately, this has not stopped companies like Starbucks, Whole Foods, Anheuser-Busch, Colgate Palmolive, Kellogg, Pepsico, Ben & Jerry’s and a raft of others for whom social responsibility is a core part of the business.

In the future, their actions will be the rule rather than the exception, according to business insiders, who feel that Millennials, the next generation of business leaders, will drive social change and expect their companies to take a stand.

However, anyone planning to get involved in potentially polarizing national debates would be wise to understand all the facts involved, monitor the attitudes of its consumers and have a strategy or crisis management team in place to deal with any backlash. The last thing you want is to find yourself in the center of a vociferous and nasty social media free-for-all.

Arthur Page, considered the godfather of modern public relations, said, “all business in a democratic country begins with the public’s permission and exists by public approval.” You have to determine if your company can withstand losing some of that approval by digging in on divisive issues.

Many companies do not have the stomach for a fight that could have a negative impact on sales or do not want to spend social capital tilting at windmills. The safer, yet still socially significant, route would be to stick to local battles—initiatives that come under the heading of  “strategic philanthropy.” Even the most hard-hearted cannot malign a company’s support of community programs for children or jobs, food banks, shelters, clothing drives or environmental cleanup—issues that improve the quality of life.

Not everything good has to be on the national stage. However, whatever a company does has to be an integral part of its culture and corporate planning.

For many companies all this is relatively uncharted territory, and we all know which road is paved with good intentions. Step lively but step carefully!