The Challenges of Taking Moral Positions in Polarized Societies for Companies

It had become obvious: the company should no longer be the entity solely concerned with producing well, using resources efficiently, creating economic value that it had once been. It was his duty to be at the forefront of all the societal battles of his time. The moral positions taken by companies were all the more attractive in that they generally cost nothing and constituted effective communication arguments.

To tell the truth, companies have always sailed (with cynicism, some would say, pragmatism, others would say) in the direction of the current. Submission to the saber and aspergillum of the moment has always been the safest choice for commercial activity.

Everything is changing now. Until then, taking a moral position was easy: just go with the flow. It was easy in a society where the main moral messages were relatively consensual, where a few values ​​brought everyone together without harm. Singing with the choir was then without risk or pain.

disliked disney

On the other hand, it is much more complicated in polarized societies where values ​​are the subject of bitter battles. To take sides with one is to alienate the opposing party.

Recent illustration: the choice of a partnership with a transgender person by Bud Light beer resulted in a sharp drop in sales and a devaluation on the stock market of 15.7 billion dollars for the giant Anheuser-Busch . Another striking case: Disney’s strong commitment to “wokism” has considerably damaged the image of the brand. While it was the fourth most loved brand in 2019, in 2023 it became one of the most hated (77^e out of 100, according to the Axios-Harris ranking). Its market value has been divided by 2.3 since 2021.

The problem is all the more obvious today as, markets being globalized and activities international, many companies are simultaneously active in societies with moral options that are orthogonal, not to say antithetical.

It is difficult to celebrate sexual minorities and gender equality in one country, and to adopt all the signs of female submission elsewhere, where minorities are severely repressed. In a world where images are everywhere and travel in the blink of an eye, double talk is no longer tenable: the hypocrisy is too obvious and is starting to hurt.

Maintain a modest silence

This dichotomy is also found at the heart of companies. With employees from diverse backgrounds, is it realistic to expect a moral consensus? In a world more divided than ever, choosing a side means putting yourself on the front line. Companies will find more disappointments than laurels, except to play the (possible) card of the identity niche limiting growth prospects.

They need to reassess their communication strategy. Opting for a well-considered neutrality, focusing their message on the product and its benefits, and keeping a modest silence about the rest, could be the way to go. In a world where every choice arms enemies against you, not choosing is the best option.

As in these clubs where, to maintain harmony, the rules prohibit any discussion of religion and politics, companies would benefit from proscribing commitments that go beyond legal obligations. A way also for them not to assume in place of the politician the task that is devolved to him: to decide between the thorny contemporary questions.