Corporate social advocacy is a new term but not necessarily a new concept. People have always held expectations of companies and corporations. However, in recent years, businesses and brands have been part of broader conversations regarding politics and society. We're going to talk about corporate social advocacy and what it's all about and why it's an emerging practice. For your reference, here are some additional readings on corporate social advocacy. Again, since it's such a new term, previous research has examined public interest in corporate advocacy. You'll see different terminology or a certain focus that's slightly different than corporate social advocacy. Let's first think about defining corporate social advocacy. A seminal piece on corporate social advocacy was written by Melissa Dodd and Dustin Supa, where they defined corporate social advocacy as beyond corporate social responsibility. Corporate social advocacy represents a stance on controversial social or political issues. It's often aligned or relevant to the corporation or industry, which is what makes it so interesting. In our earlier lecture on corporate social responsibility, I noted that alignment was important for the success of CSR efforts. Why now, with corporate social advocacy is alignment or relevance non important? Well, corporate social advocacy is public interest communication. CSR efforts align with a company or brand, address the triple bottom line and then are leveraged to benefit the brand's reputation. Corporate social advocacy, however, is not always well received by stakeholders. A good example is Nike's Colin Kaepernick campaign, Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything. The day after this campaign was revealed, Nike shares closed down more than three percent. Shortly thereafter, sales rose exponentially in word of mouth on social media platforms was a buzz. Nike knew this campaign would alienate some people, but they decided that taking a stand was worth the price in the short term. This campaign was most popular among younger generations. Since Nike already has a loyal following from diverse consumers, the company took a risk that paid off in sales. Another example is when Dick's Sporting Goods decided to no longer sell semi automatic high round guns after the mass shooting in Parkland, Florida. When the CEO learned that the teen charged with the shooting had bought some of his guns at Dick's, he immediately decided to make changes. Dick's also decided to stop selling to any one under 21 and high capacity magazines would not be sold. In these examples, there is definitely a financial implication to these decisions. Just like CSR generates skepticism, corporate social advocacy has also been criticized as woke washing or attempts by companies to appear socially conscious to make profits. We saw this in 2020 after the Black Lives Matter summer protests, many brands moved to DEI initiatives and they receive backlash because their efforts were not sincere, nor were they followed through with. It is critical to look inward and ask, why are we making this change? It is important to self examine so your company doesn't come off as tone deaf. These public stands have the potential to alienate some stakeholders. Corporate social advocacy involves corporate support of or in opposition to policies, politics, or social issues. This strategy goes against conventional business wisdom that advises companies to remain neutral on controversial issues for fear of alienating consumers. It is true some consumers are likely to react negatively toward business stances on political issues. But new research also suggests that consumers respect and patronize companies that take stances on issues. Global communication is directly affected by the process of globalization and helps to increase business opportunities, remove cultural barriers, and develop a global village. Both globalization and global communication have changed the environmental, cultural, political, and economic components in the world. Although most Americans think about Nike's Colin Kaepernick campaign as a brand taking a stand, these belief driven buyers are across the world. About 59 percent of US consumers are belief based buyers, lower than countries like China at 78 percent and Brazil at 69, India at 68, and France at 65. Change is different in every country, but across the board, consumers are increasingly expecting brands to get involved and take a stand. More and more CEOs are feeling the pressure to take a position on some social and cultural issue. A 2018 study by Cone and Porter Novelli, large advertising and public relations agencies, the survey found that 71 percent of Americans expect companies to connect with them emotionally on issues that matter to them. These are a few of the issues the survey respondents felt most passionately about. A 2018 Edelman, another large PR agency, at Edelman study found that 56 percent of respondents said they had no respect for CEOs who remain silent on important issues. As we see the millennials and Gen Z generations come up, they have different expectations of companies than older generations did. Change is near.
