As you will all no doubt remember, the U.S. Supreme Court was busy over the summer, in particular overturning Roe v. Wade – the 1973 decision that had allowed abortion to be legal across the whole country. This newsletter is not about that, as I am sure you all have firmly set views on the topic; instead, this newsletter is about the article in the url below that reports Patagonia's reaction to the decision. Understandably, it was emotional and demonstrates the firm's progressive views and its support for its employees (e.g., see also Strategic CSR – Patagonia):
"Outdoor clothing brand Patagonia said on Friday that it would post bail for any employees arrested at abortion protests. The company will provide 'training and bail for those who peacefully protest for reproductive justice,' it said on LinkedIn. The perk applies to both full-time and part-time workers, Patagonia said."
Apparently (and quite surprisingly, I think), this is not a new thing for the firm:
"The company offers protest training and has a policy of bailing out employees arrested at peaceful protests, according to Bloomberg."
What I was wondering as I read through the article is how this response would be received by the CSR community. My guess is it would largely be welcomed (and I certainly liked it), but that then made me wonder whether it is always ok for companies to encourage behavior that gets people arrested. The company softens it a bit by adding the "peaceful protest" qualifier but, after all, they are anticipating employees will be arrested, which is the only reason they would need bail. Specifically, I wondered what I would think if I saw a headline saying that Exxon was willing to bail out any employees caught protesting against a UN COP conference? Or, what if Black Rifle Coffee Company had offered to pay the court costs of any of its employees caught at the January 6 insurrection?
As long as my reaction would have been the same (i.e., similarly supportive), then I am being consistent in my views. But, if I liked the Patagonia response, but would have objected to a similar policy by Exxon or BRCC, then I am being hypocritical. Values are values, and it is hard to argue that one person's values are any less valid than someone else's. I might disagree with them and think the world would be much better off if everyone shared my values, but that is not how life works. And, this decision by the Supreme Court seems like a good issue on which to make the point.
If we want businesses to be values-based, then we have to recognize there will be some that advocate for causes with which we disagree. The battle comes in trying to 'win' the day on the issues about which we care the most. If we lose those arguments, it is not because the other side is 'evil,' it is because we disagree about something fundamental (however ill-informed you think the other side's position is).
So, my sense is that we should only be happy to see Patagonia inciting its employees to act lawlessly, if we are perfectly ok with Exxon, or BRCC, or Chick-fil-A, or whomever else doing the same. If acting based on our values and principles is objectively a good thing, then that applies to all the values and principles, not just the ones we support. In terms of strategic CSR, being "socially responsible" does not mean only firms doing things that we think are acceptable; it means creating value for the firm's stakeholders, according to their values and perceived self-interest (see Strategic CSR – Self-interest), even if that looks like something we oppose. In other words, just because we don't like something does not mean it is not socially responsible.
Take care
David
David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2020
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
Patagonia will post bail for any employees arrested at abortion protests
By Tim Levin
June 24, 2022
Business Insider
