The article in the url below is interesting because it asks the question: "Why would anyone want to toil for a tobacco firm or a casino?" In other words, "In an age when everyone is supposed to have a purpose, why would employees who have a choice work for the baddies?" Of course, what and who constitute the 'bad guys' is a moving target, depending on the evolution of what society considers to be acceptable:
"… some sectors are stigmatised enough to be known as 'sin industries'—booze, gambling, tobacco and so on. Other industries have gone from being respectable to questionable: fossil-fuel firms, say. (A few, like cannabis firms, are travelling in the opposite direction.) Nationality now casts shadows in ways it did not before: working for a Chinese company might once have aroused admiration but now provokes suspicion."
The article suggests that the level of compensation a worker receives is part of the explanation, at least for those who rise to senior ranks:
"A paper in 2014 found that the bosses of alcohol, better and tobacco firms earned a premium that could not be explained by those companies being more complex to run, less job security or poorer governance. The size of the premium did, however, line up with periods of heightened bad publicity, such as legal settlements in the tobacco industry. The stigma that wreathed these executives was observable in other ways, too: they sat on fewer boards than bosses in more virtuous industries."
But the article counters that, although pay might be part of the explanation, on its own, it is insufficient to overcome the psychological impact of working for a stigmatized company/industry. Instead, the argument is advanced that the way these employees see what they are doing is significantly different to the way they are perceived externally:
"First, hostility itself can sometimes act as a kind of binding agent for employees of stigmatized firms. A study … found that job satisfaction increased at firms that faced disapproval, provided their employees regarded the criticism as illegitimate. Second, societies' attitudes can change, sometimes suddenly. The arms industry looks less evil now that its products are helping Ukrainians fend off Russian tanks. Dependence on Russian gas has made secure sources of energy, even if they are not low-carbon, seem more attractive."
So much so, the article argues, that employees in these industries can easily rationalize that their work is important and that they take pride in doing it in the face of external criticism – a sort of circling of the wagons and the idea that they see things that are misunderstood by others:
"Third, employees in vilified industries are often in a position to do valuable things. .. Widespread suspicion of genetically engineered crops ignores the copious evidence that they are safe and useful. And a rapid decline in the number of new petroleum engineers in America will seem less desirable if a shortfall in expertise holds back carbon-sequestration projects."
Take care
David
David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
Working for the baddies
By Bartleby
August 13, 2022
The Economist
Late Edition – Final
59
