The article in the url below raises a question that is central to the challenge of strategic CSR – how do firms know what their stakeholders truly care about? More specifically, it focuses on the intersection of strategic CSR and social media, and the extent to which firms should view online 'protests' as a valid indicator of stakeholder values:
"Amanda Booth first witnessed the phenomenon of labeling yourself progressive online while endorsing different values in real life when her white coworkers mentioned buying property in East Austin. The area is popularly known as a redlined neighborhood, primarily housing Austin's Black and brown community. Recently, the East Side has undergone major renovations with new modern houses, trendy bars, and local coffee shops, as gentrification pushes out the original inhabitants of the area. But when Booth, a 24-year old content designer in Austin, confronted her coworkers by explaining that Black and Hispanic people were being displaced from the area, her remarks were met with silence. 'Both of these guys proudly express themselves as being more on the progressive side of the Democratic party,' Booth said. 'Mind you, both of them have houses on the East Side now.' 'It's not enough to believe in racial justice and that Black people deserve things. White people need to begin giving up their privilege. The least they can do is try to plug into Austin's anti-displacement efforts. But I don't really see those people doing that,' Booth continued."
In prior newsletters, I have highlighted instances where companies acted in ways that led to consumer/public backlash (including negative headlines and #boycott protests online), but that did not affect future performance (e.g., Strategic CSR – Uber, Strategic CSR – United, and Strategic CSR – United Airlines). Clearly, all such examples are complicated and, to some extent, idiosyncratic. But, the fact that there are multiple examples suggests that, just because an online #boycott campaign erupts, that should not necessarily be taken as a sign by companies that their stakeholders actually mean what they say (or, at least that a meaningful proportion of them are serious in their online pledges to boycott).
So, what is the takeaway – that firms should not care what is written about them online? Probably not, but I do think that asking stakeholders what they care about is likely the least effective way of finding out. Much of what happens on social media is performative and, at best, captures the social temperature at a moment in time. Such momentary indicators should probably not drive firm strategy. Much better to ensure all action is consistent with the firm's professed values (which should be determined via discourse with stakeholders), and then ride out any criticism that follows. I am guessing if Budweiser had done that over the summer, for example, they may still be making the best selling beer in the U.S.
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/
White clicktivism: Why are some Americans woke online but not in real life?
By Brianna Holt
December 9, 2020
The Guardian
