Americans divided on whether companies should make statements about political, social issues

If they asked me, “Is it important when…” I’d say yes. But what I’d want them to ask me is “Should companies do this?” I’d say no. Stay in your lane. If you make pencils, all you have to do is make really good pencils and treat your employees right and be honest in your business. That’s it. Nothing else. I don’t want to know what you think about anything.

>>Stay in your lane. If you make pencils, all you have to do is make really good pencils and treat your employees right and be honest in your business. That’s it. Nothing else. I don’t want to know what you think about anything.<<

Amen. That’s exactly what I want from businesses as well. Of course, these days, just flying an American flag at the company headquarters seems to be making a “political” statement, even if unintended. You can’t win for losing.

Regarding "stay in your lane", I think it's entirely appropriate for companies to speak up on political issues that affect them directly. Those companies that import a lot of goods ought to speak up when tariffs go from revenue to punitive--say to well above 10%. Those who are capital intensive ought to speak up when the question is capital gains taxes, and the like. I'm also happy that my company, when wanting to build a facility in North Carolina in the 1950s, specifically told the governor that they'd only break ground when Jim Crow was gone. The argument was "we need the best people, and many of those happen to be black."

Where I think most citizens get grouchy about the matter is when companies have a lot to say about things that really don't impact their business, especially (e.g. sponsorship of things like Pride parades, trans advocacy) when many of their customers see that sponsorship as something that's destroying their communities, morally speaking.

I saw a shift in my own company's public positions beginning with the election of DJT in 2016. Several his statements and policies were so egregious (in the eyes of many) that my company's CEO felt he needed to assure our employees and customers that our company opposed these statements and policies. This public corporate reaction became even greater in 2020. In 2020, people wanted corporations to declare where they stood on vaccines and certain social justice issues. This was the year of George Floyd and the rise of the BLM movement.

Companies who remained silent on these issues were publicly shamed as contributing to systemic racism, etc. That is why a lot of companies "went public" with their support for social justice issues. They wanted to be seen by the public as social justice allies.

Now, with the election of DJT 2.0, the public sentiment has shifted (for now), and several of these companies are publicly "backtracking" as they follow the shifting winds of politics.

Silence would be better, I agree. But, that is not always possible given the heightened and extreme political divisions within America. If you're not for us, you're against us.

It strikes me that employees who want to object to their employers' stands ought to do so not as employees, but as stockholders. Companies can fire employees, but not stockholders. The argument you make depends on what's being done, but it's important to speak the language of the executives who can more or less be fired by the board of directors; money.

More or less, as Anheuser-Busch learned with Dylan Mulvaney, when you do things your customers find gross, morally wrong, or insulting, you lose market share. Write as a stockholder, and you'll possibly make some progress.

Individual employees at a publicly traded company usually have very little leverage as "stockholders." There are several very influential stockholders, and they hold at least 5% of the company's outstanding shares. Some hold as much as 10% - 15%.

The former CEO / Chairman of the Board of my company was the company's founder. Between himself, his wife, and his family they held over 17% of the company's shares until he retired in February 2020 and sold most of their shares.

Currently, hedgefunds and other financial institutions now own the majority of company shares. The largest single investor (a hedge fund) owns about 14%. Employees (or "insiders") hold < 1%.

>>But, that is not always possible given the heightened and extreme political divisions within America. If you’re not for us, you’re against us.<<

Even in this case, I would argue that staying silent is a better option than saying the wrong thing.

As I was taught from little on, “It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

Not that I really care what happens to Bud Lite, but AB could have weathered the storm a lot better by shrugging off the comments that they were seen as “fratty and out of touch,” than to run off and do something as stupid as they did.

Tom, understood that most stock is held by mutual funds and executives and such, but my wife, when working as a "warranty ombudsman" for Oldsmobile (the person you'd call if your car had a failure outside of warranty, but it was still too early for that part to fail), was taught that each person who complained was representing about twelve who simply stopped doing business with the company as soon as they could. Tip of the iceberg effect, more or less.

(and yes, as you may have just laughed to yourself, the fact that Oldsmobile had a whole call center devoted to this might explain a bit about why you can't buy an Olds anymore....)

So I'd argue that, at least at smart companies, they pay a little more attention to stockholder comments than you might think. You simply have to put a little more effort and wisdom into the matter than too many shareholder initiatives do.