Culture Wars and the New Frontline in Social Responsibility
Coal mining has a history of influencing social, political and economic change. The fuel that powered everything for most of the 19th and 20th centuries, it employed millions in dangerous, gruelling, low-paid toil. It also brought great wealth to those that owned both the mines and, in many ways, the workers.
In the 1910s, the fatality rate of Colorado miners was over double that of their colleagues in the rest of the US. The state’s mine owners, chiefly the Rockefeller company, paid miners by tonnage rather than for their time, so work on safety was left wanting. In 1912, the miners of the Colorado fields went on strike for a year. John D Rockefeller Jr paid the National Guard to force the miners back to work. Amidst many skirmishes was what came to be known as the Ludlow Massacre, which saw 21 men, women and children killed, most shot by National Guardsmen.
These were the early days of the mass media; of popular newspapers and newsreels. The massacre was widely reported in the US. It fed a growing fury directed towards the industrial plutocracy. Dangerous new ideas like socialism and unionisation spread. In New York, an apartment building was blown up by people sympathetic to the miners’ plight. They were preparing a bomb to be delivered to the Rockefeller family.
The Rockefellers, led by patriarch and the world’s richest man John D Sr, undertook a charm offensive. They established charitable foundations, supported cultural and social projects, and even funded the cause of industrial relations, all reported thoroughly by the media. Over the course of a generation they changed the image of the Rockefeller name from cold-hearted capitalists to benign philanthropists and civic figureheads.
John D Rockefeller Sr was one of a group of late 19th-early 20th century American businessmen and industrialists that were referred to as ‘robber barons’. They and the companies that usually bore their names were characterised by the ruthless acquisition or crushing of competitors, sharp practices and the exploitation of workers and suppliers. The likes of John Pierpont (JP) Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt and Leland Stanford established vast, wealthy empires in banking, steel, railroads and other staples of the new American economy.
Having built huge fortunes, hundreds of billions in today’s terms, these men sought to establish legacies and shape the wider world. Whilst most of their companies have long since ceased or changed beyond all recognition, many of the family names live on through the philanthropic projects they funded; foundations, prizes, museums, libraries, universities, concert venues, hospitals.
The robber barons grew rich by largely disregarding almost everything that wasn’t directly related to making a dollar. Others around the same time felt differently. They improved conditions for their workers, establishing schools, sanitation and housing for their families in order to attract, motivate and retain loyal employees at all levels. Companies such as Johnson & Johnson in the US and Lever Brothers (later Unilever) in the UK felt this was a responsible, moral, as well as profitable strategy.
Economist and free-market icon Milton Friedman is reputed to have said “The business of business is business.” In other words, a company is only concerned with that which returns profit and value to shareholders. It summarised the trajectory of western economics in the post-war years. A direction of travel that peaked with an extreme version of free market capitalism adopted in the 1970s and 80s, especially in the US and UK. This idea of unfettered corporate behaviour held significant sway, but ignored some important facts. The inherent, longer-term corrosive structural problems of profit-only strategies, as evidenced by events such as the fall of Enron and the 2008 financial crisis was one. Another, as explored by Rebecca Henderson in her book Reimagining Capitalism, is that a free market is only really free if entry to it is equal.
The drive for profit and the enfeebling of regulation saw companies skewing the market, and the wider world, to serve themselves, to the exclusion of others. It certainly increased their wealth and power. It also meant many great ideas and people never had the chance to flourish and realise their potential. This ring-fencing of power and opportunity sowed the seeds of a bitter social division, the fruits of which are now being very clearly seen.
The Ethical Company
Whilst the 1980s saw unrestrained corporate greed, it also saw a trend for companies that put an emphasis on responsibilities, both as a business and as part of society. There remained those that followed Rockefeller’s example of charity and social endeavor as reputation management. Increasingly, though, businesses were alert to the complexity of a globalised, connected world. That they did not operate in isolation and were not solely engaged in transactional relationships with employees and customers. Also, the interplay of behaviour, reputation, employee engagement, productivity, innovation and profit was becoming better understood.
Most people will feel they know what ‘being ethical’ means. That’s because we all have a strong notion of what we would or wouldn’t say, do, condemn or condone. This sense of morality, of right and wrong, is so nuanced and complex we often don’t understand it ourselves. It’s the product of personal circumstances, of genetics and social and psychological development. It can also be changed, sometimes quite dramatically, by peer-pressure.
It is often more pretentious than instructive to look at the origin of a word, but in this instance it’s interesting. Ethics, from the Greek ethos, refers to character; the guiding beliefs, ideals, nature and aims of a group. The authority, credibility and substance of a person. In this sense, the character, nature and credibility of a company is a reasonable working definition of what a brand is. A brand without some practical sense of ethics is no brand at all.
Businesses need to look inward and outward to understand what ethics look like for them. Leaders will have a view, but that should not be the dominant factor. When it comes to ethical behaviour, there is no expertise or experience that makes one person or group better qualified. Ethics needs to form part of the corporate strategy and the culture. As such it needs to be driven and believed in by everyone the company comes into contact with. That can only be achieved by truly listening to employees, suppliers, partners, and a genuine cross-section of customers and the public. Asking what matters to them and reflecting on what role the company plays in that.
Any modern ethical strategy is subject to the influence consumers, employees and investors now possess. They have unprecedented access to information and the platforms to share their concerns globally (some would also say, unaccountably). They form passionate, vocal groups. Groups that can quickly take their ideas, time and money to competitors. A company needs to understand and respond to their concerns.
Crises often highlight areas of public, and therefore corporate, concern. Whether it’s the financial crisis and demands for better governance, or Covid-19 where issues from mental health to racial and social inequality have been brought to the fore. How prepared for, how good companies are at dealing with or addressing these issues, is as likely an indicator of a company’s success and resilience as the annual accounts. In the past, too many companies have been damaged by a refusal to accept the importance of what makes for a responsible business. Companies can no longer shrug at the problems of the world, especially if they have played a significant role in creating them.
In theory, government and public institutions represent the people and their concerns, and translate that into regulation, legislation and policy. Meanwhile the media informs everyone equally and makes sure both sides play by the rules. In recent years, however, all parties have failed in their duties. Whether through a lack of resources, will, or ability to keep up with rapid change, areas that public and government bodies should be best placed to tackle such as climate change, health, education, have often been mismanaged. And in keeping with the prevailing ideas of Friedman and his adherents, that often suited business and their pursuit of profit. Less scrutiny, less accountability and weaker institutions meant companies were free to do whatever it took to maximise profits, often at the cost of ethical and responsible practices.
The absence of a strong public force to regulate and monitor created a vacuum. Some businesses have filled that vacuum with a range of activities from self-regulation to philanthropy in an attempt to balance things. With varying degrees of success.
At the same time, business has replaced government in many more practical areas, providing essential services and levying regular payments in return. Business, or the best of business, is often more trusted than many in politics. Perhaps because they have an interest which extends beyond the four or five year terms politicians typically have to consider. Companies also wield huge power stretching beyond national and cultural boundaries, which can see quicker, more coherent and tangible action than anything requiring inter-governmental agreement.
Whatever the reason, public institutions have effectively encouraged business to get involved in everything from health to homelessness, pollution to education. The complex nature of these problems means business is not always best-placed to tackle them, or at least not best-placed to take a lead in tackling them. At most, business should work in concert with others to shape policies that are independently audited by those without vested interests.
The motives for corporate involvement in social issues rest on a spectrum between honest, necessary and progressive or self-serving and cynical. There is no question, however, that business, and capitalism more generally, is very good at realising change. Most of the modern world is shaped by business, and it is simply a question of how it shapes the world and how the world wants business to act.
Many ideas around what ethical business looks like have become well established, even if not universally adopted. There is a group of concerns that companies need to (or need to be seen to) address. That might mean having robust practices, rules and projects in those areas, or it might mean having a strong PR line they can refer to when required. Policies around climate change, privacy, corporate governance, diversity, supply chain, competitive and fairtrade practices, labour relations, corruption and internal structures all form a complex picture of concerns. Failure to address any one of these can do significant damage to a company.
A New Responsibility
Few would argue that areas such as climate change, diversity, privacy and employment rights are areas that shouldn’t be urgently addressed by business. There remains, however, one area that business is very well suited to dealing with, that it bears significant responsibility for, yet is widely overlooked.
When a government is weak or preoccupied, when society is chaotic and cannot agree on what is important, business is not able to fulfil its potential. For years, frail or constrained public institutions such as the judiciary and media, and populations riven by intractable differences, were attributes more common to a certain type of developing nation. Now they are increasingly traits of wealthy nations, and businesses cannot afford to be passive observers. Business contributed to this problem, now they must take a lead in solving it for their own and everyone else’s benefit.
The so-called culture wars; the crisis of democracy and identity characterised by a complex interplay of socio-economics, age, politics, technology, education and geography. A cause of frustration, fury and despair. Divisions real and imagined; manipulated and genuine. Many hope to find a way to restore faith in a progressive, united view of the world. A view that encourages a focus on shared goals and reasoned disagreement rather than lies, self-interest and the crushing of argument.
It is clear that one of the key factors in the divisions we’re witnessing is that the free market isn’t free. It’s warped by those occupying a small strata at the top. As long as large numbers are excluded from accessing or even understanding all types of capital (financial, social, human, cultural), there will be division. A century of centralising capital around a narrow group is damaging the world. It has excluded people, limited opportunities, and bred resentment. It isn’t the only reason for the culture wars, which stretch well beyond income and opportunity, but it is one reason that business must take a large proportion of responsibility for.
A healthy, stable social and political culture makes for a healthy, stable economy. This (and the opposite) has been proved all over the world, in all types of circumstances, over the last 200 years. It is a founding principle of much corporate involvement in charitable and social projects. Working towards unifying society — politically, culturally and economically — will bring both reputational and financial reward for companies.
Business clearly has the influence, reach and resources to shape thinking and behaviour. Should it choose, it can certainly go a long way to healing the rifts in society and finding a route through the culture wars.
Despite many references in this article, business is not an amorphous collective. It is made up of many different degrees and types of skill and knowledge, wealth and influence. Whilst some areas of social responsibility, for example, climate change, can reasonably be said to be more the fault of some industries than others, that is not true in this case. All business has both a responsibility to solve this problem and a lot to gain in doing so.
Companies need to focus their innovation and creativity towards resolving this conflict. They need to work towards actively opening up opportunities to those too-frequently ignored, and solving the socio-economic divisions. They must be exemplars of bringing diverse people and ideas together, and in doing so, find effective ways to spread the practice to the outside world. They need to take their knowledge of people and communication and apply it to building empathy and understanding. They need to show the world that arguments aren’t always zero-sum, personal attacks, and that differing over the process is not differing over the goal.
The Practical Approach
Regardless of a company’s approach to solving the socio-cultural divide, they need to start small, look at their internal structures and influence first, and also look for partners, public and private, within the industry and outside who share their vision. There are other steps they should undertake to start this healing process.
Be diverse.
As a starting point, companies need to be a microcosm, a petri dish for a wider change. They need to be truly diverse, bring their people together, and provide space for understanding. Without genuine diversity, it will be hard, maybe impossible, for a company to try to help build wider unity. First because they need to lead by example, but more, because any solution needs a real diversity of input.
Hire for people, not skills. Use blind CVs. Search out biases in recruitment strategy. Consider who exactly looks at those job ads. Do interviews really demonstrate the best in people? And who carries out those interviews anyway? Challenge HR to think imaginatively about how to find talent from outside, and develop it within. Good people don’t just go to the same handful of universities. Believe it or not, some don’t even go to university. Some have regional accents, use wheelchairs, communicate in different ways, can’t work during certain hours, and live in different places. Look at the ideas and perspectives someone can bring to your workplace; the skills can always be learned.
It’s widely understood that a diverse workforce is essential in order to build a robust organisation; one that can generate new ideas, grow, spot problems early and solve them in the best way. Diversity as it applies to historically overlooked or marginalised groups — by race and ethnicity, by gender, age or sexuality, is vital. But so is diversity of socio-economic background, of education, and neurodiversity. Areas often forgotten but important to those affected and for ensuring a healthy culture and bottom line.
Diversity must also be universal. Too many companies believe they have diversity right because they have a ‘cross section’ of people, but look again. What departments are they in? What seniority do they represent? All too often the only woman at C-level represents HR, yet it allows companies to demonstrate a female presence on their leadership team.
As well as representing the real world, a workforce that offers differing views is essential. Testing something from multiple angles will mean it’s better than something tested from only one angle. Having a dozen very similar ideas that everyone broadly agrees with is a lot riskier than having a dozen different ideas that, through well-managed disagreement, leaves the best one as the result.
It is important to remember that diversity is not homogeneity. It is tolerance and understanding. Companies should not seek to force people to change or hide themselves; that leads to a wealth of individual and collective problems. Diversity is a collection of differences working towards a common goal. The culture of the organisation, it’s aims, must be what unites people, not some forced sameness of thought or experience. It is understanding that different views and approaches are valid, useful, and need to be considered. A company’s role is to align its goals with the values of its employees. These lessons will also have an impact when influencing the outside world.
Bring People Together Internally
In her book Think Outside The Building, Rosabeth Moss Canter extols the virtue of companies working on big questions; challenges of how to build a better world. Leaders enabling their people to tackle issues that affect them all, but that typically fall outside the company’s operational remit. Asking a diverse range of disciplines and thinking, freed from their everyday work (and hierarchies) to come together to work on radical ideas. How do you fix inequality? What do you do about climate change? How can you reduce homelessness? Give people the time and resources to tackle these things and allow them to take their ideas into the world. This challenges preconceptions, encourages innovation, engages staff and brings together people who may not normally come into contact. It can also create commercial opportunities.
This in itself is a useful tool. People value doing work that is of meaning above anything else in their careers. Giving groups, from legal to sales, developers to marketers, the challenge of solving social division and cultural misunderstanding will lead to potentially new and exciting ideas. Those ideas may have real world applications, or they may simply lead to a more passionate, engaged, united workforce.
There are, of course, the more commonplace ways of bringing together groups of employees that wouldn’t normally interact. Social and community initiatives; voluntary work, clubs and the like. But they come with a health warning. Before embarking on them, companies need to ask key questions. How are such activities perceived? Are they genuinely voluntary and truly inclusive? Are they sports-oriented or demand some physical element? Do they only happen after work when parents or carers can’t participate? Do they include staff that work shifts or off-site? The good, uniting intentions can end up alienating many.
Be Fair. Be collaborative. Be respectful. Be outward-facing.
People carry the culture of their workplace into their personal lives. Companies need to be role models without exerting undue pressure on people to think in certain ways. Keeping people informed, empowered, trusted, trained and showing concern for their wellbeing are things everyone wants in their work, provided it’s couched in the right terms.
Make sure communications are tailored to the audiences, not one message for everyone. Bring all levels and locations together, in person and virtually. People want to know what they do is important, on a micro and macro level. One thing the pandemic has demonstrated is that when other things — playing sport, going to a gig, taking evening courses — is limited or even removed completely, work is often a valuable, reliable constant. Work’s purpose and meaning shouldn’t be the preserve of a group who happen to share certain ideas or roles. It must be shared. Everyone’s contribution must be acknowledged.
This is true of those employed by a company, but also suppliers and customers, who all feel the same. They all have problems and solutions to share. They all have gratitude to express and grievances to resolve. A company should be a part of a community. In doing so, it can take the lessons to others.
Analyse the Problem
Is there a lack of trust amongst social groups? And what do those groups look like? Are they even groups at all (or do we just assume they are)?Do certain public bodies suffer from a corrosive culture? Do communities lack leadership or shared objectives? What is a governmental problem as distinct from a political problem? What messages need to be shared for the public good?
Questions very like these are issues business tackle all the time, even if it takes some lateral thinking to see the parallels. Who in your organisation is best placed to dissect where the social divisions lie, their causes and effects, and what those affected need?
Take a Public Role
The business’ leadership should state that they want the company to lead a change in the world. They should be honest and unbiased about the situation and what is possible. They should be open, encouraging everyone to contribute. Intentions and progress should be clear and public. And genuinely public, not just to shared with existing brand advocates or employees. Look at the audience for these messages. Who’s missing? What language needs to be used.
Managers and Mediators
Anyone familiar with Amy Gallo’s work will know that conflict, managed properly, can be a positive for an organisation and the individuals directly concerned. Understanding how that is possible, how to overcome instinctive reactions to fight back or hide away when disagreement arises, is vital. Being able to successfully manage it inside the controlled environment of a business means having a formula that can be shared more widely.
Empowering and training staff in how to understand and deal with differences are skills that can be honed, shared and taken out to the world, whilst also improving the company’s performance. Anyone, whatever their role, that believes in the goal of healing divisions should have the chance to train as a mediator, to understand techniques of deep and active listening and conflict resolution. They should be able to encourage people to share their stories and thought processes. It need not be overly personal, or off-puttingly touchy-feely if that’s not your culture. These are skills that benefit any organisation.
Additionally, leaders need to set a culture of listening. Listening is the foundation on which understanding is built. The skills of mediation and understanding need to permeate, first through parts of an organisation, then throughout, and ultimately beyond. It may sound idealistic, but business has access to the skills, platforms and people to start a fundamental shift in thinking. Companies are persuasive, they are part of everyday life, part of culture. They have the potential to reach people irrespective of age, gender, geography, race, identity or any of the things being used to divide people.
There is a paradox at the heart of this. That many ideas of ethical practice, and perhaps business activity in general, are tied up with a sort of metropolitan, elitist concern that has been used to divide. The modern day equivalents of the Colorado coal miners do not rail against their employers so much as those that they feel are imposing a way of thinking on them. A set of causes and sensitivities they don’t understand. Concepts such as diversity, climate change and wellbeing have been weaponised. To some, they are ideas that elites are forcing upon people, limiting their freedoms and stifling their voices. They are symptomatic of changes to the world some feel they have no stake in. That doesn’t mean business shouldn’t be trying to do the right thing in battling those beliefs. What it means is that business needs to choose its words and actions carefully.
Companies need to look at who they are. At what their brand says to the world. They need to embrace their responsibilities. They need to think not just of long-standing challenges, but the newer, shifting, complex ones. No business was ever successful by only taking on the easy challenge. Those that employ us, sell to us, provide services to us and underpin the economy need to use their collective power to solve this big, difficult problem. Business is uniquely placed to be able to encourage understanding between divided groups. Business has proved it has the potential to shape the world and business would be seen in a more positive light if it could focus some of that potential on fighting for a peace in the culture wars.
© 2020 Simon King.
Simon King is a manager at JLA, the speaker agency. He is the author of the book Predictability — Our Search for Certainty in an Uncertain World and occasionally writes about communication, leadership and culture.
