CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP: SOCIAL JUSTICE, TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD.
For teams that have not yet picked a case to work on for the competition, recent events in the United States raise new issues that teams might be interested in pursuing. Such topics are not without their risks, however, because there is the temptation to treat these as political or ideological issues. We think that one of the ways to avoid “going off the rails” is to view such issues through the lens of a question like, “What are the duties of corporate citizens in relation to social justice, truth and falsehood?” Relevant topics might seem simple, but they’re quite complex. Accordingly, we want to offer some guidance.
Background
Following the death of George Floyd and the protests that followed, a number of major corporations (including IBECC’s Sponsoring Partner, Northrop Grumman) issued statements affirming their commitment to social justice, and they took specific steps to promote social justice and equality both within their companies and in society. (Click here for Northrop’s statement.)
It’s fair to think that one of the reasons companies felt compelled to take action is because of the increasing disinformation and negative rhetoric feeding a racial divide in this country—especially since most companies have been public and visible about their commitments to DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), and since that relates directly to their business success.
Similarly, following the January 6th attack on the Capitol, numerous companies took the unprecedented action of suspending some or all payments to their PACs. These corporations clearly decided that they needed to re-evaluate the situation and make sure their donations would be used in a way that was consistent with their companies’ values, financial well-being, and duties as good corporate citizens. The actions by these companies are unprecedented, and they point to a financial/ethical risk to companies that they didn’t foresee.
It’s also fair to say that many of these companies unwittingly became part of a “disinformation pipeline,” shall we say, in a way that they never would have consented to. That is, they were coming to grips with the realities of operating in what The Economist referred to in 2016 as a “post-truth world.” They wrote,
“There is a strong case that, in America and elsewhere, there is a shift towards a politics in which feelings trump facts more freely and with less resistance than used to be the case. Helped by new technology, a deluge of facts and a public much less given to trust than once it was, some politicians are getting away with a new depth and pervasiveness of falsehood. If this continues, the power of truth as a tool for solving society’s problems could be lastingly reduced.”
Over the last few years, this warning has been validated as a number of dangerous falsehoods have been spread and believed by millions of individuals. This poses new risks to companies—risks from which they have a vital interest in protecting themselves. How do companies operate in such an environment so that they protect their reputations and are seen by all their stakeholders as good corporate citizens? What counts as meeting their responsibilities when it comes to social justice, truth and falsehood?
Traditionally, questions related to truth and falsehood were posed only about businesses in the “information and/or social media industries”: television networks, newspapers, social media platforms, websites, talk radio, publishing, and the like. However, the “information pipeline” from which we get our picture of the world is made possible by a wide range of businesses that include, for example, web hosting companies, mobile phone companies that provide access to the internet, digital advertising agencies, and any company that advertises on information sites or programs, etc.
Post January 6, a number of companies realized their reputations were at risk because of how they’d unwittingly become part of a “disinformation pipeline.” Accordingly, questions about corporate citizenship, truth and falsehood are more broadly applicable.
Going forward, how do companies identify risks to their reputation for integrity and to their desire to foster trust, and to behave as good corporate citizens?
*
Especially relevant to the problem companies face related to disinformation aimed at encouraging racial division and political agendas is that falsehoods have been able to spread because so much of the audience is operating at, shall we call it, an “information deficit.” At least in the United States, millions of Americans appear to lack some of the requisite abilities in critical thinking, mathematical and scientific literacy needed to protect themselves from being deceived. Some research suggests that most Americans probably have the skills of only 7th or 8th graders, which makes them vulnerable to believing certain claims that aren’t true.
Therefore, in such a “post truth” and “information deficit” environment, companies may need to make decisions about future strategies that limit any risks to their financial well-being and reputation and that keeps them from unintentionally becoming part of a “disinformation pipeline” and causal chain that leads to harm. This appears to be a new business ethics problem.
*
Social justice. Most companies have taken racial discrimination seriously for a number of years, but the events of 2020 have made issues related to discrimination, equity and inclusion more urgent. What constitutes appropriate responses for a company that aspires to be a “good corporate citizen? In the short term? In the long term?
Truth and falsehood. While risks to companies associated with the falsehoods connected with the November 3rd election are largely past, there are two other significant topics that struggle for clarity in the “post truth/information deficit” environment—and pose risks to companies related to their duties as good corporate citizens. It can be argued that Covid 19 and climate change are probably the two most dangerous current threats to humanity. The virus will kill millions before it is under control. (It will still be a major threat when we hold IBECC in April.) Over the long term, climate change is predicted to kill one billion people. In each case, the scientific data are clear about the nature of these problems and what needs to be done in order to limit their harm. Yet the facts about both problems are regularly denied in the “infosphere.” How should companies handle the associated risks they face from this—strictly as it relates to the unwitting spread of falsehood?
The global pandemic will not be over for months. In addition to enacting policies and procedures that protect the health of employees and customers, do individual companies, industry groups, etc. have a responsibility to make sure they aren’t part of a “disinformation pipeline”? If so, do they have a role in publicly challenging the falsehoods associated with the disease and how to stop its spread? The same question can be asked regarding climate change. What corporate actions are appropriate and effective? (The backdrop for these questions is the presumption that everyone has a moral duty to reduce harm if it’s in their power to do so.)
Words of caution.
Teams considering such cases should first recognize that they need to treat their topics within the normal “legal, financial, ethical” framework of IBECC and to discuss such matters in a way that would be appropriate with senior management or a Board of Directors of a specific company. Any temptation to approach this from a political perspective or to blame companies for actions you disapprove of should be resisted. Your job is to help a company to understand the nuances of the risks they may be facing without being aware of it and to find a positive—company-specific—way forward that works legally, financially, and ethically.
Teams should appreciate that these are deceptively complicated issues. (We are in the process of developing criteria that we can use on all cases to let judges take “degree of difficulty of the case” into account—the same way Olympic diving judges do. We’ll have more information on this in the future.)