Return on Investment or Return on Integrity—What’s Your Call?

“Corporations, Vocal About Racial Justice, Go Quiet on Voting Rights”—so read a headline in the March 29th edition of The New York Times, which went on to write: “‘They are complicit in their silence,’ one activist said, as bills that would disproportionately affect Black citizens across the country stir public debate.”

The article describes major American Corporations who, during the BLM protests last summer, pledged support for racial justice as they expressed solidarity for the movement—but said little or nothing about voters rights issues, as restrictive legislation is being pursued around the U.S. that will disproportionately affect Black voters.

Many of these same corporations have been resoundingly vocal out about other controversial legislative issues, such as the “Bathroom Bills” that target the transgender population, with many threatening to yank their business from states like Georgia, which is also at the center the of the voting rights fight.

Climate change, immigration and white supremacy have also been vocal moments for many corporations and of course DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) and ESG (Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance) continue to occupy board agendas and fill letters to investors.

Yet, the issue of voting rights seems to have few takers, with the notable exception of Salesforce, Patagonia and a few others other consistent liberal stalwarts.

Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia, newly elected to the U.S. Senate and a prominent Black pastor, framed the issue as follows:

“I’ve seen these corporations falling over themselves every year around the time of the King Holiday, celebrating Dr. King. The way to celebrate Dr. King is to stand up for what he represented: voting rights.”

To be fair, corporations are expected to focus on DEI and ESG, and some have extended that focus to legislative issues, but we know that Wall Street (despite BlackRock’s annual letter to investors and general insistence to the contrary) prioritizes only one abbreviation: ROI.

The real question is where the rubber hits the road for corporations and their brands. What does it really mean to put your money where your mouth is for these “socially responsible” businesses?

Where does it begin, where does it end (if ever), and what should our expectations be as employees, partners, investors, share or stakeholders and consumers, understanding that many of us, no doubt, have differing views? Do we really (or should we) expect corporations to support doing good, even if it threatens potential earnings. Are we really that selfless?

Brian Walker of Herman Miller said it best, noting, “being a for-profit creates opportunity for doing greater good. And financial success as a for profit with a social conscious carries greater credibility with your peers, potentially influencing actions of other businesses.”

Have we created a “crying wolf” scenario that has trapped companies in reflexive actions, seeking to address the historical wrongs of race and gender bias or sustainability, at the expense of advocating for government legislation? Are corporations obligated to throw vocal support behind specific legislative issues like voting rights, or for that matter, gun reform?

The point I am trying to make here is that this is not an apples-to-apples comparison. One issue is about righting wrongs through internal corporate initiatives, that as many studies point out, will cost money in the short term but yield a competitive ROI in the long. Another issue, Voting Rights, is about society as a whole and the health of our Democracy.

One requires infrastructure change and commitment, corporate focus and investment, while the other requires the voice of the CEO wielding the vast power of their company.

Not apples-to-apples at all.

Salesforce doesn’t mention their commitment to racial justice or their internal programs to change the balance of their company when it comes to Voting Rights legislation. “A person’s right to cast their ballot is the foundation of our democracy,” Salesforce Tweeted. Criticizing an early version of the Georgia bill, they added, “Georgia H.B. 531 would limit trustworthy, safe & equal access to voting by restricting early voting & eliminating provisional ballots. That’s why Salesforce opposes H.B. 531 as it stands.

Patagonia made the same point, when its CEO, Ryan Gellert, issued a statement, asserting, “Our democracy is under attack by a new wave of Jim Crow bills that seek to restrict the right to vote…It is urgent that businesses across the country take a stand — and use their brands as a force for good in support of our democracy.”

Personally, it’s time to draw a line between what must be done within our companies and what our companies can do to help restore justice in the world.

Paul Polman, former CEO of Unilever and an inspiration of mine, put it this way: 

“We have to bring this world back to sanity and put the greater good ahead of self-interest”

The good news is that CEOs and Boards getting behind issues like Voting Rights won’t affect their ROInvestment but it will increase the value of their ROIntegrity.

We need that new ROI…Integrity, and my bet is that in the long run, it will return in dividends. 

What do you think?