Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ:SBUX) is constantly being criticized over its efforts where it is trying to get people’s attention over race relations.
The recent observations have so far told us that the company was encouraging its baristas to write words like “race together” on its disposable cups. The major goal of the company was to highlight an important social issue among the public in a productive manner. In contrary, the efforts were all in vain and sparked a backlash. The Sunday reports put forward by Company claims its baristas were refusing to write the messages on the cups.
Instead of getting the Starbucks community productively talking about race in America, the move has exposed the coffee chain to an outpouring of criticisms that eventually led Starbucks’ senior vice president of communications to take down his Twitter account.
For business leaders, this issue raised an important curiosity – as to when should a company start taking on social issue controversies? Controversial issues are very different. These are topics that are polarizing. They are complicated matters about which people strongly disagree. There is no shortage of these topics. Tax policy, same-sex marriage and global warming are all polarizing issues. The death penalty and abortion are others. Should a brand publicly wade into these topics? The short answer is no. There is no reason for most brands to get involved in these debates.The problem is that any such effort would hurt sentiments of many.People have different views about how individuals are treated. The Starbucks brand isn’t based on a particular view of race. People don’t visit or avoid a Starbucks because of its social views.
Under the following two circumstances, a public company should opt in to such debates:
1) A company should get involved when the issue directly impacts the firm’s business interests. In this case, the firm should take a stand, even though doing so may prompt a backlash. Nuclear power, for example, is a controversial issue, but a company such as Southern Company needs to be part of the debate because it is investing billions in building a new nuclear plant.
2) A company should get involved when the issue impacts the firm’s core values. General Mills, for example, made a bold move in 2014 by airing an ad during the Super Bowl featuring a bi-racial couple. The decision was symbolic and intentional.
A CEO is hired by shareholders, at least in theory. In some ways, it is irresponsible for a public company CEO to get involved in social issues. The last thing a CEO should do publicly is to take a stand on a social issue that he or she personally believes in but has little impact on a business.
Starbucks is a public company and should be cautious about engaging in debates about complex social issues.
