Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.

20

The Importance of (Brand) Experience Design – Part 2, notes

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/the-war-on-woke-capitalism

The war on 'woke capitalism'

Right-wing populists and industry sceptics are mounting a backlash against a vision for
business that looks beyond profits

Nearly half a century after the economist [Professor Schwab] launched his Swiss gatherings
for world leaders, executives and financiers, his belief that businesses should serve all their
constituents equally seemed to have prevailed over the old notion that companies exist only
to make profits for their owners.

Yet many Davos delegates seemed less sure… Increasingly, they fretted, the tenets of
stakeholder capitalism - and the environmental, social and governance (ESG)-themed
investing trend that has risen with it - are under attack from populist politicians, finance
industry contrarians and a different band of activists from the ones Prof Schwab imagined.

One trigger for their concerns was a speech made the previous week at a Financial Times
conference in London. In it, Mr Stuart Kirk, head of responsible investing at HSBC Asset
Management, had rubbished the consensus that investors should try to encourage a more
environmentally responsible capitalism by factoring climate risks into their calculations.
Climate change, he declared, was simply "not a financial risk that we need to worry about".
The argument jarred so much with the public positions that HSBC and other banks have
adopted that Mr Kirk was quickly suspended. But it reflected a growing willingness to question
the prevailing wisdom in Davos and other bastions of the new capitalism.

The sceptics
Mr Kirk's critique of one of the foundational beliefs of the near US$3 trillion (S$4 trillion)
sustainable funds industry is not an isolated one. Mr Elon Musk, arguably this era's most
prominent capitalist, recently labelled ESG a "scam" after Tesla, his pioneering electric
carmaker, was removed from S&P's ESG index. Such indices' scores depended on how
compliant a business was with "the leftist agenda", he claimed in a meme shared on Twitter.
Even some former industry insiders have broken ranks to paint ESG as mere "greenwashing".

Mr Tariq Fancy, BlackRock's former chief investment officer for sustainable investing, now
calls sustainable investing "a dangerous placebo". Ms Desiree Fixler, former head of ESG for
the Deutsche Bank-backed asset manager DWS, says the abbreviation has become
meaningless.

The other person haunting delegates at Davos was Mr Ron DeSantis, the Republican
governor of Florida who is battling Disney over a Bill to limit the teaching of sexuality and
gender identity in the state's public elementary schools. The populist governor's appetite for a
fight with Disney chief executive Bob Chapek has sent a shiver down many executive spines

…In recent weeks, Florida senator Marco Rubio has introduced legislation to let investors sue
companies that stray from maximising shareholder returns; former presidential nominee Mitt
Romney has signed a letter saying ESG scores are "politicising" S&P's credit ratings; and
former US vice-president Mike Pence has attacked ESG principles as "pernicious".

They, and the conservative activists who are rallying protest votes in record numbers at
annual meetings, are now coalescing around a rebranding of ESG and stakeholder capitalism
as something more hollow, hypocritical and even harmful: "woke capitalism".

For Mr Vivek Ramaswamy, a conservative entrepreneur and author, this backlash is an

overdue reaction to elite over-reach. This month, he raised more than US$20 million from
libertarian tech investor Peter Thiel and others for an anti-ESG investment group, declaring
that it would happily invest in the oil and gas stocks that big asset managers increasingly
shun. "I've been working on this for over two years and it felt like I was pushing uphill for much
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

of (that time)," he says. Now, though, "the tides have changed".

Turning the tide

After the 2008 financial crisis, the leaders of business and high finance found themselves
looked upon as "the bad guys of American society", Mr Ramaswamy says, and their desire to
restore their reputations coincided with younger employees' hunger to find a higher purpose in
their workplaces.

"Companies... seized on that opportunity to teach this generation that the way to fill that
hunger is to go to Ben & Jerry's and order a cup of ice-cream with a cup of morality on the
side," he argues, referring to the Unilever-owned brand that has supported Black Lives Matter
and opposed Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories.
The danger with this kind of activism, he argues, is that as corporate voices become louder,
"a small group of effective corporate elites" begins to "decide what's right for society at large".

In the past two months, a conservative advocacy group has persuaded a California court to
strike down two state laws that would have imposed diversity quotas on company boards. At
their annual meetings, chief executives from Goldman Sachs to Meta have been pressed by
conservative shareholder groups over their charitable donations or racial equity policies. One
such group, the Free Enterprise Project, says it is trying to save corporate America from "the
socialist foundations of woke".

For several years, executives have felt emboldened by pressure from their staff and
customers (and by polling that shows business is more trusted than governments, non-profit
groups or the media) to take public stances on subjects they might once have avoided.
Again this year, Davos-goers heard from Edelman, a US public relations company that
conducts one such survey, that most people believe chief executives have a responsibility to
speak out on such issues as climate change and discrimination.

Yet recent academic studies show that the calculus behind taking the kind of socially liberal
positions that could label a capitalist as "woke" is more complex.

"My research suggests the backlash is greater than the benefit," says Columbia Business
School professor Vanessa Burbano, who studied employees' reactions in companies that took
positions on 2017's "bathroom Bills", which were designed to dictate which toilets transgender
people could use.

CEOs who took a stance on the issue left employees who disagreed with them feeling
demotivated, she found, while not meaningfully motivating employees who agreed with them.
Weighing in on politically divisive issues, she concludes, is in fact "a riskier proposition than a
lot of people realise".

…"I'm really afraid that too much of it is lip service... ESG has become too much of a check-
the-box asset class," says Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, whose Coalition for Inclusive
Capitalism convenes an influential group of stakeholder-focused chief executives.

Dr Homroy, for his part, suspects companies will have no choice but to become more
environmentally responsible, but he also suspects their commitment to the kind of social
activism that could expose them to attacks may be peaking.

Most Davos delegates are still persuaded by the commercial opportunity represented by at
least the "E" in ESG. The need to finance the transition to low-emissions technologies heralds
what McKinsey consultants have dubbed "the largest reallocation of capital in human history".
Several also believe their new social positioning helps attract and retain talent.

https://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/tesla-cut-from-sp-500-esg-index-
and-elon-musk-tweets-his-fury
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

Tesla cut from S&P 500 ESG Index and Elon Musk tweets his fury

Mr Musk tweeted: "Exxon is rated top ten best in world for environment, social & governance
(ESG) by S&P 500, while Tesla didn't make the list! ESG is a scam. It has been weaponized
by phony social justice warriors."…

…Investors concerned about issues such as diversity and climate change have poured
billions of dollars into funds using ESG criteria to pick stocks, prompting debate about how
effectively the funds promote change or whether they push companies too much on issues
that should be settled by government policy. …Mr Musk and others have complained that the
firm and its rivals conflate too many issues by bundling ESG concerns into one total score.

https://www.mumbrella.asia/2019/03/what-does-woke-capitalism-mean-in-asia

What does ‘woke capitalism’ mean in Asia?

Do companies really care about social and environmental issues or are they just driven by the
money made in the name of sustainability?

In today’s consumption-driven yet increasingly conscious world, you can walk into a

supermarket and find Pantene shampoo empowering women to participate in sports;
a Gillette razor telling men to be ‘the best they can be’; even tubs of Ben & Jerry’s ice-cream
are calling on people to ‘#resist’.

Welcome to the era of woke capitalism, a time when companies appear to have developed a
conscience and are adopting socially-good, progressive messaging in their advertising to
appeal to a new generation of consumers.

…From television commercials to billboards, businesses are trying to inch themselves

towards the right side of history by taking a stand on the most important issues of the day,
from gender discrimination and climate change to racism and social injustice. This has led to
the rise of woke capitalism, a popular form of commodity activism that has companies
adopting the veneer of progressive values for profit.

Does business walk the talk?

…Today, woke can be used to refer to general awareness of not just social but also ethical
and environmental issues. The term woke washing now describes a calculated brand strategy
not too different from green or pink washing, where companies hype up their environmental
credentials or claim to support women and LGBT rights.

“We always tell our brands that they have to be very careful because the message has to
make sense and show all the way through. It’s good to show an opinion but they also have to
walk the talk,” says Rigmor Berthier, co-founder of Lime Agency, a design and marketing
company that works with many social enterprises in Singapore.

Aarika Lee, marketing director at Singapore-based branding and marketing agency,

Elementary Co., agrees that businesses need to go beyond superificiality and reflect the
values they espouse in their own value chains: “If a company is interested in longevity and
building a true brand story, they need to follow through with action, because most consumers
are educated these days.”

Especially when it comes to issues such as sustainability, which is fast becoming a business
trend, “consumers can be quick to unravel you if you’re not staying true to what you say,” she
adds.

Is woke capitalism a thing in Asia?

While the conversation around woke capitalism has primarily taken place within the American
context, Asia has seen a fair share of companies jumping on the woke bandwagon.

…In 2017, Procter & Gamble’s cold medicine brand Vicks launched an ad campaign in India
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

which followed the story of a transgender mother and her adopted daughter who dreams of
becoming a lawyer to fight for transgender rights. The ad was praised for its sensitive delivery
of taboo topics without pushing the Vicks product.

…Even food and beverage companies have given visibility to LGBT issues, as seen
in McDonald’s 2016 commercial in Taiwan. The film, regarded as a bold statement of
inclusion from a major marketer in Asia, depicted a scene of a gay youth who comes out to
his father over a cup of McCafe coffee.

…However, according to Berthier, woke capitalism in Asia does not necessarily serve to fight
a system or cause, as is the case in the United States. Consumers in this region are less
likely to buy a product because it has a cause behind it, as they might not believe they have
as much consumer power as people in the US.

“In Asia, the message is more about doing good and helping people in need at home and in
the region,” she says.

Addressing development issues such as employment and education through corporate social
responsibility is still a bigger practice in Asia than pushing ad campaigns that co-opt social
and environmental movements.

…According to a 2018 report by global research group Kantar called Purpose in Asia, causes
that dominate global media and international brand campaigns, such as climate change and
gender equality, carry little sway in Asia.

For consumers in the region, health and well-being and ending poverty—causes deemed
closer to home—matter more personally.

Firrdaus Yusoff, associate creative director at the Singapore office of global advertising
agency DDB, agrees, noting that in Singapore, where brands are still very traditional, their ad
campaigns “need to be phrased as doing good, instead of taking a stand against something”.
While there has been a more conscious effort by brands in the region to sell socially-minded
messages with their products, there hasn’t been an earth-shattering shift to woke capitalism,
he says.

According to Yusoff, the culture of pragmatism in Asia also means that “consumers can be
woke about an issue, but ultimately if a brand offers a discount, they’ll pick that one.”

…Yusoff also questions the role that advertising plays in many Asian markets. “Is advertising
viewed as that vehicle of change, as it is in the US? Companies have a powerful tool at their
disposal, but whether they’re willing to use advertising to advocate for change is a different
story,” he says.

https://ecgi.global/sites/default/files/working_papers/documents/
noneedforasiatobewokefinal.pdf

No Need for Asia to be Woke: Contextualizing Anglo-America’s “Discovery” of

Corporate Purpose
ECGI Working Paper Series in Law – Dan Puchniak

Abstract: Viewed through an Anglo-American lens, corporate governance around the world is
living a woke moment. Anglo-America’s recent “discovery” that corporations have
stakeholders (other than shareholders) and purposes (other than maximizing shareholder
value) is hailed as a corporate governance solution that can deliver global prosperity.
However, this article demonstrates that long before Anglo-America’s “discovery” of corporate
purpose, Asia was already awake to it. It describes how Asia’s most important and dynamic
economies – which are the world’s engine for economic growth – have been built on systems
of corporate governance where corporate purpose and stakeholderism reign supreme.

This positive claim has important normative implications. The Anglo-American movement to
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

push corporations around the world to be more purposeful is likely to have deleterious effects
in Asia where corporations already tend to have too many purposes. Under the guise of
embracing the Anglo-American corporate purpose movement, entrenched stakeholders may
resist reforms to reduce rent seeking, wealth tunnelling, and protect (minority) shareholder
interests. A proper understanding of the history of corporate purpose in Asia demonstrates
that different jurisdictions have different understandings of the purpose that corporations
should serve and that there is no one model that fits all.

In 2018, Colin Mayer, a stalwart of the British Academy, published “Prosperity”.1 The Book is
the new “bible” of corporate governance that “is destined to change the world”, says Martin
Lipton, a prolific prophet for America’s white-shoe lawyers.2 The Book’s revelation is that
corporations should no longer be governed for the sole purpose of maximizing shareholder
value…. Mayer’s clarion call [was] for corporations to have a purpose other than maximizing
shareholder value: corporations no longer exist principally to serve shareholders but “for the
benefit of all stakeholders—customers, employees, suppliers, communities and
shareholders”.4

The same year, the World Economic Forum, an international organization comprising major
global corporations and thought leaders, “issued a manifesto urging companies to abandon
the traditional model of ‘shareholder capitalism’” and its executive chairman likened “the
session focusing on the subject to ‘the funeral of shareholder capitalism’”.6

Viewed through an Anglo-American lens, corporate governance around the world is living a
woke moment.7 The “discovery” that corporations have stakeholders (other than
shareholders) and purposes (other than maximizing shareholder value) promises to deliver
global corporate governance from Tartarus to Elysium..

Mayer tells us that this woke moment has the potential to emancipate the global community
from the “Friedman Doctrine”, which posits that the corporation’s sole purpose is maximizing
shareholder value. In Mayer’s words, the Friedman Doctrine “has been a powerful concept
that has defined business practice and government policies around the world for half a
century”.9 Not so fast.

That the Friedman Doctrine has played a central role in shaping Anglo-American corporate
governance is beyond reproach. Despite their myriad differences, until recently, modern
corporate law and governance in the United Kingdom and United States has, in theory and
practice, been defined by shareholder primacy. Recognition of the interests of other corporate
stakeholders (aside from shareholders) has largely been on the margins of corporate law and
governance in both systems – with “shareholder primacy” at the core…

… What seems to have been forgotten is that the Friedman Doctrine is as autochthonous to
Asia as the fortune cookie.12 Asian economic miracles have propelled the world’s economic
growth for half a century.13 However, they have not been built on the Friedman Doctrine.
Instead, for better or worse, the corporate governance systems in Asia’s most important
economies have been driven by a variety of purposes – with neither the Friedman Doctrine
nor its corporate law incarnation in the form of “shareholder primacy” reigning supreme.

This is a positive observation with normative implications. As illuminated below, the failure to
accurately understand the purposes corporations have served – and do serve – in Asia has
real-world consequences. It risks the well-intentioned Anglo-American-cum-global corporate
purpose movement providing cover for rent-seekers in Asia – who are (or should be)
disciplined by shareholder wealth maximization – in systems long steeped in corporate
purpose. It may hinder efforts to address climate change as repurposing corporations for this
task requires understanding what their core purpose is to begin with.

China

Based on a conventional understanding of stakeholderism, Chinese corporate law and

governance ticks all the boxes. From the inception of China’s modern PRC Company Law in
1994, employees have been recognized as important corporate stakeholders. Employee
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

board representation has always been enshrined in the company law and the requirement
that employees must play a meaningful role in corporate decision making has always been
made explicit.17 More broadly, from its inception the PRC Company Law has included
provisions that have been all about purpose – exhorting companies to act ethically,
strengthen China’s socialist society, and to be accountable to the wider community.

…for corporate law” by implementing a shareholder primacy corporate governance model.

Instead, the inaugural 2002 Chinese Corporate Governance Code (CCGC) reads like it was
woke in 2022. It encouraged listed companies to “be concerned with the welfare,
environmental protection, and public interests of the community” and to “pay attention to the
company’s social responsibilities”.21 The 2018 CCGC goes even further by encouraging
listed companies to “actively implement the concept of green development, integrate
ecological and environmental protection requirements into the development strategy and
corporate governance process, actively participate in the construction of ecological
civilization, and play an exemplary role in pollution prevention, resource conservation, and
ecological protection”.22 As if that were not purposeful enough, it encourages listed
companies to assist “poverty-stricken counties or villages, and actively connect with and
earnestly support poverty-stricken areas to develop local industries, train talents, and promote
employment”. 23

China was clearly awake to corporate purpose long before Mayer penned “Prosperity” or Fink
proclaimed the end of shareholder-primacy; at least on paper, Chinese corporate law and
governance is as purposeful as can be.24 What is less clear, is whether Chinese companies
can fulfil these lofty purposes. Another question that looms large is: Can Chinese companies
stay on their world changing trajectory in an economy where the Chinese Communist Party
(CCP) appears to be ratcheting-up its control over which purposes companies may serve?

If President Xi’s “common prosperity” campaign is to be taken at face value, companies’

purposes are being defined by the government for the public good – whether it involves
effectively banJapanning trading on cryptocurrency and for-profit tutoring, restricting gaming
for children, or cajoling prominent companies to make large charitable donations. 25 If one is
more cynical, the CCP’s role as China’s de facto largest controlling shareholder, its informal
control over private corporations and institutional investors, and its campaign to formalize its
control over corporate management by having it formally inserted into corporate charters,
suggest that the real purpose of corporate governance in China is to reinforce the CCP’s
ultimate control.26

Japan

It is well-known that Japan’s post-war economic miracle transpired in a corporate governance

environment defined by stakeholderism.29 Prior to the burst of the economic bubble in the
early 1990s, the world marvelled at Japan’s unique system of corporate governance – in
which shareholder voice was scant. As if taken from the pages of “Prosperity”, Japan’s
corporate governance model was referred to as the “company community” – in which boards
were overwhelmingly staffed by lifetime employees.30 Japan’s comparatively small wage gap
between senior executives and average workers appeared to be the embodiment of woke
egalitarianism.31

But, then, in the early 1990s, Japan’s economic bubble burst. In the post-bubble period, an
era of American hegemony transpired in which legions of academics and pundits predicted
that Anglo-American-style shareholder-primacy would emerge as the dominant corporate
governance model in Japan.

…It is noteworthy that in the 2010s, as part of former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s hallmark
economic policy to revitalize the Japanese economy after two “lost decades”, Japan adopted
UK-style Stewardship and Corporate Governance Codes, but with Japanese
characteristics.47 The goal of these codes was to shift Japan’s traditional stakeholder-
oriented corporate governance system to a more shareholder-oriented system – but this
never fully materialized. Now Abe’s successor, Prime Minster Kishida Fumio, under the
slogan of “new capitalism”, “talks about the importance of other stakeholders in businesses,
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

such as workers and customers, evoking the Edo-era merchant philosophy of sanpō-yoshi, or
“three-way good” for buyers, sellers and society”.4

India

stakeholderism has a long history in India that has accelerated in recent times.52 Several
age-old business groups have long inculcated broader corporate responsibility as part of their
business motto over more than a century.53 However, in recent decades, the push towards a
stakeholder orientation in corporate governance has been driven largely by the government.

…the enactment of the revamped Companies Act in 2013. Section 166(2) imposes duties on
directors of a company to act “in the best interests of the company, its employees, the
shareholders, the community and for the protection of the environment”. As evident,
shareholders are only one among several constituencies that deserve the attention of
directors. This embodies the pluralist approach which places the interests of all stakeholders
(whether shareholders or others) on par without creating any hierarchy among them.56

The judiciary too has rendered an expansive reading of the duty. For instance, the Supreme
Court’s interpretation of the expression “environment” in section 166(2) is adequately capable
of accommodating the risks corporations face due to climate change.57 Hence, a
consideration of matters such as climate risk and sustainability is not merely an option for
directors on Indian companies that they may account for on a voluntary basis, but it is an
obligation,

…CSR provisions in India veer towards corporate philanthropy through mandatory spending
rather than the all-inclusive view that company managements must adopt on how their
business operations impact society.60 In that sense, while the CSR regime supplements the
corporate purpose stance in India, it ought not to drive the discourse. The government has
trained its focus largely on ensuring compliance with the CSR requirements in terms of
corporate spending rather than addressing the broader questions of corporate purpose.

In sum, India appears like a textbook case of having a long history of a corporate governance
philosophy with stakeholderism at its core… given India’s context, Anglo-America’s
prescription for a more purposeful approach to corporate law and governance appears to be
bad medicine.

Singapore

Singapore’s listed companies have long had boards with a majority of independent directors
and directors have a duty to act in the interests of the company, which in solvent companies
generally means maximizing the long-term shareholder value of the company.69
These facts suggest Singapore should be a bastion for shareholder primacy in Asia.
However, if one drills-down deeper, in many respects, Singapore is the antithesis of the
Friedman Doctrine. In Singapore, the state is the largest shareholder of public listed
companies.70 This relatively new form of capitalism combines the state as the controlling
shareholder, with private investors as minority shareholders, in what has come to be known
as “mixed-ownership” companies.

…Ironically, the secret to the success of mixed-ownership companies in Singapore is the

unique institutional architecture it has developed to ensure that profit maximization – and not
politics – drives how its mixed-ownership listed companies are governed.72 However, as the
government benefits from the success of these companies and Singapore citizens in turn
benefit from the government’s social programs, Singapore’s mixed-ownership model may
ultimately be the most purposeful of all.

…The other significant type of company in Singapore’s highly concentrated shareholder

environment are family-controlled listed companies. In Singapore, listed companies with
family-controllers have consistently outperformed non-family companies and are the most
common type of company listed on the stock exchange.74 The purpose of these family
companies is the family’s prosperity – which some have posited is reinforced by Singapore’s
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

culture.75 Singapore is unique in that it is the only country in the world that has a stewardship
code for family companies. The code does not seek to displace family ownership. Rather it
aims to ensure that family-controlled companies are governed in a way that ensures their
longevity and that the family’s longevity benefits all corporate stakeholders and the entire
community.76 Once again, Singapore’s family companies do not need to be woke.

Risks of Failing to Recognize Asia’s Purposes and the Prosperity of Diversity

Long before Anglo-America’s “discovery” of corporate purpose, Asia was already awake to it.
This positive claim has important normative implications as Anglo-America’s call to become
more purposeful sweeps the globe. In Asia, it risks providing cover for the CCP in China to
use purpose to stray further from shareholder maximization for its own self-interested
purposes. It has the potential to provide a justification for Japan’s old guard to roll back hard-
fought moves towards delivering more value for shareholders, in a corporate governance
system built for an earlier age. It has the potential to allow India to bask in its purposeful
legislation, without tackling the problems of implementation nor focusing on its core corporate
governance problem of controlling controlling shareholders.77 It may disrupt Singapore’s
successful mixed-ownership model by allowing politics to enter corporate boardrooms under
the guise of purpose.78

https://www.campaignasia.com/article/the-importance-of-being-earnest-navigating-the-dangers-of-woke-
washing-to-make-a/478272

The importance of being earnest: Navigating the dangers of woke-washing to make a

meaningful impact on DEI

In the age of authenticity, brands are increasingly expected to take stances on DEI issues.
But woke-washing — the act of co-opting causes for commercial gain without making real
contributions — is worse than no stance at all; it is exploitative and actively damaging to
important movements.

What is your definition of woke-washing, specifically in relation to diversity, equity, and

inclusion (DEI)?

Alice: Woke-washing is the act of joining a movement aimed at representing and claiming
rights of any minority group for marketing purposes. We have seen multiple examples of
woke-washing from brands in the past two years, whether it is posting a black square on their
Instagram pages or covering their logos in rainbow colours during LGBTQIA awareness
months. These can be shortcuts for brands to jump on the woke-wagon without having actual
ethical plans around DEI in place, which deem the acts themselves meaningless.

Oindrila: For about a decade now, consumer reports have had the same insight: consumers
are more likely to purchase from brands that are diverse, sustainable and ethical. This has
triggered some companies to make superficial attempts at brand activism to be favoured by
consumers. These attempts of faux activism for financial gain, without walking the talk, is
woke-washing.

Jamarr: Let’s skip an elaborate woke-washing definition and summarise it in two words:
inauthentic and performative. More often, we see brands attempting to take a stance on a
topic that is ultimately inauthentic to their brand or products and fail to take an active
involvement in creating change for the issue it appears to be supporting.

How is this relevant in the APAC region, how can companies avoid disingenuous woke
marketing in APAC, and what are some woke topics that are particularly relevant to APAC?

Oindrila: The need for DEI is felt everywhere and the urgency to address these issues is
universal. …Consumers in APAC want to see more groups represented in marketing, but only
one in five consumers feel represented in the ads they see. There is a strong appetite for
more inclusive content but it seems like not enough inclusive content is being created. Often,
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

women’s stories are most underrepresented. This could have a significant effect on
businesses, particularly when we see that across ads in Australia, India, Japan and New
Zealand, women speak less than 40% of the time. Brands need to delve deeper into these
insights and leverage them to connect more meaningfully with their consumers.

Jamarr: Understand your audience and make sure you have the right people in the room. Do
not be afraid to shake up who the final decision maker needs to be within your marketing
teams. We talk a lot about people having seats at tables. The metaphor does not align with
the reality of how marketing works. It is more like having a seat in the car. Ideally, we would
all take turns driving, but the world is still driven by those coming from some form of social
privilege.

As industries and companies continue to make headway in DEI, how can companies embed
authenticity and genuine purpose into their organisations and campaigns?

Alice: Brands have made significant improvements in DEI, but continuous effort and
investment are required for them to keep improving against their goals. The first step is
assessing where a company is at in terms of DEI and defining clear goals, alongside a plan to
hold each team accountable. I think it is perfectly fine to look up to brands leading in the DEI
space and adopt or adapt the same initiatives.

Also, goals should be informed by feedback from employees belonging to diverse

backgrounds and not just decided exclusively by senior leadership. While C-suite executives
might be diverse in terms of race or gender, their thinking or socioeconomic background
might be similar and hence not representative of the entire makeup of a company. The very
meaning of inclusion is ensuring each and every individual is represented, hence seen and
heard.

Oindrila: To embed authenticity and genuine purpose, companies need to relentlessly work
towards narrowing the gap between words and deeds. A great start would be to resist the
temptation to create meaningless marketing campaigns. People do not buy brands; they buy
stories. As marketers, while it is our job to connect with consumers through stories that
accurately represent the world around us, it is also our responsibility to ensure that every part
of the business is true to the inclusive values of the brand we weave stories around… [THIS
IS A GOOD POINT TO MAKE FOR BRAND CONSULTANTS]

Gabrielle: Consistency is crucial in building an authentic brand to its consumer and broader
audience. For example, Chinese lingerie brand Neiwai shares human-centred stories that
resonate with everyday consumers. Its brand essence, ideology, and spirit are all connected
and aligned in authentic stories as part of its successful ‘no body is nobody’ campaign.

How should companies respond to accusations of woke-washing, both in immediate crisis

response and long-term strategy recalibration?

Alice: If accused of woke-washing, companies should listen. Any feedback coming from
members of a minority or diverse community is an opportunity to learn more about their
experience and how best to engage and communicate with these communities in the future. 

Being able to recognise one’s limitations and being open to improvement will foster an
environment where people feel supported and free to ask for the change that would make
their experience more inclusive. As a long-term strategy recalibration, I would look at
professional support in terms of market research and other tools which can better inform how
a company can participate in any social purpose discourse. For example, as marketers we
use creative testing tools to determine whether users will resonate with our ads. Similarly, we
can use the same technology to know if a specific community finds the ads inclusive.

Oindrila: Edelman’s 2021 Trust Barometer found that 86% of people expect CEOs to publicly
speak out about societal issues …Companies today are under pressure to take on
transformative issues but they must adopt the strategy of ‘act first, talk later,’ and lead by
example rather than just create noise around critical issues just to appease their employees
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

and consumers. Research indicates that consumers are more likely to continue supporting
purposeful brands in the event they make a misstep, if they truly live by a clear and strong
brand purpose. Consumers only want brands to admit their weaknesses, be transparent with
their problems and take meaningful steps to hold themselves accountable to change.

Should companies take a stand in woke matters in markets where these topics are
heavily stigmatised or even criminalised? Take LGBTQIA rights for example. 

Alice: This is a very sensitive topic as companies should prioritise their employees’ safety
when operating in countries where sexual orientation or gender identity is still stigmatised.
That being said, companies also have the power to influence change and easily provide
inclusion to employees who might not be able to have that in other spheres of their lives. For
example, many global companies in Singapore recognise the same marriage leave for same-
sex marriage, which is a powerful stand for the LGBTQIA community. I believe that brands
that support woke matters in an ethical way can contribute to slowly erasing some of the
stigmas still present around minorities.

Oindrila: If a brand takes a stance only to appease its audiences, it can be harmful to the
brand. However, if a brand truly supports a cause, it should stand by it, no matter what. While
consumers today are critical of woke-washing, brands that are consciously transformative can
make a real difference.

For example, Deliveroo rebranded to Deloveroo and customers had the option to update their
app to reflect a rainbow palette in celebration of Pride Month in Singapore despite drawing
mixed reactions, to stand for the business’ core values of diversity and inclusion.

Jamarr: It all comes back to doing what is authentic for where your brand sits within the
cultural context. However, I think we are also observing that brands that do not take a stance
will pay for it in their long-term growth. [REALLY?] While current consumers may be against
an issue, the job of marketing is to secure existing customers, and more importantly, future
growth opportunities and leads. If your brand’s future lies in Generation Z or Generation
Alpha, then they will expect more from your brand than providing a satisfactory product or
service. They want your brand to have morals. Brands have been anthropomorphised and are
expected to have values that exemplify where these generations see the future heading.

https://www.discoursemagazine.com/politics/2021/12/14/the-dangers-of-woke-capitalism/

The Dangers of Woke Capitalism

In his book ‘Woke, Inc.,’ Vivek Ramaswamy discusses the new corporate activism and
suggests law-based solutions, but does he make the case?

Corporations have gone political. They proudly announce support for various social
movements, embrace climate consciousness, fire employees for harboring real or perceived
offensive opinions, try to institute their own form of gun control and even pull the baseball All-
Star Game from Atlanta to protest a new voting law... Corporations now aggressively seek, or
at least profess to seek, change in the world. This quest for change almost always involves
embracing the progressive (or in some cases “woke”) side of an issue. Unsurprisingly, such
moves are controversial. But the exact nature of the problem is unclear, as is what, if
anything, the response should be.

The What and Why of Woke Capitalism

For Ramaswamy, woke capitalism reflects the invasion of capitalism into the sphere of life
properly reserved for the democratic process. He worries that corporate actions ranging from
persuasion (e.g., tweeting support for a social movement) to coercion (e.g., firing an
employee for expressing a politically incorrect thought) are eroding the ability of Americans to
govern themselves democratically, instead concentrating power in the hands of a few rich
executives and the advocates (and dictators) who have their ear. To Ramaswamy, this
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

reflects an abuse of corporate power and a betrayal of the purpose for which corporations
were established in the first place: to seek profit by providing goods and services.

However, Ramaswamy also worries that much of woke capitalism is a scam meant to help
companies seek profit. In this case the wokeness is a cynical cover by executives to attract
customers and employees by signaling that the corporation shares their values and is part of
their tribe. In some especially nefarious cases, such as the Volkswagen emissions scandal
and the NBA’s embrace of social justice everywhere but China, Ramaswamy argues that
wokeness is used as a cover to distract people from corporations’ unsavory, but presumably
profitable, dealings.

In his view, woke capitalism is largely a substitute for class-based reform that allows the
professional and managerial class to increase its power, prestige and wealth by doling out
token favors to (mostly) well-meaning people who see the world through the lens of identity
politics.

The book then discusses multiple iterations of woke capitalism. Some are fairly benign, or at
least only raise the question of whether corporate management is misspending corporate
resources, such as when companies issue statements of support for various causes. Others
are alarming, as when foreign governments, leveraging their role as either investor or market
gatekeeper, play a part in suppressing speech and extracting data. Finally, there is, in my
opinion, the most serious example: companies using the threat of economic sanctions and
termination against employees or localities that do not follow progressive norms.

Increasingly, consumers are shopping and employees are choosing jobs based on their
values and identity. This incentivizes politicization, even if corporate management doesn’t
actually believe in the cause. If putting out a supportive tweet will help cement and expand
your customer base, why not do it? Conversely, if an employee has become controversial
such that they no longer pass the cost-benefit test, even if the controversy is unfair or
unwarranted, the rational, profit-maximizing thing to do may well be to fire them.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/practical-guidance-journal/b/pa/posts/
how-esg-and-social-movements-are-affecting-corporate-governance

How ESG and Social Movements are Affecting Corporate Governance

This article provides guidance on the recent trends in Environmental, Social, and Governance
(ESG), the #MeToo movement (#MeToo), and Black Lives Matter (BLM) impacting corporate
governance and the workplace. In the aftermath of the recent police killings of George Floyd,
Breonna Taylor, and Jacob Blake, as well as many others, there has been increasing
pressure on corporations to take tangible action to address racial injustice in America.

While the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the events surrounding the BLM
movement have intensified discussions about the importance of addressing social injustice,
corporate America already was at an inflection point with respect to its role in society, facing
pressures from investors, consumers, and regulators to consider a broader range of
stakeholders.

What Is ESG?
ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance, and refers to the three key factors when
measuring the sustainability and ethical impact of an investment in a business or company.
Most socially responsible investors check companies out using ESG criteria), is a generic
term used in capital markets and commonly used by investors to evaluate the behavior of
companies, as well as determining their future financial performance.

ESG refers to a broad set of considerations that may impact a company’s performance and its
ability to execute its business strategy and create long-term value. Socially conscious
stakeholders use ESG to measure the sustainability and societal impact of a company and its
business activities. While ESG factors can affect a company’s bottom line directly, they can
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

also affect a company’s reputation, and investors and business leaders are increasingly
applying these nonfinancial factors in their analysis to identify the material risks and growth
opportunities of a company.

Industry leaders have pushed hard to advance ESG initiatives. For example, in his 2019
Letter to CEOs, BlackRock, Inc.’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Larry Fink,
encouraged companies to develop “a clear embedment of your company’s purpose in your
business model and corporate strategy.” According to Fink, “Purpose is not the sole pursuit of
profits but the animating force for achieving them” and “profits and purpose are inextricably
linked.” Thus, companies that fulfill their purpose and responsibilities to stakeholders—
including prioritizing board diversity, compensation that promotes stability, and environmental
sustainability—reap rewards over the long term.

Likewise, in August 2019, the Business Roundtable issued a Statement on the Purpose of
Corporation (Statement) signed by 181 CEOs, expressing “a fundamental commitment to all
of our stakeholders,” including employees, suppliers, and customers, and not just
shareholders. Specifically, the Statement expressed a commitment to delivering value to
customers, investing in employees, dealing fairly and ethically with suppliers, and supporting
the communities by embracing sustainable practices across businesses.

on February 1, 2021, Veeva Systems, a computer software company, became the first
publicly traded company and largest ever to convert to a public benefit corporation (i.e., a for-
profit corporation that must consider the interests of various stakeholders, including
employees, partners, customers, and shareholders). The company is also revising its
certificate of incorporation to include a public benefit purpose.

In response to increasing pressure from different stakeholder groups—including investors,

consumers, and governments—for more transparency about their environmental, economic,
and social impacts, more companies are also making disclosures in their annual report or in a
standalone sustainability report 

Nasdaq’s ESG Standards for Companies

Moreover, various institutions are creating standards and metrics to help integrate ESG into
the investment process. For example, in May 2019, Nasdaq launched its new ESG reporting
guide for public and private companies. A

Entities’ and Individuals’ Opposition to ESG Efforts

Not everyone has been supportive of these ESG efforts. In response to the Business
Roundtable’s Statement, the Council of Institutional Investors, which represents many of the
same companies as the Business Roundtable and many of the nation’s largest pension funds,
issued a response stating that “[a]ccountability to everyone means accountability to no one”
and that “[i]t is government, not companies, that should shoulder the responsibility of defining
and addressing societal objectives with limited or no connection to long-term shareholder
value.”

Similarly, in a letter dated February 12, 2021, a group of Senate Republicans on the Senate
Banking Committee called on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to reject
Nasdaq’s recent proposal to require the companies listed on its stock exchange to include
women, racial minorities, and LGBT individuals on their boards.

…The letter, written by Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, expressed that while “[w]e
commend individual firms for the proactive efforts they have already made in recruiting,
promoting, and maintaining diverse talent . . . it is not the role of Nasdaq . . . to act as an
arbiter of social policy or force a prescriptive one-size-fits-all solution upon markets and
investors.”

Board, Management, and Workforce Diversity

In the aftermath of #MeToo and the BLM movement, there has been a greater push toward
gender and racial diversity, not just at the board and management levels, but also in the
workforce. Further, where companies fail to meet the expectations set by their stakeholders,
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

they may face serious repercussions.

Investment Firms’ Diversity Initiatives

In September 2020, BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest asset manager, revealed in its
Investment Stewardship Annual Report that it had voted against board directors more than
1,500 times for insufficient diversity.

…As a follow up, in December 2020, BlackRock announced in its 2021 Stewardship
Expectations plans to push companies for greater ethnic and gender diversity for their boards
and workforces and reiterated that it will vote against directors who fail to act.
 
…Following a similar approach, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon announced that
Goldman Sachs will help take public only those companies in the United States and Europe
that have at least one diverse board member. In 2021, Goldman Sachs raised this target to
two diverse candidates for each IPO client. According to Solomon, this decision “is rooted first
and foremost in our conviction that companies with diverse leadership perform better,”
including as evidenced by the fact that since 2016, U.S. companies that have gone public with
at least one female board director outperformed companies that do not, one year post-IPO .

Corporate Culture
CEO Afsaneh Beschloss of The Rock Creek Group expressed at an industry conference in
September 2019 that shareholders “are important and will always be incredibly important, but
their highest returns will come if a company is good in its management, if a company is
sustainable and has good governance.” In the post #MeToo era, corporate culture, or the set
of values and behaviors that help define a company, is more important now than ever.

Corporate Compliance
ESG disclosures, like other corporate disclosures, are subject to regulatory compliance. As
such, companies must be careful to ensure their disclosures are accurate and complete. In
addition, companies are struggling to deal with multiple reporting frameworks and
inconsistencies across each regulation.

Environmental Sustainability
Issues impacting climate change, including water scarcity, extreme temperatures, and carbon
emissions, have elevated environmental considerations as a core component of ESG.
According to S&P Global, while ESG factors are the fundamental framework for measuring a
company’s sustainability, the environmental portion of ESG considers the company’s use of
natural resources and the effect of its operations on the environment, both in its direct
operations and across its supply chains. 

Taxonomy Regulation
In June 2020, the European Union became the first supranational regulator to establish a
common set of standards for determining whether an economic activity is environmentally
sustainable or not. The so-called Taxonomy Regulation provides that certain environmental
objectives should be considered when evaluating the sustainability of an economic activity…

…Taxonomy Regulation does not require stakeholders to invest in taxonomy-eligible

activities; instead, it provides the toolkit for assessing whether a financial product or business
is environmentally sustainable.

In his 2021 letter to CEOs, BlackRock’s Chairman and CEO, Larry Fink, asked companies to
“disclose a plan for how their business model will be compatible with a net zero economy—
that is, one where global warming is limited to well below 2°C,

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/YOUGOV-PLC-4006933/news/YouGov-John-
Humphrys-Is-Woke-capitalism-a-blessing-or-curse-37675451/

YouGov : John Humphrys - Is 'Woke capitalism' a blessing or curse?

Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

'Woke capitalism' is in the news. It's been fashionable for a couple of years but it's only
recently started to make the headlines and not for the reasons its enthusiasts might have
hoped. Is it something we should fear or embrace?

Capitalism is about making a profit. If a company makes no profit that company ceases to
exist. So far... so simple. And it works. Or at least, it has done for a very long time. The United
States is the richest country in modern history because of it. So why are some of the
mightiest companies on the planet now turning towards a form of capitalism that believes
making a profit is no longer enough. It's been dubbed 'woke capitalism'. 

…Its advocates say it's all about making the world a better place. Big companies have a
social responsibility and it's about time they took it seriously. And who can argue with that?
Its critics say that's all very well but only so long as it doesn't hit the bottom line. And that,
they claim, is exactly what is beginning to happen. In truth, they say, the 'lefties' are taking
over and we should all be worried.

Unilever has been a shining star in the capitalist firmament since Victorian times. A mighty
corporation by any standards. It was founded by the Lever brothers in Merseyside back in
1885. …[Today] There's scarcely a supermarket in the western world that does not display
their products on their shelves: everything from Lynx deodorant to Dove soap, and Persil
washing powder. …Its annual turnover is more than £40 billion. But it's going through tough
times.

It has just announced 1500 job cuts and its latest attempt to widen its empire still further has
suffered a rather humiliating rejection. It wanted to buy the healthcare division of its powerful
rival GlaxoSmithKline. They said no and Unilever was forced to back off. Worse still, in some
ways, was an attack on Unilever by Terry Smith. Mr Smith is a fund manager - one of the
most influential in the world of investing. 

…He has written in his annual letter to his shareholders that Unilever - specifically its chief
executive Alan Jope and his board - have 'lost the plot'. What they should be doing, he says,
is 'focusing on the fundamentals of the business'. In other words, making products that people
want to buy and turning a profit on those sales. Instead, he says they are devoting their time
to adolescent political posturing. In simpler terms, its critic would call it 'virtue signalling'.

Examples cited by Mr Smith and other critics include an attack by one of Unilever's brands,
Ben and Jerry's ice cream, on the Home Secretary Priti Patel. It accused her of a 'lack of lack
of humanity for people fleeing war, climate change and torture'. It may or may not be justified,
they say, but what business is it of Unilever? 

The historian Dominic Sandbrook has joined in the attack on 'woke capitalism' in an essay for
the Daily Mail. He wrote: 'Turn on the television, flick through a magazine or walk past an
advertising hoarding, and you can hardly miss the patronising encouragement to 'be kind', the
misty-eyed lamentations about 'mental health', the relentless, one-note obsession with
'diversity' and 'inclusion'.

He offered some examples: 'The chocolate giant Mars recently announced that it was
rebranding its M&M sweets to reflect a 'more dynamic, progressive world'. The green female
M&M character was to be 'less sexy' and the brown M&M, also female, given heels of a more
'professional height'. (It's worth emphasising that we're talking about walking chocolates here;
and no, I'm not making this up.) Then there's Nike, once a sportswear company, but now, if
you believe its press releases, a radical political party. Its future, the chief executive recently
promised, would be to support 'organisations that put social justice, education and addressing
racial inequality in America at the centre of their work'. Whatever happened to making
trainers?

Woke capitalism' says Sandbrook, is the corporate world's equivalent of the Meghan and
Harry Show: a 'suffocating, narcissistic and entirely cynical performance of fashionable virtue.'
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

Well, that's a view, but do we really want to return to the days of capitalism red in tooth and
claw? The liberal left say positively not. Mighty corporations should be concerned with the
wellbeing of society as a whole, they say, rather than worry only about the bottom line and the
interests of their shareholders. But there is another view and it was expressed by Professor
Carl Rhodes of the University of Technology Business School on the 'Transforming Society'
website.

He argues that 'going woke' need not mean re-writing the rules of capitalism in line with a left-
wing agenda or signalling virtue instead of worrying about making a profit. He says it is about
making sure that there is no fundamental change so that market capitalism can continue on
the trajectory that it has been on for the past 40 years.

Here's how he puts it: 'It is not so simple as saying that woke corporations are hypocrites
riding popular causes so that people buy their products. To get to the heart of what is going
on, it is worth realising that when corporations do align themselves with progressive positions,
they are generally focused on social change rather than any substantial changes to the
structure or operation of the economy.'

A fundamental rule of woke capitalism. He says, is that 'politics that threaten the corporate
bottom line are to be avoided at all costs. [BUT] Even when corporations do align themselves
with social causes, those causes are generally ones where the real activists have already
done the hard work and been successful in influencing public opinion.' [IS HE SAYING ‘IN
OTHER WORDS, IT ISN’T THEIR PLACE TO DO THIS.’?]

And he makes this wider point: 'In a global economy where billionaires and large corporations
hoard greater and greater proportions of the world's wealth, the democratic promise of
equality is being sacrificed… Woke capitalism buttresses a self-satisfied ruling elite who
believe that their wealth is deserved. … No amount of feel-good moral conviction will allow a
corporation to engage in a politics that will harm its own financial fortunes or that of its owners
and managers.’

So where do you stand in this debate? Do you object to being preached at by the 'virtue
signalling' bosses of big corporations? Are you one of those sceptics who believe that the
bosses' own 'virtue' is skin deep and they parade it only to conceal their real motive, which is
to maximise their company's profits rather than build a better world? Or maybe that they are
simply scared of pressure from the left liberal lobby? Do you believe that we can have our
cake and eat it ... that big companies can make ever bigger profits and behave in a virtuous
manner that we can and should applaud? In short, do you believe that capitalism really can
make the world a better place - just so long as they keep making big profits?

Caroline Farrow – Citizen GO

Police without ‘Pride’

We all know that the police force are in thrall to LGBT ideology, but the British Transport
Police (BTP), responsible for keeping our railways safe, has crossed a line.  

They not only participated in Brighton’s Pride march but also gave implicit support to
transgender activism and critical race theory by carrying an ‘intersectional’ Pride flag
emblazoned with their emblem and slogan that read ‘Police with Pride’.  

…Participation denotes support for a specific political agenda of progressive sexual politics.

…The police are legally bound to principles of impartiality. The only role the police should
play at a political event such as Pride is to keep participants, spectators and passers-by
safe. They have no business sending messages of support for an agenda with which many
members of the public disagree. 
.
...The role of the police is to ensure public order. They have absolutely no business joining
in and endorsing displays of sexuality that are an affront to public decency and unsuitable
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

for children. How on earth are you supposed to respect a police officer when you see them
busting moves with a drag queen or holding the leashes of men in leather dog costumes?

Not content with signalling support for Marxist and progressive politics, the police
overstepped their remit even further by boasting about their activity and saying that anyone
who found their support for this political cause offensive ought not to apply for a job.

How dare they!  The police are a public service: they have no right to determine the
private political opinions of those who work for them. Their handbook specifically
prohibits them from becoming involved in any political activity or placing themselves in a
position where their impartiality may be questioned. 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-btp-should-stick-to-policing-not-trans-rights/

The BTP should stick to policing not trans rights – Debbie Hayton

The policing bible could not be clearer: ‘Police officers must not take any active part in
politics. This is intended to prevent you from placing yourself in a position where your
impartiality may be questioned.’ But has anyone told the British Transport Police?

The BTP’s officers were out in force at Brighton’s Pride festival at the weekend, holding up a
‘Police with Pride’ flag. Officers were also using the festivities as a recruiting opportunity. 
‘We want you to apply to be part of a modern, diverse and inclusive police force,’ said BTP
superintendent David Rams. As well as encouraging diversity, the BTP was clear about who
they don’t want signing up: people who might be offended by the police taking an active role
at Pride. In a statement, the BTP said: ‘Inclusion isn’t political, and we’ll always celebrate
being as diverse as the communities we protect. If you’re offended by this, please don’t apply
to work for us – thanks’

While the BTP might insist there’s nothing political about this statement, the reality is rather
different. The force was using an ‘intersectional flag’ at Pride which is trans inclusive; but
many lesbian and gay people do not think this flag represents them. Whether these people
are right or wrong to think that way, there is no dispute that trans rights are a matter of fierce
debate. This means the police – who, remember, have a duty not to wade into politics – must
tread carefully on such subjects. Instead they are telling people who might be offended to get
lost.

So much for impartiality. … The job of the BTP is to police, not take sides in a political
dispute. Nor is it to solicit job applications from people of a particular political persuasion.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/gillette-rise-woke-capitalism/

Gillette and the rise of woke capitalism

Is there no corner of life that will not be needlessly politicized by those who think they know
better?

The politicization of consumer products is one of the weirder developments of recent years.
First, Oreos came out in support of gay rights. Then Nike extolled us to ‘believe in something.
Even if it means sacrificing everything’, in its multimillion-dollar campaign with controversial
former NFL star Colin Kaepernick. Now Gillette has launched a new advert calling on men to
be ‘the best men can be’ and shed the nefarious habits of ‘toxic masculinity’ in the wake of the
#MeToo movement.

The two-minute advert-come-public service announcement argues that men, in the words of
actor Terry Crews, taken from his testimony on #MeToo in the US Congress, should hold one
another accountable for their behavior. The clip shows some boys trying to hit each other at a
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

barbecue, while their dads look on, tongs in hand, saying ‘boys will be boys’. …Bullying,
violent would-be abuser is presented as men’s factory setting, and these instincts must be
resisted by the intervention of more enlightened friends.

The ad is aimed at updating the company’s 30-year-old slogan, ‘The best a man can get’.
Images of its old ads, showing chiseled men shaving as women swoon, are spliced in — as if
they, too, have been part of the problem. But the key difference between the old ads and the
new is that the former were aimed at flogging us razors, rather than telling us how to live. The
‘best a man can get’ was always, presumably, an endorsement of Gillette products’ quality,
rather than a call to unabashed chauvinism.

Unsurprisingly, the backlash to Gillette’s new ad has been swift. …Tweeters and commenters
are threatening boycotts unless Gillette apologizes. ‘In less than two minutes you managed to
alienate your biggest sales group for your products. Well done’, wrote one viewer.

But the occasional histrionics aside, Gillette’s customers have a right to be irked. They want
razors, not lectures. And those currently defending the ad, those wondering breathlessly why
anyone would have a problem with men not battering one another or groping women, are
missing the point. The thing about virtue-signaling is that it assumes that ordinary people are
not virtuous, that basic decency is something they have to have drilled into them by their
supposed betters. Indeed, the whole idea of ‘toxic masculinity’ — a student-politics talking
point that has somehow gone mainstream — assumes that most blokes are default bores and
sex pests.

…A cynic might suggest this was just an attempt to engineer free publicity. What other ad
campaign could have got Gillette trending on a Tuesday morning? But what’s stranger still is
that the bigwigs behind it seem completely sincere. Gary Coombe, president of ‘global
grooming’ at Procter and Gamble, Gillette’s parent company, says ‘the decision to publicly
assert our beliefs while celebrating men who are doing things right was an easy choice that
makes a difference’. …

This all sounds very noble. But it’s not. It is just the modern-day blight of right-on snobbery
infecting the corporate world and a sign that, in these increasingly polarized times, there is no
corner of life that will not be needlessly politicized by those who think they know better.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/08/12/dont-like-progressivism-dont-apply-to-work-for-us-uk-
police-force/

Don’t Like Progressivism, ‘Don’t Apply to Work for Us’ – UK Police Force

A police force in Britain has told the public that it does not want those who dislike
progressivism to even apply to become one of their officers.
Critics of progressive politics need not apply, one police force in the United Kingdom appears
to have declared, telling the general public that it does not want those who dislike their left-
wing politics to even attempt to become one of their officers in a social media post online.

The declaration by the British Transport Police (BTP) was made in the wake of a number of
policing organisations joining a Pride parade in the British city of Brighton, with members of
Sussex Police in particular being pictured posing in rainbow colours at the event, despite the
fact that British police forces are mandated by law to be politically neutral.

However, seemingly pre-empting outcry over the political nature of attending a Pride event,
the official social media account of the British Transport Police publicly defended the
presence of its officers at the parade, before telling any individual offended by the pro-
progressivism actions of the force to refrain from applying for a job with them.

In a Twitter post they said: “Inclusion isn’t political, and we’ll always celebrate being as
diverse as the communities we protect,” the social media account declared. “If you’re
offended by this, please don’t apply to work for us – thanks,” it went on to say.
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this post did not win plaudits from many netizens, some of whom took
issue with what appeared to be a declaration by the force that they will illegally discriminate
against applicants based on their political and social beliefs.

https://www.vogue.co.uk/gallery/benettons-best-advertising-campaigns

Benetton's Most Controversial Campaigns

As the provocative art director Oliviero Toscani returns to Benetton after a 17-year hiatus,
Vogue looks back at the Italian photographer's most controversial advertising campaigns IN
APRIL 2000 United Colors of Benetton fired its art director Oliviero Toscani over his
advertising campaign about the death penalty, entitled "Looking Death in the Face".

Toscani has joined Benetton once again, along with Luciano Benetton, the founder. For 18
years Toscani had been pushing the limits of advertising. With each campaign came a new
round of backlash, censorship and, of course, a hefty amount of press. But this final
campaign, released in January 2000 and depicting 26 death row inmates staring blankly into
the camera behind the inauspicious stamp, SENTENCED TO DEATH, proved to be Toscani's
undoing.

Murder victims’ families lobbied retailers and consumers, and sales consequently plummeted.
Department stores dropped the brand; the state of Missouri filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit
claiming that pictures of inmates had been taken under false pretences. It was the nail in the
coffin for the Italian photographer and marked the end of the partnership between Toscani
and the Benetton empire during which some of the most groundbreaking and experimental
advertising of the late 20th century had been conceived. From AIDS victims to the
bloodstained clothing of a dead soldier, interracial and homosexual relationships, non-white or
LGBTQ+ people – Toscani shied away from nothing. It paid off both culturally and financially.

Here, we take a look at some of Oliviero Toscani’s most scandalous ad campaigns for United
Colors of Benetton.

1. The coloured condoms campaign was a nod to the AIDS crisis which was ravaging the
younger generations in the late Eighties and early Nineties. "I have found out that advertising
is the richest and most powerful medium existing today," Toscani told the New York Times at
the time, "so I feel responsible to do more than to say, 'Our sweater is pretty.' "

2. In November 1990 LIFE Magazine published journalism student Therese Frare’s image of
gay activist and AIDS victim David Kirby as he lay on his death bed. Two years later Benetton
used the image, coloured by artist Ann Rhoney with oil paint, for its campaign. Despite a
backlash by many AIDS activists who believed it spread fear of sufferers and commoditised
suffering, and launched a global campaign to boycott the company, Kirby’s father Bill stated,
“Benetton is not using us, we’re using Benetton…If that photograph helps someone…then it’s
worth whatever pressure we have to go through.”

3. In 1982 the Mafia killing of Benedetto Grado in Palermo, Italy, was captured by Franco
Zecchi. Ten years later the image was featured in Benetton’s spring/summer 1992 campaign.
Various publications refused to publish the image and the dead man’s daughter claimed she
would sue, asking: “How does my father’s death enter into publicity for sweaters?”

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44545860

Italy migrants: Benetton criticised over ad campaign

20 June 2018

Italian clothing firm United Colors of Benetton has been criticised after launching a
controversial advertising campaign featuring images of migrants rescued from the
Mediterranean. The ads show migrants in life jackets accompanied by volunteers this month.
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

The charity behind the rescue, SOS Méditerranée, condemned Benetton for using pictures of
"people in distress". Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini later tweeted: "Am I the only one to
find this despicable?"

The ads, which appeared online and in Italian newspaper La Repubblica, feature two
separate images captured on 9 June by German charity SOS Méditerranée as part of what
became the rescue of hundreds of migrants.

"SOS Méditerranée fully dissociates itself from this campaign, which displays a picture taken
while our teams were rescuing people in distress at sea," the charity said in a statement
posted on Twitter on Tuesday. Benetton has not yet responded to the comments.

The Benetton advertising campaign was designed by controversial Italian photographer

Oliviero Toscani who said the images were "dramatic", adding that Mr Salvini's criticism
"makes me realise I'm right".

Toscani, who left Benetton in 2000 but returned in February this year, has been behind
several divisive ads for the clothing company since the 1980s. …He has said that his
campaigns, which have touched on subjects such as human rights, religion and racism, are
designed to raise awareness of certain issues.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/world/europe/benetton-ad-migrants.html

Benetton ‘Migrants’ Ads Draw Outrage for Using Photos of Real Migrants

Benetton, the Italian fashion retailer known for its brightly colored knits and provocative
campaigns, may not be the global powerhouse it once was. But the company was back in the
news this week for an ad that strikes at the heart of an issue bedeviling European borders:
migration.

The company repurposed two photographs from recent migrant rescue operations by staff
members from the Franco-German charity SOS Méditerranée for an advertising campaign,
drawing howls of protest that the ads were insensitive and exploitive. One image depicted
charity workers handing out life jackets to migrants on an overflowing raft off the coast of
Libya. The other showed migrant women and their children at an aid station in Italy.

Both pictures were published on the retailer’s Twitter account and in print in the Italian daily
La Repubblica with the United Colors of Benetton logo. The one with the raft was removed
from Twitter after the criticism reached a pitch.

The charity, which conducted the ocean rescue operation on June 9, lashed out at Benetton
on Tuesday and denied having anything to do with the advertising campaign. “SOS
Méditerranée fully dissociates itself from this campaign, which displays a picture taken while
our teams were rescuing people in distress at sea,” the charity said in a statement. “The
human tragedy at stake in the Mediterranean must never be used for any commercial
purposes.”

https://friendlystock.com/top-ten-controversial-united-colors-of-benetton-ads/

10 Most Controversial United Colors of Benetton Ads

“We did not create our advertisements in order to provoke, but to make people talk, to
develop citizen consciousness,” Luciano Benetton assures us. Whether or not they began in
this way, many Benetton advertisement campaigns have ended with controversy. …It is by
this light — the light of controversy — that I consider each advert. It must be acknowledged
that such campaigns do wonders for the company: a political alignment with consumers is
much stronger than a strictly aesthetic one, after all. Nevertheless, given that such projects
have enormous visibility, there is a logic in the highly politicized propaganda. I believe this is
the classic win-win situation. We shouldn’t whine about that.
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

Sentenced to death campaign

1996 marks a challenge to capital punishment, a subject much more contestable than any
we’ve seen to date. The idea of using convicted criminals as models for a high-end fashion
label isn’t the first to come up at a board meeting. Essentially, this is yet another outlet for
their pro-life message: suffer at all costs, just don’t do the wrong thing by taking life away.
While consistent, there is a bizarre leaning towards a defense of violence (although
involuntary) which weakens the effectiveness yet raises the bar of controversy.

1992 Mafia killing of Benedetto Grado

Using iconic images from the recent news of horrors that still haunt the millions is insensitive.
Very often, insensitivity is effective. The car bomb image at the left, for example, treats the
issue of terrorism from an observational perspective, as if saying that the brand is still relevant
to today’s issues and that some issues cannot be considered as simple… But to be clearly
observational is to be reductionist. The images as controversial precisely because they can’t
make up their mind on any of the issues they try to tackle, yet still, try to sell clothing by
means of them.

Some reader’s comments on the above:

CB
August 26, 2017 at 2:02 am
Any retailer will tell you that it’s about the bottom line. The death penalty inmates helped
destroy the brand in the USA – and rightfully so.

Jill Crampton
March 1, 2021 at 9:43 am
Show some poor man dying of aids or a baby just been born. Could you please tell me what
on earth any of that has to do with selling clothes.

Michael
April 16, 2022 at 1:23 am
By taking a stance on moral or political issues what they’re actually doing is alienating the
customers who don’t agree with their stance. Businesses exist to sell products, not to make
political statements. And even then, they are exploiting the political statement just to sell their
products. If it was truly about altruism or just pure political belief, they wouldn’t need to put
their name to it – virtue is only truly virtue without witness and without reward.

Other important articles to checkout:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/07/cancel-culture-and-problem-woke-
capitalism/614086/

https://www.candidplatform.com/en/news/platform-news/all-platform-news/marketing/
unilever.html

https://quillette.com/2022/05/24/woke-capitalisms-tragedy-of-the-commons/

The above is a great article.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/19/unilever-boss-says-brands-using-woke-
washing-destroy-trust

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2022/01/25/
woke_capital_wont_save_the_planet__but_it_will_crash_the_economy_813687.html

https://businessesgrow.com/2019/06/24/woke-washing/
Woke Washing: How purpose driven marketing is being hijacked
Going for Woke - Blog post -15.10.20

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-companies-continue-to-go-woke-if-it-keeps-backfiring-and-
losing-business

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1617187/FULLTEXT01.pdf
“Woke” Authenticity in Brand Culture

https://unherd.com/2021/05/the-end-of-woke-is-nigh/

https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/does-esg-really-matter-and-
why

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/31/how-to-keep-corporate-wokeness-from-destroying-
america/

https://ammo.com/articles/woke-capitalism-how-huge-corporations-demonstrate-status-by-
endorsing-political-radicalism

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-corporate-social-responsibility-important-for-a-companys-
bottom-line

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1560916/FULLTEXT01.pdf
BRAND ACTIVISM, DOES IT WORK?