At a recent conference convened by the Democracy Policy Initiative of the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley and the Brennan Center, panelists assessed the state of our democracy across four arenas: universities; government (federal, state and local); the media; and ‘civil society’, which generously included business alongside grassroots organizing by labor and religious organizations.
Our moderator called on us to consider unlikely places and connections to reinvigorate democracy. Her question to me was whether business would step into the arena to defend democracy—or not.
One speaker had just returned from the Vatican and reported that Pope Leo called for solidarity, and a surge of “moral energy” to carry the day.
When I queried the room, no one was expecting a tide of moral energy from the business sector.
But unquestionably, business has a role to play. A number of stories of individual and collective action by corporations made a difference during the first Trump administration:
Early stand out actions beginning in 2017 include the quick response of Silicon Valley executives to Trump’s proposed ban on majority-Muslim countries, and when key executives resigned from the White House Manufacturing Council after Charlottesville. The Business Roundtable and other business groups advocated for a peaceful transition of power after Trump challenged Biden’s election – and a coalition of black executives led the “We Stand for Democracy” petition that marshalled 700+ business signatories to protest discriminatory voting practices.
To date, over 1,000 multinationals have stopped doing business with Russia, in response to the invasion of the Ukraine. The Boycott remains effective today.
But that was then. In this moment, the call for corporations to speak up asks CEOs to bet the bank—to put government contracts, reputation with consumers, access to markets and trade, and even personal safety at risk.
Despite compelling examples of business leadership in support of democratic ideals and institutions, the business sector is likely too broad a segment of civil society to galvanize as a group—and “rule of law” may be too diffuse a motivator for action today. December 4th marks one year since the assassination of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare. The public space is raw.
What’s possible now? How and where might executives best deploy their influence to address polarization and embrace democracy?
Most business leaders still believe democracy and a healthy economy go hand-in-hand, but the news is replete with examples of executives placing their business interests ahead of their concern over the health of democratic institutions. Further, employees and consumers are divided along partisan lines on a host of issues. How and when should executives to speak out?
Today, executives take the advice of professionals to deploy a decision matrix before considering public pronouncements—to assess when the CEO’s voice is deemed authentic, and if the business risks associated with falling out of favor with the White House or consumers are outweighed by the rewards.
But there’s another path to pursue.
Executives have choices to make. These choices can enable more powerful contributions to a stronger democracy than a petition or a public statement.
Edelman’s Trust Barometer reminds us that business has standing not because trust in business is so high, but because the public has confidence in business’ ability to get things done. Private sector resources are needed in partnership with NGOs and local governments to address critical infrastructure and social needs. But the influence of executives is greatest and the impact felt most powerfully in the workplace itself.
When it comes to supporting democracy, assuring that employees have time off to vote or volunteer at the polls are table stakes. The five provocations below require the CEO and board to challenge basic assumptions and priorities. The health of the workforce and the health of our democracy are entwined; these choices are a necessary step to rebuilding trust in our democracy:
One, Ensure Fairness and Lean into Diversity. Inclusive policies that support economic mobility are good for democracy, but it is also true that diversity produces better results. The data are clear. Support for diversity and fairness in the workplace remains a business imperative.
The business case supports engaging a workforce as diverse as our country, one that tolerates different points of view and widens the aperture to employment by assuring job descriptions emphasize skills over degrees. The focus on diversity ensures a more productive workplace. It’s common sense.
Two, Fix Pay. To put fairness at the center and rebuild trust in our economic system requires critical changes at both ends of the pay scale.
Edelman’s trust data in this ‘era of grievance’ confirms that those who are most economically precarious and vulnerable are the least trusting of all institutions. A CEO can’t reduce inequality in all of society, but they can reduce the economic precarity of their own workforce and reduce the inequality in their own company. That means assuring the lowest paid have a living wage and appropriate benefits, but also calls on executives to reconsider the structure of their own pay. Both are critical.
Three, Stop Political Spending. Money in politics deeply undermines trust in government.
When companies paused political contributions in the wake of the January 6th insurrection at the Capitol, it (momentarily) became a call to reason and responsibility. Many companies turned off political expenditures for three to six months to assess who they were supporting, and why influence peddling was needed.
Trade groups with few scruples about greasing the wheels of government won the day and the money continues to flow, but this is a choice that resides with the executive. At a minimum, companies need to be transparent about their practices. IBM has never engaged in political spending; they rely instead on their First Amendment right to engage directly and honestly with elected officials.
Four, Create Value, Don’t Extract Value. With democracy at risk, companies need to examine their own business model first. Who does it serve? This is the most challenging but also the most important choice. It’s about who grants the license to operate and what it takes to maintain trust with the public as well as employees.
Executives of public companies are under pressure to externalize costs to support the stock price. Most are tied to stock valuations through the structure of their pay. When time horizons are short, employees are expendable and the environment is at risk.
What constitutes a good job? What does it actually mean to be a good place to work? And does the business contribute to growing inequality or mitigate against it? Democracy cannot flourish if corporations fail at this basic question of corporate purpose and design.
Corporate purpose is bandied about as intention, but it is also revealed by the priorities identified by the executive and amplified by governance.
Five, companies are called to practice constructive conversation across differences. More experimentation is needed to support employee engagement and conversation at work that in turn can help build the social fabric of the communities that host the enterprise—and rebound to the health of both.
Richard Edelman terms business the “last beacon of civility.” The norms and protocols that underpin healthy teamwork and respect for your co-workers also enable connections across issues and social norms that are challenging, or polarizing. Third Side Strategies offers resources and a case example to get started in the CPR Hub.
Politics, indeed, are local, and so is business. After decades of globalization, business is seeing an opportunity to connect again to host communities—to place—where the business contribution to a healthy democracy is seen most clearly.
What if that place is the company itself?
This blog post was originally published on LinkedIn. Follow Judy Samuelson for more insights on business and society.