Corporate Political Activism and Reputation Risks: The Starbucks Case Via Media Exposures

Abstract

Corporate political activism (CPA) could be defined as a business’ stance towards political issues which are of particular interest to a part or majority of the public, and actions they take in this context. When compared with ordinary corporate social responsibility activities, CPA activities, due to the subjects focused, pose risk of reputation loss for businesses that implement them. The reformed business-community dynamics that were shaped by the changing consumer expectations and increasing impact of businesses, forces said businesses to conduct a more thorough decision making process. In this research that handles the Starbucks Race Together campaign, which is originated from the racial unrest in the United States of America and resulted in corporate reputation loss, it is aimed to thoroughly investigate the reasons behind said reputation loss. The findings that were acquired through media exposures show that “lack of sincerity of the campaign”, “business-cause incompatibility and problems regarding the applicability of the campaign”, and “aim-application incompatibility of the campaign” play a crucial role in the reputation loss of a business. Despite the risks it brings about regarding reputation, it is not possible to deem CPA activities as utterly harmful or useless. The findings from the Starbucks Race Together campaign provide essential implications for businesses that would like to participate in advocacy of social problems.

Keywords

• Corporate Political Activism
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Reputation Management
• Corporate Credibility
• Management Communication

Kurumsal Politik Aktivizm ve İtibar Riskleri: Medya Yansımalarıyla Starbucks Örneği

Abstract

Kurumsal politik aktivizm (KPA), toplumun çoğunluğu veya bir kısmını yakından ilgilendiren politik konulara yönelik olarak işletmelerin tutum belirlemesi ve bu doğrultuda faaliyetler gerçekleştirmesi olarak tanımlanabilir. Alışılagelmiş kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk faaliyetlerine kıyasla KPA faaliyetleri, odağına aldığı meselelere bağlı olarak işletmeler için itibar risklerini de beraberinde getirmektedir. Değişen tüketici beklentileri ve işletmelerin etki alanlarının genişlemesine bağlı olarak yeniden şekillenen toplum-işletme ilişkisi dinamikleri, işletmeleri bu faaliyetleri hayata geçirmeden önce daha itinalı karar verme süreci gözetmeye zorlamaktadır. İşletme itibarına ilişkin olumsuz sonuçlanmış bir KPA örneği olarak Starbucks’ın Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde yaşanan ırksal gerilimden yola çıkarak hazırladığı Race Together kampanyasını ele alan bu çalışmada, itibar kaybına sebebiyet veren unsurların derinlemesine incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Medya yansımaları incelenerek elde edilen bulgular; “kampanyadaki samimiyet eksikliği”, “işletme değerleriyle tutarsızlık”, “işletme-dava uyumsuzluğu ve kampanya fikrinin uygulanabilirliğine dair problemler” ve “kampanya amaç ve uygulama uyumsuzluğu” gerekçelerinin itibar kaybında önemli rol oynadığını göstermektedir. Beraberinde getirdiği tüm itibar risklerine karşın, KPA faaliyetlerini bütünüyle zararlı veya yararsız faaliyetler olarak değerlendirmek mümkün değildir. Starbucks Race Together kampanyasından yola çıkarak ortaya konmuş olan araştırma bulguları, toplumsal sorunların çözümünde rol üstlenmek isteyen işletmelere kampanya tasarımı ve yönetim iletişimi adına dikkat edilmesi gereken unsurlara ilişkin önemli çıkarımlar sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Kurumsal Politik Aktivizm
• Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk
• İtibar Yönetimi
• Kurumsal Güvenilirlik
• Yönetim İletişimi

References

1. Abitbol, A., Lee, N., Lee, S., & Seltzer, T. (2018). # RaceTogether: Starbucks’ attempt to discuss race in America and its impact on company reputation and employees. Public Relations Journal. 12(1), 1-28
2. Almeida, M. D. G. M. C., & Coelho, A. F. M. (2019). The antecedents of corporate reputation and image and their impacts on employee commitment and performance: The moderating role of CSR. Corporate Reputation Review, 22(1), 10– 25.
3. Appels, M., Edinger-Schons, L. M., Korschun, D., & Balk, L. (2020). Don’t mix business with politics? Understanding stakeholder reactions to corporate political activism. Marketing Review St. Gallen, 37(4), 888-894.
4. Bednar, M. K., Boivie, S., & Prince, N. R. (2013). Burr under the saddle: How media coverage influences strategic change. Organization Science, 24(3), 910-925.
5. Bendell, J., & Kearins, K. (2005). The political bottom line: the emerging dimension to corporate responsibility for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(6), 372-383.
6. Bennett, R., & Gabriel, H. (2001). Reputation, trust and supplier commitment: The case of shipping company/ seaport relations. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 16, 424– 438.
7. Bertels, S., & Peloza, J. (2008). Running just to stand still? Managing CSR reputation in an era of ratcheting expectations. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(1), 56-72.
8. Bohnen, J. (2020). Corporate political responsibility: How businesses can strengthen democracy for mutual benefit. Berlin: Springer

9. Bradleyi D. (2015). How Starbucks can mop up Race Together campaign. Campaignlive. https://www. campaignlive.com/article/starbucks-mop-race-together-campaign/1339226, (Erişim Tarihi: 23.02.2021) Brooks, D. E., & Hébert, L. P. (2006). Gender, race, and media representation. B.J. Dow & J.T. Wood (Ed.) Handbook of gender and communication içinde (ss. 297-317) California: Sage
10. Candea, B. (2015). Starbucks CEO defends ‘Race Together’ campaign on race relations. ABC News. http:// abcnews.go.com/Business/starbucks-ceodefends-race-campaign-race-relations/story?id=29738830,(Erişim Tarihi: 24.02.2021)
11. Carr, A. (2015). The Inside Story of Starbucks’s Race Together Campaign, No Foam. Fast Company. https:// www.fastcompany.com/3046890/the-inside-story-of-starbuckss-race-together-campaign-no-foam, (Erişim Tarihi: 23.02.2021).
12. Chatterji, A.K. & Toffel, M.K. (2018). The new CEO activists. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/01/ the-new-ceo-activists , (Erişim Tarihi: 24.02.2021)
13. Clemensen, M. (2017). Corporate political activism: When and how should companies take a political stand?. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Minnesota: University of Minnesota.
14. Diers-Lawson, A., Coope, K., & Tench, R. (2020). Why can CSR seem like putting lipstick on a pig? Evaluating CSR authenticity by comparing practitioner and consumer perspectives. Journal of Global Responsibility, 11(4), 329-346.
15. Disparte, D. & Gentry, T.H. (2018). Corporate activism is on the rise. Real Leaders. https://real-leaders.com/ corporate-activism-rise/, (Erişim Tarihi: 24.02.2021).
16. Eberle, D., Berens, G., & Li, T. (2013). The impact of interactive corporate social responsibility communication on corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), 731-746.
17. Ember, S. (2015). Starbucks initiative on race relations draws attacks online. New York Times. https://www. nytimes.com/2015/03/19/business/starbucks-race-together-shareholders-meeting.html, (Erişim Tarihi: 23.02.2021)
18. Feng, Y. (2016). Are you connected? Evaluating information cascades in online discussion about the RaceTogether campaign. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 43-53.
19. Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
20. Frankel C. (2001). Power-noia! Special feature on corporate power. Tomorrow Magazine, s. 46–51. Geier, B. (2015). Why this Starbucks PR exec deleted his Twitter account. Fortune. https://fortune. com/2015/03/19/starbucks-vp-twitter-delete/, (Erişim Tarihi: 24.02.2021)
21. Gilliland, N. (2021). 10 brand campaigns that took a stand on social issues. Ecoconsultancy. https://econsultancy. com/brand-campaigns-that-took-a-stand-on-social-issues/, (Erişim Tarihi: 24.02.2021).
22. Harlan, C. & Contrera, J. (2015). Starbucks baristas: ‘Race together’ campaign never found its course. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/starbucks-baristas-race-together-campaign- never-found-its-course/2015/03/22/90b2c854-d0d4-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html, (Erişim Tarihi: 23.02.2021)
23. Harold, E. (2015). Legal Lessons from Starbucks’ Race Together Campaign, Riskmanagementmonitor.com. https://www.riskmanagementmonitor.com/legal-lessons-from-starbucks-race-together-campaign/, (Erişim Tarihi 23.02.2021)
24. Houghton, C., Murphy, K., Shaw, D., & Casey, D. (2015). Qualitative case study data analysis: An example from practice. Nurse Researcher, 22(5), 8-12 Ihlen, Ø, Bartlett, J.L. & May, S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and communication. Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J., & May, S. (Eds.). The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility içinde (ss. 3-22): John Wiley & Sons.
25. Jahdi, K. S., & Acikdilli, G. (2009). Marketing communications and corporate social responsibility (CSR): marriage of convenience or shotgun wedding?. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 103-113.
26. Kim, S., & Ferguson, M. A. T. (2018). Dimensions of effective CSR communication based on public expectations. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(6), 549-567.
27. Kim, S. B., & Kim, D. Y. (2017). Antecedents of corporate reputation in the hotel industry: The moderating role of transparency. Sustainability, 9 (6), 951
28. King, B. G. & McDonnell, M.H. (2013) Good firms, good targets: The relationship between corporate social responsibility, reputation, and activist targeting. Tsutsui, K. & Lim, A. (Ed.), Corporate Social Responsibility in a Globalizing World: Toward Effective Global CSR Frameworks içinde (ss.1-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
29. Korschun, D., Rafieian, H., Aggarwal, A. & Swain, S.D. (2019). Taking a stand: Consumer responses when companies get (or don’t get) political. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2806476 or http://dx.doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.2806476
30. Lin-Hi, N., & Blumberg, I. (2018). The link between (not) practicing CSR and corporate reputation: Psychological foundations and managerial implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1), 185-198.
31. Logan, N. (2016). The Starbucks Race Together Initiative: Analyzing a public relations campaign with critical race theory. Public Relations Inquiry, 5(1), 93-113.
32. Mark-Herbert, C., & Von Schantz, C. (2007). Communicating corporate social responsibility–brand management. EJBO-Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies. 12(2),4-10
33. McCluney, C.L., Roberts, L.M. & Wooten, L.P. (2017). It takes courage: Lessons learned from Starbucks’ #racetogether campaign case study”, Koonce, R. (Ed.) Developing Leaders for Positive Organizing içinde (ss. 95-108) Emerald Publishing Limited.
34. Medium.com (2016). Grande fail of “Race Together” campaign by Starbucks. Medium. https://medium. com/15-s10-smm/grande-fail-of-race-together-campaign-by-starbucks-901.015.8918f1, (Erişim Tarihi: 23.02.2021)
35. Nalick, M., Josefy, M., Zardkoohi, A., & Bierman, L. (2016). Corporate sociopolitical involvement: A reflection of whose preferences?. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(4), 384-403.
36. Parcha, J. M., & Kingsley Westerman, C. Y. (2020). How corporate social advocacy affects attitude change toward controversial social issues. Management Communication Quarterly, 34(3), 350-383.
37. Parker, K. (2015). Dear Starbucks: Can we not talk about race?. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost. com/opinions/dear-starbucks-can-we-not-talk-about-race/2015/03/20/9b3243b6-cf3c-11e4-8c54- ffb5ba6f2f69_story.html, (Erişim Tarihi: 23.02.2021)
38. Peterson, H. (2015). The real story behind Starbucks’ most embarrassing moment in history. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-race-together-campaign-history-2015-6, (Erişim Tarihi: 23.02.2021)
39. Pomering, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2009). Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: are consumers aware of CSR initiatives?. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 285-301.
40. Quinlan, P. (2018). Corporate activism: Three reasons staying silent is the bigger risk. Forbes. https://www. forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/04/17/corporate-activism-three-reasons-staying-silent-is- the-bigger-risk/?sh=32d3711f1beb, (Erişim Tarihi: 24.02.2021).
41. Ramesh, K., Saha, R., Goswami, S., & Dahiya, R. (2019). Consumer’s response to CSR activities: Mediating role of brand image and brand attitude. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(2), 377-387.
42. Rim, H., & Kim, S. (2016). Dimensions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) skepticism and their impacts on public evaluations toward CSR. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28(5-6), 248-267.
43. Sacks, B. & Samaha, A. (2020). Starbucks Won’t Let Employees Wear Gear That Supports Black Lives Matter Because It Is Political Or Could Incite Violence. Buzzfeed News. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ briannasacks/starbucks-is-now-very-pro-black-lives-matter-but-it-wont, (Erişim Tarihi: 24.02.2021).
44. Sanders, S. (2015). Starbucks will stop putting the words ‘race together’ on cups. NPR. https://www.npr.org/ sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/22/394710277/starbucks-will-stop-writing-race-together-on-coffee- cups, (Erişim Tarihi: 23.02.2021)
45. Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225-243.
46. Shah, K. (2015). Why starbucks’ race together campaign failed. Eater. https://www.eater.com/2015/6/18/8807849/ why-starbucks-race-together-campaign-failed, (Erişim Tarihi: 23.02.2021)
47. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.
48. Starbucks (2019). Global social impact report. https://stories.starbucks.com/uploads/2020/06/2019-Starbucks- Global-Social-Impact-Report.pdf
49. Starbucks (2020). Global environmental and social impact report https://stories.starbucks.com/uploads/2021/04/ Starbucks-2020-Global-Environmental-and-Social-Impact-Report.pdf
50. Stein, L. (2015) Starbucks stands behind Race Together campaign despite backlash. Prweek. https://www. prweek.com/article/1338731/starbucks-stands-behind-race-together-campaign-despite-backlash, (Erişim Tarihi: 23.02.2021)
51. Steward, S. (2015). #Betterexecution: How Starbucks “Race Together” campaign was a good idea with flawed execution. Engagetu. https://www.engagetu.com/2015/03/27/betterexecution-how-starbucks-race- together-campaign-was-a-good-idea-with-flawed-execution/, (Erişim Tarihi: 23.02.2021)
52. Taghian, M., D’Souza, C., & Polonsky, M. (2015). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility, reputation and business performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(2),340-363
53. Tetrault Sirsly, C. A., & Lvina, E. (2019). From doing good to looking even better: The dynamics of CSR and reputation. Business & Society, 58(6), 1234-1266.
54. Turker, D., & Ozmen, Y. S. (2018). Grounding managerial values towards social responsibility on an ideological framework. Social Responsibility Journal, 14(3), 516-526.
55. Vogler, D., & Eisenegger, M. (2021). CSR communication, corporate reputation, and the role of the news media as an agenda-setter in the digital age. Business & Society, 60(8), 1957-1986.
56. Weinzimmer, L. G., & Esken, C. A. (2016). Risky business: Taking a stand on social issues. Business Horizons, 59(3), 331-337.
57. Winston, A. (2016). Business is taking action on LGBT rights. Will climate change be next? Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/05/business-is-taking-action-on-lgbt-rights-will-climate-change-be-next, (Erişim Tarihi: 24.02.2021).
58. Yoon, Y., Gürhan‐Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 377-390.
59. Zhu, Y., Sun, L. Y., & Leung, A. S. (2014). Corporate social responsibility, firm reputation, and firm performance: The role of ethical leadership. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(4), 925-947.