The following words do not take into account the backdoor dealings of businesses- i.e political donations, lobbying, government contracts- as any remedies for these affairs require a separate, far more detailed policy. Here I focus only on consumer interactions with businesses and the role this plays in today’s politics.  

In the past, the idea that businesses should be apolitical was commonly argued by those on the right end of the political spectrum. Conversely, the notion that businesses ought to express political views was usually pushed by those more to the left. But now the contrast between these differing attitudes has muddied, and the potent role of the consumer in politics has increasingly become a bipartisan phenomenon. The latest boycott of Bud Light is an example of a conservative consumer base using their purchasing power to express discontent with a corporation leaning into a political issue. The ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) trend in private equity shows how large corporations are progressively becoming more involved in political or societal issues. Both consumers and businesses en masse have awakened to a newfound political power. 

Some businesses will try painstakingly to stay out of the fray, recognizable with the phrase “focusing on what we do best.” Regardless of their intent, this is hogwash. It’s impossible for businesses to be apolitical because any business choosing to remain silent on a topic is simply in favor of the status quo; this is a stance in itself. Consider Michael Jordan’s infamous quote, “Republicans buy sneakers too.” His refusal to endorse Harvey Gantt against Jesse Helms (who had a laundry list racist remarks) conveyed where his priorities were at the time. In his case, as well as each business which does not speak out against injustice, their silence speaks volumes. 

More and more businesses are embracing virtue-signaling, and with good (fiscal) reason. The key measuring stick for a brand considering championing a cause is based in a calculation that taking such a stance will be marketable. Ultimately each individual business will consider profit-making while deciding whether or not to express their opinions on current political affairs.

Given the self-serving motives behind brand messaging, an increased responsibility is hoisted upon consumers to be consciously aware of their purchasing power. It’s also reasonable to expect that consumers will tend to only support companies that express views parallel to their own. With this in mind, there are two diverging directions a conscious consumer can choose between: the activist approach or the conformist approach. 

The activist approach requires careful scrutiny of a brand’s messaging and actions to determine whether there is alignment between brand behavior and consumer ideology. If the brand is virtue-signaling or greenwashing than it is the consumer’s responsibility to call it out. An example might be Nike’s unsafe and inhumane labor practices in their supply-chain, while presenting their brand as socially conscious and humanitarian. The activist would call out Nike’s hypocrisy and demand better, or decidedly take their business elsewhere. The conformist approach is the exact opposite; they consciously seek out and support brands that don’t push political opinions. This form of consumerism rewards companies who don’t profess political beliefs which affirms conformity in our society as is. While I won’t declare which approach I believe is preferable, I do hope each consumer can be consciously aware of whichever path they decide to take.