In: Operations Management
Question) Companies routinely have to walk the tightrope when it comes to social movements and social opinions. No one knows this more than Nike. They took a huge risk with Colin Kaepernick, and it paid off handsomely. However, others were not so lucky with other social movement lightning rods. Considering how polarized our world is, should companies take sides in social movements? What is the danger and benefit of such approach?
Companies have to stick to both the sides in case of a social movement. It is because the companies have customers on both the side of parties. However, in extreme cases of feminism, rape, murder, and sedition, the companies should tend to choose whoever is right. For example, in the cases of rape or murder, the companies should stand up with the victim because they need protection and help from the society. Business enterprises are part of the society, and they have to stand with the right party. The benefit of this type of thinking and approach is that the company gets famous, and the customers know more about it. If the company stands with the right party, the customers will stand with the firm, and buy products t or service from the company.
On the other hand, the disadvantage of this kind of approach is that the critics tend to disrupt the operations of the company. It leads to less productivity and efficiency. The enterprise will not be able to produce the products properly. However, it is at the discretion of the company to select the right side of a social movement. Nevertheless, the company should try to give its opinions in the safe and correct matters. It is because the government might also help the company in the future. Hence, the social opinion is valuable.