Corporate Speech and Activism: America’s Frankenstein

This article analyzes the political effects of corporate speech in the United States, using Patagonia’s activism during the 2020 election as a case study. It shows that, while often framed as moral leadership, corporate speech can have tangible social and political costs. Corporate campaigns can encourage moral grandstanding – performative acts aimed at signaling virtue rather than addressing public needs. They can reinforce group identities and political loyalties in ways that deepen polarization, promote ideological segregation, and contribute to radicalization. These dynamics were evident in the unrest surrounding the 2020 election and the January 6th  attack on the U.S. Capitol. The article concludes that democracy is better served not through corporate-led messaging but through citizen-led practices that foster trust, cooperation, and civic responsibility at the local and community levels.

1. Introduction

The year is 2020. Donald Trump and Joe Biden compete for the soul of the nation: the markets are down, unemployment is up, COVID-19 is overwhelming hospitals, wildfires engulf the West Coast, and people are at home, enraged. Amongst the chaos, one activist stands above the rest: Patagonia. The outdoor clothing and gear giant embossed “vote the a-holes out” on the tags of their shorts (Castronuovo 2020). Though bold, this is not their first attack on former President Trump. In 2017, Patagonia not only sued former President Trump for reducing the size of a Utah national park but also displayed the following message on their website’s home page: “The President Stole Your Land” (Castronuovo 2020) (Gelles 2018). Patagonia’s declaration stoked the flames of an already contentious political climate.

The polarization of American society poses a significant threat to democracy as it questions the legitimacy of the state itself. Although polarization appears to be contained within the private and public spheres, its influence extends to the markets. Companies have increasingly used their speech to shape politics and society. On several grounds, this article argues against companies using their speech for activist purposes. First, corporate speech is often a form of moral grandstanding, prioritizing public perception over genuine moral action. Second, corporate speech undermines the norms that allow a diverse populace to coexist peacefully. By examining these critiques, this article aims to highlight the social costs of this practice.

2. American Politics

This article will begin by defining essential terms and concepts to ensure clarity throughout the argument. First, the article will discuss the United States’ political system. The United States is a liberal democracy: a political system that adheres to the principles of liberalism and democracy. To fully understand this term, one must evaluate the parts. Liberalism is a political system that prioritizes freedom. According to liberalism, freedom takes two distinctive forms: positive and negative (Courtland, Gaus, and Schmidtz 2022). Positive freedom is the ability to live how one pleases, whereas negative freedom is the absence of coercion from another party, e.g., the ability to practice one’s religion without persecution (Freeberg 2002).

To create a free society in which diverse individuals live together cohesively, liberalism posits that the values of pluralism, tolerance, and neutrality are necessary conditions. First, pluralism is the assertion that there should be diverse world views (Cohen 2018). The First Amendment to the Constitution exemplifies a form of pluralism, as it validates the legitimacy and practice of all religions. The next value of tolerance ensures that various life forms are respected. Toleration, as described by AJ Cohen, is “the presence of an agent, who intentionally, and on principle refrains from interfering with an opposed other (or their behavior, etc.) though she believes she has the power to interfere” (Cohen 2018). Jane may disagree with John, but the virtue of toleration allows both parties to pursue their distinct forms of life without conflict. Finally, governmental neutrality promotes plurality and tolerance by ensuring that the government is impartial in determining the notion of the good. This impartiality enables all ideas to exist in the public sphere, thus protecting the diversity that pluralism introduces and the non-interference that tolerance demands. Former President James Madison expanded on this point in Federalist Paper Number 10, arguing that political monism led to social and political instability. He wrote that aggrieved minority groups would fight to have their view of the common good become the endorsed governmental view (Madison 1787).

To reinforce liberalism’s values, the United States also adopted a democratic system. At its core, democracy is a mechanism for free and fair decision-making (Christiano and Bajaj 2024). Through democracy, citizens can express their views on how society should function. Instead of resorting to physical violence, individuals have formal processes for resolving their differences, e.g., debate and voting. Democracy, moreover, plays an essential role in enshrining the equality of persons and their rights (Christiano and Bajaj 2024). Crucial to both liberalism and democracy is the equal treatment of persons. In liberalism, each person is viewed as capable of determining their own good, whereas democracy demonstrates the equality of persons in its processes and laws. The commitment to equality is embodied in democracy’s one vote per person, which ensures equal representation of citizens’ voices. Legal protections further reinforce these principles: the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly promises “equal protection under the law,” while the Bill of Rights legally protects many of the freedoms that liberalism holds sacred. Together, these mechanisms demonstrate how liberal and democratic ideals converge in both theory and practice, linking personal autonomy with collective equality under the law.

In conclusion, the American political system aims to create a society where diverse individuals can coexist peacefully. Pluralism encourages diverse worldviews, tolerance allows for peaceful coexistence amongst those with differences, and neutrality ensures that the government supports the aforementioned virtues. Together, these principles are reinforced by democracy, which promotes equality and fair decision-making. However, corporate speech subverts this framework by reminding humans of their tribal roots, thereby undermining the norms that uphold the ideal liberal society.

3. The History of Corporate Speech

Companies and corporate speech can now be expanded upon, given that the American political system has been contextualized. Wex, the Cornell Legal Dictionary, defines a company as any “business organization that engages in a business or commercial activity for profit” (Wex, n.d.). Cornell’s entry provides a straightforward definition of companies but fails to show the connection between corporations and speech. Companies are viewed as non-human entities, and speech is considered humans’ primary means of communication. A non-sequitur seems to be formed when combined: how can a non-human entity engage in a distinctly human activity? A brief survey of history and legal precedents reveals the answer.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, big business seemed unstoppable. However, this was not the case for long. The election of President Theodore Roosevelt led to a crusade against big business. Roosevelt enacted legislation to break up monopolies and informed society about the harms of big business. As a result, church leaders and academics began to expose corporate wrongdoing (Galambos 2019). The clergy informed their congregations that wealthy businesspeople used their wealth to influence politicians, universities, and churches (Galambos 2019). Academics, moreover, recounted stories of heartless managers and cruel working conditions (Galambos 2019). Journals furthered these stories, leading to the disenchantment with big business, coloring the average American experience (Galambos 2019). Americans felt used by corporations and no longer revered them (Kerr 2005).

Consequently, businesses began using activist reporters’ method of reshaping public opinion to rehabilitate their reputations (Kerr 2005). One of the earliest examples of this phenomenon is from AT&T (Kerr 2005). In 1908, AT&T launched an ad campaign asserting that it was essential to American communication (Kerr 2005). As time progressed, advertisements aimed to influence society rather than to sell goods or services outright. This change marked a significant moment in corporate legal history. Corporations were no longer just profit-producing entities – instead, companies hired PR firms to transform them into “responsible citizen[s], voice[s] of reason, societally concerned, civically engaged, a civilizing force, expert, and [a] vital democratic participant” (Kerr 2005).  This transformation led to the development of corporate speech, defined as speech intended to influence politics and society (Kerr 2005). Unlike commercial speech’s emphasis on selling goods or services, corporate speech sought to position companies in public and political discourse. PR firms justified this shift by arguing that commercial speech no longer resonated with consumers. Consumers wanted to view corporations as anthropomorphic, relate to them, and see their souls. As a result, businesses pursued reform through a combination of rhetoric and action. ExxonMobil (hereafter referred to as ‘Exxon’), for instance, ran an advertisement claiming “times have changed,” but “so have many of us big businesses” while increasing the frequency of donations to hospitals and schools (Kerr 2005). Having established themselves as reformed, businesses have begun advancing positions that improve their bottom line. Philip Morris (the parent company of Marlboro Cigarettes), for example, used its resources and influence to publish misinformation about the harms of smoking.

Although many object to corporate speech, the Supreme Court has held that it is protected under the First Amendment. The first case that explicitly discusses corporate speech is First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (hereafter referred to as Bellotti). In this case, the Justices considered the following question: “Does the First Amendment protect the rights of corporations to attempt to influence the outcome of elections in which they have no direct monetary interest?” The majority held that corporate speech is protected under the First Amendment, and they based this on three main points. First, Justice Powell wrote that prior rulings supported their conclusion. Next, he argued that individuals have freedom of speech and that corporations are groups of individuals. Therefore, corporate freedom of speech must be allowed. Finally, he wrote that suppressing corporate speech would deprive large media companies of their ability to express it. The 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission further expanded the reach of corporate speech by asserting that democracy required all political speech, including a company’s right to engage in political speech.

4. The Social and Economic Effects of Corporate Speech

With the historical context of corporate speech now clearly established, the analysis of its social and economic effects will begin. This section will focus on Exxon’s climate denial campaign, which exemplifies the influence of corporate speech on politics and society. One must understand Exxon’s relationship with climate change to understand the campaign. In 2015, a series of news articles disclosed that Exxon had known about climate change for nearly 40 years (Greenpeace, n.d.). As a result, the FBI and various Attorney Generals’ Offices investigated Exxon for fraud (Greenpeace, n.d.). These governmental agencies found that Exxon spent millions hiring top scientists, purchasing top-of-the-line equipment, and conducting experiments (Hall 2015). Internal documents also revealed that Exxon’s corporate team not only ignored the scientists’ conclusion that burning fossil fuels was increasing carbon emissions but also spent billions publicly doubting the legitimacy of climate change (Supran and Oreskes, n.d.).

Exxon’s campaign relied on advertorials that manipulated audiences’ perceptions of climate change (Supran and Oreskes, n.d.). Advertorials are newspaper or magazine advertisements written in the style of editorials (Oxford Languages, n.d.). In these ‘advertorials,’ Exxon’s PR team used framing, a strategy that highlights certain aspects of a given topic over others: for instance, Exxon emphasized climate change’s uncertain nature (Supran and Oreskes, n.d.). To do this, Exxon used language that downplayed the significance of climate change, e.g., stating that it “may cause harm.” Using ambiguous terms like “may” reframed global warming as a potential rather than an actual harm (Supran and Oreskes, n.d.). Exxon also paired these ambiguous statements with claims that neither scientists nor scientific data unanimously proved the validity of climate change (Supran and Oreskes, n.d.). Exxon subsequently compiled these arguments into a briefing for lawmakers and journalists, thereby spreading misinformation to both politicians and constituents. Consequently, several politicians have voted against policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Moreover, as of 2023, Yale University found that 16% of the population they polled denied the existence of climate change (Marlon et al. 2023). In addition, Gallup Polls spanning from 1997 to 2024 have shown that Americans have continued to believe that the news over-exaggerates the effects of climate change (Gallup, n.d.).

After detailing the profound social influence of corporate speech, the focus now turns to its economic impacts. Though corporate speech is inherently linked to corporations’ profit motives, the full extent of this relationship remains unclear. With that said, current economic research focuses on broad market trends. To start, researchers found that consumers prefer companies that engage in corporate speech over those that do not (Villagra et al. 2022). Thus, companies that use corporate speech have “institutional credibility,” which generally leads to lower rates of market risk (Villagra et al. 2022; Blanco et al. 2023). Though this is typically the case, researchers stated that corporate speech alone does not guarantee positive results. Instead, positive outcomes (defined as increased investments) usually depend on a few key factors. First, corporations must be mindful of the issues they select to support and their stance on them. Consumers view corporate speech more favorably when it is more closely aligned with a cause they support: e.g., a liberal will respond more favorably to liberal corporate speech. Speech should also be related to a firm’s goals. Patagonia, an outdoor gear brand that prides itself on sustainability, predictably uses language that aligns with its brand identity.

While corporate speech can enhance profitability by aligning firms with consumer values, deviations from best practices can provoke backlash and result in financial losses (Enete and Sturr 2023). In 2019, Gillette aired an advertisement addressing toxic masculinity in the context of the #MeToo movement. Rather than generating broad approval, the campaign provoked consumer backlash: 63 percent of consumer respondents reported feeling personally attacked, while only 8 percent expressed support (Myer 2024). Although Gillette executives maintained that the advertisement had a neutral effect on sales, the reaction demonstrates how politically charged corporate speech can trigger reputational risk by alienating core consumer segments (Myer 2024). This pattern of consumer backlash became even more pronounced in 2023, when Bud Light partnered with transgender model Dylan Mulvaney for a promotional campaign (Ziady 2024). This decision sparked widespread consumer boycotts, costing Bud Light an estimated $1.4 billion in sales and leading to its loss of the title of the best-selling beer in the United States (Ziady 2024).

5. Arguments against Corporate Speech

Having established the historical, social, and economic contexts of corporate speech, the discussion can transition to arguments against it. First, corporate speech often relies on moral grandstanding, which is a practice that encourages insincere moral acts. To fully comprehend this claim, one must define moral grandstanding. Scholars Brandon Warmke and Justin Tosi define moral grandstanding as “recognition desire [plus] a grandstanding expression” (Warmke and Tosi 2020). Recognition desire is the urge to be recognized for a given trait, and a grandstanding expression is something that is said or written (Warmke and Tosi 2020). Tosi and Warmke claim that humans grandstand to advance their “social status,” a goal that can only be attained through prestige and dominance; thus, grandstanding can either increase one’s social credibility, leading to greater recognition and prestige or be used to “shame,” “silence,” or scare others (Warmke and Tosi 2020).

Though the authors provided these common motivations, humans often have multiple motivations, making it difficult to ascertain the true motivation behind an act (Warmke and Tosi 2020). Consider the following example: Jessica is exceptionally passionate about cancer care. Jessica volunteers at the local hospital’s oncology ward and interns at a cancer research lab during her spare time. Jessica could continue her work privately, sharing only with her close friends, or she could use Instagram to highlight her morality. Jessica chooses to post stories on Instagram that highlight her work. By posting on Instagram, Jessica explicitly raises awareness of cancer while implicitly demonstrating her moral values to her broader network. Jessica’s post is a form of grandstanding, notwithstanding her moral motivation, as her desire to be recognized inspired her to post online.

Conversely, companies engage in moral grandstanding for profit. One can corroborate this claim by evaluating a company’s motivations. Unlike with humans, it is relatively easy to ascertain a company’s motivations. Executives regularly meet to determine company goals, which are written down and shared internally. Though a company may claim otherwise, more often than not, the goal is to increase profit. To exemplify this point, consider the example of Target’s 2023 Pride Month Celebration. Every June, companies like Target turn their logos rainbow, adorn their stores with ‘#pride,’ and roll out a plethora of rainbow-themed products. At first glance, Target may be an ally of the LGBTQ community. However, upon closer observation, one can see that Target’s activism is only surface-level.

During the 2023 Pride Celebration, outraged Conservative Christians boycotted stores, destroyed displays, and harassed employees, citing the ‘satanic’ nature of homosexuality. As a result, Target’s CEO removed Pride-related products from stores while claiming to stand with the LGBTQ community. Figures in the LGBTQ community charged Target with rainbow-washing (or supporting the LGBTQ+ community in non-substantial ways), i.e., grandstanding (Kingsberry 2023). If Target truly cared about the LGBTQ community, it would not have kowtowed. Instead, it would have kept its products on the floor and condemned bigotry. Target did not pursue these routes as real solutions would cost time and money. Reprimanding the homophobes would further alienate conservative consumers, leading to decreased sales from that group. Target’s lack of action suggests that the LGBTQ community’s claims are correct. However, the most compelling evidence comes from Target’s earnings reports.

In the months after Target’s Pride Celebration, earnings reports showed that Pride Month 2023 had the largest sales decline in 6 years, spanning 2017 to 2023 – analysts claimed this decrease was a direct result of boycotts (Holman 2023). Despite these statistics coming out months after the event, it is almost guaranteed that the C-suite was monitoring the financial effects of conservative outrage. Seeing the negative costs of the Pride collection, one could extrapolate that finances influenced the CEO’s decision-making. When the costs outweighed the benefits, Target stopped supporting the LGBTQ community, revealing that its motivation was monetary all along. Taken together, corporate moral grandstanding normalizes insincere moral acts, cheapening morality overall.

Corporate speech further diminishes ethical standards by violating the norms of a liberal society, thereby increasing polarization. Understanding these norms, as David Schmidtz best describes them, is crucial to understanding this claim. In his book, “Living Together,” Schmidtz defines the elements of liberalism that help “decreas[e] the cost of living together” (Schmidtz 2006). Reiterating the idea of political autonomy, he writes that individuals must concede that there are varying conceptions of the good, which need not be interfered with (Schmidtz 2023). When individuals know what to expect from others, they can rest assured that they are free. This promise of freedom fosters a sense of safety, encouraging productivity rather than unnecessary skepticism. Schmidtz also claims that markets foster a culture of mutual expectations. In market economies, individuals generally have more repeat interactions (Schmidtz 2023). For instance, a distributor will likely choose a supplier they have worked with before. Because of these repeated interactions, individuals are incentivized to treat all their partners well (Schmidtz 2023).

When individuals disregard community norms, Schmidtz holds that communities should adopt his theory of justice. He argues that good theories of justice should be like maps, showing people how to navigate the world, not where to go (Schmidtz 2006). In other words, a theory of justice should focus on how to live together rather than what to believe (Schmidtz 2023). To actualize his theory, Schmidtz argues that societies should limit the importance of “justifying” one’s notion of the good, as this attempt to control it violates the liberal idea of self-determination (Schmidtz 2023). By validating others’ conceptions of the good, he intends to ground society in mutual expectation. Here, citizens are more willing to use institutions like the courts to resolve disputes without fighting. In summation, Schmidtz’s theory of justice is a set of rules that can be applied to specific situations (Schmidtz 2006).

Corporate speech quashes liberalism’s norms by promoting a singular concept of the good and decreasing trust among constituents. As previously noted, companies use their speech to advocate for various social and political positions. Corporate speech is protected under the First Amendment, but its implications are catastrophic. Corporate speech advocates a single notion of the good, leading society to return to its tribal roots. As a result, groups form and fight to advance their conception of the good. The creation of Jermey’s Razors best exemplifies this concept. In March 2021, Harry’s Razors ceased its sponsorship of the conservative media company, the Daily Wire, citing its “longtime support of the LGBTQ community” (Lee 2021). In retaliation, Jeremy Boreing, the Daily Wire’s Co-Founder, launched a line of razors entitled “I Hate Harry’s” (Klee 2023). Eventually, Boreing extended this limited-edition line into what is now known as Jeremy’s Razors. This company is a self-proclaimed “woke-free” brand that believes in “fight[ing] the left” and divesting money from “Woke CEO[s]” (Jeremy’s Razors, n.d.).

As such, corporate speech not only defies liberalism’s cardinal rule but also erodes the norms that build trust in a liberal society. Specifically, corporate speech undermines the idea of a knowable society grounded in mutual expectations. As shown above, corporate speech’s promotion of the good disregards the norm of tolerance, creating an unsafe society. Without the expectation of tolerance, interacting with individuals outside one’s group becomes more costly. Thus, humans must thoroughly investigate others to determine who they can or cannot trust. This regression in thought frames life as a zero-sum game, leading individuals to live in fear. Over time, this lack of interpersonal trust extends upward: when citizens cannot rely on each other, they increasingly doubt institutions, questioning the legitimacy of laws, public authorities, and social norms. Once trust in institutions erodes, the mechanisms that sustain social order weaken, leaving society vulnerable to fragmentation and collapse.

Such a mindset leads to the formation of ingroups, a disconnect from the “other,” and a resultant lack of trust, all of which are the basis of affective polarization (Kleinfeld 2023). Affective polarization is polarization driven by a bias towards one’s party and a dislike of the other (Kleinfeld 2023). To clarify this idea, picture Julia, a Democrat from an overwhelmingly liberal city where she did not interact with Republicans. Upon moving away to college, Julia encounters a pro-life rally on campus – she is disgusted. This interaction confirms her negative stereotypes about conservatives. As a result of her conviction that women’s right to bodily autonomy is under attack, she joins a reproductive rights group. During the reproductive rights club meeting, she cites her negative experience, which encourages the group. From this point, the group not only hates Republicans but views them as inherently evil. This belief prompts the reproductive rights group to attempt to have the Republican Club banned from campus for promoting anti-woman rhetoric. Taken together, this example emphasizes that polarization can lead to anti-democratic behavior, such as censoring one’s opponent.

Consequently, corporate speech should aim to mitigate the effects of polarization by fostering a society that lives well together rather than promoting a singular notion of the good. Namely, corporations should adopt the norm of being nonpartisan. Currently, companies have marketed themselves as necessary for establishing one’s moral credentials: e.g., purchasing Ben & Jerry’s signals that one is a true liberal. However, by adopting a nonpartisan approach, companies could not only reach a broader consumer base but also create an environment in which diverse individuals bond over an interest in a particular good or service. Through these initial conversations, individuals may also discover their other shared commonalities, which would eradicate the fear of the other and promote a friendlier atmosphere. In turn, this newfound friendship would lead to better decision-making, as individuals would be more likely to listen to one another and compromise.

6. Counterarguments

Despite this article’s assertion that a for-profit company’s speech should avoid using corporate speech, it is necessary to consider counterpoints. First, JPMorgan Chase’s (hereafter referred to as ‘Chase’) 2020 commitment to racial equity suggests that some companies truly aim to improve society, not just grandstand for profit. In this proposal, Chase committed to spending $30 billion on programs to close the “racial wealth gap” (JPMorgan Chase, n.d.). In a 2023 follow-up, Chase reported investing $1 billion in building low-income housing projects, $4 billion in creating new low-income housing, and opening 76 branches in “low-to-moderate income areas” (JP Morgan Chase, n.d.). Furthermore, Patagonia proves that profitability can be a side effect of activism. Patagonia’s mission is “to save our home planet.” They accomplish this goal by using environmentally friendly practices (Patagonia, n.d.-a). The outdoors giant boasts it only uses organic cotton that is grown sustainably (Patagonia, n.d.-a). Furthermore, Patagonia encourages customers to repair their products by offering this service at its physical stores, sending kits to patch holes, and operating a dedicated service center (Patagonia, n.d.-b).

Patagonia’s actions, seemingly aligned with its activist messaging, are the exception rather than the norm. Returning to the Chase example, although they contribute positively to the world, they are presumably grandstanding. Exploring the temporal context of Chase’s pledge reveals a possible alternative motive. After George Floyd’s murder, Bank of America first pledged funds to address racial inequalities, with Citigroup following suit in September (Flitter 2022).  Finally, in October, Chase promised the most significant amount by a wide margin, which could be seen as a signal of its dominant financial position. As previously mentioned, domination is one of the primary motivations for grandstanding. Additionally, Chase chose to fund low-income housing to earn federal tax credits (Flitter 2022). All things considered, Chase decided to help people of color for profit rather than for their own sake. Even though corporate speech sometimes produces positive outcomes, the benefits are not worth the costs.

In response, it could be argued that corporate speech mirrors individual speech, as corporations are groups of individuals. As mentioned earlier, the Belloti decision reiterated this sentiment: there is no difference between individuals, clubs, or companies speaking. Moreover, a wealthy individual’s speech is fundamentally the same as a corporation’s – a wealthy individual can issue statements and use their capital to influence politics or society. Given that corporations and the wealthy alike can manipulate politicians, government agencies, and consumers, it is essential to have corporate speech. Corporate speech is a tool to amplify smaller voices and counter misinformation or harmful views. For example, Delta Air Lines and Coca-Cola opposed Georgia’s 2021 voting law reform after meeting with black executive activists. In this case, these corporations amplified the voices of black individuals.

Contrary to the argument above, corporate speech is inherently different from human speech. Even if a wealthy person were to leverage their status, they would have less influence than a company. Companies can easily restrict one’s choices and, therefore, their freedom. Picture the following scenario: Jim is a police officer who loves ice cream. On his way to the store, he discovers that Ben and Jerry’s supports the movement to defund the police. Jim is conflicted – he loves ice cream but has had to work more hours due to budget cuts and subsequent layoffs. Unfortunately, the small town he lives in only sells Ben and Jerry’s – he would have to travel over an hour and a half away to find a bigger grocery store. Jim is deprived of a choice – he is forced to support a cause he does not believe in or forgo ice cream. By leveraging their market share, companies can force consumers to support causes contrary to their own. Furthermore, some companies are not as transparent about their advocacy, disregarding the individual’s right to choose altogether. Finally, corporations should not be used for political causes, as this intensifies polarization and can lead to political violence.

7. Conclusion

In conclusion, corporate speech poses profound political and moral risks. It erodes the norms of a peaceful, pluralistic society while simultaneously reminding citizens of their tribal instincts, deepening polarization, and fostering segregation based on competing conceptions of the good. As groups increasingly perceive one another as threats, corporate speech reinforces these divisions, radicalizes collective identities, and can precipitate political violence, as evidenced by the attack on the U.S. Capitol following misconceptions about the 2020 election. At the same time, it normalizes insincere moral displays, signaling that the appearance of virtue can replace genuine ethical action. Perhaps most consequentially, this breakdown of interpersonal trust extends to institutions: when citizens cannot rely on each other, they begin to doubt laws, authorities, and social norms, undermining the foundations of social order and leaving society vulnerable to collapse. To counter these dangers, society must adopt norms that prioritize human citizens over corporate actors, emphasize the cultivation of mutual trust, and restore the practices that sustain social cohesion and human flourishing.

References

“Advertorial.” In Oxford Languages, n.d.

Blanco, Teresa Pintado, Carlota López-Aza, Joaquín Sánchez, and Pablo Gutiérrez‐Rodríguez. “The Side Effect of Political Standing: Corporate Activism and Its Impact on Stock Returns.” Politics and Governance Vol. 11, no. 2 (May 2023): 138–46. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i2.6306.

Castronuovo, Celine. “Patagonia Prints Election Message on Clothing Tags: ‘Vote the a–Holes Out.’” The Hill, September 15, 2020. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/516574-patagonia-prints-election-message-on-clothing-tags-vote-the-a-holes-out/.

Christiano, Tom, and Sameer Bajaj. “Democracy.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2024. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2024/entries/democracy/.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

Cohen, Andrew Jason. Toleration and Freedom from Harm: Liberalism Reconceived. 1st ed. Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy. Routledge, 2018.

“Company.” In Wex. Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School, n.d. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/company.

Courtland, Shane D., Gerald Gaus, and David Schmidtz. “Liberalism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2022. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/liberalism/.

Enete, Shane, and Tim Sturr. “How Corporate Sociopolitical Activism (CSA) Impacts Portfolio Allocations: An Experiment.” International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 8 (February 23, 2023): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-023-00076-6.

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978).

Flitter, Emily. “Where $30 Billion to Fix Systemic Racism Actually Goes.” New York Times, October 21, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/21/business/jp-morgan-racial-equity-pledge.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare.

Freeberg, Ellen M. Regarding Equality. Lexington Books, 2002.

Galambos, Louis. The Public Image of Big Business in America, 1880-1940: A Quantitative Study in Social Change. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2019.

Gallup. “IN DEPTH: TOPICS A TO Z Environment,” n.d. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1615/environment.aspx.

Gelles, David. “Patagonia v. Trump.” New York Times, May 5, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/business/patagonia-trump-bears-ears.html.

Greenpeace. “Exxon’s Climate Denial History: A Timeline,” n.d. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-crisis/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/.

Hall, Shannon. “Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago.” Scientific American, October 26, 2015. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/.

Holman, Jordyn. “Target’s Sales Hit by Pride Month Merchandise Backlash.” New York Times, August 16, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/business/target-sales-pride-backlash.html.

Jeremy’s Razors. “About Us,” n.d. https://www.jeremysrazors.com/pages/about.

JP Morgan Chase. “Our $30 Billion Racial Equity Commitment,” https://www.jpmorganchase.com/impact/racialequity.

Kerr, Robert L. Rights of Corporate Speech: Mobil Oil and the Legal Development of the Voice of Big Business (Law And Society: Recent Scholarship). Lfb Scholarly Pub Llc, 2005.

Kingsberry, Janay. “Trans Designer Dumped by Target Explains How He Got Smeared as Satanist.” The Washington Post, May 26, 2023.

Klee, Miles. “Paying Extra for ‘Anti-Woke’ Spite Products Is a Raw Deal.” RollingStone Magazine, May 25, 2023. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/anti-woke-chocolate-razor-daily-wire-1234741151/.

Kleinfeld, Rachel. “Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says,” September 5, 2023. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/09/polarization-democracy-and-political-violence-in-the-united-states-what-the-research-says?lang=en.

Lee, Michael. “Harry’s Razors Cancels Advertising Relationship with a Daily Wire Show Ostensibly over One Twitter User’s Complaint.” Washington Examiner, March 22, 2021. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/565518/harrys-razors-cancels-advertising-relationship-with-a-daily-wire-show-ostensibly-over-one-twitter-users-complaint/.

Madison, James. “Federalist No. 10.” New York Packet, November 23, 1787.

Marlon, Jennifer, Jennifer Goddard, Peter Howe, Matto Mildenberger, Martial Jefferson, Eric Fine, and Anthony Leiserowitz. “Yale Climate Opinion Maps 2023.” ClimateCommunication.Yale.Edu, December 13, 2023. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/.

Myer, Alex Eben. 2024. “Reducing the Risks of Corporate Activism.” Harvard Business Review, November–December. https://hbr.org/2024/11/reducing-the-risks-of-corporate-activism.

Patagonia. “How Clean Are Your Clothes? The Hidden Cost of the Clothes We’re Buying.,” n.d. https://www.patagonia.com/hidden-cost-of-clothes/.

Patagonia. “Repair Process,” n.d. https://help.patagonia.com/s/article/Repair-Process.

Schmidtz, David. Elements of Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Schmidtz, David. Living Together: Inventing Moral Science. New York: Oxford University Press, 2023.

Supran, Geoffrey, and Naomi Oreskes. “Rhetoric and Frame Analysis of ExxonMobil’s Climate Change Communications.” One Earth 4, no. 5 (n.d.): 696–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.014.

Villagra, Nuria, Joaquin Sanchez, Jorge Clemente, and Teresa Pintado. “Deconstructing Corporate Activism: A Consumer Approach.” Journal of Management & Organization, 2022, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.70.

Warmke, Brandon, and Justin Tosi. Grandstanding: The Use and Abuse of Moral Talk. Oxford Scholarship Online, 2020.

Ziady, Hanna. 2024. “Bud Light Boycott Hits AB InBev Sales.” CNN, February 29, 2024. https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/29/business/bud-light-boycott-ab-inbev-sales.